mr. sanch mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez, plenty department. subject property 2901 taraval street, rm-1 zoning district. constructed approximately 1945, based on the records, as a ground for commercial use with a single-family residential use above. the applicant, in 1980, was the previous property owner. continuous authorization from the planning commission to allow that use to continue indefinitely. probably became a nonconforming commercial use around 1960 area determination requirement. they had not abated. it still has to be a commercial use, otherwise the rm-1 does not allow commercial uses. they recently sought condo conversion to convert the building, from the one unit, residential, one unit commercial to make a commercial condo on the lower floor and a residential condo on the floor above, and subsequent to that sought to convert the commercial condo into a residential condo. there is nothing in the planning code that prohibits that. we need to make some adjustments to their condo map with the department of public works. i'm not aware of any planning code provisions that would prohibit what they have proposed here. under the rm-1 zoning district, three dwelling units are allow allowed. it was sought and approved under the base density. no neighborhood notification required for adding a wall unit, it is code compliant as proposed area there is actually incentives for conversion of nonconforming uses under residential spaces, because there is a provisional code that allows you to exceed density limits, if you're converting a commercial, nonconforming commercial use into a residential. you can also seek various waivers from the planning code. they do not need to do that, because it is allowed under the zoning. in terms of the order of things, their goal is to quickly and efficiently make it into a two unit residential condo. the process that they have followed would be the quickest path. by doing the condo conversion first, then it is a much simpler process to convert to the residential unit. no notice is required, it is completely code compliant project. there have been an enforcement case that was done illegally, by a previous property owner. my understanding, from our enforcement half that the current owner has required permits to restore the location, as a complaint. with that, i am available for any questions you'd otherwise it is a code compliant condition of the unit. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> joe duffy, dbi. the building permit, for the addition of a dwelling unit, a residential unit to include a living room, kitchen, four baths, three bedrooms install energy efficient, and replace windows, energy-efficient units. [please stand by] [please stand by] ... exceeding the scope of the permit. dbi did receive complaints from miss lee and the building inspector found that no work had been done that was outside of the approved scope of work. bearing in mind there would have been a 16-day work to do. so work could have began and then subsequently stop. i heard reference to a permit on the upper floors that did involve posts going down to the floor. and regarding that, but if there is a standalone permit on the second floor, it could still be done technically, because it didn't interfere with the work that was under the appeal if that makes sense. i don't see anything that has been brought up, as i said, regarding the building code issues on this permit. and i'm available for any questions if you have any. >> so no notice of violations to the permit-holder? >> only to tell them the permit had been suspended. we closed a complaint regarding the scope of the permit. that got investigated. >> thank you. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? >> hi, it's me again, susan. i came to talk about the trees, but i'm sitting here listening and this is exactly the same thing that goes on in my neighborhood. it's people with a lot of money come in, start work without a permit. there is no way a permit filed on june 24 for a project that big could have appropriately been issued on june 26. she complained for him doing work without a permit on june 24, there should have been a stop work order and she should have had a chance to sit down and negotiate with this guy how to do it in a way that is respectful to the neighbors. yes, she did bring up a lot of issues. that's because there are a lot of issues when you're next to major construction like this. and maybe she wasn't right about the noise ordinance, et cetera, but it's a lot for the average lay person to take into account. he should have gotten a stop work order. there should have been time for her to sit down with this guy and work out a way this could be done to minimize the impact on the people who already live there. this guy who started work without the proper permit, if you let him do that, you're sending a signal to all of the people in san francisco that it's okay for them to flout the rules. it's clearly -- it's clear, just from listening here tonight, that he flouted the rules. and i really don't think you want to be sending the message to people all over the city they don't need to follow the rules and can stomp all over the people who already live in the city. all over the city, people who live here now, are having their way of life severely impacted by people who want to come in and build mcmansions in working class neighborhoods. which this is. four bathrooms, that is highly unlikely to be characteristic of the neighborhood. it's happening all over the city. you need to send a message to builders they need to follow the rules. >> thank you, but, ma'am, the department got up and said he followed all the rules. >> have you worked with dbi? because they don't always enforce the rules? they may not have given him a stop work order, that doesn't mean he should have had one. if he started work without a permit -- >> the department just said he had all the permits. thank you. >> the department is not infallible, believe me. i worked with them a lot. >> any other public comment? >> welcome. >> the three people speak today. my name is michael nolte, i'm native san franciscan. i've done a lot of things in san francisco, one of them being program director of organization of coalition of residents. and you know, one of the issues we have here is that a large number of the people that live in san francisco are renters and renters have rights, too. it's unfortunate that a lot of times, yes, owners can do certain things and they have more money, but the average renter does not necessarily know all the rules and when something happens within their building, they have to figure out, what is going on and how to fix it and how to make things amenable to them. i think, yes, maybe a lot of the city departments say, okay, well, everything is hunky-dory, but the real issue here is a renter is now thinking about, well, this place is going to be turned into a condo. and that changes the makeup of the building. the building will be two condos, or more later on, and that means it's a higher paid parcel. so the owner makes out of the property makes out. so we see this kind of problem all the time, where the change of use of the -- it's a change of use that is happening here. and so that's the problem i see, is the change of use. it's not necessarily what is on the agenda, but the problem here is a renter is being asked to deal with a lot of problems because the building owner, he has property rights, but then what are the rights about the person that lives there? and how are they being dealt with? i'm not saying that the property owner doesn't have any rights. what i am saying, this could have been handled better and, you know, the city department heads can come in and say, this is what the rules are and the laws are and what not, but the poor resident and neighbors have to figure out and deal with the outcomes. so anyway, this is an ongoing issue about how many city departments pass the buck, too. thank you for your time. >> any other public comment? we will move onto rebuttal. miss lee, three minutes. >> do you need help? >> i'm just going to finish up my last point. i filed an appeal. the owner found out the appeal was filed. received notice on july 12, which is friday, and literally the next morning, he's still doing work on the units, on the permit that was suspended. this was a picture taken. i'm not sure, you know, why the dbi said there was no violation, but a notice of violation was issued on july 17 per public records. i went online to find that. in conclusion, i guess, again, there is a lot of facts that i've pointed out, a lot of rules. i'm just going to leave the board with the fact that, yes, individually, everything that he's done, or permits he's requested was probably approved, compliant, et cetera, et cetera. but if you look at what he's trying to do, it's pretty much mirrors what our city attorney has put in one of the recent cases. if you get a permit to remodel your kitchen, it doesn't mean you get to build a new wing on the back of the house. they tried to make a quick buck by flouting the risks and cheat devel developers. let this be a warning to those who think they can flip as many houses as they can. they look to profit off san francisco's housing crisis. i'm going to leave the board and general public with that statement. thank you. >> i have a question. so you live close -- i'm sorry, are you done? are you finished? >> yes. >> do you live in close proximity to the property? >> i live next door. >> you applied for a permit to remodel your home? >> i applied for a permit to add a storage room in the down stairs unit -- not downstairs, ground floor. >> given the noise complaint that you have, how are you planning to do that in your own property? >> i'm not going to do excavation work. the issue i have is excavation work. i think doing excavation work with jack hammers seven days a week at odd hours is quite disruptive. putting in drywall is like mr. wong has said, normal construction noise. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from mr. wong, the permit-holder. >> thank you. first of all, i am a native san franciscan. i went to school here. i went to college here. i work for the fire department. i am a fire department retiree, 9/11, big day for me, but i have to be here, but thank you for being here with me. i plan to be occupying this building. this citizen that said, why do i need four bathrooms and three bedrooms? i have boomerang kids. i am 58 years old. i have adult kids who are boomeranging back after college. if you need to know, why did i condo the building, perhaps one day i would like to convey the unit to my kids. i don't know why she's kind of grouping me in with a rogue developer, building a wing or the tajmahal. this is adding a residential unit so i can house my family. and the thing that is really the hardest to digest is miss lee is my neighbor next door. i barely know her. i said hi to her passi