>> from more information, visit >> clerk: vice president santacana is absent this evening. also present is deputy city attorney brad russi who will provide the board with any needed legal advice.

four votes are required to grant an appeal or jurisdiction request or to modify a permit or determination. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or hearing rules, please e-mail the board staff. to enable public participation, sfgov is broadcasting and

streaming this hearing live, and we will have the opportunity to provide public comment for each item. we are also providing closed captioning for this meeting. a link to the live stream on our website is found at sfgovtv.org. to block your phone number when calling in first dial star,

six, seven then the phone number. listen for your public comment portion of your item to be called and then dial star, nine so we know you raise your hand and it is your turn to speak. our clerk will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. please note there is a delay between the live stream and what is being broadcast the internet. it is important that people speaking turn down their speakers on their television or computer to avoid feedback. now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note that any member of the public may speak pursuant

to their rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please say i do or i affirm. thank you. if you are not a participant or are not speaking, please put your microphone on mute. we're now moving to item one, public comment. this is a time for anyone in the public to give general public comment on items within the board's jurisdiction. is there anyone that would like to provide public comment? okay. i do not see any public comment, so we will move onto item 2, commissioner comments or questions.

>> president honda: none here. >> clerk: okay. so no commissioner comments or questions, so we'll move onto item 3. commissioners, before you are discussion and possible adoption of the february 17, 2021 board meeting. >> president honda: unless there's any objection or discussion, i'll accept a motion to adopt the minutes on the february 17 meeting. >> commissioner swig: so moved. >> clerk: okay. there's a motion from commissioner swing. is there any public comment? okay. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. [roll call] >> clerk: we are going to take item number 7 first this evening, so just want to make sure -- let me see.

all right. so item 7, 21-005, christopher seguine, 2789 25 street. we will hear from the appellant first. mr. seguine? >> yes, i'm here. >> clerk: hello. welcome. >> good evening. i just have a short video to play. >> clerk: okay. >> 2789 25 street is owned and maintained by the department of public health. the south wall of this building

faces into potrero del sol public park. this wall was previously the site of incident graffiti. d.p.h.s contribution was only to agree to maintain the mural. the mural has minimized graffiti from daily occurrence to just an occasional one. unfortunately, d.p.h. has not fulfilled their obligations to maintain the mural. it has been defaced for several years. d.p.h. ignores the graffiti on the building and does not abate it. the department also allows the mural to decay. the graffiti and the peeling paint are in defiance of the

ordinance of the san francisco administrative code. this has been reported to the public of public works many, many, many times, however, it has not been abated and no enforcement has been taken. these conditions are not due to the pandemic. these conditions have existed for several years according to 311. 2-16-21, property belongs to public health, closed. no response in one month, department of public health. 12-6-20. this is d.p.h. will give to senior staff to review. closed. 2-28-20, graffiti on rear building, transferred to s.f. health department. closed, no response from health department in one month. 2-14-20, comment noted, to be reviewed by senior staff. 1-14-20, closed. this will be followed up and responded to.

9-6-19, case resolved. transferred to department of public health, no response from department of public health in one month. 4-18-19, property belongs to s.f. health department, closed, no response from health department in one month. this is a paint chip retrieved from the soil at the base of the building in the park. this is a standard 3-m lead paint swab. red color indicates positive for lead. the lead paint and the peeling paint are violations of the san francisco building code. both have been reported to d.b.i. numerous times. there's been no abatement, and no actions have been children. children are most at risk from lead poisoning, to areas that

children hangout, such as park, with prioritized for public abatement. if this were a privately owned parcel, the owner would be fined for violation of administrative code, building code, and health code. no new permits would be issued for this parcel until the violations were abated. this mural is not in the civic art collection, so it is not the responsibility of the arts commission. this wall is not park property, so it is not the responsibility of parks department. d.p.h. accepted responsibility for this mural when it was created, and this building is maintained by department of public health. d.p.h. are solely responsible. it is shameful that d.p.h. has not only allowed a public artwork to decay but has endangered the health of children they're supposed to be protecting. d.p.h. is not above the law. this building remains in

violation of the administrative building and health codes for blight due to graffiti and peeling lead paint. in accordance with san francisco law, this permit application must be suspended until these violations are abated and the building complies with code. thank you. that's all i have. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from a representative of the department of public health, mr. max bunwan. mr. bowan, i see you but i don't hear you. maybe try dialing star, six. >> hello. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. welcome. you have seven minutes. >> okay. so i understand now the nature

of the objection, however, there's no objection to the mechanical improvement. -- improvement of the building that the permit was applied for. i don't know how to answer the brief as it's mainly in regards to the mural that's on the building. it's not in my purview, the maintenance of that mural, so i don't know how to respond exactly or how to move this forward to get the permit for a mechanical installation done.

>> clerk: okay. does that conclude your presentation at this point? >> yeah. >> clerk: you'll have time in rebuttal. i believe we have a question from president honda. >> yeah, i'm done. >> president honda: so the mural, is that at the location where you're trying to apply for a permit for hvac? >> yes, sir. >> president honda: having just dealt with tidiness for a property that i owned, i don't think you guys can be issued a permit if you have a violation. >> i understand. i don't know we were in violation. >> president honda: there's evidently complaints on 311 regarding this property, and maybe the department of, i don't know, building inspection can chime in or from d.p.w., that how does it just disappear when there's evidently a

problem and you have lead-based chips in a park where children are playing? were you not aware of any of these circumstances, sir? >> you know, i was not. those complaints through 311 don't get to me. my job as a project planner, i don't usually get those calls. those calls usually go to the maintenance and operations side of the department. >> president honda: and your maintenance, how do they usually handle complaints when they get them from 311? >> i can't really speak for them, but in my experience, they try to comply with all the complaints. >> president honda: in looking at the video that the appellant had put, there was quite a lengthy complaint list that

said that it had not resolved. i'll wait until the department answers, and i believe commissioner lazarus has a question. thank you. >> clerk: commissioner lazarus? >> commissioner lazarus: yeah, i guess i'd like to ask our city attorney about -- if he's able to answer about the ability to issue a permit if there's some sort of issue with the building. >> good evening, commissioners. brad russi from city attorney's office. my understanding is that the department of building inspection is represented in other cases that might be an issue if there's actually an outstanding notice of violation? i'm not entirely sure which code section that applies to, so i would recommend that you ask inspector duffy. >> commissioner lazarus: i will do that. thank you.

>> clerk: okay. mr. sanchez from the planning department, do you have anything to contribute? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. i was not aware of anything until this evening so there was no way for any city agency to prepare the response, but in reviewing the complaint that was made during their presentation, that would not be a violation of the planning code. perhaps could be a violation of the administrative code. generally the public works is able to deal with blighted properties and graffiti abatement, but there are no absive planning department complaints on the property that can apply to that. i can speak generally to our processes for when a permit comes in on a property with an active complaint. it is generally the process to hold that permit until the complaint is abated, but there are some cases where we do allow it to move through if it's separate and distinct from the complaint issue. that is generally at the discretion of the departments

as to how to proceed, but i can be available for any other questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. sanchez. okay. we will now hear from the department of public inspection. >> good evening, commissioners. joe duffy, d.b.i. so the permit that's under appeal is for a structure support for hvac units on roof, install hvac units on roof under separate permit. it issued on 13 october 2020 -- sorry, issued on 5 january 2021 and suspended on 9 january. it is a typical program that we city for the support structure for hvac units. in the regards that they're going to do this work, it's required. they're conscious that the workload that the units are going to put on the roof, so for that reason, it is a good

permit. with -- mr. sanchez was correct. with no complaint being filed, it's hard to get a feel. i did check wile the appellant was speaking on the computer system. we did have a number of complaints on the lead paint issue. typically, my understanding is we do have an inspection services that deal with lead paint complaints, but they're mainly to do with the tenants in apartment buildings. my understanding is on commercial buildings we do actually pull in our colleagues in the health department, and it's ironic that this building is run by the health department. but, you know, my take on this would be, you know, i'm more than happy to work with our

appellant to speak with our chief building inspector hernandez who could make elevate this in the health department to get the proper people that need to be out there and get this -- just in the few minutes that i've had a chance to look at it up here, i don't see a notice of violation, and it does refer to peeling paint. the question about this permit going ahead while the building is in violation, we have in the past given permission for the permits to go ahead. it's an unrelated matter, and obviously, it's a matter of concern, but the hvac units on the roof are a separate issue. it is an important issue, and the gentleman that sent in the video, i would like that video sent to me so that i can elevate it to the people that i

need to elevate it to, people in the health department and people with d.b.i. and we can go out there. i'm sure that the health department, if they're maintaining the hvac units, they can also maintain the walls. i'm sure there's probably someone in the health department that does know about this issue. i'm available for questions. thanks. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from president honda and then commissioner swig. >> president honda: so deputy chief inspector. you do have so many names, names, -- names there, so many titles, joe. this is a department that's tasked with managing the health of the city, and yet, a building that they are responsible for, me have managed to abate their own complaints. that -- like you said, you no longer see it on the system, so they basically took the complaints and removed them. >> no, there are open

complaints on the property. sometimes a lot of those complaints with duplicative, and while the gentleman was scrolling through his video, there are complaints closed on it, but there are open complaints regarding -- in the d.b.i. system regarding the lead paint, but me just hearing about it this evening here, it's something that i'd like to follow up on. >> president honda: i didn't appreciate the sneak attack in not providing a brief. i just want to state that for the record. >> it's okay. >> president honda: because it said abated on quite a few of those line items, and that is -- that's a concern if the department is hiding their own dirty laundry and not fixing it. if we allow this to go through, normally, if you have notices of violation, do you issue permits? >> yes. we would review the permits and see are they relative to the

work that's -- if there are plans for a building permit, it would get through our process. if it's for hvac units in a building, that's a maintenance issue. we are going to allow that to go on. the discussion will be had in d.b.i. with the applicant, hey, by the way, you've got a lead paint issue here. are you dealing with it? you, i didn't see where this permit went through our building inspection division, and that might have been diagnose that might have been missed, but we wouldn't hold the permit up in answer to your question. i do want to say, president honda, in the last year, i have gotten to work with a lot of health department staff with what they're dealing with on covid at the moment. i haven't worked with them on lead paint, but my experience is they're very responsive to issues. i don't know what's happened in this case, and as i said, they

have been working heroically in the last year with that health department. i'm only saying that because i've seen that what they're doing, but i would like to -- you know, if i need to do something on my end, and it sounds like i do to bring it to a higher level, i'm more than happy to do that. >> president honda: it seems like, from what the appellant showed, that this incident was precovid and able to abate their complaints, and still going, and having lead based paint with children, that's an issue. i'll finish my question and let commissioner swig ask his. thanks, joe. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner swig:

[inaudible] for an hvac unit, they are two separate things. it is appropriate as we move on in this hearing towards a resolution, is it appropriate to put a term and condition on the -- i don't know how to put teeth in it -- that requires essentially the health department on what is essentially a health issue while letting the permit move forward and the unrelated work gets done so as not to compromise the physical plan? joe? >> oh, you're asking me that? yeah, that would be something.

i don't know how you condition it with the violation, and to address it, you can make the statement i don't want to tie it in with the lead paint, but with the permit, you might want to -- i'm getting the message from the appellant and the video. it would definitely need attention, and the course of action is to get a report out there. you know, they'll need to bring up a report on the -- if there is lead in the paint, how much of it, what is the level? i've been involved in that -- not commercial ones, but residential ones. i know there is a process to address the lead paint. i'm just not sure how you tie it in with this process, but maybe ask the city attorney. >> commissioner swig: yeah. i maybe should ask mr. russi

how to move something forward but not make it [inaudible] but not make it completely [inaudible] but still going on the record to try and get some recognition about some compliance. brad, do you have any comment on that? >> sure. good evening again, commissioners. i think you could potentially make a recommendation that the department of public health address this issue, but i agree it wouldn't be a proper condition to this permit because it's not germane to the work being done under this

permit. >> clerk: okay. thank you. so we are now moving onto public comment. is there any public comment on this item, please raise your hand. okay. i do not see any public comment, so we will move onto rebuttal. mr. seguine, you have three minutes. >> okay. i wasn't going to have anything, but i feel like i should. let me just share my screen. >> clerk: okay. we'll hold your time. okay. that should be good. thank you. so i just wanted to say it's a little deceitful that mr. bowen is saying that he had no idea of this problem. mr. bowen is, yes, a project manager level two, but his previous position was director

of facility services at san francisco general hospital. gregory chase, who is the facilities manager for this particular property, 2789 25 street, reported directly to him, so it is very disingenuous for him to say he is not aware of this problem. in fact, i have an e-mail from mr. bowen to myself and board of supervisors and d.p.w. staff regarding this mural. it's a little ridiculous. this has gone on three years. this is a public park, and especially during this last year, the pandemic, the public parks have been one of the few places that we can go. so to try to get this resolved through the board of appeals as opposed to the city agencies that should be enforcing it is ridiculous.

i would like to say that yes, there is -- here is the active complaint, so just recently, there was a complaint issued by d.b.i., so there is an active complaint against this property, and here are the different administrative codes. there's a blight ordinance. peeling paint is against the administrative code. the lead paint is against d.b.i. 3407 as well as the international building code, and it's part of -- also against the 1628 lead hazard reduction order. and i'd just like to say i also -- this has been reported -- i believe her name was catherine yu, and she is a

senior building inspector at the department of public health. there is a department specifically for lead paint for children. it should have been addressed, and it hasn't, and that's why we're here tonight. i just would like to get this resolved. it's been three years now, so i would just ask you to suspend the permit. it's air conditioning. it's not essential services. they have another 1.5 million permit which i chose to not go after. these are not essential. our parks and public spaces are. thank you. >> clerk: okay. mr. bowen, you have three minutes -- oh, we have a question from president honda. >> president honda: so i have a question. you've spent a lot of time, and i thank you for that. is there a reason why you did

not provide this in a brief? >> sorry, i was ill. i missed the deadline. i've done these before, and i've always submitted, and i just apologize for that. >> president honda: it would have been nice that the health department could have addressed this so that we could have attached something. you said that the person that's speaking was aware of that, that you have an e-mail from them. could you put that on the screen? >> sure. is it large enough? >> president honda: it can't be large enough for my senior eyes. >> basically, it's referring me to greg chase.

it's referring me to the [inaudible], fix it team, hillary ronen, the director of san francisco general hospital. >> president honda: thank you. i'll have the permit holder address that because he just mentioned he was not aware of this. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. mr. bowen, go ahead. you have three minutes. >> yeah, i don't have a rebuttal other than to say that i can't see the e-mail, but i'll just assume that in my former position, there were some maintenance issues with that mural that came up. i'm not sure that it was

continuous. i thought that greg chase had been able to handle them, not merely abating them. in regards to the condition of the mural and how it was handled, i had some knowledge, but my knowledge was any specific complaints were being taken care of. >> clerk: okay. thank you. are you done? >> yeah. >> clerk: okay. president honda? >> president honda: yeah, so, you know, the question that i asked you and you said you had no knowledge of anything wrong with the mural, and now after e-mails have been submitted, you all of a sudden say that you have some knowledge. i mean, was that selective? you did take an oath prior to the hearing, sir? >> i did, and i don't mean to

misspeak, but it's -- there are many things that -- that i've handled over time, and i don't have any specific recollection of an e-mail to mr. seguine. >> president honda: i know, but you said you did not have any memory about the mural. now is your memory refreshed about the mural? >> i know about the mural. i see it when i drive it. i have not participated in any complaints or abatements to any complaints. >> president honda: the concern here is that d.p.h. is managing their own complaints and not complying, and then, a representative that's representing the permits got up in front of this board and said he had no knowledge of a mural and yet, when an e-mail is produced, it suddenly brought back a flashback of memories, so to me, that's a concern of how d.p.h. is handling their

permitting issues, so thank you, sir. >> you know, i'm sorry that my lack of recollection, it should not -- >> president honda: i'm not trying to grill you. i think if i had handled some of the mural, i think i would have remembered i handled some of it, but i don't remember all of it rather than i don't remember any of it. that's the issue. >> i'm sorry if i made it sound like that. >> president honda: that's fine. thank you, sir. >> clerk: okay. we will now hear from the planning department. anything further, mr. sanchez? >> nothing further. thank you. >> clerk: okay. inspector duffy? nothing except that if there's any follow up continued, i'm happy to do that. i can speak to chief hernandez

who's our chief inspector for code enforcement to see where this is in relation to having an hearing on this. that's just a thought, but obviously, i'm available for questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. so commissioners, this matter is committed. >> president honda: okay. anyone like to start? >> commissioner swig: yeah, sure, i'd like to start. >> president honda: i see ann had her hand up first. >> commissioner swig: oh, sorry. sorry. >> commissioner lazarus: so i have some familiarity with this project. i think the project is a revamp of the building in order to accommodate the san francisco general hospital project. it is a very beleaguered project that has gone on for a number of years, and i'm pleased to see some progress. i think putting a structure regarding hvac has little or

nothing to do with the other matter, not to minimize the other matter because i do think it's important, but i don't think it's personally appropriate to link the two. >> president honda: rick? >> commissioner swig: so i agree with the commissioner. i don't want it to be attached, but would put a dotted line between them. i would suggest we recognize the appeal but pull the comment with a recommendation to the executive director that she write a letter on behalf of our panel to the health department what we heard tonight,

explaining that there are chronic -- chronic issues with their lack of recognition of these problems with the mural, and with a strong recommendation for them to abate these notices of violation, and maybe a carbon copy to our good friend, mr. duffy, and note in that letter that the building department would follow up as they would with any department. >> commissioner lazarus: are you suggesting we're upholding the appeal. >> commissioner swig: no. >> commissioner lazarus: because that what you said. >> commissioner swig: yeah, upholding the appeal but issue the permit.

>> clerk: you would be denying the appeal but upholding the permit. >> commissioner swig: i knew you would know what i meant. it's only been five or six years since i've been doing it. >> president honda: commissioner, would you like to weigh-in? >> i was wondering if the complaint was actually listed as abated or if that was something else that had been abated on the permit. that's -- i don't need that to be answered. i'm doubtful, i guess, and i hope that i'm right that the

public health department would be erroneously declaring that they had abated certain complaints without necessarily having done so, and i think that's a pretty strong certification to make, so i'm hopeful that that's not the case. but i guess if we allow the hvac permit to be issued and move ahead, i don't think that takes away from this current notice of violation to necessarily abate and take care of the lead issue. >> president honda: thank you. >> so i support the motion that commissioner duffy -- i'm sorry, commissioner swig has -- >> president honda: is commissioner duffy making motions, too. no, don't. thank you, fellow commissioners. you guys have convinced me, one, the 311 system is really the fail-safe or the city of

san francisco's opportunity to address or redress issues, if it's being skirted around by the departments that are entrusted to take care of them, that's an issue. the fact that it's a playground and active lead paint chips are in the ground that hasn't been abated for three years, and this is way prior to covid happening is really an issue. but as commissioner chang said, that there's still an active notice of violation, i would like to second rick's -- that our director send something to d.p.h., and that they actually respond to why this has gone on for three years. but i -- i will agree with my fellow commissioners. >> commissioner swig: i wish we had some teeth, but we could --

>> president honda: we could support it. >> commissioner lazarus: i won't support a continuance. >> commissioner swig: this should be disattached. they're two separate things, but you reacted the same way i did. a health issue and a notice of violation -- >> president honda: do as i say, not as i do? >> commissioner swig: exactly. i'm sure that inspector duffy would like to be carbon copied on the letter that's going to go to the department of health. >> commissioner lazarus: i would just respond that i don't think a response to us is necessarily needed. we can't really do anything about it. their response is to the public, not to us. >> clerk: okay. so would you like me to repeat your motion, commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: sure.

i'd love to hear your version, please. >> clerk: it mirrors yours. we have a motion from commissioner swig to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued with the further recommendation that the executive director draft a letter to the department of public health to let them know about what transpired at this meeting and with the strong recommendation that they abate any of these potential violations with a cc to deputy director duffy who will be following up with director of public health. >> commissioner swig: thank you. >> clerk: okay. so on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 4-0.

okay. so we will move onto item number 6, jurisdiction request number 21-1, subject property at 1812-1816 green street. letter from adrian and ann doed llard, requestors, asking that the board take jurisdiction over a notice of violation which was issued on january 26, 2021. the appeal period ended on february 10, 2021, and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on february 16, 2021. the subject property is authorized as a two-family dwelling unit. the violations pertain to the illegal merger and/or conversion to a single-family use, unauthorized building alterations and the illegal construction of a roof deck. and commissioner honda has a

disclosure. >> president honda: i'm a partner in a company that's hired the law firm of reuben junius. it will not have any effect on my decision here tonight. >> clerk: okay. mr. and mrs. dollard? >> thank you, and thank you for hearing this hearing. we bought this house in 2002 with a report that says it was a single-family home. we moved into it and began moving into it to use it that way. after the work was done, the last permit we had pulled, the permit to remove, which no one disputed was an illegally added kitchen, was suspended under unusual circumstances stated in our brief. we appealed that suspension to this board of appeals, and at

that time, the board told us that this was premature because we still had administrative rim des with the planning department. they told us to pursue those remedies with the planning department and if we were unable to resolve the case, go to the board of appeals. this touched off a decade long ordeal where the planning department would instruct us to take some path to resolution, only at the 11th hour that the path was wrong. they sent us to the d.b.i. records division for us to ask them to correct the original verification of the building, and they told us to file the cua. at each turn, we diligently

pursued these remedies, only to be told at the end that this was not the right remedy for us to be pursuing. what's the technical basis for us to ask you to hear this appeal? the city's n.o.v. says in the -- with the lockdown order in place, they recognize that complying with n.o.v. timelines is difficult for impractical and says should you need additional time, contact the planner who will assist you in developing a reasonable timeline. that's exactly what we did. we contacted the planner, we proposed a reasonable extension to comply given the shelter in

place. the planner waited until after the timeline it expired to say no extension would be granted because of the age of the case. we relied on their letter to say we could discuss a reasonable extension. >> that's time. >> clerk: that's your time, mr. dollard. commissioner swig has a question. you're on mute, commissioner. >> [inaudible]. >> clerk: commissioner swig, can you speak a little louder? >> commissioner swig: in reading the brief, my biggest

concern is why did this process take so many years and years and years and years without a sense of urgency, and then, the rash at the end which caused you to be in front of us tonight? why was this not resolved by yourself earlier, even with all the speed bumps that got in your way over the many, many, many years? >> well, first of all, i want to -- in a lot of cases, appellants are playing a delay game. that's not me. this is my home. every time we have a family meeting or gathering or birthday, we wonder if it's the last one we'll have in the only house the kids have known. we're not a go slow party, and if you take the appeal, we'll show you the record -- there

are times that i had to schedule meetings to get things done to get a resolution on pathways. some of these steps that i outlined in these six different avenues over the decade that i've been working on this, some of those took multiple years. the dwelling unit merger request, we took a few months to get that together on file, and then, there was a moratorium on all mergers by the city for 18 months. that period that took 20 seconds to describe took almost 4.5 years. all i can say is if you saw the record, you can ask my counsel for a good faith voucher on it, we spent a lot of time on it. i had a lot more hair when this process started.

>> commissioner swig: you're the victim of a series of per expect storms that coincidentally occurred just as you're trying to take action, unfortunately, so i am sympathetic. i don't mean to be -- to treat this in a light hearted fashion, but i thank you very much for your answer. >> thank you, sir. >> clerk: okay. thank you. so we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. so the item before you is a jurisdiction request of a notice of violation that was issued on january 26, 2021 here for the property at 1812 green street in an rh-2 zoning district. the two violations relate to illegal merger of dwelling units on the property as well as an illegal roof deck. i don't believe the requestor has met their burden for demonstrating that the city has

made any error or in any way purposely or inadvertently prevented them from filing their appeal within 15 days. the notice of violation clearly stated that they had 15 days to file their appeal to the board of appeals. they did not do so. it's my understanding that they contacted staff on the last day of the appeal window and made their request. we will continue to work with them, and i think that denying the jurisdiction request doesn't prevent the zoning administrator from working with them on a path and a timeline for compliance but, you know, they have not met their burden here in this case to show that the city has made any mistakes preventing them from filing an appeal. i also have some issues with their categorization and the history and the timeline that they provide. you know, while, you know, certainly, the property, when they bought it, may have had a

three r report that says two units. my understanding is after they bought the property, they did perform evictions to remove tenants. there was a permit in 2001 for kitchen and bathroom which expired, permit in early 2003 that revised that permit to relocate stair and delete wet bar. that permit was issued. there was another permit after that a month later to remove illegal kitchen. that was flagged by our staff for review because they noted that there was that previous permit that didn't show the kitchen they were removing a month later, and the abort of appeals ultimately upheld the suspension of those permits, and think deputy director duffy can speak to the three r issues, but the three r issues were corrected to note it was a

two-unit building. it has a long and torturous history, but at the time this was all going on, there was the policy requirement. section 11 came along in 2008. they filed applications but never diligently pursued those, and it's been going on for 15, 18, 19 years now perhaps. so we're requesting that the board deny the jurisdiction request, and we're available for comments. thank you. >> clerk: okay. we have a question from mez honda -- from president honda and then from commissioner swig. >> president honda: reading the brief from both the appellant and department, it was a tale of two different stories, and the planning side outlined dates and times as well as the

appellants did, and i believe that ellis barkley was counsel at one point or another. what's the point of giving them a couple more days, mr. sanchez? it's going on since 2003 at this point, and the reason why i ask is i've dealt with the planning department as a client and, you know, i remember getting an e-mail and replying back within an hour and getting a response three weeks later, and that went on, i think, for two years. >> we can continue to work and will continue to work with the property owner on compliance. they believe that the permit was properly issued. they haven't been able to demonstrate why they couldn't have filed their appeal any time within that 15-day period. rather than going through this process, they can request the

zoning administrator to provide additional time. you know, perhaps abatement of penalties of this time while they come into compliance. they did state that they would file a permit. a permit was filed on february 19, after the n.o.v. was issued and after this jurisdiction request was filed for the removal of the deck, but it also talks about removal of the first floor unit which has nothing to do with the merger of the two units. the fact that this n.o.v. is out there and we have the threat of penalties, we believe that this will help ensure compliance. i don't know that the board granting jurisdiction where i don't think the grounds have been met is going to cause the property owner to come into compliance. >> president honda: d.p.h. is only two years. this is from 2005. >> clerk: commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: yes, i hear the whispers of former

president and current commissioner lazarus to stay on point. and i will ask mr. sanchez, for clarification purposes, given the covid situation, and i'm trying to bend over backwards and give the benefit of the doubt to the appellant in this case. for clarity and for the public's knowledge and my own, could you please tell us about how flexible -- what is the flexibility to the normal flexibility of the department versus the flexibility that exists in a covid department by the appellant? >> no. we understand that the permitting process has slowed down because of covid, and we're certainly, you know, willing to take that into consideration in the timelines going forward when applications

are submitted to abate violations. they can request that the zoning administrator modify when penalties may accrue, but we don't see any justification for granting the jurisdiction request to keep this open further. actually, a notice of violation was issued in 2005 for the unit merger and was not appealed, so this -- what was added to it was the roof deck, which the roof deck had shown on all the plans that were provided as existing condition. staff, when they were preparing and reviewing for the conditional use hearing, looked at aerial photos and determined that this didn't exist when they bought the buildings in 2002. they responded that they thought it was in existence at that time, and staff was able

to provide them with the photos that no, including alterations of the front of the building. it used to have two doors and they put in one single door. it also involved a structure in the front which involved a set back. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the department of building inspection. mr. duffy, director duffy, do you have anything to add? >> the only thing i have to add -- joe duffy, d.b.i. -- is i am familiar with the address, actually, and mr. dollard was in d.b.i. back in 2015, 2016.

we have this process where if the three r report, if it looks like it's wrong, we can give them a permit to document the legal occupancy of the building and correct the records because over the years, the records do get muddled up and sometimes a roofer got a permit, and they call it one roof, and there's three units in there, and then, there's a three r report and it shows it as a single-family. we're only trying to fix records. in this case, we tried to do a unit conversion case permit but it couldn't work because the unit kept coming back at two units. the fact that it's got 1812-1816 green street, and it's got permit plans from this owner getting permit plans from the d.b.i. calling it a two-unit building. so there was back and forth, and i'm sure he got frustrated

with us. but really, in that case, we have to refer the applicant back to the building department process with the building department's review. we are going from two units to one unit. no doubt this building is being used as a single-family home. it's morphed into a single-family home. that doesn't mean we're going to give you an easy process to call it that. there is a process in that, and fortunately or unfortunately, you still have to go through the planning department and mandatory planning commission, so, you know, that's the path that we guided them on. i've had a lot of correspondence with different attorneys, with the owners, with their staff. i'm a little disappointed to see that the people that applied for these recent permits called it a single-family unit. essentially, we could revoke those permits because they're

calling it wrong, a single-family dwelling. we should never even have entertained those recent permits that are filed. those should be going from two units to one unit. it is a bit of a mess because of the building, but i think city staff, planning, department, we go with old records, unfortunately. that's what's in the system, that's what it's telling us, and the process is go from two to one, get a building permit, and good luck with it. i hope that you come out with your permit at the other end. that's what i tell everybody. >> clerk: thank you. okay. is there any public comment -- we have commissioner lazarus. okay. is there any public comment on this item? if so, please raise your hand. okay. i do not see any public

comment, so commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioner lazarus: okay. if i may, my issue is i haven't heard anything about why this particular appeal wasn't filed in a timely fashion. i don't think there's anything that prevents going down two different paths, one being negotiating with the planning department and two, filing the appeal because you can always get rid of the appeal if you get satisfaction. so again, i heard nothing that explained why the appeal was not filed in a timely information, and i would make that request. >> president honda: i would second that request, and i feel sorry for both sides, but this is something that's been going on since 2003, and it took a

long time to unmuddle that as much as i could, and even after the public departments, i'm still a little confused about what's going on. commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: likewise. i have the same questions raised, and i am comfortable that mr. sanchez will keep his door open to accept further resolution on this issue, so therefore i would make a motion to deny the appeal on the basis that the appeal was not met in a timely fashion. >> clerk: can i suggest some language? >> commissioner swig: sure. >> president honda: i still want all the background noise from the ball game that he's at. >> commissioner swig: yeah. somebody hit a home run.

>> clerk: you meant to see deny the request and do. [inaudible] >> commissioner swig: that's what darryl told me to say, and it went in one ear and out the other. thank you very much. >> clerk: so on commissioner swig's motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that is 4-0, and the request is denied. thank you. we are now moving onto item number 5. this is appeal 21-001, patricia cannon, appellant, department of building inspection and planning department approval. 2634 octavia street, appealing the issuance on december 18, 2020, to 2634 octavia homeowners association of an

alteration permit. replace existing fire egress stairs in kind due to significant deterioration and dry rot, no fire wall construction, demolish existing legal deck at third story. this is permit number 2020-09-03-3412 for further consideration. note, on february 17, 2021, upon motion by commissioner lazarus, the board voted 5-0 to continue this matter to march 3, 2021 so that the department of building inspection could conduct a site visit and report back to the board on the viability of an emergency permit, and two, the permit holder's engineer could address the board regarding the condition of the deck. each side will have seven minutes, and first, we'll hear from joe duffy, d.b.i.

>> i met up with the appellant and mr. williams, and we talked the stairs and the deck area, and it's -- the -- isn't in as bad condition as i expected. i was able to walk the entire way up. there was a couple of ways up where the landings were soft and there was a couple of posts in need of repair. but overall, and i think the agreement was with everyone that there was -- there is a way to repair the third floor deck. it would need some new deck boards, and the joists and everything are pressure created, which is what you want. it's all very solid, but it does need to get some decking replaced, but it will need to

get some jar rails and handrails, which is very common. if it's okay with the commissioners, i can readout what i think the permit should sound like now, and that may comply, then, with the planning department's approval. they may not need to do a variance or everything else. the permit would read, if approximate you don't mind, i'll read it out. replace existing far stairs in kind due to deterioration and dry rot. no fire wall construction. remove portion of floor that prointrudes past property line wall. deck will align with northern edge of the building. repair existing deck less than 50% repair, install mechanical fasteners to existing deck as needed and replace guardrails and handrails. i think that would be the scope

of work that they want to undertake, so the engineer can speak, as well. dan garvey is here. >> clerk: okay. we have a question from president honda. >> president honda: first of all, you got up and walked all three levels of that. i'm going to tell lucy. i'm glad that you all were able to work it out. i'm glad that you're going to bring the deck back to its original size, so bringing it back to that wall, back to its original size is probably right. thank you very much and thank you for risking life and limb for the board's -- at the board's request. >> you always -- can i give you a tip on that? look up when you're walking, and all of you -- just take your time and be careful. i wouldn't have gone up there

if i don't -- >> president honda: oh, i know. there were posts that were connected by two-by-fours, and it didn't look healthy. >> oh, yeah, but i was glad to do it if it helps the board. and on that previous case, i wasn't making a motion. >> president honda: i know. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the planning department, mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. also like to thank inspector duffy for going out risking life and limb. i think he does more work coming to these hearings because he's got more work to do when he goes home. thank you for that, and we're supportive of the resolution that would repair the deck, not replace it, but then allow

replacement of the stairs which would be allowed under the code. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder, the agent for the permit holder. mr. german, did you want to speak or have the engineer address the board? yes, please. >> clerk: okay. do you know the last four digits of his phone number? >> 3804. >> clerk: okay. let me -- >> i don't see him. in short, [inaudible] it's something we were taught by every licensed professional that it was not possible, so we are very happy to have this, and i know that the engineer

will be [inaudible] as you recommended. and we would be happy to submit that as soon as possible, so thanks a lot. >> clerk: okay. thank you. so we will now hear from the appellant. mr. williams? >> thank you. i was at the walk-through with everyone, as well, and it wasn't in as bad shape as everyone thought. thank you, board, for the continuance to get this done early. thank you to director -- deputy director duffy, and i want to thank the board members who recognized that the first hearing, the entitlement that the appellant has to the deck, literally, that she holds title to the deck, and that it was part of the original

construction. the h.o.a. was well aware of that when they filed this permit, this false permit. we never received any explanation why this filed this false permit and tried to take this woman's deck away from her. thank you to the board, and i think this as described by deputy director duffy will do just fine. >> clerk: all right. is there any public comment on this item? if so, please raise your hand. all right. i do not see any public comment, so commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> president honda: would anyone like to start? that would be me -- okay. go ahead. >> commissioner chang: i was going to move to deny the appeal basically -- yeah,

uphold the permit and deny the appeal. >> clerk: commissioner chang, i want to interject. if we're going to modify it, the language we use is grant the permit and modify the language. >> commissioner chang: thank you. grant the permit and modify the language as used by deputy director duffy to repair the deck and on the basis that -- help me out here. >> clerk: on the basis that this will allow the appellant to preserve her outdoor space and allow her to use her outdoor deck. >> commissioner chang: yes. >> clerk: is there any further discussion from the commissioners? >> commissioner chang: no.

i think that deputy director adequately covered what we did in the first hearing. >> president honda: any further comment? >> commissioner swig: i would like to commend deputy director rosenberg for using the correct terms. >> clerk: it can get a little confusing. [inaudible]. >> commissioner swig: i am in support of the motion. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from commissioner chang to uphold the permit and deny the appeal on the basis that it allows the permit holder the use of her

deck. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so that motion carries, 4-0, and i would just like to request deputy director duffy send me the language that he used. if you could send that to me and additionally just inform the permit holder that we will be requiring you to submit revised plans with those changes, and i need to approve them, and d.b.i. needs to approve them, and then, you'll be getting what's called a special conditions permit. so i can talk to you about that process. mr. guillermon-perez, i can tell you about that. tomorrow. we can talk.

>> okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. we are now moving onto item 6, appeal 20-087, edmund allowy and mary parks versus the zoning administrator at 481 16 avenue, appealing the issuance on december 9, 2020. this is case 2019-005619-var. on january 27, 2021, upon

motion by president honda, the board voted 3-1-1, commissioner lazarus dissented and vice president santacana absent, to continue this item to february 10, 2021 so that one, the determination holder can correct the errors in the plans including the location of the approximate alleyants' bathroom windows relative to the fire wall and staircase, the location of the 45% rear yard lot line, and the height and measurements of the staircase. two, the parties can discuss the measures that will mitigate the impacts of the staircase and fire wall if they remain in the current location, and three, the project sponsor can prepare a statement explaining what it would take to move the stairs from the current location. on february 10, 2021, upon motion from president honda,

the board voted 5-0 to continue this item to march 3, 2021, at the request of the parties. so we'll hear from mary parks, and you have three minutes. >> thank you. i'd like to present a slide. >> clerk: we'll start your time when the slide comes up. >> thank you. >> clerk: do you need some help? okay. we see your slide. >> okay. cool. thank you. okay. so -- all right. yeah, first of all, i wanted to thank you with the extension because we had an unexpected family health matter, and we really appreciate the help that that gave us. we also want to say that we'll be reviewing the outcome of our discussions thus far with the

neighbor, thus requesting another extension to continue the discussion and have a comment at the end. just to reiterate, this is what we see outside of our bathroom window. this is what we see from the yard looking at our bathroom window with the fence and the fire wall, and this is the side-view. as you can see, the condition of the sliding which we -- siding which we understand is something that is supposed to be used as backing for tiles, and so that's how it looks right now. so what we proposed to the neighbor was something that we actually heard here in the meeting when commissioner honda mentioned an opaque glass or screening. so we thought it would be okay to replace the wooden screening with opaque glass where you see the privacy screen go a little higher and across a little further so when we were in our bathroom, we would not see anybody coming or going up or

down the stairs. we also thought if it was opaque translucent glass material rather than a wood screen it would allow more light in and provide us more privacy because we didn't want to lose any light if possible. the neighbor offered this idea of a riser that would be put on top of the structure, so that's what we were looking at. they provided some drawings. later on, they also offered to paint or install a wooden lattice material or types of plantings. this was new to us because they've never offer today do anything like this before. we came back after our break due to our health concerns, and we asked if they could pay for siding to cover the fire wall,

and then, if we did paint the screening or the fence, if they could pay for that, as well. so they came back and offered to pay for half of the siding project with a cap of 2500, and so we don't believe that we should incur any costs for their construction, so we would like to continue talking with them about this. also, about the riser, we thought they were interested in looking at some sort of glass material that would give us privacy and light, but they said it'll be a material similar to their fence, so they also had a legal settlement, which we -- >> clerk: okay. thank you, miss parks. that is your time. >> oh, i'm sorry. i didn't hear. >> clerk: that's okay.

your time is up. >> president honda: first of all, i'm glad you had some interaction with your neighbor and at least there's some forward progress there. i do believe that the opaque screening allows light as well as privacy, personally, but i just want to say thank you for making the attempt to have the conversation with your neighbor. i know it's been kind of rough over the years. thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the determination holder, mr. soul. >> yes, commissioners. thank you very much. i appreciate you taking the time. i'm actually happy that we've been able to come to what seems like a pretty positive settlement or a least a couple of things that did make sense. i just wanted to make sure that you did receive a copy of the three things that were requested, that we tied off the

plans to depict the size of the windows in their relative position to our home. also indicated and we submitted with the plans a simple of what we thought we had agreement on, which was the one-foot riser. we've also indicated in our response to the board and to the neighbors that we are prepared to take that riser and extend it not only for what we depicted in the plans but continue it all the way out. in addition, you required of the cost to move the stairs. all of those have been submitted, so i just wanted to tie off that we got that done. we have been having some productive conversations with the neighbors to get them what they want, which is ultimately privacy in their rear yard and bathroom window, so i'm happy that we've gotten to the point where we're discussing what we think is a workable solution, which is a similar construction to the current screen that exists. that screen is designed

geometrically and the materials to allow light to sneak through. what we've proposed is a one-foot riser that would come to where the current screen exists, however, we would be prepared to extend it further to go and effectively extend the entire security, the screen that we have. in addition, as we have previously offered twice, both in writing, we would be happy to permit the neighbors to beautify the backside of the dense siding. we have pressure treated wood on the backside of the fence. we stepped in as a good faith gesture that it would be beneficial if we were to offer some money for them to do it. if they want to choose the materials and go out and have the work done, they are free to

decorate the back of it to make it more amenable to them and we would agree to provide up to $2500 of matching funds for them to be able to do the work with their discretion on that. with that, i would take any questions that you have. it does seem like a productive end, and we're certainly happy to get this matter recognized. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from president honda. >> president honda: thank you. is your property to the north of them, south of them, east of them, or west of them? >> that's a great question. one of the things that's unique -- well, not unique. the bathroom window of their property is east facing, but we are up against some very tall buildings to the south, so it's actually quite dark.

we have two large trees, and one of the things that we have considered is to thin those trees to allow more light to come into both of our backyards. >> president honda: sorry to interrupt. >> yeah. >> president honda: but if you are on the southside, by putting in the screen takes out the light on their property. that's why we allow fences to go up so high on property. are you opposed to having some type of opaque clear material that allows lighting but gives privacy? >> one of the things that we could certainly look at is using opaque material for the riser, but it is a relatively dark corner, and moss tends to build up not only in that portion of it, but it is a relatively dark corner because of it being tucked on the end block, it being behind some

very tall buildings to the south of us, so it is a relatively dark corner that we're unfortunately trying to force more light. >> president honda: unfortunately, i don't have that perspective from the briefs. if you're on the southside, that's the side that allows the sun to enter. >> it is a southeast corner, but it is a southeast corner that's already blocked. we can thin some of the trees to allow more light to get there. >> president honda: and to deal with the pop-up that was taken out previously. thank you, sir. >> clerk: thank you. we will hear from the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. appreciate the effort that's been spent trying to resolve the issue between the parties, and appreciate the time that's been spent on that and the progress that's been made.

two sets of plans submitted, and one of them has kind of the riser concept that they had initially outlined. we know we would suggest, and i don't know if the board is wanting to take action tonight or give the parties more time to work on the final details. i think the plans that have been provided are good, and we also appreciate that the variance holder has separately noted on the rear elevation about the issue about the bumpout and note being that the construction of the bumpout will be on a separate application and note that they have to go through a separate process, as well. either one of these could be adopted, probably the one with the riser because that's the direction they're going, would be cautious -- if we don't have

a final solution, then we don't know exactly what that would look like. any fence over 10 feet needs a variant. i think that's the only question we have here, is whether we have a final resolution for the board to take an action tonight. certainly, the board could adopt the riser plans. i note kind of materials to be worked out at a later date and i think get some flexibility there, but yeah, that's the only issue that i see right now, and maybe the parties have more to add to that. >> clerk: thank you. president honda? >> president honda: so i'm actually glad that the parties are working forward, too, and since you worked for them straight through, mr. sanchez, and this has gone on since, i think, 2016, do you recommend

that we do a small continuance so that we have a better picture as to, you know, so we don't lose control of this? >> i don't think anybody wants to come back for another hearing. >> president honda: we can make it short, just to finalize stuff and give specific directions. but they're not 100% sure on the materials yet, and i don't want it to go off, and then, there's a big snafu, and then, we're seeing this again in front of us. >> yeah, it gives more certainty to everyone to batten down those final details. i don't know what the parties have to say about that idea. >> president honda: okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we'll now hear from the department of building inspection. >> nothing to add. >> clerk: okay. thank you. is there any public comment on this item? if so, please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any public comment,

so commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> president honda: commissioner lazarus? >> commissioner lazarus: i would recommend a continuance. i just think it's good to get this all final before it goes away, so the only question is how much longer the parties might think they need to get to a final resolution. >> president honda: i agree. commissioner chang? >> commissioner chang: thank you. i also agree that this matter does not seem completely resolved yet. it sounded like the appellant had some concern about a settlement agreement that they were surprised by. i wanted to get some clarity on that. >> president honda: on the continuance, we're going to spell out exactly what we need, and then would that work out for you?

>> commissioner chang: yeah. it seems like there was a legal settlement agreement request or that the permit holder had issued something that surprised the appellant, and i just wanted to better understand that from the appellant? >> commissioner lazarus: so commissioner chang, that's a private matter between the two matters that would not be under our purview, so that's something that would need to be worked out separately probably during the continuance. >> president honda: commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: i was just going to say what commissioner lazarus said. we can't get into the how much you're going to spend issue, but i would request, president honda, that you really -- either you make a motion and put some strong curves on this -- >> president honda: i plan to, but can we get the permit holder first? so basically, what this board is looking from you guys is how

much time it's going to take to get a resolution, mr. soul, and we need both parties to agree before we go forward with a decision. i know it's been tough for you guys to come together, and it's slowly coming together. i hope that you guys can make the last bit of this marathon, and so how long are you going to need to have a chitchat with your neighbors so that they can really loving your plan? because that's what we really need to see here. is that what you're looking for, commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: i can't imagine this would take any -- >> i can't imagine this would take any longer than a week. i would ask that this be at the

top of the calendar in a week. >> president honda: we've seen this case since 2016, so we want you to come back with an agreement. and i'd ask the appellant the same question. mr. park -- mrs. parks, sorry. i've got two screens from you guys, two videos from you. pretty cool. there we go. first of all, madam director, when is our nearest opening? >> clerk: next week would be perfect. >> president honda: wow, so there's an opportunity that we can hear you guys next week. the reason that we're holding

it over is because you aren't quite there yet. i'll be honest, next week is final, final. this board is going to make a decision next week, right, fellow commissioners? so at that point, we'd like you to sit down and narrow down the materials that are going to be used, what he's going to do as far as work, and next week, we want to hear that you're either very happy or not so happy. >> so i think we will need two weeks, not one week for that. >> president honda: what does our calendar look like in two weeks, madam director? >> commissioner lazarus: we don't have a meeting. >> clerk: yeah, the meeting after that is the 24. it's not clear that these parties are going to come to any kind of agreement. they've had time -- >> president honda: yeah. we've held this over two times already at this point, and in respect to both parties, and so we'd like a little resolution,

as well. there's a lot of city time invested in this at this point. >> agreed. agreed. >> president honda: sorry, mr. soul. you're not allowed to add comment at this point, but can you guys get together -- this is very important. this is what you've been working to for four -- for the last five years, so if you can get together in the next couple days and hash this out. seriously, you guys have come a long way. i appreciate that, the board appreciates that. mr. soul, you need to go extra large because your project is the one that went beyond the scope of the permit and not in the way the plans are read. so next week is going to be the time. our director will inform you, and what do you recommend, madam director? >> clerk: i recommend next week, march 10. >> president honda: as far as

material wise, what do you think we should have? >> clerk: well, from what i heard, the disagreement is on the material for the riser? >> excuse me. may i just clarify one thing? >> clerk: that's up to president honda. >> president honda: yeah, that's fine. >> if it's not a certain material, we don't want a riser. >> president honda: that's why i suggested opaque because it'll allow light and give you privacy. hopefully, everyone's gone there and looked into this. last question is to mr. sanchez. if we go higher than 10 feet, is that going to require something else? >> no, it could be incorporated into this variance. >> president honda: oh, you're so special. >> that's why we want to have it resolved properly as part of

this action. >> president honda: so that would be my motion, to continue it to next week and the parties would take some action as to the material of the riser, and whatever negotiations they have privately is their business, and we'll make that decision next week. >> clerk: all right. so we have a motion from president honda to continue this matter to march 10 so that the parties can hopefully come to a resolution on the materials to be used for the riser. on that motion -- [roll call] >> president honda: why don't you ask the appellant.

>> commissioner chang: mrs. parks, you're shaking your head, and i think we're trying to help you come to a resolution with your neighbor, but you appear incredibly -- you appear confused. >> yeah. so the confusion is we're discussing more than a riser with the neighbor. we're discussing siding that goes onto the thing, and so my confusion is that that's not something to be brought up before the board? that's all. >> commissioner chang: but it sounds like the permit holder is amenable -- are you referring to the back of the fencing and the proposal that the permit holder, mr. soul, has allowed you to beautify up to a certain cost?

>> president honda: well, can i jump in? is i think the issue is they don't feel they should have any cost. the permit holder has offered 2500 towards their repair or beautification. they don't feel they should have any cost to do that. we unfortunately have no control over that, so that's a private matter as commissioner lazarus has stated. this board has urged the permit holder to do what he needs to do, but we can't enforce any of that. we've allowed two extra hearings at this point, but we need to resolve that. that private matter of how much money they pay, unfortunately, that's out of our hands, right? >> commissioner lazarus: i think, if it helps, if i may, we're focused on the privacy issue because that has to do with kind of the original basis

of the permit, and as president honda just said, anything sort of on the other side of the fence is not really relevant. >> commissioner chang: the whole -- i'm just trying to pay

some heed to that larger history. but i agree that it's thankfully been boiled down to the privacy issue and that the neighbors will hopefully come to an agreement, and i hope that that happens next week, but i did want to, in fairness to the appellant, acknowledge this history that the work initially was performed out of the scope of the permit, that it required rectification of the variances, so i was hoping

that that could be done. >> clerk: okay. the issue of the riser, is that the only work to be performed under the variance or do you want to stay with what i said before? i'm sorry, you're on mute, president honda. >> president honda: sorry. talking to myself. i think the motion is -- >> clerk: okay. so we -- again, i'll just repeat for the record. we had a motion from president honda to continue this matter to march 10 so that the parties could hopefully come to an agreement on the materials to be used for the riser and the last -- on that motion, commissioner chang, i believe, we were onto you. you said yes, i believe. now we're onto commissioner swig. [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, and we will see you next week, and

hopefully you can come to some resolution. thank you. so we are now moving onto item number 8. we've already heard number 7. which is appeal 21-006, jerry dratler versus department of building inspection, planning department approval. at 27 17 avenue. appealing the issuance of on january 12, 2021, to 27-17 avenue, l.l.c., of an alteration permit to restore the three-story bay from 25-17 avenue. scope of work skb cost included under permit 2017-0707-1206, and this permit is for administrative purposes only. it's permit 2020-09-22-4726,

and as a preliminary matter, president honda? >> president honda: i'm a partner in a company that hired reuben junius. it will not have any effect. do any of our commissioners need to take a break because this is our last item, and it'll probably take a bit. anyone? okay. let's get it on. >> clerk: okay. we will hear from the appellant first, mr. dratler first. you have seven minutes. >> okay. can you see the slides? >> clerk: yes. >> okay. thank you. good evening. i'm going to show you three slides of the south wall of 25 17 avenue. the pictures show the deck windows, light wells, and the

three-story bay that were removed without a permit in june 2016. the unapproved work was not accidental. project engineer rodrigo santos submitted a dry rot [inaudible] which shows the three-story bay. the next picture, taken in january 2017, depicts of south wall of 25 17 avenue as it exists today, four years later. the entire south wall has been in-filled with plywood. d.b.i. issued two notices of violation for the unpermitted work and the planning department required restoration of the bay. the last picture clearly shows the bay has not been restored, and the project sponsors have not complied with the two n.o.v.s and the n.o.e. the project sponsors have not

submitted a single building permit application to address the n.o.v.s over the last four years. how can the property now be in compliance? the next is the administrative compliant, mr. cantor submitted the project sponsors restored the bay and complied with the two n.o.v.s and the n.o.e. this is the administrative permit with the $1 cost. i'm asking the board of appeals to deny it. the next slide is a map of the 40 homeners who -- homeowners who signed the petition requesting your help in getting the project back on track by requiring the project sponsors to restore the bay and complete the remodel. the next slide is a copy of a demolition permit mr. cantor also submitted to legalize the demolition of a three-story bay

at 25 17 avenue. why would he file for a permit for demolition of a bay he claimed to have restored? the removal or encroachment referred to in the demolition permit is clearly shown on the plat map. mr. gordon here in the planning department approved the demolition permit on september 14, 2020. how can it cost $7,500 to demolish a bay that no longer exists, and how can demolishing or removing the bay comply with two n.o.v.s and the planning department n.o.e. that require restoration of the bay? again, i ask if this were an administrative action, the cost would be $1, not $7,500.

in the next slide, i illustrate that this is the third time in four years the project sponsors have tried to legalize their illegal bay removal, and the reason the project has been stalled for four years. instead of moving forward with construction, they've invested their resources in legalizing their illegal demolition. in 2017, the board of appeals denied the project sponsors' demolition permit but allowed the project sponsors to continue their permitted foundation replacement and voluntary seismic upgrades. the project sponsors abandoned the work approved by the board of appeals six months later in june 2018. all work on the job stopped, and the port-a-potty was removed. in january 2019, the planning commission denied the project

sponsor's second request. the planning commission told the project sponsors to revert the building to its previous condition by restoring the three-story bay. in september 2020, the planning department approved the project sponsor's third request to legalize their illegal demolition of the bay. the planning department must follow the decisions of the commission responsible for the planning department. allowing the building department to overside a planning -- override a planning department decision undermines the planning department.

d.b.i. would not let me review the site plans d.b.i. approved on january 15, 2021. i'd like to ask mr. cantor if the plans he submitted for 27 17 avenue have this three-story bay encroaching onto 27-17 avenue. i would not be here today, and the remodel of 25 17 avenue would have been completed years ago if the planning department had followed the compliance steps outlined in their 2016 notice of enforcement. my neighbors and i are asking you to get this project back on

track by following the compliance steps in the planning department n.o.e. number one, suspend all building permits for 25 and 27 17 avenue. two, require the project sponsors to file a building permit to restore the bay and cladding in a historically appropriate manner, and three, require the planning department to approve the bay restoration before removing the building permit suspension. thank you very much. >> clerk: okay. thank you, mr. dratler. we will now hear from the permit holder. i believe the attorney for the permit holder is here, mr. kevlin. >> thank you, miss rosenburg. john kevlin on behalf of the project sponsors.

subsequent to your hearing, d.b.i. require that the project sponsor file this permit in order to document the construction on the -- on 27 17 ave. as well. the only remaining permits to complete this project to get it on -- to get it done it for the demo of bay window at 27-17

avenue. the permit mr. dratler brought up to demolish the bay was in 2017 and that permit is in the process of being withdrawn. there is no proposed demolition of the bay, so we urge the board to deny this appeal, urge the board to uphold the decision that it made in this matter last may, and that's all of my comments right now. thank you. >> clerk: okay. we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. i think what mr. kevlin reiterated was correct. the permit was approved and appealed to the board of appeals last year.

it is on the separate lot, the adjacent lot to the north, 25 17 avenue. this is the administrative permit because the bay window crosses the property line. this ties into that permit that was heard by the board of appeals last year and to document the bay window on the adjacent property. i think they've properly done the paperwork to that extent. i do appreciate mr. dratler raising the issue of that 2019 permit, and that has been -- that was approved in error by staff last year, along with the demolition of the garage, which was properly approved, but when that was brought to our attention, i did ask staff to look into that. we did ask yesterday the permit holder to withdraw that 2019 permit that would remove the bay. that's been superseded by the planning commission's decision. the planning commission's decision occurred after that permit was submitted, and as mr. kevlin noted, that was

their proposal at the time of the planning commission. this does what, i guess, everyone wants, which is to have the bay window restored, and that's what this does to abate the issues. the complaints are related to building and planning for the adjacent property, 25 17 half are noted and addressed under that permit, which was heard by the board of appeals last year. i think what the confusion may be is that mr. dratler was referencing notice back in

2016. i think this addresses all of the issues that the appellant has raised, and i'm available for questions. again, that 2019 permit to remove the bay, that is superseded by this, and they did request withdrawal of that today, and i'm available for questions. thank you. >> president honda: thank you. questions, commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: yes. i remember this case and its continuing presence, as painful and torturous, and i also remember that we were very, very clear that when we made the findings that we did that these were our findings, so i have one simple question, scott. if we move this forward and deny the appeal, will -- will those terms and conditions that

we approved the last time we heard this, will these move forward unaltered and as we approved them? >> yes. as my recollection of this previous hearing was that the board granted the appeal, bifurcated the scope of work, separated out the bay window from that scope of work, said deal with that separately, and then allow the other work, including the seismic upgrades to the building, and i think the project sponsor can address what the status of that work is. but the board did not, in the decision of that year, require the restoration of the bay window.

. >> commissioner swig: i'm not so sure of that. >> clerk: yes, the last time we heard that -- >> commissioner swig: no, no. no 2020, we were very specific in what we approved. >> oh, yes, yes. >> commissioner swig: and what i want to make sure, because i want to make sure that what we approve is not going to alter in any way, shape, or form what we approved will not be affected by this permit. >> this is to document what you had previously approved last year at the appeal hearing. >> commissioner swig: so it is still air tight, will not be adjusted under any circumstances whatsoever by any action tonight. >> that's my understanding. this is just to document on this property what the board had approved under appeal last year.

>> commissioner swig: okay. that's my only concern. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> commissioners. joe duffy, d.b.i. you've heard a lot of testimony from the appellant. i agree with everything that's been said, starting with mr. dratler. there was a lot of pictures with the property back a few years ago. at d.b.i., we're very much involved in the notices of violation, and we still have open cases with it. i will ats the building permit and confirm that the building permit that was filed ending in

9814, that was the -- that permit is in the process of being withdrawn by d.b.i. it will show up soon. it will go from a five status to a withdrawn status, and the reason it hasn't happened, but i did confirm on e-mail from staff, so that permit will mean it's dead on the withdrawal of that one. but the other that's before you tonight is to restore the three story bay. it looks like to me the permits to restore are the proper permits. so i'm available for any questions, but i didn't see anything wrong with the approval. it was routed through planning and central permit bureau. that was one issue of a penalty fee that mr. dratler raised in

his brief, and i will address that, as well, because it looks like we need to assess a two times penalty on a notice of violation from 2016. that may have been on the permit that's going to be withdrawn, so obviously, that penalty will need to carry out, and i can assess that penalty on one of the future permits that's still filed, and i can work on that before the permit is issued. thank you. >> president honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we are now moving onto public comment, and we'll hear from the first caller. hello? i don't see a phone number, but i spoke to you at the beginning of the [inaudible]. >> hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. welcome. you have three minutes. >> being on. thank you. good evening. my name is stephanie peek.

i have lived next door to the subject properties for 35 years, and i am one of the 40 neighbors signing the petition asking you to require the developers to comply with the planning commission's petition requiring them to restore the three-story bay they lopped off in 2016. that's it. simple. these two new follow up distorting permits issued from the developers were issued before they restored the bay. they haven't restored the bay. this administration permit should not have been issued, and it should have been revoked because since 2019, when the planning commission mandated that the sponsors restore the three-story bay, they've made no attempts to actually restore

the bay. instead, they continue trying to override the 2017 board of appeals and the 2019 planning commission's denial of their permit. the two permits submitted by john cantor are just alice in wonderland permits. i can look out my window and see that they never did restore the bay. their demolition permit is their third attempt to legalize the bay removal. why would mr. cantor want to submit a permit that he never restored. this is just fancy footwork to get around the planning commission's decision, so i ask you please order the developers to restore the three-story bay per the planning commission's 2019 order and prevent the developers from getting anymore permits until, to exactly quote the planning commission, the

existing building is reverted to its previous existing condition by restoring the three-story bay. and by the way, it's not just a bay, it's a three-story bay with nine windows and a door. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from miss taylor. miss taylor, please go ahead. miss taylor, we can't hear you. please go ahead. >> [inaudible]. >> clerk: very faintly. can you go closer to your microphone? >> yes. is this better? is. >> clerk: yes. thank you. please go ahead. you have three minutes. >> thank you so much.

i am susan mccormick taylor. >> clerk: ma'am, you're going to have to turnoff your computer. you have two devices going at the same time. we can only have one device at a time. >> operator: i paused time. >> clerk: okay. miss taylor? >> yes. >> clerk: we can only have one device at a time because otherwise it interferes, so make sure your phone is turned down off your t.v. >> okay. sorry about that. >> clerk: that's okay. >> we purchased [inaudible] in 2019, so we are, again, right next door to the subject property. i think the most important point for you is that there be neighborhood review of 27-17

avenue. there hasn't been an opportunity for -- 27 27 avenue. there hasn't been an opportunity for the neighborhood to comment. we did try to approach the project sponsor to make some minor adjustments because the new project will overlook and interfere with the privacy on our property. i think the most important thing for us is to have a review. it appears the sponsor here is trying to staple the two unissued permits together so they travel with another permit. i'm a lawyer, but not a permitting lawyer, so i apologize. it's something that president honda said. we have 40 neighbors who all feel the same way. what should be incumbent on

cantor and the sponsors here is that they come back with a plan that all the neighbors are happy with. that's what president honda said in connection with the last -- and we want to be in agreement with this. if the board of appeals ignores, you know, violations and permits, there's nothing -- everybody can just violate the permits and say oh, whoops, we're not going to follow them, and there's no ramifications other than delays. last hearing, there were a lot of people who gave testimony. none of them were in the neighborhood, so i think it's just really important that you hear from those of us who have properties that are right next to the property. it's important and need to be taken care of. >> 30 seconds. >> i'm done. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from mr. allen

greenitz. >> hi, thank you very much. commissioners, my name is alan greenits. our property is directly contiguous to the development properties. since the planning commission required them to rebuild the bay, we have not seen any additional plans for the buildings, and they're not available to us at all. just like ms. taylor was indicating, it doesn't seem fair that the builders have been able to not submit any plans as to how they're going to rebuild the bay, and also, we don't have any idea what the building on 27 17 avenue is going to look like now

[inaudible] there hasn't been any transparency whatsoever, and i would submit to you that the only reason the permit is being withdrawn today is because mr. dratler raised this appeal. they tried to file another peal to legal -- file another permit to legalize the demolition of the bay and mr. dratler filed another appeal which brought the matter back to you today. this is five years of noncompliance by the sponsors. the neighborhood deserves the right to see the plans so that we understand what's happening to our neighborhood. 40 neighbors have signed a petition that have indicated they're not satisfied with the process that is being

perpetrated, and mr. sanchez did not answer commissioner swig's question directly as to whether or not every single requirement that was issued by the -- by this board last year will be followed if you deny this appear. the request that mr. dratler made is what should happen. all the permits should be cancelled, and the process should be started over. the developers have not [inaudible]. >> 30 seconds. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. we will now hear from a caller, call-in user number two. i see a hand raised. there's no phone number. if you can why don't you try dialing star, six.

it looks like that person hung up or left. we will go onto the caller with the initials j.r. >> i'm here. >> clerk: thank you. you have three minutes. >> my name is jim reilly, and i live at 1601 18 street with my son isaiah. i've been here [inaudible] years. to be honest with you, even after listening to everything here tonight, the problem is nobody trusts these people. they have been dishonest from the very first meeting at the richmond rec center. the drawings were bogus. at a second meeting at a neighbor's house, we tried to reach over and look at drawings, and they were pulled

away from us. i agree with alan. the only reason this permit was mysteriously withdrawn today is because they got caught, they got busted for doing something sneaky yet again. even mr. kevlin's brief shows on the plan, it says that the bay is reconstructed. that's bogus. it's not there, and i have -- they had no intention of rebuilding it, and i still don't trust that they will. they keep sleazing things through, and it never ends. i agree with what jerry dratler says. everything needs to be suspended. everybody's been all over notice of violations from years past. we've got to ask, mr. duffy says there's a process.

on the green street process, mr. sanchez was all over the violation for taking out two doors. on the department of public health buildings, the problems weren't related because one was for an hvac and one was for a mural. everything going on at 17, it's all related. the notices of violation are related to the permit, and i agree with mr. dratler. there is no transparency. we need to know what the building is going to look like, how it's going to impact the neighbors. 40 neighbors surrounding -- we could have gotten signatures from 500 unrelated people, but it was the 40 neighbors that surround this project that have a [inaudible] and deal with this, so please follow mr. dratler's recommend and suspend

all the permits until they do what the planning commission ordered them to do and what the board of appeals ordered them to do. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from call-in user number five. i don't see a phone number. your hand is raised. please go ahead and start speaking. might take a moment. >> yes, commissioners. >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> thank you. mr. dratler seems very well versed in department matters and he tries to tell everyone to do their jobs. he continuously harasses hard working city employees that do not do his wishes. this is the fifth time that

this matter has come before this board, and if mr. dratler spent more time minding his own business than telling you how to do your jobs, this matter would not be before you tonight. mr. dratler knows he cannot stop the project, but he plans on making it as costly and time-consuming for the sponsor. this appeal is another example of his vindictive actions. the creation of this false narrative with suggestions of fraud and corruption at every level of the building and planning department with no evidence are creating a hostile relationship between neighbors. his continued actions to try and stop this project have no benefit to anyone and serve only to feed his vengeful ego.

it is time for this community to move on from these false inflammatory and inciteful claims. also, the neighborhood would like to begin healing and get this project moving forward. thank you very much for your time, and i hope you see reason in your decision. >> clerk: okay. thank you. is there any other public comment? please raise your hand. okay. i see clark. please go ahead, clark. >> i'm nancy clark. you can hear me, can you? >> clerk: yes, you have three minutes. >> thank you very much. i live at 1628 lake street. i have been here almost 50 years. my house shares a back property line with the properties in

question, and while sincerely believe the sponsors should be able to go ahead with the original plan or request to have the bay windows restored because, in fact, that was mandated by the planning department years ago, the developers have never abided by that request. there are no bay windows, but the real thing here is that we have had repeated violations of trust and an [inaudible] this

is a not in my backyard kind of thing. we all understand that [inaudible] is required, but duplicitous dealings will not help this. thank you. >> clerk: okay. if there's any public comment, please raise your hand. deirdre, please raise your hand. >> yes. i am deirdre, and i live across from the property. i would just like to echo what nancy has said. we have been working with this group for almost five years now? and there have been many opportunities for them to comply with the mandates that the planning department has

given them and at every single opportunity, it seems that they're trying to ignore those and trying to get around the planning department's suggestions. and our feeling, my feeling that there's no trust there and how we would have any expectation that they would behave in a trustworthy way going forward would be not applicable. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. is there any other public comment? please raise your hand. okay. i think we have received all the public comments this evening, so we will now move onto rebuttal. mr. dratler, you have three minutes. >> thank you. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, thank you. >> so first, i'm going to start with mr. duffy's comments acknowledging their open n.o.v.s, and then i'm going to

move onto the discussion that you had as a board of appeals on item number 7 that permits should not be issued when there are open appeals. that seems quite clear. then, i'm going to move to the third point, which is the error that occurred on september 14, when the demolition -- september 14, 2020, when the demolition permit was approved in error. so what's interesting about that is the planning department also approved the plans on the same day, and nobody's asked -- answered my question, rather, that deals with the planned that were approved. so the plans that were approved by the planning department on september 14, 2020, do they have the bay in there or not? so in conconclusion, what i've proposed makes -- in

conclusion, what i've proposed makes total sense. when there are open n.o.v.s, you suspend permits until the work is done. also, my neighbors and i don't believe there's any intent to rebuild the three-story bay, so why not rebuild the three-story bay first and then restore the suspended permits, and that also would give the neighbors time to review the revised plans. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from mr. kevlin on behalf of the permit holder. >> thank you, commissioners. john kevlin on behalf of the permit holder. ironically, i think everyone on this meeting is on the exact same page. everyone wants to see the restoration of the three-story bay. that is what you approved as part of the appeal last may. that is what is -- in order to achieve that work, to actually

construct that work, this administrative appeal tonight needs to be issued because it crosses the property line. it's an administrative permit. it has no plans -- specific plans associated with it. it merely refers back to the permit that you approved on appeal last may, so i urge you to reject the appeal, allow this permit to be issued so that, in fact, the permit holders are allowed to restore the three-story bay. i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we have a question from commissioner. >> commissioner swig: -- from commissioner swig. >> commissioner swig: i'm going to ask you the same question that i asked of everyone. is it the intention, are you confirming that the bay will be

rebuilt as we approved and moved forward with the last time that we heard this case and in the commentary of the neighbors that we heard from tonight? >> yes. >> commissioner swig: thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. so commissioner swig, did you have any further questions? >> commissioner swig: no, that was it. >> clerk: okay. thank you. so we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. so trust is an important part of the permit process, and when the trust is broken or violated because work is done without a permit, it is -- it allows for misinformation to creep in, misunderstanding, and we've got, i think, in the situation that we are today. you know, we're still paying

the price on the early violations of this property going back to five years. the scope of work that's on appeal to the board is to comply with notice of violations from department of building inspection and the planning department and discretionary review action to restore the three-story bay from 25 17 avenue, scope of work and cost included under permit application 2017-07071206. this was the permit that was appealed to the board of appeals last year. the board of appeals, in hearing that, did not grant the appeal and approve it as imposed. the board did not impose any additional conditions. that permit has the restoration of the bay window. if, as the appellant requests,

this appeal is granted, it would conflict with the direction to restore the bay window. this permit documents the restoration of the bay window on this property. if the goal is to have it restored, this permit shall and needs to be upheld, so i'm sorry, it's a little frustrating for me because there was so much public comment that was so much misinformed, and i don't blame them because there's no trust here, and it's something that has gone on for years. you know, there's different pieces with this. this is just an administrative permit to document the encroachment onto the adjacent property. there's separately a new construction on this property, as well, 27 17 avenue. some had said they were not aware of that. that went out no thabd notice, discretionary review on it, heard by the planning commission in 2019. that was approved.

planning staff had approved that and may be appealed to the board of appeals. there's also the separately demolition of the garage and that goes hand and hand with the permit on the new construction. lastly, and i acknowledge that planning staff made an error, and i don't think it was sneaky as one of the commenters suggested. staff made an error in approving that and that's because staff that was handling it was on maternity leave. it was being handled by their supervisor [inaudible]. >> president honda: i'd allow mr. sanchez to finish that. >> thank you. someone on their team, it was

time to approve their permits. these were the permits that were left, the demolition of the garage, and the permit that was superseded by this permit, was the demolition of the garage. i appreciate mr. dratler raising that. it should have never been approved. it was brought to our attention. i immediately asked the permit holder to withdraw that, and they did so yesterday, so this is happening -- it shouldn't have happened, but, you know, our goal is to have a fair, honest permit process, and, you know, we try our best to do that, and we don't always do that, but i'm happy to answer any questions that the board has. >> president honda: commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: i'm going to reiterate what the public

commented. the action that we took last time will be upheld and that will include the rebuilding of the bay. >> yes, and this permit is required to fulfill that obligation. >> commissioner swig: okay. secondly, one thing that hasn't been asked, so i'm going to ask it. do you have plans from the project sponsor related to the rebuild of the bay and etc. that we approved -- according to what we approved the last time we met? >> so the board of appeals reviewed that. my understanding is those plans -- there's no difference to what was on those plans. >> commissioner swig: so the statement that was made tonight, we haven't seen plans, we don't have any idea that, in fact, how the bay is going to

be rebuilt, etc., etc., etc., that is what we have come -- in the parlance, come to know as fake news. in fact, you have full plans, they comply totally with what we moved forward with the last time we met on this item? >> yes. this permit is tied to that permit. >> commissioner swig: okay. i just -- i'm sorry -- i'm as frustrated as you are, and i'm as tired as you are on this, but we heard tonight from the public that they -- they are unclear on this, and this is why i'm being perfectly clear, trying to get as redundant as possible so that i'm clear it includes a rebuilding of the bay as it was before, and in fact, you have clear and present plans, right? >> it includes rebuilding of the bay, and i think as was

raised at the hearing last year, there were two things that were authorized in those plans to deal with the privacy impacts on that proposed new construction next door. so the -- there were changes made to the bay to the finestration, and this was one of the issues raised on the appeal last year, my recollection, so some of those windows were -- were removed to deal with the privacy issues. they would otherwise be looking back on the new construction. >> commissioner swig: i remember those conversations vividly, and may i ask you one other question and then move on and help all of us get out of pain. where can the public, if they are still unclear of the fact if plans exist. where can the public review these plans. the fact that we deny this appeal, it doesn't matter, but

where are the plans, the full transparency of those plans? >> all those plans would be in the department of building inspection, which you'd have to go down and review. it could be problematic, but the 25 17 avenue and the restoration of the bay window, probably the best place and easiest place to look would be the board files for the hearing last year which i think would have a copy of the plans as part of those materials. i know what is coming down the road is the new construction, the building on this lot and plans for that would be associated with the planning commission action on the planning review and there'll be a 15-day appeal period on the new construction. >> commissioner swig: thank you very much. >> president honda: i think we've got commissioner chang, do you have a question?

>> commissioner chang: no. actually, my question was answered. to the question to find plans, i was just going to suggest the records that mr. sanchez already -- >> president honda: of course you were. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. so deputy director duffy, would you like to add anything? we're still on the rebuttal portion. >> commissioners, joe duffy, d.b.i. yeah, just to add onto the withdrawn permit. i appreciate the public comment on it, but i can definitely see the tracking from the planning department staff to the applicant to get the permit withdrawn. a lot of the times, these appeals -- and i do it myself. i'll see there's permits in there that it's a good time to cleanup the permits, and this definitely needs to be a withdrawn permit. it wasn't -- nobody's trying to sneak anything by. i can guarantee you that it was

done by staff to the applicant, hey, go to d.b.i., put in a withdrawal request. there's nothing in there. probably should have been done sooner, but a lot of times, these things only come on our radar at the last minute. mr. sanchez did echo it, and i'll say it again. when d.b.i. issues a notice of violation, the description is in the upper section of the violation. the correction is in the bottom part. you want to normally obtain a planning permit with planning department, and this is part of that process. so you wouldn't really want to be suspending permits if they are to comply with the notice

of violation. obviously, we had a lot in the past but this is to comply with the n.o.v. in some cases you will hear me say that there's active violations and there may be a problem with that permit, but in this case, it's to comply with the n.o.v., so it's all towards the finish line, as we call it. they won't be able to close the notices of violation until they do the work and get the final sign off. and then, on the -- the planning and drawings and records, and documents, [inaudible] i just checked it on our website while i was waiting. i know we are under some covid protocols, but my understanding is we still are obligated to allow the public to view plans. you can't get a copy of the plans unless you're the property owner and get permission, but i know that we're open on the ground floor

of the building, and i would say that the director of records management division has to comply with the law of the land, so i would encourage anybody that wants to see the plans to reach out to our records management division at d.b.i., and i can also help with it, too, if needed. thank you. >> president honda: thank you, director. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> president honda: commissioner lazarus, would you like to start or do you have a question? >> commissioner lazarus: no, i would like to start and my inclination is to cut to the chase and make a motion that the permit was properly issued, but i know there'll probably be discussion. >> president honda: i'll second that, but i think commissioner swig has a comment or a question. >> commissioner swig: yes. i support commissioner lazarus,

and i support you. i appreciate very much the public comment that we heard. i very much appreciate the public comment that was made tonight. i understand the lack of trust -- trust that the community and the public might have, but i want to make it clear tonight that this panel is taking the interest of the public at heart as we did during the last hearing, and that hopefully you are comfortable that this bay will be restored, and hopefully you are comfortable that the plans do exist, and hopefully, you are comfortable with the competency and care of d.b.i. and the planning department as we move forward to deny this appeal accordingly. >> president honda: as my

comments, i understand [inaudible] this has been a long and windy road, and i'll also echo what the planning deputy zoning administrator says, which is that one, when you start this road, that lies, pretty much, and mistrust, this is where you get. but be assured, this is the permit that is going to correct it. it's basically echoing what the planning commission said and what this body said last year, is to get this done, for them to restore the bay, and a member of the public described the bay. we already went into length last time, that is not the way that this is going to look because of that additional building. so thank you for everyone's comments, and i believe that commissioner lazarus has a motion on the floor. >> clerk: okay. just for clarity, nothing further from the commissioners? i see two hands raised.

>> president honda: okay. commissioner lazarus and commissioner swig? okay. maybe they didn't put them down. okay. so we have a motion from commissioner lazarus and -- to uphold the permit and deny the appeal because it was properly issued. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay, so that motion is approved, 4-0. and that is all we have. >> president honda: okay. meeting is adjourned. >> clerk: thank you. >> commissioner lazarus: see you next week.

>> once i got the hang of it a little bit, you know, like the first time, i never left the court. i just fell in love with it and any opportunity i had to get out there, you know, they didn't have to ask twice. you can always find me on the court. [♪♪♪] >> we have been able to participate in 12 athletics wheelchairs. they provide what is an expensive tool to facilitate basketball specifically. behind me are the amazing golden state road warriors, which are one of the most competitive adaptive basketball teams in the

state led by its captain, chuck hill, who was a national paralympic and, and is now an assistant coach on the national big team. >> it is great to have this opportunity here in san francisco. we are the main hub of the bay area, which, you know, we should definitely have resources here. now that that is happening, you know, i i'm looking forward to that growing and spreading and helping spread the word that needs -- that these people are here for everyone. i think it is important for people with disabilities, as well as able-bodied, to be able to see and to try different sports, and to appreciate trying different things. >> people can come and check out this chairs and use them. but then also friday evening, from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m., it will be wheelchair basketball we will make sure it is available, and that way people can no that people will be

coming to play at the same time. >> we offer a wide variety of adaptive and inclusion programming, but this is the first time we have had our own equipment. [♪♪♪] platform, it

calling by phone call star 9 to be added to the speaker line. please call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. we recommend that you use zoom or telephone for public comment. thank you to sfgov tv for sharing this meeting with the public. we can start with the roll call. [roll call] >> president bleiman: first orde