francisco. >> shop and dine in the 49 is a cool initiative. you can see the banners in the streets around town. it is great. anything that can showcase and legitimize small businesses is a wonderful thing. . derful thing. >> clerk: president honda will be the presided officer today commissioner lazarus and commissioner jose lopez. also deputy city attorney brad russe will provide any legal advice this evening. and i'm julie rosenberg, the board's executive director. we will also be joined by the

representatives from the state department that will be presenting to the board this evening. scott sanchez, and joseph duffy, acting deputy director for the department of building inspection. the board requests that you turn off and silence all phones so they will not disturb the proceedings. appellants, permit members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each and no rebuttal. to grant an appeal or modify or make a determination. please e-mail board staff at

boardofappeals@sfgov.org. ever effort has been made to replicate the in-person process. sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will have the ability to read public comment on each item of the agenda. to watch the hearing on tv, go to sfgov tv cable channel 78. it will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 p.m. on channel 26. a link to the live stream is found on our website sfgov.org/boa. join the zoom meeting by computer. please go to our website and click on the zoom link or you can call in. 1 (669) 900-6833. and webinar i.d. 89085767376. and once again sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen if you're watching the live stream or

broadcast. to block your phone number when calling in, first dial star 67 then your the phone i couldn't remember. dial star 9 which is the equivalent of raising your hand so we new you want to speak. you will answer two or three minutes. our legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. please note there is a delay between the live stream. therefore, it's very important that people calling in reduce the volume on their tvs or computers. otherwise, there's interference of the meetings. if any of the participants are attending on disabilities, you can make a request in the chat or send an e-mail to

boardofappeals@sfgov.org. the chat cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. now we will swear in and affirm all those who intend to testify. any member of the person without taking an oath. if you intend to testify in any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your and say i do after you've been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear or affirm the testimony will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> i do. >> director: okay. thank you. if you're a participant, and you're not speaking, please put your phone speaker on mute. we will go to item number one which is general public comment. this is for the public to speak on an item that's not on tonight's calendar. is there any members of the public that wishes to speak on items not on tonight's agenda. the caller whose phone number ends in 8217. please go ahead. >> good evening. i affirm what i'm about to say.

good evening to everyone. i sent a video last week on friday, september 17th and it was of the project that was before the board on june 2019 appealing the site permit. at the hearing, it was discovered there wasn't then approved by the planning commission as a three-bedroom subterranean local garage unit did not have for the two to three bedrooms and the unit had become a one-bedroom unit so the board required a redesign that the unit must have three bedrooms. and it took awhile. and it was very difficult and it made a ladder from down there to the upper levels and in the meantime, the original owner sold and i see the video's on the screen now and what i wanted to highlight in

the video were two things. one is that it's the soon to be gone original 19 that's unique to san francisco late mary brown's study. and of our residential neighborhood. the second focus is on the garage level, there's minimal excavation for the ceiling height and there's a second unit on that level. this particular project is allowed to go out post of the 205% rear yard line. so it could have been more than nothing interior space to include three bedrooms, all in one level with the other necessary living space and to maintain a rear yard with soil and greenery which this one

will not have because the rear yard open space will be not much more than a bunker. so i know you deal with excavations and the planning vision doesn't like to deal with excavations. i don't do you think that this project sponsor, it's the second project sponsor. he paid $2 million for it from the original project sponsor back in 2019. this is $2.6 million i've been told just to do this one little subterranean unit that's got questionable livability. so what's my point? my point is this is a very poor template for gentrification whether it's an alteration or demolition. and i know that these things are abstract and abstract to me even though i thought it was going to be kind of crazy, but seeing it in real time right across the street from it. >> 30 seconds. >> thank you. is standing so i encourage you

to talk to mr. longway and if you want to find out where it is, come out and see it because everything should see it for themselves. thank you, everybody have a good evening take care. be well. be safe. bye bye. >> director: thank you. is there anyone else here for general public comment? please raise your hand. if not, then we will move on to item number two, commissioner comments and questions. president honda, we couldn't hear you. >> president honda: i just said none. sorry. >> director: okay. we will move on to item number three. the adoption of the minutes of the september 1, 2021, meeting. >> president honda: may i have a motion to accept those minutes. >> commissioner: i'll make that motion. >> director: okay. is there any public comment on vice president swig's motion to adopt these minutes? if so, please raise your hand.

okay. since there's no public comment on that motion, commissioner lopez, [roll call] okay. so that motion carries 5-0 and the minutes are adopted. we are now moving on to item number 4a through 4d. these are appeal number 21-054. 21-055, 21-057, and 21-058. subject property is 1318 18th street appealing the issuance on june 14th, 2021, to thomas frenkel construct a wood platform over an existing concrete patio. and note on july 28, 2021, the

board voted 5-0 to continue these appeals to september 22nd so that the departments can inspect the subject property to determine what action is necessary to bring the project into compliance with the building and planning codes. and to revise plans that are code compliant and the board further recommended that the deck beset back five feet on each side and i understand that deputy director duffy has inspected the property, so he will address the board first. and, mr. duffy, you have three minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. joe duffy d.b.i. it took me a few weeks to get out to the site. that was due to my schedule to be honest with you but i did get there last week and city brought a senior building inspector mark walls from plan check with me. we did meet with the owner and her architect and another

representative. there were some issues we would have been concerned about on the building code. one of the them it would be if it was going to be used for public use, it would add to the occupant load of the inside of the bar and that would then require some upgrades possible. the other thing would be to the access. it's going to be used full time for public use what's funny about it is the deck itself on top of the existing concrete patio. if it was only to put that decking on top of the patio, it would not require a building permit. however, like i said. that's where the building code would kick in. the areas above the deck level,

the wood structure that's there, it's like a series it's like a trellis or pergala. i also believe at this time they're not willing they're going to give up the right to use that area for public use and they're happy to go through a process to do that. i think that the permit probably, are the permit that they have definitely is a good permit. the one talk of chancing a permit, but i think that we want it to get back to sports tonight. i think they want to start again i'm early with removing everything about the deck and

they're only keeping that area for it would not be a lot for the bar. i'm available for any questions. i do think that the representative of the property wants to address the board as well. >> director: thank you. we have questions from. >> president honda: president honda we couldn't tell how elevated the material was over the ground. and like you said it's just what we would consider a platform and not a deck, correct. and so and i'm glad that you brought that up because, you know, by adding that square footage, that creates zoning and usage issues as well. so i think maybe i will defer

to the project sponsor's representative to define what they want to do going forward. thank you very much. >> director: thank you. vice president swig. we can't hear you. >> commissioner swig: yep. i'm here. so last time we met, it seems that we were trying very hard to not only pay attention to the statute and related items. and ultimately, i felt we were trying to stick a square peg in a round hole. bottom line, mr. duffy, should we just call it a day on this and take your advice to cancel the permit and start a fresh

one because of all the dominos that seem to be shifting and also the square peg in a round hole and vice versa? >> yeah, commissioner swig and president honda. i think that that's what the permit holder wants to do as well to be honest with you. they want to start again on the right foot. i completely understand why they hadn't done this. it was during the time of covid. you know, it's actually a nice space, but you can understand that the infrastructure's foul and i think there's a process they can meet the building code and planning code and keep the neighbors happy as well. but this isn't the permit to do it with. and as i said, we were going to cancel the permit and revoke the permit and start again and we've been back and forth in

the past few days we mails and i think that's the direction he's happy to go with as well. >> commissioner swig: thank you. >> director: we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. so in terms of this permit i would agree with kind of a consensus it'd be best to start over and deny this permit so they can come back and properly permit the structure which would involve moving that overhead element. there's really two issues from a planning perspective on this. first is regarding the proper permitting of the structure that is there. maybe we don't believe it was properly permitted. the proposal then would be to obtain the permit to remove the overhead structure. the only thing remaining would be the platform in the existing patio area and railing around that, that's 42" tall and that

would be code compliant. that would address the structure. the second part of it is the use. currently under the planning code, there would be two paths by which the property, the rear yard could be used as for commercial purposes and we understand from the permit holder that they discontinued commercial use of the rear yard since june. so that violation has been abated to that process. but if they do have a desire to use it in the future, there would be two paths available for them to do that. the standard process for that air area and that would allow the commission to regulate necessary use. the second is that was created over the course of the pandemic which is the shared spaces program. the shared spaces program was

made permanent, however, not all of it was made permanent and so the ability to use the rear yard in this case for a bar would only be allowed under the current temporary share of uses permitting program. any permits issued under that, they're ministerial. i don't know if there will be future limitations to make it permanent. and anything that's approved on shared spaces under private property are 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. lastly, kind of the other potential use of the property under the planning code. those are the regulations, but it could be used as a break area for the employees that work there or for residents

that live in the unit above. that would be allowed under the planning code without any additional permits. i think the most straight forward process would be to revoke this permit and then they can remove the unpermitted overhang and go through the appropriate process to have a use back there should they choose to do so. thank you. >> director: thank you. we have a question from president honda. >> president honda: scott, after hearing the last hearing, it was a little concerning that not only the zone violation, the planning code violations as well as the building code violations and if this permit was going to go forward, i was probably going to suggest an n.s.r. regarding this. what is your opinion on this going forward? >> so right now assuming they want to do it beyond the end of the year, they would need a conditional use authorization from the planning commission and the planning commission would be able to impose, to regulate the use, they would impose an n.s.r. as part of

that process conditioning limiting potentially occupancy, hours of the use in the back. so i think that would be one way of regulating it. so i don't know that, you know, right now the board, you wouldn't have the ability to improve an outdoor activity there because they don't have authorization for that and you can't grant that through this permit. so in terms of a condition, i don't know what the board could impose as a condition there. i guess potentially if the board didn't ever want there to be a smeshl use back there you might be able to impose but i think defer and the public is

committed to doing so. >> director: . thank you. we will now hear from the representative for the permit holder. >> president honda, members of the board, i'm the agent for the property owner thomas frenkel and i see that the operator is also available barbara teiss. looking at it it's real simple. they asked for a permit for the wood platform. as we know now, you do not need a permit for a wood platform that's less than 30". it would have never been a permit. there would have never been a permit. if there wasn't an appeal, we wouldn't be talking right now,

so, yes, we concur with mr. duffy and mr. sanchez. that would take care of this appeal. so under what you're looking at strictly, that's along this road. the other items, i guess it's under notice of enforcement. they will diligently over the next 30 days file for a permit to remove the overhang for the permit and they have ceased using the exterior for the patrons and they have no intention of using it and they will not use it unless they have proper permitting and if it is a conditional use authorization as you know there will be special restrictions that will be recorded. so i'm here for any questions. ms. tiess is here for any

questions you may have in the project. we want to thank you very much and sorry this matter even came in front of you. >> director: okay. thank you. i don't see any questions. so we will now hear from the appellants. mr. rehabinowitz you will go first. >> hi, i'm the appellant. eric rehabinowitz. i want the board to understand the issues. the plans submitted two days before this hearing. there was no mention of correcting all the other building and fire code corrected by electrical wires along the property line. when i asked them for more information, they didn't provide much. one other point i want to bring up here was that we keep talking about this like how much is it above ground. there's a over 100" wall that's covered in concrete, that's a

big deck. essentially, they put a deck on top of that. so it's towering. this is not like a few inches above ground that we're talking about. in any case, i fully support inspector duffy's statement that a new permit be required and d.b.i. can review a plan with the rear yard and its original condition without trying to figure out all of the violations and building and planning codes. the board should not have to spend more energy on this illegal construction and the building applied for after the fact. following inspector duffy's recommendation, please object the permit on appeal and order the legal construction. the permit should first be reviewed by the planning department. plan checked by d.b.i. so it can be properly vetted to ensure planning codes, buyer codes, and building codes are all met. last point i want to make is that a major planning code violation that i see no action on is the denial of the second floor dwelling to the tenant's

usable open space, the back yard. the removal of the stairwell was done without permit and noticed two neighbors that was never provided or granted by the neighbors. thank you. i'm done. >> director: thank you. we have a question from vice president swig. >> commissioner swig: i'm going to ask a question not directed to the appellant but on behalf of the appellant to mr. duffy or mr. sanchez and that is you heard from the appellant that there's concern about related issues, he listed them including the second floor situation. when this permit assuming this permit is seems to be the way we're going is revoked or canceled, and assuming that this happened and it happens and the property owner calls

for a new permit. will all of the items that the appellant is listing, will they all be taken into account as part of the second issuance of the permit? mr. duffy, you can answer if you want since most of them are d.b.i.s. >> i think actually, the issue of the deck. there's an exception of the san francisco building code on the deck. there is a platform. and we consider that a deck. 30" or less above ground does not require a building permit. so if you've got a flat back yard and you're on grade and you want to put a low level deck on there like you see people put decks on top of, you see it all the time, the san francisco code doesn't side for that. when you go down to the rear

yard, you basically can see the concrete patio right below the deck. so the gentleman mentioned that there's a 10' wall, well, we go from the ground level and the ground level in my opinion is the concrete patio unless i'm missing something. you know, if they want to keep a low-level deck on top of that patio, again, i have to reiterate, as long as it's not for public use because once you start putting people in there, the occupant and the building code kicks in and that means you have the ability to house more people inside a converted space. businesses 49 or less. once you go over that, it's about 750' of floor area where customers can stand. the deck in the rear yard would just be separate of the inside of the bar. >> president honda: deputy director. sorry to interrupt you.

but i think vice president swig's question was that an egress from the secondary unit above was removeded without benefit of permit and how is that going to be dealt with. now that that's been removed, you now need a 311 notification. was that your question, vice president swig? >> commissioner swig: i just want to see how the dominos were going to fall. thanks for being so detailed on that, mr. president, as well as the alleged electrical and plumbing issues that might exist. >> sorry, vice president swig. in my opinion, they were not brought up and they can be looked at by d.b.i. and also follow up with the inspector there. we have a building inspector. we're more than happy to do

that. [inaudible] plumbing can be dealt with separately. the unit was not made require egress on a single unit and our fire escape, but if the code does not require that in my opinion and however it was removed and it wasn't documented, it probably should be on any future permit going forward. >> commissioner swig: so, in summary, and this was asked on behalf of the appellant and for my information as well. if there are any concerns by the appellant of any other problem issues that he suspects, then the proper protocol for that appellant to inform d.b.i. or planning is to request to file a notice of violation or submit some

information which might result in a notice of violation, correct? >> yeah. you would file the complaint with dbi and i can look into it. if mr. sanchez is going to speak to answer his planning part, let me look up and see if we already received any plumbing or electrical in the last few months. >> president honda: okay. deputy zoning administrator. you've been waiting patiently. >> thank you. i usually don't wait patiently. i appreciate the appellant's comments and information about the stair removal. we were not aware of that. that's something we were looking into. it is an issue for usable open space. there hasn't been egress, that would be something for d.b.i. and it sounds like that would be okay. but for accessing the open space. had there been stairs accessing

the back yard. removal of those stairs would require a variant because you'd be using that code required open space: i had looked into this and looked at some past aerial photos going back a few years. i did not see a stair there, so if the appellant has any information along those lines, they can e-mail it to me. scott.sanchez@planning.org. >> director: thank you. we will hear from the next appellant, mr. bill johnson. mr. johnson, you have three minutes. mr. johnston are you with us? >> here i am. thank you. good evening, everyone. it sounds like the direction of

starting over on the platform is going forward so i'm not going to belabor that. i think that is the right decision and the right direction. i don't have a lot to add from my july 28th statement. just two points that i do want to make again on the platform that's being proposed. if you look at the building just to the east of the platform, there is a double hung window that is about 35" above that platform and if the platform butts up to that property, i don't understand, it seems to be not an acceptable way to have a commercial platform next to a building. so that again i'm sure the building department and planning would look at that,

but i wanted to just go back to the july 28th hearing that after the presentations by everyone and the board discussion, president honda stated that the board was leading to not allowing any patron use of the back area into perpetuity and that no subsequent proposition or motion would change this position and i believe this is correct and appropriate action and encourage the board of appeals to make their decision in order of use. this order would safeguard into the future that blooms or any subsequent business owner tenant would not be able to encroach on the privacy of the residential backspaces. so i'd like that to be considered and thank you for the time. >> director: thank you. we will now hear from michael

magnuson. >> thank you. i guess i'm a little concerned by some of the comments made tonight. i'm just concerned that somehow this is going to be history repeating itself in the future and i thought it would be helpful to use my time to reiterate how we got here as quickly as i can. this rear yard is in a private residential area that's not appropriate for noisy commercial activity. and blooms has never had the ability to use their rear yard for patrons. it was never for patron use. they went ahead and built an illegal deck and served bar patrons on it regularly for six months. they did it without seeking approval from the neighbors of any kind. then, when we checked in with them about it really trying to be patient to support our local businesses, we were assured this was a temporary measure to get through the remainder of

the pandemic. we agreed as good neighbors to make that temporary sacrifice. then in june, just as the pandemic imposed restrictions were being lifted, they tried to retroactively legalize the structure and doing this, they lied to city personnel by not indicating it had already been built. then, back in july, we all gathered here for my recollection, the better part of three hours during which time one of the things they stated is that it has been their intention all along to serve bar patrons on the deck. we then shared that the neighbors, basically our experience being unpleasant and unsustainable experience of what it's like to have a public bar move into your private back yard and the degree to which that affects the livability of our homes for us and our children and bedrooms are basically hearing barroom conversation, i was glad at

that time to hear commissioner swig state he would really like the neighbors to be able to resume our quiet use of our homes and that the deck should be limited to storage and employee breaks and never drinking, smoking, or hanging out. i appreciated that commissioner lazarus thought the cleanest thing to do was no patron use. president honda's summary of the board by concluding the board was using no patron use and from what i see here, nothing has changed. the only thing that happened was bloom's was asked to file some permits which they failed to do by the deadline. then when they did, they still have open questions about whether they can even be legal in the first place, but nothing has changed in regards to the use of this property and the appropriateness of having bar patrons back here. so i would urge the board to please fall your own conclusion from the previous meeting by making this a permanent outcome of this hearing that this is

not for patron use. thank you. >> director: thank you. commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner lazarus: i actually have a question for our deputy city attorney, so i'll stand back if anybody has questions for this appellant. okay. mr. rossy before we get too far down the road, if our action is to simply uphold the appeals and deny the permit, it doesn't seem to me that we can go a whole lot further in what other restrictions we might want to impose because all we're doing is revoking a permit. so i'd just like to hear your thoughts on that, please. >> good evening, commissioners. brad russe deputy city attorney. commissioner lazarus, in response to your question, i would agree that the board revoke the permit that they cannot place conditions on that particular action.

i would further to follow up on that as explained by mr. sanchez, the use of the deck by patrons for commercial use is already prohibited. so if the bar were continue to do that, they would be in violation of the planning code. >> commissioner lazarus: thanks. >> director: thank you. we have another hand raised. >> president honda: president honda sorry. i want to kind of piggy back on commissioner lazarus's question. if we take that and putting that condition into perpetuity understanding but an n.s.r. is a way to cross the t. and put a period at the end of that sentence. >> commissioner honda, i think it depends on what action the board takes with respect to the permit, whether the permit is

going to be granted in some respect, then i guess it either could be potentially an n.s.r. added to the -- >> president honda: what's before us is simply the platform or the deck permit. it's not anything to do with the canopy or anything else, so we can grant that permit because it actually probably didn't even need a permit, but since it's in front of us we can grant that permit and condition the permit with a notice of special restrictions. >> director: i believe the permit is not code compliant, president honda, under the building and planning codes. >> president honda: i see mr. sanchez raising his hand. >> essentially, we know what the resolution is in termings of the code compliance that it involves the removal of that overhead structure and affirming that the use of that

does not allow commercial use. so i think the board maybe don't have everything that you would need to take that action tonight, but i would refer to your deputy city attorney and deputy director. it maybe proper for the board to grant the appeal, remove the revised plans that remove the overhead structure that the platform itself doesn't need a permit, part of the conditions that are out there. the height of the railing. you know, all of those could be documented and then the board could perhaps impose conditions relative to the use, restricting the use only to usable open space for the unit above and for, you know, breaks and not for commercial activity, that would be consistent with current code. you wouldn't be allowing something that doesn't comply with current code. you would be reinforcing that and if they ever wanted to change that condition in the future, i would refer to your deputy city attorney as to how that can be done.

but i assume it would be back to the board of appeals. >> president honda: thank you for clarifying that, mr. sanchez. >> director: okay. we will now hear from the next appellants. mr. yasuda and ms. sato. >> nancy and i have the same concerns on the plans to use the back patio area. we agree with the preliminary findings after that last board of appeals meeting on july 28th. they revealeded the use of the deck in 2021 did not have temporary use authorizations. bloom's never applied for or received conditional use and never received use for shared spaces as well and, ochg, it did not comply with the building permit, they did not have a building permit when they built it and even what they did build was in violation. without this background, my concern was this last

discussion we just had about the existing deck that can be there as a deck, but, you know, it's calling out the elm at that point elephant in the room. that's been there what they've been doing all along is kind of nibbling away at the rules to allow them to get access. my question, this is actually a question, first of all to planning and inspection, but if they later apply for a t.u.a. or a conditional use permit to use that outside area for commercial use, then what i heard is the deck they have is now is no longer legal because it was only legal if it was just a deck for use by the residents of the upper unit, but, in fact, if it's for commercial use, then they have to comply with the other code regulations. so i'd like a response to that after i speak. my broader comment, bloom's has shown to me a problematic

behavior. building a deck without a permit. misleading the permit application failing to acknowledge patron use and even using the t.u.a. really for bar commercial use, not community use as i think the intent is of the t.u.a. and so my question is that if they do not use the area for commercial use, no problem. to me, it's always been clearly evident that even with this ruling to remove the structure, that's, you know, in their interest to do that. so i would like to go back to again what president has said earlier about trying to eliminate the use of commercial use in perpetuity and just piggy backing on scott's comments, what i heard him say is that there is a permit required for the roof structure. so with that, i would like them to tag that with an n.s.r. to

eliminate any future commercial use of that area. so that's my request for the board. thank you. >> director: thank you. we are now moving on to public comment. is there anyone here to provide public comment on this item? please raise your hand. i see one hand raised. ms. sharon tetlo, please go ahead. >> is it working? >> director: yes. all right. >> thank you. so i just want to say first of all thank you for the last hearing and for the inclination to prevent further public use of bar patrons on the back deck. and i support everything the four appellants shared. i wanted to point out that the

permit says "a back deck above a concrete deck" and what was built was far more, not just the roof structure, but please note there's at least a 10' or 12' high wall which sounds like it's higher than 48" and i would love for the board of appeals and the building department to address the legitimacy of that. also, i'll point out that over the last two weeks, bloom's has turned their phone off so nobody can contact them when the noise gets too high and i think this contributes to the history of disingenuous behavior with respect to bloom's. so i would really support what the other appellants, what the appellants have pled for which is a mechanism to permanently keep bloom's from having the moral hazard, the risk that they seem to find so irresistible of serving bar

patrons on the back deck. thank you. >> director: okay. thank you. is there any other public comment for this item? please raise your hand. okay. seeing none. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> president honda: so commissioners, would anyone like to start this off? no one? >> commissioner: i'll go. if nobody else volunteers. do we do the simple l thing which is to fine for the appellant which would sustain the permit and let nature take its course or do we go a more complex route and try to put everything into a basket while

approving a permit which nobody seems to be excited about. so i think the simple way and now that everything has been disclosed, i mean, this horse is pretty out of is art and in public testimony, d.b.i. is now aware that there are possible plumbing, electrical, and other building infringements. planning is clearly aware that there may be some things that were built illegally and don't pass muster under any circumstances. clearly, planning is aware there hasn't been not only intention but an actual illegal use of putting patrons on a platform or deck, whatever you want to call it and which is against the planning code. so all these horses are out of the barn. so i feel comfortable that we simply go in a direction of

holding the appeal and suspending the permit and then let the protocol take its course because i'm sure they'll be lots of eyes on all these elements that have been fully exposed in testimony. >> president honda: commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner lazarus: i want to second what vice president swig just offered. i would offer one correction. it's not suspending the permit, it will be revoking the permit and they will have to start all over and as you say, there will be all kinds of watchful eyes on this and it's pretty clear we've heard from city staff that there are rules and regulations on how this can be used and under what circumstances. so my inclination is to go with a simple granting of the appeal and of the permit. >> president honda: is that a

motion? >> we haven't heard from anybody else. >> president honda: i think that's a great motion. i just want to add my two cents in. i think unfortunately, we're in some challenging times and businesses have to do what they have to do to keep their businesses afloat. i just see a repeat history of bad practice and poor neighbor relations. an n.s.r. would curtail that indefinitely, but if the board is inclined to make that motion, i would support that as well. i'm just not sure, like i said, they violated the zoning planning building without any regard and so what's to stop them from trying to do this again and going and applying for the permit. but again, vice president has mentioned what he thought and you did as well commissioner

lazarus. go ahead and make your motion. i would support that as well. >> commissioner lazarus: okay. i will move to grant the appeal and deny the permit on the basis that it was not properly issued. what might be the right? >> director: does not comply with the building and planning codes. >> commissioner lazarus: perfect. yes. >> director: okay. we have a motion to grant the appeal and overturn the permit in that it does not comply with the building and planning code. on that motion, [roll call] so that motion carries 5-0. thank you. we are now moving on to the next item which is item number five. tim louie versus the department of building inspection.

july 19th, 2021, to richard ruhland and rhonda cartwright of an alteration permit roof gutter siding sidewalk to comply with complaint. this is permit number 202107194604 and we will hear from the appellant first. i believe the appellant's attorney maddie vax is present. welcome. >> hi, good evening. my name is madelyn vax and i represent the -- i represent tim louie whose family owns 120 dorcas way. mr. louie is the appellant in this case. today, i am asking the board to revoke the building permit that was granted to the permit

holder the department of inspection and when work is outside the scope of the permit, it's not allowed. to remedy an encroachment. the permit holder is now proposing to do new work with new plan which would exceed the scope of his existing permit which is the permit at issue in this appeal. we had hopes to resolve this during the party's prior hearing but were not able to do so and the contractor for the permit holder who is acting as their representative did not wish to continue the matter so dpoo it the fact we're attempting to settle. so i'm here to request that the board of appeals revoke this permit. i'd like to share my screen.

and show. can you see that? so this is the work at issue. this is the photo of the southern wall of the permit holder's property and the encroachment is the butter and the down spout that running along new siding. the gutter and the down spout are attached to the permit holder's property, but encroached over the property line onto appellant's property. next, i will show a copy of the survey. this survey -- >> director: you can pause your time if you need. alex, please. >> yeah. you have to get out of one. >> okay. i'm just trying to make it a little bigger. >> director: we can't see the survey right now.

we just see the siding with the pipe. alex. >> yeah. you have to get out of the one slide to get to the next one. >> i object to this survey. >> director: excuse me. you cannot object at this time. >> okay. >> director: you'll have an opportunity when it's your time to present. so please don't interrupt. okay. please resume the time. >> time resuming. >> thank you. so this is the survey which definitively show that this work is an encroachment. the property line is indicated by the black line in the center of the survey. the permit holder is to the north of the property line and my client is the southerly part of the drawing. as you can see, the gutter is encroaching about 5" and the

drainpipe is also encroaching by 3". and the siding in the last photo is exactly flush with the property line. sorry. i just have one more slide. >> director: can you pause the time please, alex. >> time is paused. >> director: thank you. >> thank you. so this is a notice of violation that was issued on june 29th for the unpermitted work that was performed by an unlicensed contractor and the work obviously crossed my client's property and to abate the notice of violation, i'll just go to the bottom, the permit holder was required to hire a licensed contractor to secure required permit, to

correct violation, and to schedule inspections. so to hear the first part of the violation, the contractor who initially did this work in an unpermitted way without a license, got his license reinstated. second, the permit holder was required to secure the necessary permit and those permits is the permit that's at issue here and the permit holder got on july 19th and a plumbing permit was also required but it's not the subject of this appeal. third, the permit holders were required to correct violation including the encroachment that is indicated in this notice of violation which is shown up above here and when i approached the contractor about the removal, he told me that my client was actually encroaching over the permit holder's property line and that he would not comply with this notice of violation requiring him to

remove the encroachment until we acquired a survey. so we went out and got the survey. and, finally, he was required to schedule inspection. these have not been done because of this appeal. so when it became clear that the permit holder would not remove the encroachment until we provided a survey which established that his unpermitted and unlicensed work was an encroachment, we filed this appeal on the additional work being done. the contractor has since agreed to remove the encroachment, but the parties have not reached an agreement for access and the party is proposing new work with new plan. the new work will exceed the scope of the permit at issue. please revoke this permit. the permit holder has new plans that need to be submitted to d.b.i. and he is proposing new work. he needs a new permit that describes the scope of the work. we've been meeting and conferring and he intends to do so, but we don't want work

allowed to be continued while we figure out the issue. thank you. >> director: thank you. we have a question from president honda. >> president honda: so by your last name, is this the first appearance of the next generation of the zacks going on here to the board of appeals? >> some would say that is happening right here. >> president honda: i just want to give you a warm welcome. >> thank you. >> director: okay. thank you. we will now hear from agents of the permit holder mr. coleman, you have seven minutes. >> thank you. so the objective here has been to and remains the health and safety of the occupants at 120 dorcas. because of the water intrusion at that property, we thought it was necessary to fully address the troubled area and circumvent the problem while improving the design of the original construction. now, i have discovered that this whole problem has become a

monumental issue and much to do about nothing as far as it seems to me. i have personally reached out to discuss with the appellant as well as their attorney and even one step further to ask the assistance of the district supervisor's office whose staff member ms. fiber called the appellants directly to attempt to discuss a resolution only to receive a less than warm reception from mr. louie. [please stand by]

and create a worse problem for 120 dorcas and the occupants. the fact remains that this work is unfinished and the work may cause further water intrusion to the tenants home at 120 dorcas as well as a roof water draining into the light well and unconnected downspouts that do not run into the sewer system as required by his san francisco plumbing code. possible water running onto the street will cause apedestrian walking hazard . this is clearly a health and safety issue and for that reason we need to work together to resolve this issue as well as reasonable satisfaction to all parties and alec, if you would showthe drawing that i

sent you . this shows that we propose to do that's the white well . and you can see the siding that's on the house comes out about three inches, so it's right at theproperty line . we would take off that section of siding and put the pipe right to it. it would be like cutting a piece of siding on theoutside. we have a permit to work on the siding of the light rail , we don't see that being a big issue and i'm sure we could go down and modified the permit or add an addendum to the permit. i'm sure you could comment on that mister duffy if you need to but we're trying to do everything we canto resolve this to keep this property say . if you go to the next slide you'll see we have a custom madegutter flush to the stucco . take that siding off the side

and tie it to the downspouts. those do not tie into the system because we can't work over there. i would love to finish this thing off and get this off my plate and everybody's plate and i'm willing to dowhat's necessary and i'm looking for help , please . thank you >> thank you. anybody else have aquestion ? >> the first one is what communications you have or did the plant have with the neighboring property of the appellants prior to doing the work? >> are you speaking to me? what we did was we came up and introduced myself and i introducedmyself to the carpenter so we got a roofer coming . we're going to start this work today or tomorrow and we should be finished either 30th.

are going to need access to your property on your side. is that okay? mister louis said come by anytime and the carpenter's name is ben. i am then and we both laughed aboutit . we've got the same name so we did that prior to starting anything. >> the issue i had after reading the brief is how isthe work performed and evidently the appellant allowed you to do work on his property . i see that a piece of the fence was removed of the appellant's property. was that explained that you would be altering his property? >> technically now that we have asurvey that's been introduced , it shows we have three inches from the building. so that's technically the property so that three inch cut for that pipe is actually my clients property at 120 dorcas.

>> if you look at the piece that was cut out it looks like more than four inches. >> who said that? >> it looks likethere's a four inch removal from that fence . >> it could be. i didn't measure that. i think it's three inches because it's very tight to the pipe and the pilot is a three inch pipe . i wasn't therebecause we hired a sheet-metal guide to come out and do the work . we hired a roofer. we hired a carpenter. frankly this was the perfect storm where everybody was available before the holidays beforethey left for the fourth of july weekend . >> san francisco has zero lot lines and the appellant has performed a survey. is your client plate paying for

a survey as well or are you accepting their survey? >> we haven't seen a filed survey. that's the draft. but i'm sure that's a valid survey, my client would probably accept it. i think that would be reasonable. >> thank you counselor. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planningdepartment . >> nothing to add. really no planningissues here so i defer to the deputy director . >> no glasswork, i don't see that very often. >> thank you. we will hear from the department ofbuilding inspection . >> this is chair duffy. the building permit, the description on the permit report from dvi is that roof gutter sidewalk comply with the

gutter, downspouts and a clearing roof and the light well.july 19, 2021, suspended on july28, 2021 . a few things there on the permit. dvi requires as both the civil code that all worktake place within your own property .and you know, the downspouts includes roofing and includes flushing. as you know we speak about it a lot. they want to do the work inside theirown property but for some reason the downspouts on the pipe ended up on the other side . we did have an anotice of violation from our plumbing

inspection division. it was , there were permits and the last two weeks our inspector had mentioned we had emails back and forth from miss jackson i believe to her office and the inspector spoke with someone and assured them that the downspouts or any of the work would take place inside 120 dorcas way. i think one of the issues, it sounds like the gentleman want to do that but in order to do the work , he's going to have to do it from the other side probably. that's probably a bigger problem because of access and now we've got an appeal and bad blood here.in my experience with light rails are if you've got a light rail, it's on the insideand the roofing , your allowing water out but the

light rail on the roofing, you would rub it down on the inside.that might be hard for them to do, it's easy for me to say but typically we don't see downspouts goingover the building on to someone else's property . there is a way there as well for them to diverge onto their side and then as i said run into the drain. i'm just giving you my experienceover the years . i'm a property owner myself and i know that the right light rail, that's how it works. dvi are happy to resolve to get this worked out. if there's water leaking into the property they want to get it fixed assoon as possible but they have to do it rub the rightway . >> we dohave a question from president honda .

>> inspector duffy , it's probably finishing here below and that maybe the challenge to the drainage. what is your opinion regarding the permit properly issued or not? >> my big question, the reason i said i read it from the permit support, i did see i think the permit was onthe breakers well. it's not a great description for work or it does sound like they want to do something with the gutter. they want to replace the gutter downspout and replace the roofing and the light rail . [inaudible] if he wants to get another permit to do some siding work or the outlet for the water comingoff the light rail will be inside the wall, i would understand that the

problem is going to be access to be able to do the work . that would probably be a third way of going forward. and if he does need another additional permitreplaced , removed and replaced some siding, they can get that permit. [inaudible] does say the word siding on the permit but i don't know what that means . >> as we've both been on the board, you've been on the board longer than i have we've seen it where zero outlines do not allow anyone to enter the property and it's been quite messy and generally we recommend for them to sit down and have a conversation and work things out and try to avoid the department and this board. as far as the permit that's here before, the survey that was done which i believe it was

just done recently and there's three inches according to the survey for the other property and then it goes three inches into the appellant's property. do you think that bill says drainage for that pipe is to be considered co-compliant and not being onsomebody else's property ? >> dvi tries to stay out of that. >> i don't meanto put you on the spot . >> very good question. it comes up a lot at dvi. if we are given a survey as pointed out where that property line is i think obviously anything on whichever side the word is taking place on if it's on their property than it is allowed. i don't know where that three inches is but we try to stay out of the survey war because that'sgoing to have to be civil

and they can go to litigation . i could go to some of the people in his office said on issues like this and they can get messy and very drawn out and long and i hope that doesn't happen in this case because i think we've got a lake in the light rail that needs tobe fixed . i would encourage them to figure this out. this is not a big deal. get togetherand get it figured out . that's the board ofappeals having to bring this to the board of appeals i think is pretty sad actually . >> clerk: we willnow move on to public comments, anyone here to provide public comment on this item , please raise your hand . i don't see any public comment so we will move on to remodel. miss dax you have three minute

. >> i wanted to touch on one pointfirst of all i'd like to see my client completely contests the fact that there was any communication before the initial work was done . we maintain that mister holman trespassed under onto my husband property to do this work and in addition inspector duffy mentioned that the idea here is always to do things the right way and we believe based on mister holman showing new plans to do new work there needs to be a new permit so we can documenteverything that goes on . like president honda noted there was a fence that was cut out. mister pullman's subcontractors continue to do workafter the permitwas finished and we had to file another complaint about that . there was damage done to my clients fence or flower bed in front of the property by subcontractors that were there . we understand all of the

problems with the water. we understand we're about to get treatments, we just don't want this work to continue on this permit because it doesn't and captain encapsulate what is going to be done . >> clerk: we have a question from president honda. >> president:your client had a survey performed and due to what was presented three inches from the property line is where the survey marker lands, is that correct ? >> a portion at issue here is the downspout and the gutter and the gutter is about five inches off the property and that'sthree inches over the property line .>> given that fact i see your client extends all the way to his walls so that means your client is encroaching into that survey as well . >> it's not encroaching, it's on the property line. >> i didn't see a three inch gapbetween the property line or

between the permit holders property and your fence . do you understand what i'm saying? if you're telling me there's three inches that are in there, that means your client is encroaching onto the neighbors property if that's correct . as acting deputy director duffy said when you run a survey you take arisk of hearingsomething you don't want to know . at this point , my suggestion really is that you guys sit down and talk because this is going to be messy as you don't have to let him on your property but you guys live next to each other . if your survey says three inches, i can see that the catch on top is evidently higher or wider than three inches. i think at this point you guys

should figure this out because i can't tell what's beforeus is if this permits properly issued and potentially it isn't at this point . >> we will now hear from mister coleman, you have 2 minutes. >> i want to say we are happy to remove that gutterand that downspout . maddie's office has stipulated in their letter to us that they would allow access for us to remove the encroachment. so if that's the only argument that encroaching we will do that. we just need to tie the downspout in to run the roof drains off into the super system. and i'm happy to work with her. if we have to work through her , whoever i need to talk to to get this done i'm happy to do it. i just want to get things thin

done and over with and completed . >> clerk: we will now hear from thedepartment of building inspection . >> joe duffy at dvi i'd just add i'm glad to hear they want to try to get it sorted out . dvi can help as well if needed but i'll try and appoint someone to help them with itif they need our help . i do think they're upset on either side, if they want to see the board of supervisor to help with all this but at the end of the day we all are trying to work together in the city on these issues and that came on my radar about a week ago but there's nothing wrong with that contact at this point. >> clerk: thankyou, commissioners is this matter

submitted ? >> president: commissioner lazarus, please go ahead. >> basically i don't want to touch this. i want to continue it and have the parties meet and confer and certainly with the presence of inspector duffy and come back to us with a resolution or potentially even the permit gets pulled and onethat's more appropriate getsissued . but thishouse just got too many wrinkles that i don't think we can sort out tonight . that'swhere i am . >> amazing advice asusual . >> i don't know about that . >> i would confer. i'll get to you in a second wreck. honestly i was prepared just to deny the permit or deny the appeal and let them work it out but i think having them meet and giving us some time later for resolution would probably be the best idea and that's why

we have that course. rick, go ahead. okay,commissioner lazarus . we will let you take the podium andmake your motion and ask everyone when the best time is . >> i'm going to make a motion to continue it but i would appreciate some input from the parties as to how long they think it might take and i don't thinkit should be very long . and also madame executive director any recommendations? >> we have space on our october 6 calendar but other than that it's going to have to be delayed probably till november because we have busy calendars. so mister coleman? >> that's my concern because we are getting into the rainy season so i'd like to be able to move forward. i'm ready to resolve this thing now. i've never seen anybody have to

submit drawings for a light rail being repaired. i used to be in the construction business for years and i got out of the business 30 years ago. >> we're just asking when you want it to continueto and you're saying you don't want it continued .>> i would like to have a hearing as soon as possible >> october 6 is our next availablehearing . >> that's fine for us . >> perfect. >> what about inspector duffy because he's a pretty key player, will he have time? >> inspector duffy had his hand upfirst for a quick second there . >> joe duffy, i was going to mention the rainy season as well. it's a matter of opinion this can be done and ithappens all the time . i'm just hoping someone can be better at getting this work done.

they can later on me and i'm happy to help out or give it to someone i think can. >> not to addmore work to your plate but if they aim to resolve this they could get the work done in advance and tell us a, we figure this out . >> they can't do the work when the permit is suspended but they can to get back to you on the october 6 thing that they've agreed on a path forward. ifit's only a matter of replacing some siding , i don't know what the plans are needed for. they may need just a set of plans between themselves but dvi does not need a book helping permit or a set of plans for removing and replacing siding. that would involve the parties. it's usually an agreement worked out between members of theleague that caused damage to the property when they're working on it, on the roof, whatever they're doing . i can't remember the wordfor

that now but it's usually a nice agreement between the property owners . when you got to paint your wall or it happens all the time. but it's similar to that. >> president: commissioner lazarus, i'll let you to continue with your motion. >> if they do reach a agreement and the permit issufficient is it still possible for them to withdrawthe appeal or does it have to come back ? maybe madame executive director . >> they can withdraw theappeal . >> i'm going to move to continue this item until october 6 with the expectation that the parties will meet and confer and attempt to resolve the remaining issues. >> on that motion to continueto october 6, commissioner lopez . [roll call vote] motion carries

5 to 0 on this matter. did you want to allow for furtherbriefing or any documents to besubmitted ? president honda . maybe a one-page statement. >> president: this is pretty simple and may rely on if they come to agreement. >> if the parties can submit a one-page statement double spaced by 3 pm on the friday prior to thehearing outlining their position >> president: thank you . moving on to item number six, appeal 21 068, department of building inspection, subject of property is 1560 lake street appealing the issueand on july 13th , and alterations permit to comply with mlb 201-98-4482,

revised roof framing only at stairway to fourth floor, relocate bathroom on first floor, add new gym room, reconfigure master bath and closet, and one powder room on second floor, remove proposed skylight on roof plan reference permit application 2019 01251296. permit number 201-911-0767 10. >> i am a partner in the project that has hired the law firm of rubin andjunior that appears before this body and will not have any effect on my decision . >> thank you and forthis particular case , the planning department has asked the party if scott sanchez could speak first given his review of the situation out there at the property and it's my

understanding the properties have agreed to this so we will hear from scott sanchez first and then from mister dratler and mister tunnet. >> the property of 1550 to 1552 lake street is located in our zoning district, barely compact lot 75 feet deep. these comments will focus on my review of the plans and the materials. unfortunately i didn't receive the appellant's work until last week but i reviewed it last night and there are numerous issues andconcerns raised about the plan . idid find and agree with some of the issues that were raised . i spoke with those parties today and they were okay with me going first to explain to the board the issues with the permit that i couldfurther later if there were any questions . a couple issues unrelated to

construction costs, that's for dvi to determine but one question was raised about storage count. permit that is three stories with no basement but there are clearly four levels on the plan. it'sa relatively minor error but some of the issues are a bit more consequential . i think the plans don't accurately show work at the rear fagade with regard to windows and doors not accurately showing work. that seems to have already been done. a creation of the door shown on the plans but a different location than what's on the plan compared to the photo that the appellant submitted. the appellant's raised concerns about the amount of interior demolition under the planning code. if you demolish 75 percent of theinterior walls , the appellant's materials didn't have a lot of concrete information on this and the

parties had to discuss this part but just before the hearing i spoke with deputy director duffy who showed me the mlb for this permit and it stated 80 percent of the interior frame was removed at eachlevel so that you section 312 notification . there's an issue regarding what is purported to the ... purported to be an interior connection between the third and fourth floors on an earlier plan set. it actually requires exterior work. it's this connection that penetrates through the attic at an angle up into this kind of funky penthouse like rear two rooms at the fourth level and that results in an extension of the building envelope that is inaccurately depicted in the plans but that would require section 311. in total there are significant errors here at this permit

doesn't accurately document work but it also discloses a 311 notice which was not performedbecause that was improperly indicated on the plans . i think i can briefly state that they discussed with both parties similar to the k-3 case that a remedy would be to grant the appeal, denied a permit and they can start over with the appropriate permits consolidating all of the work. there are other issues that were raised in the appellant's brief but they do issue more for dvi those are some of the initial findings i wanted to delay. everyone understands our issues with this permit and now there's more question for all parties to how to resolve that and move forward so that's it, i'm available for questions. >> what a surprise, i have one.

the permit slot, i saw that in the previews that this was going to be an issue. so your department's recommendation is that this permit be denied and for them to start from scratch. >> i don't see any other way around it. i don't know. i think that's the most straightforward path. another option essentially is if they have a way to revise theproject , there is no other way because if they remove more than 75percent of the interior wall undo that . >> 311 can't be undone though they would have to start that as the beginning first step. >> they would start over with a new permit inspeaking with humidity director duffy , they should consolidate, there's potential issues with other half permits, they have three otherpermits on it . it's really to have a new consolidated permit that shows the entire scope of work here

and supersedes those previous permits. >> i see your hand up rick but i think the best case is that both have allowed to speak first. maybe we can ask the appellant and permit holder if that's what they want to do becausei think at this point no matter what we hear , this case is more than likely the permit will be denied no matter what. >> the appellant may have things to add. >> vicepresident . >> our hands are tied.we can't doanything tonight . we've clearly disclosed that the legislatively, any which way we can't look atanything because already the laws have been broken so our hands are tied . this is your position. >> your hands are tied in that the only thing we would say you can do is to that permit.

>> that would be my next question and this really happens. >> i do know the parties, i wonder if mister drummond would like to address the board. >> i will ask the permit holder first. then theappellant second . given the testimony that was given by the planning department, what is your position at this point ? >> beginning with mister honda, i'm happy with the permit holder. we agree with the recommendation overall. and like to ask a question if i could for the record because it's going to be an important issue going forward planning department staff did calculations of the interior demolition and found it to be

below 75 percent. i didn't know if the zoning administrator had separately addressed this with department staff in addition to what the building department found in terms of demolition or where we stand with that. was the planningdepartment analysis incorrect ? >> analysis upon the figures that are stated on the plan that i think maybe we have a concern that if dvi made a finding that the present had been demolished that the plans show far less than that. then that's a concern. i think at the end of the day it needs the notice because of the stair. >> understood. just in case it's important going forward and. >> sorry to interrupt you counselor but youcan address

that . there's other things to be said on the building envelope which require . >> thank you. >> the same questions are.>> can you hear me? >> yes we can. >> i agree the permit permit should be revoked. my preferencewould be revoked the other two permits . the scope of the things that have happened here are just enormously profound. when you look at senior inspectors like micu's letter, he basically said the demolition was succeeded on everysingle floor . the other thing is the property owners had 11 complaints in three years. the first complaint was in july 2018. that deals with the and ob.

they've done nothing in 36 months to address it and the city leaned the property. the other thing, my biggest complaint is the scope of the illegal work has led to some real life safety issues. >> i'm sorry, are we going to haveyour presentation , we just ask thequestion . >> you for bringing my scope back. my concern is that we go beyond the current permit because i'm enormously concerned that all the illegal work has created a building with safety issues. how do we get those life safety issues addressed and how do we understand the condition of the building before the entertainer plans. >> sorry to interrupt you mister dratler.

as the department just said that they have issues with other permits on the property so this point, i believe it's the department's position and they can come in after that once we revoke this going to have to start fresh from the very beginningthere's not going to be , were going to let you keep the permit. so the question here really is to you for the department to start fresh because we're going to revoke this permit anyway, so did you want to go forward or would you be okay if we made a motion in advance right now? >> i would support the motion with the condition . >> i think we need to go in order here. the first answers went first. we're going to now here i believe mister duffy, did you wantto weigh in on this ? going out of order here but i think we should.

>> i apologize for doing that. i just said that because i felt likejust going in that direction anyway . >> i understand. i believe commissioner lazarus. >> go ahead, sorry about that. >> i just want to point out we have one permit andone permit onlybefore us . that's what the motion will be about . since we have gone out of orde , the parties agreed mister sanchez goesfirst. it would make sense to have mister duffy chime in now or mister dratler . >> that's what i asked if he was willingto go ahead and forgo , wherehaving the hearing questions . we know the amenable ending of this that we would go ahead and vote on the fact of revoking this permit. and he says you would, he would

like conditions on it but the department has already said there's other permits that will be addressed at the same time and i believe that you know, all that will be taken care of. >> but mister dratler did appeal the permit so weshould let him speak . he should have the time he was entitled to. >> i agree with everything that's been said. i justwant to express my concern about thecondition of the building . due to the unpermitted work . so the project licensed structural engineer has submitted false plans that overstate the size of the building by1800 square feet . i don't necessarily believe that person is in a position to opine on the work. the other thing is the entire

building has been re-clean. theroofline has been reclaimed. they've done unpermitted signs that work on that authorized . i doubt the rebar placement is inspected. i doubt there's been any plaque work on the strength of the concrete . you get a sense of we don't know what's here. so i agree what's before the court of appeals is a current permit but i would like some due diligence because i don't necessarily believe it's their to build on a building that has pretty significant safety issues. what i'd like them to do is to bring in an independent licensed structural engineer. go through what's been done before they can entertain new

plants. >> thank you. mister tunney. i'msorry, mister tunney did you have anything to add ? >> i do not accept the study that we will comply with any and all city and particular dvi building code requirements and making sure the new comprehensive permit complies with the code. whatever that entails and that likely does not require an independent structural engineer to come and assess the property but if we need structural engineers to review your plans and theproperty to make that permit co-compliant we will do that . >> we will now hear from the department of building inspection.

>> this is joe duffy from dvi. i don't think i need to reenact any of the permit details for you but i do want to acknowledge that dvi did receivecomplaints. they did issue stop work orders back in 2019 . i agree with a lot of what mister dratler is asking for and i do think that we would deny a payment and this one has become anightmare recently . i would like us to go back again and do possibly an amended notice of violation with some of the requirements or issues mister dratler has raised vis-@-vis the structural work andany testing required . i do think he supplied concrete as well. i noticed that in the brief so i do think dvi needs to revisit this with a full site inspection. look at everything and possibly

file a new violation with a staff report and in question of the earlier permits that were taken out, those look like they got the kitchen remodel permit then another permit, then ended up causing a notice of violation. we do need to probably look at all those permits because i do think and i agree with mister sanchez and i did discuss it with him but a consolidation of all work, previous work that's been done, propose work they want to do that a full set of drawings with architectural structural mechanical type work. and just get one good permit and try to get this building finished and no probably have a long topic out of them but i think copy of work along with mister dratler as well and his concerns and if those permits theygot earlier , i don't think they're worth the paper they're written on and i do think they probably need to be either canceled orneed to go away .

>> we will now move on to public comment. i think there's one hand raise. the phone number ending in 0577. please go ahead. you may need to pressásix to unmute yourself. the phone number ending in 057 . please press star 6. we can hear you, go ahead. >> caller: this is stephanie, i live across the street from 1552, the building in question. i wanted to ask to meet my prepared remarks. i'm really glad that this permit and that went on can be done. that's just the way they game the system. and also, they lied.

they said when they did the first permit they said it was going to be 800, $8000. but dvi raised it to$157,000 . so i'm really glad they're going to get the new master permit and i think because they did game the system i don't really believethey're going to comply unless there watched very carefully. thank you very much . >> now is riley chen. please go ahead. riley chen. i see there's somebody who has their hand raise, probably mister dratler's login,i'm not sure who that is but we will hear from the person . >> i'm using, can you hear me? i'm using my son's laptop.

my name is jim riley. i'm glad the situation has changed. it's hopefully moving forward going to be done properly. i really don't see how an attorney can make the decision whether structural engineering is required. i think you need to completely, i don't understand why we keep having the same people representing thesecases from legal . it's like they'rerunning things . that building and just from on the street, i'm going to be looking at it. honestly how it got this far with somebody, anybody at dpi not catching things going on back when they were wandering

through the building is just absurd. and mister tunney's question about demolition. if you're going on to submit a plan, is there an absolute work of fiction. i've been in both units in that building over the last two or three years. what they show as existing conditions is nothing like what was there when we bought the property structurally, the wall is gone . bathroom is gone. the location of what they're saying is there that to me falls on to whoever the architect was. he put his stamp onit . and we keep getting subjected to these shady people doing business in san francisco and why are they held accountable to ? so i am all for starting over. i know it's a big hassle but i'm concerned. we're not sure what you're going to get stuck with.

if we're looking at fraudulent plans today, when are they going to start submitting brakes and when it does is the city going to hold them accountable for submitting fraudulent claims? i was under the impression you had to sign the bottom of a permit application that you test everything is true and accurateand on everything on those plans is not true and accurate . so start over, start from scratch. everybody involved has to be in the loop on this. thank you. >> we had one person under misterdratler's indication . as a reminder do not use the chat for public comment. >> i am susan mccormick taylor, jerry sent me the link so i can

join. i live directlyacross the street at 1600 lake . i think the biggest concern is this was a duplex two-bedroom, 2800 square feet and if you look through the plans, i'm a corporate attorney. you seethere's nothing accurate in anything they have submitted . what is my big concern? my big concern, thank you very much mister duffy. mister duffy helped grant an emergencypermit for our frontcourt . we inspected that there was a dry rot and in fact there was an incredible amount of work that had been done on our house and number dish and under our front porch. it was falling off the house. when the inspector finally came when they took it apart said there was a risk ifwe had been sitting out there, we and our children what has been killed .

that's the unpermitted work. thanks to mister duffy we showed him how it was cracking and falling off the house and we got anemergency permitand where in the middle of repairing it . my real concern is it's not a little bit of unpermitted work . they have gutted the foundation. they have taken off the whole back task with no permits they've doneincredible amounts . i think it's a real safety concern . i hear the commissioners, i understand one permit is in front of you but i would love for folks to take a look at the whole project and say how do we first make sure this thing is not going to falldown on the neighbors around us and second , let's rebuild it based on accurate facts that were presented so thank you very much. >> clerk: we will now hear from brian yee. >> caller: i want to thank the

committee for its time and i'm grateful for mister dratler's due diligence and everyone that'sinvolved with this.i live in 1544 lake street which is directly next to the property at hand . and i would say that i have three kids under six years old, 5 1/2, 3 and a half and a year and a half and i have nothing against the owners. they seem like lovely people but it's clear from what mister dratler and everyone said that it's an unsafe environment. over the past couple of years we've seen some troubling incidents including potential squatters that have been trying to break into the houses. my backyard isexposed to theirs so one could easily over the fence into my backyard . i'd say during windy weather or storms there's a lot of debris that can kind of fly into the backyard.

i'm not going to belabor the point and i'm grateful for your time but my vested interestis this building is completed in the right way . thank you. >> clerk: is there any other public comment on this item? please raise your hand. i saw you put acomment in the chat. do you want to speak ? >> i don't see any hands raised so i'll close public comment and move onto remodel ifthat's necessary . mister dratler, you have 3 minutes . >> there's nothing more to be said. thank you for taking the time to hear this matter. >> mister tony, did you want to add anything? >> just that the property owner is committed to keeping his property safe and finishing this project in a safe manner . and we will work cooperatively

with dbi and planning to do that. >> thank you, mister sanchez. anything further? >> just briefly, there were a couple of comments in regards to concerns about the representation of existing conditions that were in the interior layout that have existed before. i'm not aware of much in terms of past interior floor plans that wouldallow us to kind of determine exactly what was there so if there are concerns about that , we don't have any information that prove their point about it not being represented correctly. i think you can email me but otherwise i think to go through the permitting process certainly for the exterior change and for the amount of interior as was indicated in the dbi that it had issued.

>> thank you. deputy directorduffy. anything further . >> thank you, joe duffy. just on i heard some comments about the condition of the building and we may need to look at whether temporary shoring etc. then we can do that pretty quickly from dbi if it's going to take a while to get a permit so i can absolutely follow up on that in thenext few days with the senior building inspector . thank you. >> commissioners, this matter issubmitted . >> i apologize for that the hearing started off a little, i thought we had a solution and then it was not the correct solution soi apologize . what is before us, we have a couple options before us this evening. we can just vote the permit as several members of the public

and the department suggested potentially. commend the mlb to a full site permit and a siteinspection and consolidation of past work . i would leave it up to anyone who would like to, they're shaking their head. >> commissioner lazarus. >> good advice from the city attorney but i believe the only thing in front of us is the one permit and it's pretty clear we need to revoke that. and then this is a little loose, just let the chips fall where they will based on everything elsethat's come to like . i think and i'm open to comment buti think that's our one option . >> i ultimately agree and i think that unfortunately to the public that's watching, the department has to go off information that's given by the project sponsor. so unfortunately sometimes the

errors don't come up until later whenmost have been proven to be bogus, to be honest with you . it is before building and planning at this point. i'm extremely confident that the departments now that is before them will make the correct decisions in correcting this and i see me my vp has his hand up. i'll mute. >> vice president. >> i'm a little slow, come on. i'm over 70, i get a couple of seconds. i would recommend that commissioner lazarus make the same motion she did on the earlier item that we had. >> if no othercommissioner has any comments, commissioner chang ? he had his hand up when i said that. >> there were a lot of concerns

and i heard from mister duffy on this. there seem to be a lot of concerns around safety. i agree with commissioner lazarus and commissioner honda that we should not revoke the permit. do something to address the safetyconcerns that we have . >> deputy director duffy has already said he would take a look at it just to make sure maybe there's some weathering and disclosure that he would accommodate. i think that's probably what the department will instruct. but without further review would commissionerlazarus likes to make a another motion this evening ? >> i'm not going come in to monopolize the evening. >> i guess i'll make that motion. i'll make thatmotion so let's ,

what is it. let's go ahead and revoke the permit. >> on the basis that it does not comply with the building and planning code. okay. on president honda's motion, commissioner lopez.[roll call vote] >> thank you everybody, have a nice evening. >> good night. >> thank you.

>> chair bustos: this is the regular meeting on the commission on community investment and infrastructure tuesday october 5, 2021. i like to welcome members of the public who are streamlining inor listening to us live as well as the staff and other participants. following the guidelines set forth by local officials at this time, members of the commission are meeting remotely to ensure the safety of everyone including members of the public. thank you all for joining us. madam secretary, please call the first item. >> first order of business is roll call.