. >> the mayor is the sponsor we have the planning department to present following by mr. duffy. >> good afternoon. supervisors i'm kim the planner with the san francisco planning department today is an ordinance amending the controlling for homeless shelters it was unanimously recommended approval by the planning commission on december 18th this ordinance will bring san francisco planning code into experience with the state law regarding the homeless shelter controls to allow the emergency of homeless shelter as a right meaning without required public hearing in a place one zoning district this legislation is a part of the housing element that will be up in a few weeks currently the planning code didn't exclude a defines for the homeless shelter it is interpretations of the cod to define the use cargo of the proposals that are monthly group housing or hotel uses human resources hotel uses are a variety of zoning in front a few cases are interpreted as hotel use san francisco out of compliance with the state law the proposed ordinance will bring the planning code into compliance

go ahead mr. duffy. >> so i was just wanted to typically if their for example the property is for sale and new owner my experience the new owner will want to take care of of the violations on the property a lot of times this is overtaken by someone that point to do an edition but this is an extension of time probably the best to see what happens with the next because it may take care of itself. >> do you make a motion. >> okay. >> are we ready for another motion. >> i'll take a shot at it. >> all right. >> (laughter). i'm going to move that we continue this case to the call of the chair with the condition that the building inspection research further life safety issues and allow that portions of the work to continue based on their departmental authority >> okay. >> there's a motion on the floor from commissioner fung to continue this matter to the call of the chair the boards indefinitely calendar the public hamburger has been held and this continuance to allow time force the dbi to examine life safety

. >> mr. duffy. >> i just want to respond to the comments from the gentleman about the dbis policy over the years the written notice of violation if there's. >> state law on the housing part of things i know from the department of building inspection point of view we don't are a record you have the choice to legalize or remove it in this case someone wanted to remove it so that building permit was written he'll and maybe that needs to be or go to the city attorney but i don't think anything has been done illegal and disrespect permits done and obviously with the housing short term and the mayor's office directive and permits to legal lies a dwelling unit they're given a a choice i think you all know that the classroom was filed by the tenant and at the time saying unsafe conditions in the garage another notice of violation is maybe he'll be losing his home it seems like inironic but this i thought i'd add about the state law i'm not versed but i don't see anything wrong from the dbi point of view at

. >> mr. duffy the 2006 drawings that you referenced does it show the depth of the balcony. >> can i put them on the overhead? >> let's see there we go. >> so it doesn't show the depth of the blatantly such as a it shows their coming out from a door and see the separation between the balcony and the new deck on the other side. >> the variance. >> the variance give us the size of it but not on the plans. >> the photo didn't look like the slide. >> we see a lot of that people change things people decides some saturday do a project and we don't get a complaint we don't know but if we got a complaint we'd looked at that i have a exterior elevation you see the balcony of this is definitely a separation that to my knowledge is the last legal set of drawings you don't know you don't know i don't think there's anything else if you're coming in that that, yes you've got a existing condition but dbi will recognize that as the last configuration off the rear yard. >> were there two novas. >> that's a good ques

historic nature of the doors so that's where we are at this time. >> so you suggest a timetable mr. duffy. >> it will probably take a month or two there's a lot of permits geological going over the last three or four years we want to clean them up and get the work signed off to make it a little bit easier to move forward about this as well the issue is going to be the accessibility versus the historic nature of the front doors if we can deal with the permit for the interior work mayor ed lee we need not need the permit under appeal f that can get cancelled you will see me back but not the party donate the best case scenario. >> march 18 or 25. >> that's okay. >> i'm going back the architect and myself will be meeting in the next week about the old permits that should give us time and we can - he actually has plans ready to go if in that will address he had interior work you may see a cancelation of the permit before that if you want to leave it off until march it maybe renewed by then. >> maybe the 25. >> mr. duffy perhaps if the work is not going to be required for the exterior doors nov

lau, mr. duffy and mr. lee. >> mr. lau you're nodding your head so you agree. >> i believe that the commissioners are in in agreement and the appropriate motion would be to grant the appeal and to condition -- it's actually a site permit -- to condition is site permit on the new drawings provided, dated -- >> today's date i think. >> december 17. and to allow the building department to review the foundation for code compliance upon completion of demolition . did i miss anything? >> and on the basis of the agreement -- that is on the agreement of the parties? >> that is unusual, but yes. >> okay. >> we have a motion to withhold this permit with adoption of revised plans. a further condition that the dbi review the subject foundation for code compliance upon completion of the demolition and this motion is on the basis of an agreement between the parties. on that motion to up hold with revised plans and further conditions, president lazarus. >> i. >> commissioner honda. >> i. >> commissioner wilson? >> i. >> thank you. th

functioning you were correct as mr. duffy showed you the retaining wall if in the back part of the property i have a copy of the plan unfortunately i received them literary later this week can show you guys a copy of the planned go over the significant changes i have limited time but there are significant changed and we're still cropping with mr. bernard his engineer and the city in regard to achieve the result we ask the appeal be smitsz so we know move forward with achieving the permit and placed on the schedule we've submitted and the plans we've submitted about those changes in which mr. berry in regards engineer has pointed out i understand those changes and the minor difference how you go about performing the work >> did you say shoring work was done. >> it was done that day there was immediate shoring that day we got someone out under the direction of the new engineer. >> what's the i'm sure the life expectancy of the shoring how long is that good for . >> did concern regarding the shoring that was when we were having

how much time do you need mr. duffy? >> i could get it done before the next hearing, january 14. >> is that okay with the permit holder and appellant? >> hold on. can i change that? the inspector's going to ireland for christmas. >> we're talking about january 14. >> i know, he's going for a long time. >> okay. he needs to be there. yeah, 21st. let's give it a little bit more time. he'll be back by then. >> and the continuance is to allow for dbi inspection. >> to verify what requirement they have made upon the facility. >> how we ended up with the removal of the threshold that goes into that store front prior to any permitting process. >> let's deal with one thing at a time. >> commissioner fung would you like a briefing or just an update. >> i think just an update. the motion is to move to january 21 2015 to conduct a site visit to verify what ada requirements dbi imposed on the permit holder. >> on the motion to continue to january 21st, 2015, president lazarus. >> i. >> commissioner honda. >> itch. >> commissioner wi

. >> okay anything further from the department mr. duffy mr. sanchez commissioners the matter is auditors - yours. >> we don't have enough information. >> do we do that or deny the appeal. >> what will we do. >> i'm recommend that we continue with allow the building inspection to review the first to review the permit then compare it to the exist site and i think they need to have some explanation with the permit holder i would suggest you dpo do that i'm not going to do at this point what the zoning administrator said to revoke the permit we don't have enough information. >> that's your motion. >> is the permit holder here did you said what i said. >> okay basically you'll need to go and meet with the believable and review did drawings and the exist building with them they can explain to you what you can or can't do come forward. >> commissioners just a quick question is that in the form of a report before the next hearing would you like a report on the building we're going to go into the two unit how many rooms i hope they haven't demolished m

. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners in the building permit under appeal is nonsense to notice of violation retrofit of existing under box removing the box and replacing it with a concrete with reinforced peers it was reviewed by dph the building inspection the planning department our structural plan structures two engineers looked at it and i know that was an old for a while but they got it issued the permit was issued it is in response to notice of violation in 2012 but i think the gentleman filed a complaint over and over someone on his behalf and substantially we wrote it up for a violation and resolved the notice of violation we've spent a lot of staff time open this address dealing with this issue and the deck issue as well that the gentleman brought up i'll be confident our engineers spot checked that correctly and it should be done in my opinion that's what the gentleman disastrous with me if we were here but there is a properly issued permit i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> am

i want mr. duffy to say yes. >> okay. >> i think the most important thing is that we get both numbers on the 39 and 41. that's really important. >> yeah, we've already committed to that. >> so the motion, if i may restate what i believe it should believe, would be to grant the appeal and condition the issuance on adding 39 lake street to the permit and also revising the skoepz scope of work to include the work in the plans tonight. >> subject to plan review. >> it will be subject to plan review just by the nature of the process. >> i stated it very well, didn't it? >> you did. >> was there a date on those plans? >> yes, they're dated 12/17. december 17. >> okay. so again, to up hold this permit on condition at the permit address will be amended to include 39 and 41 lake street with adoption of revised plans dated december 17, 2014. on that motion to up hold with that condition and adoption of revised plans, president lazarus. >> i. >> commissioner honda. >> i. >> commissioner wilson. >> i. >> thank yo

how much time do you need mr. duffy? >> i could get it done before the next hearing, january 14. >> is that okay with the permit holder and appellant? >> hold on. can i change that? the inspector's going to ireland for christmas. >> we're talking about january 14. >> i know, he's going for a long time. >> okay. he needs to be there. yeah, 21st. let's give it a little bit more time. he'll be back by then. >> and the continuance is to allow for dbi inspection. >> to verify what requirement they have made upon the facility. >> how we ended up with the removal of the threshold

sanchez and mr. duffy mr. sanchez is shaking his head. >> may i address the board. >> on that topic. >> he wants to point out which is the many pages he's given me of e-mails then i'll look at it is but. >> i'll give you a copy let's precede are the case we're going to proceed with the case please begin. >> i'm sorry, i want to ask did you see it. >> i asked you to please begin with the case. >> will i accept the documents. >> not now no. >> the case that i'll start on the clock right now the case before i today, we oppose the release of the suspensions of the documents but we feel at this time an agreement has been reached on september 1st between supervisor farrell and the planning and ourselves and that the department of building inspection will undertake a review to get a comprehensive plan of what the project sponsor wants to do they'll look at the issues and designated chief inspector tom ron tom to do it along with their engineer diane and the initial response there was no alignment between the permits,

zoning administrator representing the planning department and practicing those and he'll be joined by mr. duffy representing the building inspection and also joined by the senior planned checker representing the street use and mapping mr. pacheco if i could go over the boards guidelines and conduct the swearing in process arrest at board requests i turn off outline cell phones and pagers please carry on conversations in the halfway the departments representatives each has 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal people affiliated must conduct their minutes to 3 each has up to 3 minutes but no reluctant for participant affiliated members of the public who wish to speak on an item asked but to the required to submit a business card when you come up to the podium speaker cards and pens are available on the lsd left side of the podium there or customer survey forms on the left side of the 30u78d if i need a rehearing or schedules please speak to board staff during the call the boarding board office on mission street room 304 this meeting is broadcast live on sfovtd cable channel 7

perhaps we will start with mr. duffy then from dbi. >> i have a financial situation with the law firm on a separate matter but i'm prepared to hear this case with no prejudice or bias. >> thank you. inspector duffy. >> good evening. the case as you know was deferred last night. i did a site visit, been out there twice since the last hearing. i was out there yesterday and last week as well. so one of the reasons i was out there was because of the existing walls that were to remain and the concern about the demolition of those walls so i went there and then we measured the wall, chief building inspector was also there as well. we met with both sites, contractor, attorney, neighbors, their consultants so there was a lot of people there. there's two remaining walls at the property that are left, one is on the north side property line wall, 79 feet high, consists of 2 by 6 studs with redwood siding on the ground floor only. the only remaining is on the south property line, 27 feet long, 7 foot high, 2 by 6 studs with redwood

to his right is the deputy city attorney representing the department of public health and i saw mr. duffyepresenting the be department of building inspection mr. pacheco go over the guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board asks you turn off outline electronic device and the boards rules of presentation are appellants and permit holders each have 7 minutes to present their cases and 3 minutes for rebuttals people affiliated with the parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes arrest to assist the board in the i cannot preparation of the minutes he members are asked but to the required to submit a speaker card to board staff when coming up to the podium the board loss welcomes our comments and incisions there are customer satisfaction forms on the left hand of the podium if you have requests about the board hearing please speak to the staff over the meeting or call the board office tomorrow morning on moigs between van ness this is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78 and dvds are available for purchase directly in sfgovtv thank you for your attendance at

sanchez or mr. duffy any public comment? >> please step forward inform you're going to speak on this item. >> so i thank you commissioner president lazarus and the board for letting us speak i'm elizabeth wu i'm below the appellant and so although i didn't speak i was present at the last meeting on december 10th in support of ms. murdock who was really in my opinion speaking on behalf of residents in our building who will be impacted by the proposed structure from lvns to the testimonies i believe some of the statement were misleading this is in reference to the direct kvls conversation i was cop all the e-mails ms. murdock reached out to speak directly to bring up our concerns although he relied the relies consisted of the follow sentiments i'm not available to meet we'll not agree to the moefktsdz or discuss this matter with i so i believe it's unjust the neighborhood across the street or further from the site of the project be heard because right next door we're the ones most impacted so because of that i hope you'll be a

mr. duffy. >> on the building department involvement in this building permit involved the intake on august 18, 2014. it was checked for building cold compliance on 26th of august, 2014 by robert chunk and issued on august 26 as well. it was an over-the-counter approval. it was probably checked for architectural from dbi however, i'm pretty certain of that. that's normally foundations, additions, so roof decks would n't give us to give notice when the permit's issued. it's a standard roofer deck permit that looks like it's properly approved as a stand alone permit for a roof deck. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, commissioners the matter is submitted. >> he said she said. >> i think if we are consistent with what we ruled on we allowed jurisdiction. >> i'm not so sure. >> why would you add a late provision to your permit that late in the game? >> i don't think that's the issue here, however. perhaps what he did was not particularly ethical or above board but if it was a

. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioner joe duh dbi just on the i'll go through the permit application first, the permit was obtained to comply with notice of violation add two windows of skylight door and replace the pop out deck fire roof and decade or deck as required there was an earlier permit to comply with the notice of violation it was from on the december 13th and issued on october 1st so it was over the counter approval it did get through the planning department over the current with the mechanical plan with a value of $12,000 a permit that was over the counter no drawings it was the main level of a flat duplex add new offices i'm sorry that was a 2006 permit it was there are two many permits the 2014 was in august was for the second floor deck with the dry rot less than 50 percent construction that is typically when someone finds dry rot you can replace it and not need a permit it is limit on the scope of work they got ahead of themselves there was a complaint filed i have the detailed overview d

. >> thank you mr. duffy good evening, commissioners joe president fewer i didn't from beginning the building permit that's under appeal was filed on october 20, 2013, and got issued on the tenth of october and got issued and appealed on the 24th of october 2014 the description of work is remodeling the kitchen on the second floor and replace the fortune a dinger and living room exist one bedroom on second floor 3 bathrooms and 3 bedrooms third floor it's valuable i don't see the approved plans i'm not sure what was knapp the appellants came to see me with questions about the building permit prosecute the hearing we did do research on the building but in that conversation one of the things we came up with the building permit under appropriately appeal is a one story dwem there's a certificate of final completion if i having could have the overhead i'll turn it up the other way here so the certificate of final completion was the alternatives inform to comply and that was signed off on 3, 16, 1979 got it down a

. >> mr. duffy so we'll take public comment any public comment on that item? everyone can please step forward it will help us move along feast stand on the one side of the room please whoever wants to speak first come forward. >> commissioner president lazarus. >> good evening thank you for taking the time to hear us i'm one of the owners on 27th street the reason i'm here to sport i o support my tenants that are greatly effected by the addition by the project on 27th street i was not present at the i believe that was a meet-and-greet meeting they had any sister showed up she was national aware it was 3 stories height so at the time i didn't know it was going to impact the direct sunlight in our property had i known i would have and the this sooner as well as notified the tenants of what would impact them by moving in or their existing living conditions i support any tenants they'll suffer most of the impact 95 percent the direct daylight effects the courtyards the east is the only heat year round and the permit holders current design 3 stories high which is a

. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners joe duffey again dbi that's a very good question i anticipated that will be an issue should the release of that suspension be upheld by the board i believe that probably both sides one side is going to work and the other side not let them work our notice of violation said stop all work that revision permit is the permit that everyone is talking about it's has not been approved or issued we do in situation get into conversations some days there are a limited scope of work and the gentleman won't like it the footage we stop work orders but continue something not associated with an issue we'll let the limited scope of work i don't know if that is going to happen i anticipate that will be a decision happening with the day by day in the next couple of weeks i want to clarify the comments about bringing no engineers before permits are issued so they can scrutinize the plans i'm familiar with that ever happening i would courage the permit holder to contact the plan check ma

mr. duffy: thank you, mr. speaker. i've listened to the ranking member talk about this bill tonight. and you'd think the sky is falling if this c.l.o. portion of our package is passed. the problem with that argument is that 53 of the democrats on the financial services committee with republicans, voted to pass this package last year. only three democrats dissented. only three. then it passed this house floor by a voice vote. if this bill was so disastrous for the american economy, i would ask my good friend across the aisle, at 9:00 on a tuesday night where members of congress have nothing going on, where are the democrats? where is the outrage? there's only one. there's only one. because many democrats in the last congress voted for this bill. because they agreed with it. now, it didn't get anywhere because it fell into harry reid's trash bin. but the volcker rule directed under dodd-frank was supposed to stop big banks from using insured customer funds to engauge in lessky investments -- risky investments. c.l.o.'s,