>> commissioners, joe duffy, dbi. as you heard mr. teague say, we did go out on the site visit together. it was very helpful. first of all, i want to thank mr. paxton for pointing out some of the items on his appeal. it did bring awareness to a few things we had missed on the drawings. back at the office, i did contact the planner, and that resulted in revised plans being drawn and -- well, submitted. they haven't been submitted yet, but we have received them, and that is in relation to you did hear about the discrepancy in the property line wall. number two, i have down here with the sheer walls, we did have a shear wall in the back wall, and there was a back window. we do need to add structural drawings in the revised drawings. that is to allow for the new wall and the shear wall. the width of the egress is 36 inches, and that's okay. we did check that, as well, and the -- i think that was it. i didn't -- i didn't have any other issues, as i say. the site visit did help us, and there was a response from the permit holders, and every

duffy? >> we get to hear from joe, wow. >> thank you, commissioner honda. joe duffy. the permit. ground floor for laundry. the permit has been reviewed and they have reviewed it for building code compliance. it was filed around june 2016. the only building code issue i heard in the brief was for the roof and that is covered under chapter 15 of the san francisco building code. and there are two roof drains shown on the new infill, so that's more than adequate and we would say if the permit goes ahead, they will be put in per code. i'm available for questions. >> no questions, we'll move on to public comment. is there any public comment on the item? being no public comment, we'll move on to rebuttal and hear from the appellant. >> i found the department of building inspection that is not in the brief, and they said, yes, as long as i include anytime the seven minutes. and the planning department didn't answer if the building is grandfathered from open space requirements, is the addition also grandfathered from open space requirements? i want to address the adu again. the city plann

. >> commissioners, joe duffy, d.b.i. it's been approved by building so far. the addendum is still going through. i'm available for any questions. >> the clerk: is there any public comment on this item? please step forward ? you'll have time on rebuttal. >> i'm david melman. i'm lived in vernal heights over 30 years. i'm a neighbor and have been through the process of renovating my own house. we did some modest and permitted additions to the help. we followed the rules. i'm in favor of the project for several reasons. first of all, i believe no variance is being requested and it appears to meet all the planning guidelines and zoning for the neighborhood. and a casual walk through the neighborhood indicates that many houses have had a third story added over the years. the drawings demonstrate the addition will not block the light or views in any substantive view from the neighbor's house and lastly the house was apparently -- i've walked by the house many times and it was apparently very badly maintained. i don't know what the circumstances were about the peopl

joe duffy, d.b.i. the building permit under appeal addition of two units on the first floor per ordinance 3-15 seismic application is referenced on a 2015 permit. the permit was reviewed by housing inspection services, building inspection, city planning as you heard, building department plan check, and also went through mechanical plan check, fire department, d.p.w., and our central permit. it was filed on the 11th of january, 2016, issued on the 11th of january 2018. and suspended on the 19th of january. the only issues that i felt was brought up that had a building department issue and if i can get the overhead please. put that up a little bit. so on grid line four, on the plans, and grid line six, if you see the existing first floor plan, we have a solid wall going on totally along grid line four. and along grid line six. and on the new floor plan, we have windows now installed and doorways and one doorway, window, and window, and a door. and then on this side on the back here there are two windows

we anticipate inspector joe duffy from d.b.i., department of building inspection to be here, cory teague, zoning administrator with planning. and amanda higgins with sf public works bureau of street use and mapping. we have certain guidelines that we follow. the board requests that you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they won't disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board's rules of presentations are as follows. appellants, permit holders and responders are each given 7 minutes to present their case and 7 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within threes 3 or 7 minute time periods. public not affiliated have up to 3 minutes to address the board and no rebuttal. for rehearing requests each party will have 3 minutes only and no rebuttal. members of the public not affiliated have three minutes each to address the board and please make sure you speak into the microphone to. assist the board you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staf

. >> commissioners, joe duffy, dbi. i don't want to go over the details on the permits. i think you've heard enough on that. so far, normally, i read those, but just some of the concerns on the appellant, on the -- on the lady on the first appellant was the -- it was some of the items that were brought up were all reasonable. i thought the flashing detail notification service were all good. and then, i heard the permit holder respond that they were going to take care of it, which was good news from a dbi point of view, so i'm happy enough with that. i didn't hear any other public building code issues brought up, and as i said, the permits appear to be -- have been issued correctly by dbi, and i am available for any questions, however, if you have any. >> you have 27 minutes left. >> clerk: is there any public comment on this item? >> good evening. i'm di i'm dylan casey. >> clerk: i'm sorry. can you lift up the microphone. what's your name? >> dylan casey, and i'm here to testify in favor of this proposal. it's a modest proposal that would actually increase the amount of

i met privately with joe duffy, head of building department inspectors, as you know, and the assistant director of building, patrick o'reardon. and we all went through the code to find a section that would require this. there is no requirement. in new york today, and it was passed over seven years ago, what's required is very simple. "the building permit or a copy thereof should be posted in a conspicuous place at the worksite, visible to the public for the duration of the work or until the expiration of the permit, whichever is later. no such permit will be posted at any location other than the premises." and it goes on to explain what cannot be used to block the notice to the public, what cannot be used as advertising instead of the forum. it explains because of weather conditions, perhaps this permit should be laminated. it's not expensive to laminate something. it's $2.65. the entire burden on the contractors and property owners to do what i'm suggesting is minimal. it's the cost of scotch tape and a xerox. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speake

. >> president fung: we will hear from joe duffy. >> the subject permit to obstruct 100 feet accessory building at the rear yard including a half ba bath was taken in by dbi on november 22, 2017. it was brought t brought to plan january of 18. it was issued by bcp on the 26th of january and then subsequently suspended on february 8. it is to construct 100 square feet new accessory building at the rear yard including a half bath. i did review the plans and there is plenty of details on there for construction at the property line. it does look to have been properly approved. it is a separate structure. it is not an addition as you heard mr. tate say. so we consider it a completely separate structure. and it was approved properly. there is an exception in the san francisco building code in chapter 106-a where we allow work exempt from permit where there is about 23 items in the code section for separate things and there is one that says from permit a one story detached accessory building or structure used as a tool and storage shed playhouses and similar structures provided it does not ex

we are joined by cory teague as and dan lowry, and joe duffy, senior building inspector. today's presentation will cover the following topics. we have four primary items that we would like to cover. after overview of the current demolition regulations, inspection issues, dialogue about unauthorized demolition processes, including penalties and fees that currently are in place, and our general key take aways of what the major issues are that we're facing. so as all of you are probably aware at this point, the city has a handful of demolition controls, and before we begin into what we see are the challenges, we wanted to go through a little of a technical overview. although normally i try to steer clear of this technical jargon in any kind of public presentation, i think it's critical to really set the stage of understanding what the challenges are. so first, i'm not going to go into a lot of detail. this is the building code definition of demolition. chief inspector reardon will go into this a little bit more, but it is important to know that the building code does have a

joe duffy, dbi. just happy to hear that there was a meeting. they probably should have had that three months ago, but good to hear they are both at the table talking. i think they can resolve this. and i want to remind the board that the building permits did meet building code. there is no building code issues. i am under the impression there will be future permits on this as well. because it is a tenant improvement, we usually see other permits. whether this permit is upheld or denied, whatever you decide, i will just comment that there probably will be more building permits coming their way. those are appealable as well. that is another -- i just wanted to pop that out there. >> senior inspector duffy, i'm sorry -- >> go ahead. >> are you aware, is any of the -- is there a bbn on the property at this point? >> bbn? no, not that i know of. a bbn is a planning department. but we don't have any address block on it from dbi. we don't have any reason to. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy, if you look at the four permits, who have impacts greater than the

i spoke with joe duffy about this, but he was positive it wasn't being demolished. i spoke with cory teague who assured that enough of the joists would remain so as not to qualify tantamount to demolition. when i showed a picture showing that brand-new two by sixes were in place, he was still convinced they were really there. he also said that some walls were removed would be returned in some cases. i said that until they do, without knowing for sure that they would be returned, wouldn't it currently be considered tantamount to demolition? he then said that the original walls don't really need to be put back, just a familiar simile of them. i asked him if his determination was following the intent of section 317. his response in probably not. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, commissioner. aussie rom with neighborhood council. for years now you've been hearing for various members of the public, neighborhood associations about various -- [ inaudible ] >> today, you heard from the community again. it's time now for actio

. >> joe duffy, dbi. there was some reference to the section 2909 for fixed noise sources. that is more to do with the entertainment commission, health department for ventilation and music and stuff like that. it doesn't relate to construction equipment. it's a totally different section. the other thing we generally do with complaints at dbi, there is phases of the project where it will be noisy. there are phases where it will be. trying to get a time line here of when they're going to be jackhammering and when it's starting or stopping, or how long it's going to go on for. at dbi we get a rash of complaints all at once and then it stops. we don't get anymore. it gets settled, they have the meetings or the work gets done. if you're finishing what the sheet rock is on, it's not going to be noisy. i don't know where this project is, but i think it's maybe a little bit critical to it. i do sympathize always with the residents, being kept awake, putting up with the noise is not easy. i don't want to come across as someone who doesn't care, but the code does allow construction a