. >> mr. duffy like to speak on this or -- >> no. >> so -- >> [speaker not understood] there is no easy answer to it. that's all i have for mr. sanchez. anyone? >> i have a question. so, there were in this exhibit, do you have a copy of this? >> yes. >> the papers. >> yes. >> can you address that all these others have windows that are probably not -- i mean, i'm not -- >> i appreciate -- >> not knowing anyone else is here, i don't know how old the buildings are. whether they would require -- >> i did a permit review and did not see permits. i think the issue is these were done without permits. i would be sending a list to the department of building inspection of properties that did not obtain the proper permits for the window replacement. >> got it, thank you. so, they'll be treated in the same manner. >> yes. >> thank you. >> absolutely. >> mr. duffy? >> commissioners, the department did receive a complaint on that. we opened a complaint on the 29th of may 2009. i see a notice of violation -- that'

. >> okay, we could hear from the departments now, mr. duffy. >> good evening commissioners. just getting updated on this case today. there was a flurry of activity at the site at the last meeting after the last hearing. indeed, and one of our building inspectors was refused entry by one of the workers and we don't have to call the police too often but sometimes we do when we feel threatened and the building inspector did feel threatened. i believe that it all fairly quickly, when he went back, the workers had left the site and it was also a led paint issue that was happening as well. we were contacted by that by the neighborhood, we have doubted the issue of the penalty of 2500 on a notice of violation, so all of this stuff happened at the hearing and i would truthfully say that it appears from speaking to the senior building inspector patrick today, that seems like things have settled down in the last ten days, a couple of weeks. whereas we have not received any new complaints. so it seems that we have things in order. we do have the report and they are entered into our spe

you can ask mr. duffy that, i talked to the microfilm person, patty and she confirmed it, i cannot get a permit with three units to do the one story. it is not going to effect his unit, it is on the lowest level and the guy who is not here who is being kicked out along with my client is not protesting. so the seismic is pretty straight forward but i can't get the permit to do this work. if we are going down this pandora box path the city is about to send out about 15,000 letters in all of these units are going to start coming up and the question is do you want to reopen cfcs? because, historically this board never wants to go down the path of saying a cfc somehow can be mode identify. >>vy one question. so, you said how many notifications were going to be sent out? >> the city basically is about to do and going to send out since the story count on buildings when they were permitted prior to 85, counted stories the wi that the french do. >> so i understand the story. >> two story buildings and above could p

mr. duffy could speak to what they can offer in the reduction of the penalty. >> mr. duffy? >> i mean, given the circumstances of what happened and i mean, what would the building department -- [speaker not understood]. i would be definitely sympathetic to the penalty. i would say our director, i'm sure, people above me would be as well. it's just, as i said, it's unfortunate that a contractor sells the job and the permit doesn't come into the equation, you know. it just calls -- we would definitely -- we would say we could reduce it to two times and maybe reduce the amount as well. so, i could work with the permit applicant to do that -- the property owner to do that when they come in for the permit. that would be something we would did. it's a matter of writing to us and explaining that again at that time whenever that is. it's no problem. i mean, i will do that. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i don't think we have much choice in this. and what i'd like to do is figure outweighs to sort of ease the pain because i do believe

now, mr. duffy will tell you correctly that in order to create a second unit, it is the official position of the building department that a permit has to have on it a permit in the past in the existing use box and proposed box that says two. and that the existing use box not discuss what is there but it discusses what is legally there. and in fact, there is no such permit in the record. and i grant you, that definitely makes it look like this building was never officially changed in dbi records to be a two-unit building or a three-unit building. but i also ask you to take into account that that policy of the building department is a policy that is only been in place for the last ten years. i have been doing this for 30 years, maybe it has been in place a little bit more than that. but, it is only been in recent years as it should be that the building department has taken the position that you have to see a permit with the existing unit with proposed use two for a building to be officially a two-unit

mr. duffy, go ahead. >> i do want to state that the change in the design of the foundation will be reviewed by dbi engineers for the calculations as one of the engineers did state. we still need -- we will need to see that as a revision permit before -- because it needs to get approved by the city. and the asbestos or the late payment requirement would be something that would have to be addressed prior to or during the construction if they disturb any lead paint they would have to take the proper procedures for that. on the noise issue and the work hours, they can work there technically they're allow today work from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. as you all probably know. nobody does that, but we do ask that the contractors post a notice around the neighborhood, let them know they're going to be starting work and that give an outreach number so maybe they can call them and maybe give their work hours and then if something happens outside those work hours or if it's too noisy, they can call the contract

. >> mr. duffy one was issued. >> we issued one and another one for doing excavating and that was after the hearing as well. >> the nov for the paint, was for not testing? >> well, they were removing, they were doing exterior lead, disturbing the paint on the exterior of the building like without the proper procedures. so they were... they didn't have any tarps down and there is a whole ordinance in our building code about that and when the inspector from our led abatement program went there and they gave them a $2500 penalty. >> in terms of that process, but has it been proven that it was lead paint. >> it could be. >> but the nov related to not following the appropriate process. >> correct, that is right. >> yes. mostly mitigation, taps, etc.. >> and when the gentleman mentioned earlier how often is sfpd called in to enter? >> i have working there 14 years and my experience 2 or three times i have heard of it happen and donald is part of that in bay view hunter's point and so he does work closely

>> mr. duffy? >> >> commissioners i want to comment on the issue. we did receive the complaints and in fact mr. cats made the complaint and we did act on it as best as i can see from the paperwork. if people are not happy with the way that we respond to complaints we are open every day and you can come down here and speak to a supervisor or a deputy director. we do answer to that. i also see that the permit or the appellants did come in and meet with our deputy director and from what i am reading we did respond and take the necessary action and they did come in and address it. people do work with the permit m san francisco and exceed to the scope and we can only deal with the complaints as we get them and i think that we did in this case and it is very hard to keep everybody happy sometimes. but from what i can see, everything was done. i mean, maybe they exceeded the scope of the permit, that is what happened and we did issue a notice of violation and they did get the permits. thanks. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i wil

mr. duffy yes? >> >> without knowing the existing condition on the two properties, the code is pretty clear that each property has to be responsible for its own drainage, so in san francisco that is tough because of the 0 lot lines and i don't know what the existing is and i just wanted the code does say that you have to each probably is responsible for its own. so there is no details of what was existing and no photographs. and i don't know how it existed but i assume that it did exist at one time. but i don't want to... i just want to if you are going to, outside of the code and we sometimes leave it up to people to figure it out because it is tough, if it is code compliant each is responsible for its own and we don't want it. >> you are not accepting the liability for that. >> okay, thanks. >> thank you. >> i believe that covers it, right? >> i have one question and there was a discussion about the size of the window and i don't know if you wanted to include that in your motion. >> i said that ne

. >> mr. duffy? nothing. >> is there any public comment? please step forward. >> president hwang how many minutes? >> good evening, my name is mark and i am a neighbor at 15 san lorenzo. i am here to comment on the project and basically say that i am against what they are proposing to do here and this roof line seems to be out of hand with the rest of the roof lines in the road. as far as the code compliant as far as i am concerned there is not much of a rear yard it is somewhere in the neighborhood of ten feet and i know that it is an unconforming lot. but we have lived there for many, many years and i used to run in that lot as a kid. and we had no problem with the actual project being done, but there is just in the way that it was put forth and the way that it was built and right now it is a bliet because we have young children and animals and there are holes and open fences and things where kids could get in. so i feel like it has been neglected and i feel that this should be scrutinized at this point heavily because of the history. and

>> is mr. duffy here? >> i think that he should hear the questions that are being raised. >> why don't you start over again, mr. williams. >> thank you. >> i'm steve williams and i am representing one of the adjacent neighbors, who has lived with her family two doors down from the site for nearly 40 years. the other neighbors also support the appeal. and as i was saying earlier, the reason for appealing the electrical and plumbing permits, which we never do, was because the site, they would not stop work at the site. and so that was the point was to try to get the work stopped at the site and as i understand it from the neighbors, the work is still going on. so, i mean you would think from the tone of the reply briefs that somehow the neighbors had done something wrong by bringing this appeal. you know we are here because the work at the site started without any notice to anyone. the work at the site started without any permits whatsoever. zero. the work at the site started with no plans having been submitt

sanchez, mr. duffy. >> commissioners, just on the building use, i got the [speaker not understood] for today. we're showing the building as a four-family dwelling with party wall. and obviously there is a [speaker not understood] foundation issues and stuff like that. we have buildings in san francisco that fall into this category where we started off as one building. it isn't two different lots. i'm not sure how that happened. it may have gotten a lot split and built like that, but it is what it is. and we, as i say, we recognize it in the building department as a four-family dwelling with party wall. so, therefore when the building permit came in, it correctly stated that it was a four-family dwelling. now, the other property 1248 [speaker not understood], last week i was saying it's very frustrating sometimes on the permit history on these buildings. but appears from what i'm looking at, i do believe it is a four-family dwelling with party wall. and just -- the permit seems to have been applied for a

mr. duffy? >>> good evening, commissioners. i went to the property after the last hearing to verify that the duct work had been removed and indeed it had been removed. i spoke to some tenants in the upstairs units in the building and they seemed to be happy that it was gone. didn't speak to any of the neighbors, but the detect work is definitely gone. i can confirm that. they reroofed the area and put a skylight in. they just probably need to get a permit for that work. and it was more my interest to get the duct workout of the way to be honest with you because that was really offending everyone it appeared since the last meeting. so, it's gone. and i did receive a complaint by the department, i received a complaint and i ended up dealing with it. for the use of the building, and we did issue a correction notice asking the permit applicant to provide documentation of the last legal use of the property ~. and according to the documentation that came in with the complaint, it appeared that it was retail at one point, the last leg

. >> mr. duffy? >> good evening, commissioners. this permit has been issued as a site permit. from dbi and so we are still got a lot of review to do on it for a structural architectal and mechanical and fire and sprinklers that is all to come in yet for dbi and so we are in the early stages of the plan review. i did today speak with robert chung who was the engineer who reviewed the site permit drawings, which do not have anything on them structural or not. but, he did approve them. and in the 2010, san francisco building code, we do have our administrative bulletin for site permit processing. and just one of the items i want to read rt as well. because i think that it is important in this case as much of a purpose of a site permit is to allow a review of preliminary conceptual and schematic designs of proposed construction, there is no detailed plan review of construction details required at the time of site permit review. such detailed review will be done at the time of an addendum review. i am available for any questions and i will be on the demolition if you want to know a

. >> mr. duffy? >> good evening, commissioners. this permit has been issued as a site permit. from dbi and so we are still got a lot of review to do on it for a structural architectal and mechanical and fire and sprinklers that is all to come in yet for dbi and so we are in the early stages of the plan review. i did today speak with robert chung who was the engineer who reviewed the site permit drawings, which do not have anything on them structural or not. but, he did approve them. and in the 2010, san francisco building code, we do have our administrative bulletin for site permit processing.

. >> anything further mr. duffy? >> no. okay. >> so commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> so, i will just comment that i am not focused on anything other than the permit at issue which is clearly defective for multiple reasons. and that is the roof deck expansion and for that reason, that reason, alone, i would move to deny the permit, or, you know, up hold the appeal, grant the appeal. but, i also just want to comment on these charges of delay on the part of the appellant. i think that they can be countered by the charges that they were serial permitting going on throughout the process that is intended to expedite using the process or circumvent the process and i think that the comments made regarding what we did at the last hearing was an effort to do something that i was not super inclined to do which was to con to expedite this project. notwithstanding what i thought were improper self-help expediting serial permitting, i don't think that the argument that they are intending to delay can stand alone without the cou

mr. duffy also referenced this, if you look at 4 d, structural design document was not submitted in order to obtain this site permit and you have to do that if you are going to get peer review and you heard the engineer say that we welcome the peer review. they have not complied and the permit should never have been issued. this is a demolition, you do not have to wait until they take all of the walls and ceiling and floors down because we know for a fact that is what is going to happen because the building code does not allow the elements of the building which you are being told are being retained in order to avoid a demolition, the building code does not allow those elements to be used in the new construction. that is a fact. look at the drawing, the foundations, the ceiling joists and walls and floors which you are being told which is how we are avoiding a demolition, because we are keeping these elements of the building. and we know that going in that those elements of the building may not

. >> mr. duffy. >> okay. >> this is just from the department and a point of view on the department and someone wants to take out a brick foundation and upgrade it with the concrete foundation they are going to spend, 20 percent upgrade of accessibility at the entrance door and it appears that it was approved properly and so i am available for any questions. a seismic upgrade will go through the two stories and this appears to be for the ground floor and secondly a seismic solution for a building that is much larger than this, i'm assuming that four retail spaces face the street and therefore the building is quite wide if you do it only with one end you are creating exentricities it is not the best way to do it what would be for public safety or for or seismic upgrade in general. would you, concur. >> i agree, i think that a few weeks ago he had it and the balance and i don't think that you were here, and the i am pabl and the engineers had to get up and dispute each other. it is voluntary and it is

they were to add the unit we would do notification and i am available for questions >> thank you, mr. duffy. >> commissioners, i feel like i have a lot to say but maybe i should see if the people have questions. there is a lot been said and a lot of pain from both sides here. the permit history is mixed. i think i agree with mr. boscavich i believe if i was doing what i called the unit clarification where the properties are unknown and we get handed all of the paperwork and we generally do start with that spring valley water department it is a accurate record. we do rely on it a lot to try to start especially something that is over 100 years old and i have i think that you saw the document that it says, one family. the 1923 permit, i believe was it talks about a cottage. i did not see a permit to go from one to two or two to three. i did see the permits where they came into the building department coming to existing to proposed to and the building department gave them permits and did inspections and gave them a permit for three units one time and we got the property city access soars. he re