the place be demonstrated a two unit building the record reflect that i don't know why we're here mr. duffy said he turned in the job card and withdrew the permit why is ms. conway here saying we have a determination to revoke something that's been withdrawn the reason i think this is true that the permit is still alive so you can rerecognize it so she can create a defense for her clients to say see there's an eviction because they've got a revocation that's the reason why that's united states true motivation behind their eviction of cause that's why i feel like we're all being used here she can't at this point be asking for a permit that has been wrun and cancelled. >> mr. duffy commissioners the building permit that's under appeal one of the building permits this is i call its second revert both with new staircases in the interior this permit was suspend on may 2014 the attorney that spoke her i was so to speak with this attorney since then another attorney came on board i have a cancelation request that's typical and the appellant goes away in this case that's fine we go ahead and cancel

i think that ties up the concern for mr. duffy unless you have any concerns or questions, in which there myself and mr. prodo can answer. >> what were the circumstances that led to the work being started without a permit? >> that would be mr. prada question. >> i don't know when the work started commissioner, i am sorry. >> and i don't know when the work started and the permit situation. >> the work started was mostly demo and we were already working on the permit on for the foundation. and the excavation that we did is to verify the neighbor's foundation, and there is so the photo that you see there is only one excavation at that time. and we did not proceed until we got the permit, and started excavating the rest of the foundation. so it was for a verification purpose. >> but it ended up with a notice of violation, but nothing should have been done without a permit, correct? >> i think that i am allow to do investigation, and on this, and my previous job, i was told to, you know, dig the excavation to the verify the neighbor. >>

. >> mr. duffy? >> good evening commissionerers joe duffy dbi, if the 34, and 44th avenue would be an address that is well known to any of us that work on the building inspection division between the dbi and we all and, i have been there a few times, and i actually live in the neighborhood believe it or not and i see this building when you drive up between folton and it is an eye sore and it has been there because of this mess that we call it. and we have these scenarios and i have only seen this and this is about the third one in 15 years that i have seen where we have had this unlawful demolition hearing and it is, pretty, it is a nightmare for everyone concerned and it is a nightmare for the dbi staff and the planning staff and the obviously the people that own the property because they get this five year ban and then they can't and they have to decide if they want to put back what they had there originally and one of the cases actually did that on 46th avenue and got out of the process and about

mr. duffy also said that these things are not uncommon and it is to thing for the engineers to work out. did you talk to the engineers his engineer? >> i did. but, his tone was threatening and his sentence he told me was, you know, i am about to write you a nasty letter, and right there, and then, i was already like i don't think that this is going to work. and the other thing was he wanted to discuss to me something that i don't know. i have not seen their brief yet. and so, if he wants to discuss to me something, he needs to send it to me first, so i can prepare for our meeting. but, he wants me to see him the following day and the day after he called me. and there was no, i don't have any copy of his findings. and that... and basically the tone was, you are not going to like what i am going to write you about you. and about your drawing, and your drawing is, i will put my name on that kind of drawing. he made that kind of, those kind of statements and that was like, what, and it is just, go

and mr. duffy is saying that the 17th would work better for him. >> okay. >> and i am sorry commissioners, it is a lot is going on right now, if i could make one more point of clarification, i am hearing from the architect right now, that taking a light well all the way down to the ground could have the structural. >> i did not say ground floor, i said to match all existing light wells on the side. >> does it go down. >> and so apparently what i am hearing is that the north side does and all that i am asking is that we don't need to make a decision on this tonight, and that is gives the opportunity to come back and speak to you at the hearing, and you are drawing. and you don't show it. >> and you are drawing and that is part of what we need to work on. >> i am just saying, i am hearing that we have structural and fire egress issues. it is part of the plan and that is expense of whatever it is that you do or don't put in there. >> okay. >> it sounds like okay. >> thanks. >> to the microphone. >> an

. >> mr. duffy? >> commissioners, bear with me on this case, i had some information printed at dbi but i left it behind me, and i am using the technology here. so i got the ipad. and looking up the permits and script. but this does not give me all of the information that i need to describe it. but, the permit that is under appeal, and the description of the work is increased basement ceiling height by six feet to 8 feet and replace the new concrete slab and repair the plastering on the first and third floors and 2eds 5,000 valuation and it was on 8-112014 and it got issued on 8-12, 2014. and we have a suspension on 8-19-2014, something to do with a check and then the board of appeals suspension came on 8-26 and the permit did go through intake and it went through the building structural review by an, engineer, and one of the structural plan checkers and so it went through the planning department and the permit got issued. i did notice as well, we do have special inspections on the project, which mean

. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners on the permit application it says to ply with the notice of violation dated 8, 82018 remove the landscape i think the concrete to remove the non permitted structure i'm confused what we received the complaint on the june 27th o 26 for 2014 the description they powder concrete in front of the building and the neighbor is complaining i complaining because the foundation has black mold when we received the complaint in june, i sent inspector green out there he issued a notice of violation on the notice of violation a complete violation says the front area was powder without a permit so the building permit was for 15 days and plans shall be unlawful for a impervious set back area and obtain a permit with the planning department approval required we end up getting that you've heard the lady say in august shortly after we issued the notice of violation and got the permit she got charged with the fees i'm sorry on the notice of violation the building inspector was 9 times o

>> yes. >> and only, one wrinkle is that we need mr. duffy for the next case and, so if necessary, when we are done, we will take a quick recess, and allow them to chat. >> okay. >> can we still submit our written response to the plans? >> i am going to hold on that decision. >> okay. >> so what the board is asking to you do now is to best go in the hall with the new plans and take a look at them and when we are done with the next item mr. duffy will join you and help to explain them to you and we will call the case again after the next item is decided. >> thank you. >> but you do have time now to review the plans that you have been given tonight. >> thank you. >> so we are going to hold off on finishing item 6 and we are going to hear item 7 which is appeal, 14-148, thomas goddard verses the department of building inspection, 4121-20th street, protesting the issuance on august 12, 2014, to 20th street trust and alteration of the permit to increase the ceiling height from 6 to 8 feet, and place the new concrete slab and repair the cracked mra

. >> as i recall, mr. duffy says that they would have done it and administratively if it had been requested sorry, okay, thank you mr, duffy says yes. >> i will move to grant the appeal and to reduce the penalty to the minimum that we can of 2 times. >> all right. >> and based on the fact that the appellant did not own the property and did not do the work that was cited. >> thank you. >> when you are ready? >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to grant this appeal and reduce the penalty two times the regular fee and on the basis that the appellant did not own the property at the time and did not do the work in question. >> on that motion, to reduce to two times? president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> commissioner wilson? >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 4-0, and this penalty is reduced to two times, on that basis. >> thank you. appeal, november 14-161, and it is lisa cacavvo and friedemann, thomma on 3627-22nd street for imposition of penalty for the work done without the permit. and

. >> well, i'd like to hear from mr. duffy a final comment. >> commissioners my concerns would be more that i heard the there's someone living in the room i've not seen plans i don't know if increase egregious or ventilation worried about a life safety what does this room it's in the garage i've seen one built behind the garage door and one cigarette butt set back i'm sorry, i don't have the plans i'm concerned someone is living in a room and we're - that's probably my thoughts to add to that. >> i think we're suggesting there be an inspection of some kind of. >> if - we could are more specific on the condition that exists i could probably get the plans but certainly allowing the continuous of this and someone living in that if there's not proper e impressing if i take it a bedroom. >> i would think the left hand lady with about concerned about it also. >> questions. >> anything else mr. duffy and one other thing the violation first notice of violation with this board action i don't know if that means we'll not be noticing a s

. >> i think that the concern will be if mr. duffy will refer to the new draw ands that is a concern of the appellant that they have not had the sufficient time. >> i understand. >> and so now i am trying to determine if there is major distinctions between the new drawings and the drawings that the appellants have seen. >> i don't think there is that big of a difference and these are better. and they are getting there but they are not there yet. >> and just speaking really from the point of view getting that final stamp of the building department. >> yes. >> as opposed to someone understanding the work that is going to be done in the unit. >> yes, from the purposes of this hearing to show people what exactly this will entail and to show the floor plan, you can certainly see what needs to be done but they are not an ep able set of drawings to get a permit with. okay? and i don't think that there is a lot of changes from the first set if you want to call them that to this set, and i believe that we have both sets, but i don't think that

. >> mr. duffy just to point out all of the avenues, this would require a revision permit. >> a revision permit, this is correct. >> and these and the permit and the revision merit, it definitely needs another permit under the apermit that you have appeal and they could not do it under the permit that they have unless you do a condition permit. >> is there a public comment? >> hello, high name is alex. and do i understand that this issue seems that this construction, impacts stacy and i was under the impression in san francisco, that, the property owner has to have a just cause to do that. and i understand that, you know, and you have to do this construction or in order to meet the new building code. but, from what i can tell from the current drawings is that there is other alternative to do that. and in particular, the drawing, and that currently shows the riser height, is actually exaggerating it a bit, and it seems that you can lower it down an inch and i don't know i have a bunch of papers here.

. >> mr. duffy indicates that they can do this within a couple of weeks and stow your schedule for the tenth is already looking pretty bad, right? >> yes, but it is not just mr. duffy who needs to do something, it is also the revised plans that need to be prepared. >> is there on to respond to that. and i am sorry, could you ask the question again? >> how long do you need to do the revised plans? >> what is the date being offered right now? >> there has not been one. >> how long. >> no. not long, so we will take the next available hearing. >> what is good for you? >> there is nothing good. it is really up to the board if you want to add to your load. >> how many do we have on the tenth. >> you have ten new appeals on the tenth and you have eleven matters on the 17th. >> and some of those may leave between now and then and i some of them will take long. >> two weeks. yeah. >> two weeks. >> it is december 10th is that what you are suggesting. >> and december the tenth, is longer than ten weeks, and th

. >> mr. duffy last point. >> (laughter). >> not forever. >> if things got resolved and the permit for remodeling the units i don't think the other pirate will have issues withdrawing that fee will take care of that and stop all that. >> whatever we don't know. >> that's right. >> is motion from commissioner fung to continue all 3 matters to the boards indefinitely commander or calendar public hearing have been held to allow time for the outstanding notices of violations to be abated or resolved yes? okay on that motion to reschedule auto 3 matters to the call of the chair the vice president is absent commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson is absent the vote is 3 to zero all 3 matters are on the boards indefinitely calendar to the call of the chair >> the next - >> just one minute. >> okay. so the next item i'm going to call is item 8 appeal lynn vs. the department of building inspection with the planning department approval the property on garfield street protesting t

. >> i'll support that i think he have an issue of the permit and the drawings and mr. duffy i want that to come back. >> eastern wouldn't unit 9 needed to be able to look at the drairgz. >> i'm sorry the drawings will be provide to all the parties in addition to the boards you'll need to rise the copies. >> 11 copies of the drawings to the board of appeals and then delivered two copies to the co-appellants. >> right. >> okay. >> fine that's fine it's just it could have been handled but i accept what you're saying so we should if the next wednesday the 12 is available for the appellant? the appellants >> i need and ms. miller. >> at the same time? >> i'm sorry you have to come and speak to the microphone. >> so the subject dental surgery scheduled on that day i'm not sure i'll be able to talk after that i don't know how it about affect my mouth will i be allowed next week to speak to an opportunity to be heard or only about the drawings? at that time, it's up to the board whether they wanted to entertain additional testimony or looked at the drawings >> it's my intent to clos

. >> mr. duffy. >> good evening joe duffey beginning so the subject of the leading permit for randell street was approved on march it 122014 based on april 12th the permit went through the dpw and planning as you've heard the site permit was issued in 20182014 there was addendum issues issued on june it doesn't say it was structural or mechanical but the one was an addendum and there's a his activity complaints one active complaints i've spoken to the senior building inspector the neighbors have submitted a survey to addicting we give the other side an opinion to get their survey and sometimes those end up with with a monitor we're not sure where that is going to go but we're talking about a half an inch it's a civil dispute we stop work at a certain area if it's egresses if it's a problem we've had that in the past and several actually in the zero lot lines and with the buildings when someone gets an additional project permit they could end up a half-inch over we encourage the neighbors to get toge

. >> mr. duffy (laughter). >> commissioners on the building permit 2014031 apartment one the renovation of the bedroom all walls removed and plumbing needed and the bathroom by a 6 foot kitchen 8 by 9 permit was for the kitchen and bathroom remodeled permit it got approved on august 14th are 13, 2014 i believe some don't guess work has started i know that the building inspector has been out to the site i've spoken to him donald duffey i didn't go out there i was interested in going out there i've not seen n this type of condition in san francisco by then again in san francisco we with the orderly buildings there's things that are a little bit unusual not saying things are up to code older buildings have an irish aspect this is one that has an unusual circumstance so it's unusual the part of the floor and the gentleman that owns the property spoke i guess he bought the building in 2011 and peterson if i was the building inspector i'll give you my take if i went out there for a kitchen and bathroom re

and i don't know, if mr. duffy, and if one of you would like to talk to, because i know that over the years, that between the two of you guys who have been primarily want to be approved and they are primarily and kind of goat to people

and i don't know, if mr. duffy, and if one of you would like to talk to, because i know that over the years, that between the two of you guys who have been primarily want to be approved and they are primarily and kind of goat to people for these permits it was traumatic in the fact that you had large projects downtown not being able to issue the permits and it caused a lot of heart burn, i am sure and i just want to be sure that because, from where i am sitting, and from what i understand, we have been working very hard in dealing with these noise issues and we have over the years, and i only learned this through the hearing, actually hearing you speak that you had done and implemented changes, and talked to the issues and i would not mind hearing the story on that and the direct is going to update us and the changes that have you implemented on top of the changes that have you been done over the years. so, the chief inspector? >> good morning, and again, commissioners i think that it is still morning. as someone s

and we have already reached out to mr. duffy about this and we have started talking about what we will do after the permit is issued. >> so, once that we have removed those walls and will also give us access to the two adjacent buildings, and so that we can respond to the number of damage that were done to the buildings by the previous owner and any overages. what do you got, encroachments and we have done october survey and the woodsiding and a roof trim and all of the things that we are going to be able to take care of and it really gives us an opportunity of what happened to the adjacent homes since the 2004 permit and so we have also on the planning side we have incorporated the light wells to match the light wells on the adjacent property and with respect to the step back, that is something that the team requested of us and it is because the building to either side of us are two stories and it is typical that when you build a third story, they want to step back so that it is not the dem nant facade at the frontage of the bu

. >> i'd be more comfortable if mr. duffy looked at it first. >> she actually accepted it and pulled the water department we didn't what was asked us inform do you actually have them we sent them back on the first time and the discretionary review they're in the packet. >> what. >> we have them here. >> we didn't accept it. >> here's the water department one. >> i have a hero. >> let me speak. >> i'm sorry. >> can you give a copy to the attorney. >> we explicit do a full blown process but based on what i hear if it's not on the sand born the water department board has one family whatever that is about it is calling it one family there's needs to be a bit more to call it whether he will to answer our question we'll leave it at a two family dwl and they can remove the structure based on the age if it's been there forever i know that a lot of people try to get the non-conforming legalized. >> would it have to be a separate units or structure it on the property. >> that's a planning department consideration. >> because the 10 by