Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  May 16, 2018 6:00am-7:01am PDT

6:00 am
kind with aluminum clad front windows. quote, interior modifications comply with va volumes down, deck and rear less than 10 feet in height with nodable area of lot, cpps, this is a revision permit, unquote. the planner approved on march 6 -- it was a different planner but approved the permit over the counter and noted replace front windows with aluminum clad front windows. the permit did not require notification and was planning code requirement. like you, we did not receive plans, but usually, this wiekly, plans are not -- quickly, plans are not in our internal system, but luckily these ones were, so i can put them on the overhead.
6:01 am
so this is the existing property as it is now. here's the proposal and the site plan. you can see the addition of the deck here. >> that's a deck, not a pop out, right? >> correct. it's a deck. it's not enclosed and occupied for...and here's the proposed site reconfiguration on the ground floor. they have a previous permit to basically take what was just garage and storage space and convert it into habitable space, add a couple bedrooms and full bath and storage room. they just are changing the configuration a bit here on the down stairs. and then, similarly, on the second floor, the living area essentially staying the same.
6:02 am
they reconfigured the bathroom and closet area but kept the same number of bedrooms. and that was essentially -- there's no plans -- no elevation showing the windows because they're being replaced in time. >> mr. teague, thank you go back to the -- can you go back to the ground floor plan. so the outline of that is the retaining wall? it goes to the property line, right? that's the retaining wall. >> yes, and there was a separate permit that they obtained specifically for the retaining wall or -- last year. >> so the dotted lines there represent the outline of the deck. >> their deck, right. it's all set from the property lines to avoid the required -- >> fire wall. >> fire wall which would have triggered notification and other requirement zblz and unfortunately we don't have elevations but that second level deck is not at a true second level, it probably
6:03 am
should be lower, is that correct? >> it's at the second level of the building. they excavated down, so there's more space underneath it, but the deck is to provide access to that second floor in the rear, so it's the appropriate height to do that. >> so the ground floor. >> and there are elevations here to give you an idea of here in the rear skbr . >> so the retaining wall, and it provides the light and air to the space? >> yeah. >> okay. >> so having said all that, it was reviewed by planning from just looking at this permit, it appears to be something we can approve over the counter without any notice and that's what happened. but there were two issues we would raise about the permit. first is over the course of the several permits that have been issued for this project, the home has gone from a two bedroom two full bathroom -- i'm sorry, to a four bedrooms
6:04 am
and five full bedrooms, with an office. the department did have some discretion to request modifications if deemed necessary. for this project the planners who determined the work over the counter did not determine such work was necessary. second drawings filed with the planning department, planning did receive a complaint on october 19 of last year, and that read, quote, demolition without planning department's approval, demolition of entire interior of house, excavation appears to be expanding main home. house was two bedroom, one bath remodelled to four bed, 4.5 bath. stop order was issued on october 13 but was continued on
6:05 am
october 14. that was the enforcement case on planning. we did have abenforcement planner assigned to that. they contacted dbi. there were complaints filed with dbi. they had a joint site inspection, spoke with the permit holders, had them give a tour inside to see what walls had been removed and provide additional plans and calculations to see if more than 75% of the walls had been removed, and in fact it was less than 75% at that point in time. it was around 45%, so that permit at that time, this collective permits would not have triggered neighborhood notifications. if you have a collective set for one project over a period of time that effectively remove more than 75% of interior walls, you're going to trigger neighborhood notification. and there was also a discussion with the permit holder about potential serial permitting although the multiple permits
6:06 am
that they had gotten done would not have required a review. the planning department case was closed in january of this year, and the incident before you was submitted after this enforcement process had been concluded. it's clear that additional interior walls will be removed as part of this permit, however it's not clear if that will result in more than 75% of the overall interior walls. it's not provided, so at this point, i can't verify if the subject building permit when added to the prior permits for this project will remove more than 75% of the interior walls, but other than those two issues, the permit meets all other planning code requirements and, board, obviously can use their discretion to determine how you may want to address those two or any other issues related to this permit. >> so the removal of the foundation, the significant
6:07 am
excavation, that was permitted? >> i can't speak to the level of excavation that was called out and permitted in the -- in the permit for the retaining wall because it was a very limited permit, and i haven't had a chance to look at that in detail, but that did not come to the planning department for review. but the retaining wall it efl is, similar to one of the prior cases, it was holding back, going down, so it didn't actually add any height in the rear yard, so the retaining wall itself didn't actually trigger planning department review. >> perhaps building. >> yeah, i was going to say, perhaps building's going to have more input on this. >> thank you. >> wow, two in a row that were very similar, huh? >> yeah. >> very busy.
6:08 am
so the -- the permit that's under appeal i'll refer to it as permit number five. there's a total of five building permits since 2017, and it's a revision 2017 interior room configuration perplans, new deck in rear, and replace front windows with aluminum clad kwoos. permit was filed on the 1 of march of 2017 shall issued on the 6 of march, and appealed on the 20 of march 2018. i didn't review the plans for it yet, but i do know there are, as i said, five building permits on the project, which is kind of unusual but we do see it now and again. i don't have much information apart from there has been regular inspections on the work. there is one complaint that's open, and it's -- it's something that's -- it does address the concerns of the
6:09 am
neighbor. the last complaint, we've had a few complaints, we've had three of them, i see, and there was a notice of violation that's been abated. the 5 of april 2018, we got an anonymous complaint, working outside of the scope of permit ending in 1237, which was for the retaining wall percomplainant, excavation at the rear of the property exceeds the permitted depth. instead of 10 inches, they have ex-have a indicated 5 feet. the last update i have from that, that was just printing it from the system today was the site inspector, he tried a site entry, and there was no contact, and he left a notice on the 3 of april of 2018. that would seem to address some of the concerns that the appellant had, but i don't see where dbi has properly looked at that yet. now i did hear the two
6:10 am
gentlemen saying a lot of the work had been finished. i'm not sure with regards to the current state of things and inspections with where they are on the work. i'm quite happy to answer any of you are your questions. >> so -- answer any of your questions. >> so are the permits finalized inspector duffy? i imagine all the rough end have been signed off? >> yeah. i saw a rough installation on one of those, but looking up the inspection history for five permits is a lot of work. >> okay because it looks like the foundation -- the footings have been removed so there should probably be some special instructions. >> yeah. it's a good size project when you add it all together. i'm just wondering how much they've excavated on the first floor, as well. did that trigger something? hopefully, we dealt with it at
6:11 am
that time. >> i think since the inspector's haven't made a visit, i would emergency that this is probably going to be -- >> yeah, the lack of a response to the appeal makes it hard for me, as well because i can't really gauge where we're coming from. i just read the brief and i didn't see a response, so it's a little unusual for me, as well. >> okay. thank you. >> did you see whether the structural work, meaning the retaining wall, was then an additional foundation, the lower level, were those all inspected? >> i did see a rebar inspection for the retaining wall permit, yes. >> what about the foundation? >> i'm not sure. i don't know. >> mr. duffy, you said there were three complaints that you saw in the file, and one resulted in an nov that was subsequently abated? >> yeah. >> okay. >> that was the one that i believe mr. tate referred to her building and planning went
6:12 am
out together. i think one of our building inspectors are written a notice of violation, and then a senior inspector went out and maybe issued it in error and closed the case. that's what was showing in the system, it was issued and closed pretty quickly. i'm sorry i can't give you more news. there were three -- there was one about debree being thrown out through -- debris being thrown out through the window, the whole yard is dirty. an inspector told them to clean the yard clean, safe, and never three did you bree from t-- debris from the windows. we still have three complaints open, so they need to get closed out, as well. >> thank you. >> so it -- i'm hearing the --
6:13 am
naivete of the project sponsor because it's there are first job -- it's their first job, but they have a licensed contractor who should know better because that's what contractors do, is they provide expertise, that's why they're licensed, and i mean, this -- this smells like serial permitting, and -- and there's all sort -- the -- what -- if i was the neighbor, i would be concerned, as well, as a 10 inch pit becomes a 5 foot pit. i would be concerned as we've heard many, many times in here about the integrity of foundation -- a foundation that is not supposed to be torn out is torn out, and that would risk or certainly question the integrity of the entire structure. how do we deal with this --
6:14 am
this type of situation where well, we didn't know any better is the -- is the -- is the claim, but it smells like serial permitting and it's also done by a licensed contractor who should know better? >> what -- >> something's wrong here. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> you want me to respond? >> i think -- i think we probably -- >> was there a question? >> we probably could give you a report on where dbi are with everything. i mean, i did see inspections out there. that tells me that we're out there. >> yeah. >> the -- the lack of answers and a response makes it hard for everyone, and it only goes so far when you get up and don't really -- >> well, we're just going to have to continue this case and have dbi out there. >> let's have them be here and then decide.
6:15 am
>> yeah, i agree with you, commissioners, it's hard. it doesn't warrant -- lack of answer doesn't warrant a reason. >> yeah, my question that should have been -- well, my last sentence should have been ---enned ended in a ques mark is what do we do when a project is stated as one thing, permitted as one thing, turns out completely different or certainly not as originally conceived? >> so what i would do is i would ask the project sponsor to provide all documents, all permits, job cards, plans, from number one through number five. i'd go there and i'd do a full inspection of the property and see if the work was done in accordance with the approved plans that he has. i would hope that it has, at this point, because how far down the road they are, it sounds like that's what it says. and i do see inspection
6:16 am
history. but if it helps the board of appeals to get a report from dbi as to where the project is in regards to all the permits, we can do that, and that's the way i would handle it. if it wasn't at an appeal and somebody was coming into dbi and saying just what you said, i would say okay, let's go out there and see what's going on. >> okay. >> okay. is there any public comment on this item? okay. please lineup against the wall, and someone -- please approach the microphone, the first speaker. thank you. >> good evening. my name is mary ashenbrenner. i am here to support the appellant's appeal to prevent the struck structural as originally submitted on march 1, 2018. both the appellant and i are retired san francisco unified
6:17 am
school district high school teachers, both teaching for 36 years. as teachers, one thing is certain. you treat everyone equally and respectfully. no one's rights are violated. rules are established to assure this. when the rules are not followed, there are consequences. the building department has rules about when and for what purpose you need to get a permit. in the property being discussed tonight, an additional request for a permit to repair some cracks in the two bedroom, one bath home at 2242 35th avenue quickly escalated to the complete demolition of the interior space, resulting in the creation of a four bedroom, 4.5 bathroom home, a clear violation of the scope of the original building permit. interestingly, when the violation of permits was related to city officials, a correct permit was corrected retroactively and work continued. this happened time and time
6:18 am
again, work expanded without the appropriate permits, a complaint was filed, a permit was granted. when excavation behind the property began and a new retaining wall appeared, inspectors were again notified. despite contrary evidence, the contractor stated it was an existing wall, which bring s u to the most reviezed plan, a second floor deck with a south side staircase. this addition and deck would rise almost to the height of the 6 foot fence delineating the property line between the two homes and would dramatically impact the appellant's right to privacy. i understand there is a housing shortage in san francisco. i understand the contractors and city officials need to work together to assure a safe construction, but what i don't
6:19 am
understand is the apparent willingness, at least in this case, of the city to repeatedly support those who violate the rules to profit from construction at the expense of a woman who has owned her home for more than 40 years and simply doesn't want an observation deck looming over her back yard. the appellant has put up with jackhammers, pounding, dust, excavation conviction, trucks and -- equipment, trucks and construction noise for nine months. i surgery you to support her right to privacy by stopping the construction of a deck at 2242 35th avenue. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is susan sandal. i ask that you deny the permit for the deck. this is the least you can do after the plastic bagraflagran
6:20 am
for not getting permits. there were permits for minor alterations but major work was done. the foot print of the house was changed. the house went from one bath, two bedroom, to not two baths, but 4.5 bathrooms and four bedrooms. what are their plans? there will be many people and noise. if you look at the permit and then said, okay, they can keep what they've done if this was approved before work was started, there would be little to nothing left. they would have had 10 feet of soil removed rather than 5 feet, or 10 inches rather
6:21 am
than 5 feet. they would have to remove the roof, put back 5 feet of soil, take out the retaining wall, get rid of the new first story, etcetera. there may also be fines. removing and disposing of asbestos carries heavy fines. most floors in homes of that vintage have as best owes. there were no samples that were taken. who follows up on this? will the neighbor rebuild the wall of my friend's house where the lath and plaster was destroyed? will they pay for medical treatment for dust, toxins and asbestos in her lungs? it is an example of someone winning, having built by disregarding the permitting process. work was done quickly and cheaply. please deny the request to build the deck which would take
6:22 am
away privacy and sun light from my friend. thank you. >> i'm sorry ma'am. can i ask you a question? are you an immediate neighbor? >> i live in san francisco. >> okay. >> but i am not a neighbor. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening. my name is reva boudry. we are also asking that you deny the request for a permit for a deck. it would definitely impact especially the privacy of our neighbor, marlene, but also impact the privacy of us. we're a few doors down, however there are no neighbors in several houses in both directions that have decks, so this would also be a deck that would ultimately impact our yard. we do use our yard pretty extensively as we now in the sunset get quite a bit of sun, so we're out there usually even an hour or two after work in
6:23 am
the evenings and on the weekends, as well, so we would not appreciate the lack of privacy as well. this whole project was started as a simple project for about 4,000 to fix cracks in plaster and fix cracks in the basement flooring, and after us as concerned neighbors, after we had filed multiple -- after we started to file complaints, every time we file a complaint, then, a new permit was then requested and issued. so i feel strongly if we had not fixing complaints, the initial permit fixing cracks in the plaster would have been the only permit issued on this, despite the extensive amount of work. in addition the more recent permit for taking out 10 inches of soil in the basement in order to lower the floor level, i would also echo that significant amount, more than 10 inches has been removed. as has been alluded to, marlene cou could -- stated she could hear
6:24 am
the plaster cracking off the out side of her walls, as well. we've been in our how's for four years and did not sl cracks. we repaired them when he we first moved in, but now, we have new hair lines, as well. ultimately, i really wish that this family had worked within the permits instead of continuously getting new permits as we filed complaints, and i also really wish that they had worked with the neighbors and with the neighborhood. i think reaching out to us and especially reaching out to marlene would have gone a long ways in understanding and making things right as opposed to ending up here. ultimately for me what i would definitely request of this is have a full reassessment of the property value given the scope and amount of work that's been done and completed, i think it would be more than fair to pay their fair share of property taxes because it's a new home with an old facade.
6:25 am
thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is mary blake. i live in santa rosa, but i lived with marlene for ten years when we were evacuated because of the fire, and that was during the excavation. the excavation and the retaining wall both happened before the permits were approved, and they both were outside of the scope of the permit applications. the retaining wall that they applied for was to replace an existing one where there was no existing one, and the excavation, as you've heard several times was supposed to be fore 10 inches, and it w was -- for 10 inches, and service significantly deeper. the deck is being built because of the excavation, and the new retaining wall is supporting the deck. so the deck is(a), we're worried that it's going to go
6:26 am
well beyond the application what their scope of permit is, since everything else has been, and(b) that it's based on fraudulently applied for permits. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is william reese, and i'm a friend of marlene kramer's. i am not a resident of california. i live in chicago, but i am a registered architect, so marlene is a relative, and we're also really good friends, have been for a long time. she -- you know, i don't want to say consulted. she was asking me for some insight over this whole course of this project as to, you know, sounding board and everything else. i don't -- i didn't have any access to the plans until the other day, when we went down to
6:27 am
the building department and reviewed the plans. and they are consistently lack of clear scope of what is actually taking place, and that has taken -- that's over the course of the whole project. so when -- when this appeal for the interior room configuration perplans, that is tweaking of little things of the big stuff they already did, okay? so it's little tiny little modifications. i want to speak to the structural concerns here, also. they did remove the retaining wall at the back of the house. there is no -- they also -- when they fixed the crack, they removed the entire slab of the whole first floor, and it wasn't to necessarily replace it, but it was to also put
6:28 am
plumbing in the ground in order to facilitate the new bathrooms and everything at the first floor. the centerline structural wall that runs down the middle of the building was removed. they replaced it with something below the dirt. you really can't see it in any of the pictures, you know, that were displayed tonight, but it's there. you can see the new bearing wall construction down the middle of the building. again, the retaining wall at the back of the building right -- right here. right there. that's a new structural item right there, through the middle of the building. the -- again, the retaining wall was removed, which would have run right here, like that, and the new retaining wall, which is much higher and bigger, is out here. these structural changes never showed up on any of the
6:29 am
drawings, so it seems like the building department was responding to what they had before them, and what was before them was incomplete to a high degree, and that has been consistent all the way through the project. thank you very much. >> okay. thank you. >> sir, i have a question. >> yes. >> so have you been there, witnessing the project, because you stated that they removed a rear retaining wall, yet everybody here has said there was not a retaining wall there. are you talking about the foundation of the property or are you talking about a retaining wall. >> this, i'm saying it is a foundation wall. it is a foundation wall, but it has retaining characteristics. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. seeing any other public comment? seeing none, we'll move on. miss kramer, your rebuttal, you have three minutes, please.
6:30 am
>> i'm just so not used to doing this. it's been a learning experience. again, even though the innocence is presented here that, you know, i didn't know what i was doing, and da, da, da, it was up to the contractor, sonny tang, to get the proper permits. and i just hope that you as commissioners can deny the deck in order to send a message to people who continue to work behind closed doors. from the front of the building, everything was normal. they had put sheets on the windows, they kept their garage door closed. couldn't see into the interior. again, i was, you know, poking over the back yard fence to see what was going on, and without
6:31 am
these back yard photographs, there would not have been any visual proof to what was going on. there was one more photograph i would like to show you. one of the loads -- one of at least three loads of dirt that was excavated from the lower floor, with the catch or whatever this excavating machine is called in the garage. they never put it on the street, they just kept everything behind closed doors. so it -- as a retiree, waking up in the morning to earth trembling. six days a week for approximately a month, this cab was in the garage, continuing to exka indicate earth from
6:32 am
the -- excavate earth from the lower level into the garage. i hope that you dwill deny the permit for the garage and this excavation that was done after this permit. thank you. >> thank you. mr. lau, you have three minutes -- or i guess six minutes for rebuttal. he needs an interpreter? your son will interpret? are you going to be interpreting for him? >> yeah, yeah. >> okay. >> first of all -- >> if you speak english, sir, do you need an interpreter? >> i'm sorry, even if you don't speak english, you still need to speak into the record, sir. >> for the record, so we can --
6:33 am
>> okay. [speaking foreinative language] >> okay. okay. okay. [speaking native language ] >> he said he wanted to build his deck just in case there's a fire in the front, so in case there's -- in case there's a fire, he could -- he has another exit in the back. that's why he wants another deck. and we already gave -- 'cause we asked -- we asked him before, the neighbor, to see if we're able to build the deck. they said okay, and i asked them if we could build a full deck from the property line, and they said -- they said no, we want our privacy. and we -- we told them, like, okay, we'll just build a standard deck. we'll just build a standard
6:34 am
deck, 3 feet from the property line on each end, and they said okay. and they thought that we was already building it, and then, they've filed a -- they've filed a -- a -- what was that? >> he peal. >> they filed -- appeal. >> they filed an appeal on a deck that wasn't even built yet. and when i spoke to her nephew. her nephew was apologizing to me saying oh, i gave her wrong information. her nephew isn't from her. her nephew's from a different state, like colorado or something like that. he said -- he told us to build it the way we want. if we have permits for it, we should just build it the way we want. he told us her aunt doesn't want to build the deck because she doesn't want him to have parties on the deck. you know, my dad lives there. we're not going to have any parties at this home, and i --
6:35 am
i recently got married two years ago, and we're planning to have kids, so you know me -- i stay with my dad, so you know, we're not even -- we're not even -- we're -- we're -- we're planning to just, you know, have our family here at this house. and you know, we're running into so many problems, and it's already been ten months since we've been working on this house. it should have been done like, two, three months ago, but because of these complaints, we have to be correcting it, correcting it. every month, we're correcting it, every week. and they appeal it. even with the retaining wall, when we built the retaining wall, the back yard was a hill, so we were actually making it just -- just even -- even into a square or i don't even understand how -- you know, how it's built. and we had contractors that -- that was helping us, like, sonny -- like they said, sonny
6:36 am
tang was helping us built this house but he quit because there were so many complaints. then we hired a second contractor and we were still getting so many complaints because they thought sonny tang was doing something wrong. then we hired a second contractor, and he was giving us -- we was still getting complaints, and we were like we don't know what's going on, and he quit. so my dad had to put his own name on there just to be his own contractor onto the permits, right? [speaking native language ] >> and he's saying in the beginning, you know, he -- we -- we notified both sides of the house, and we notified the neighbors that we're fixing the house. and my dad said he even told
6:37 am
the neighbor that we're going to get better insulation for the house so we'll get better sound -- what's that? better, you know, sound -- [speaking native long. >> yeah, soundproof walls. >> soundproof walls. >> yeah. he got better insulation for the soundproof walls. we always ask the neighbors what they want. we even offered the neighbors to build a brand-new fence without -- without them paying. we'll even pay for it. and then, like, we even asked the neighbor if it's okay to build the fence. they said -- they told us oh, without my approval. but then, the right side of the neighborhood -- she lives on the left side, so on our right side, when we're fixing house on the right side, the neighbor, she said oerngs thanks for fixing our side of the fence.
6:38 am
it just stops our process fixing the house because we've got so many complaints. if you have the inspectors come and look at the house again, they know we didn't do anything wrong. i have pictures on my phone, but i wasn't prepared to bring it to the hearing. we don't have anything, 'cause we never knew -- we never knew -- we never been to a hearing before. >> ockay. that's it. thank you so much. >> okay. >> i have a question, sir. so the big question is -- i want to wait till your son is concentrating so he can assist you. so the -- the simple question here, you filed your project, which you stated originally was a simple repair project to fix some walls and fix some cracks. that was your project.
6:39 am
>> yeah, in the beginning -- >> let me finish, please. correct? that was your project? okay. yes. how -- and the problem here is without filing a permit, suddenly, it grew to four bedrooms, 4.5 baths, a whole new down stairs, and a big hole in the back yard that didn't exist before, with -- and you understand that this is the problem; that you did work -- you said you were going to do one thing, which was a simple repair, and then, suddenly, a simple repair of cracks in the wall and the floor became four bedrooms? how did that happen and do you understand that that is viewed as something which is very mischievous, which is very potentially illegal, even though after -- because after
6:40 am
you did the work, and only after you did the work did you ask for a permit. so you basically did what you wanted to do and then -- then, you asked permission. do you understand that? >> no. >> do you understand that that is the issue here; that you -- you built -- >> commissioner, didn't you ask the building department to run through the history so we can get the true facts? >> yes, we'll do that later, i guess. >> well, we've heard one side say all these things, which may be true, but we're going to did he tell -- get it from the building department. >> okay. i just want to make sure you understand why people are a little upset, is that the question that -- that what you asked for and what you did are many different things, and that's why there's upset, and that's why there's a problem. >> there still may be a problem. >> there still may be a problem.
6:41 am
>> okay. >> thank you very much. >> mr. teague, anything to add, mr. duffy? commissioner, did you have any further questions, then? >> only that -- to confirm that mr. duffy -- mr. duffy, would you please be prepared to provide us with -- develop a history on which came first, the chicken or the egg, i guess? or how the -- how the horse got behind the cart or any -- >> yeah, we can try to give you a report. it's going to be difficult. if the project is as far along as they're saying it is, that may be hard for me to decipher when i go there, but i can look up inspection history, i can look up the -- what went on out there and try to get some photos for you, stuff like that. >> and mr. duffy, if, in fact, just for the benefit of the project sponsor, if, in fact,
6:42 am
what seemed to happen, which was build first, ask for a permit later, happened in a serial fashion, what -- what is the accountability towards the project sponsor, aside from whether -- how we're going to find on this current permit? >> it's a very hard question for me to answer at this point until i see what's going on. i can't answer that. i would probably -- if there was excavation done, for example, i can see that, and i can see that it impacted, possibly, a neighbors, and i would hope our building inspectors are on that. if i realized that, and there was maybe under manning or something going on, if somebody's telling me they're getting cracks in the neighbors, we can go look at that. we can ask these guys to provide some sort of engineer's report, as to how they excavated and how they didn't
6:43 am
impact -- how they impacted that, because they are sandy conditions out there. >> it seems that you might find that the original bearing wall or engineering that would have supported the house was completely reconfigured according to the photos that we saw. you may find that 10 inches became 5 feet of excavation without a permit. you may find out that a retaining wall and foundation were seriously undermined and destroyed and then a new retaining wall was built under the guise that it was a replacement wall when in fact it was several feet away from the house. i mean, you may find a whole bunch of things according to what we saw. what happens if you find all those things that weren't
6:44 am
permitted but were done firsted and patched up later with a serial permit -- or a serials of permit. >> i don't know. >> yeah. >> i don't know but i do know that dbi staff was there. the neighbor was in touch with dbi, and i believe the appellant was in touch with dbi, and i can go back and see. typically, if we're talking about another project, we would write a notice of violation. there's all sorts of ways to figure out -- if they poured something without an inspection, we make them get tasks done. there's saul sorts of x-rays that are needed for rebar, installation that was poured without inspection. but i don't want to go there because i'm not sure that's what happened in this case. i don't like serial permits. i don't like five permits on a project, either, but it's not against the law, and we've dealt with this many times on this board. and you know that. i don't know like to do that, but it's not illegal to do
6:45 am
that. i think you get one permit, get it done. instead of coming in, you're at dbi five times, and it's -- you could be -- that's five days, basically, because you come in in the morning, it could be the achb befo the afternoon before you get your permit, i don't know why you'd go down that road, but people do that. >> yeah. the bottom line is, i'm wondering, how did a small permit to replace cracks in walls and floors become 4.5 baths with a new wall and back section, but you'll answer that in sometime? >> yes. thank you. >> thank you. >> how much time do you need? >> maybe three weeks, something like that. >> june 6 or 13.
6:46 am
>> the 20? >> yeah, that's lighter. >> so for both sides, the appellant and the permit holder, it appears that some research is going to be done by the building department. we're thinking of continuing this case to june 20? >> that would be good. >> are both sides available? [inaudible] >> june 20. june 20, mr. lau? [inaudible] >> no, i just want to know the date that's available, all
6:47 am
right? [inaudible] >> understood. [inaudible] >> 20. >> yes, wednesday, at 5:00 p.m. >> we'll allow both parties to be the first that day. >> we're making special accommodations. geez. >> does that work, miss kramer? >> yes. >> all right. mr. lau, does that work for you, june 20? [inaudible] >> well, i think you should do more than that. i think you better look at your history of work. it wouldn't hurt for you to talk to your neighbor. [inaudible] >> could you step to the microphone, please. >> no, no, no. there's a motion to do it. you c sure.
6:48 am
6:49 am
6:50 am
6:51 am
6:52 am
>> good evening. we're returning to the march 9, 2018 hearing for the san francisco board of appeals. thank you for your patience. we're onto item number 12. [agenda item read]
6:53 am
>> okay. so miss wilson is recused from this matter. i'm sorry. my apologies. it's 10:20. been a long day. commissioner wilson, thank you. >> see you soon. >> okay. so we will hear from the appellant, first, you have seven minutes. please. >> good evening. i'm bryan fleenor. i'm the appellant. thank you, commissioners, president fung, for your perseverance that you can hear our appeal. this appeal resolves around the law that resolves around accessory dwelling units. and i provided you a brief that listed items pertinent to the
6:54 am
ordinance for the most part, and i'll go over them and summarize them, but i also want to give you some contexts to this appeal. so i am a tenant in this property. i also have a lease for one of the three garages that would be converted, and i'm also -- i work for architecture firms doing residential rehabilitations in the city, so i've done that for two decades, so i'm familiar with a lot of the things that are required. so i first got involved after there had been two recent permits since the current owners bought the property there were form eight, no plans permits that were done after tenants had left. the first one stated no
6:55 am
structural work. during the time of that permit, an addition was built in the back. also, a room was excavated from underneath my garage, my third of the three garages, and a retaining wall was put up. i knew that this wasn't a part of the scope of the permit because i had looked it up. you know, i'm on the database every day, and i decided not to bring it up because i'm a tenant, and i'm a rent control tenant, and you know, i just figured that at some point, this would catch up. and it never did. it got finaled and approved. and then, there was another tenant that left directly under me, and there was another form eight, no plans permit, with a scope of work that indicated only interior work. all the interior walls were
6:56 am
taken out, the construction lasted four months of extensive demolition and reconstruction. at one point, our bay window was jacked up, the windows were broke all the way up, the trim was broke all the way up, and it looks like grout was put underneath. all of this was done without structural work. and the reason i say that is just to set the -- the secene for what's in front of you right now. and this is also germane because that portion underneath the garage is now being considered a part of this new two-story conversion project. so that already has been, you
6:57 am
know, built without structural design or review and is being incorporated into this new conversion project -- accessory dwelling project. and secondly, we have a situation that the situation that the -- that the ordinance is not being followed. the ordinance states that in multiunit buildings and single-family homes that need administer waivers to add an adu, an adu shall be constructed entirely within the building envelope or existing struck aur structure as it existed three years to the building permit. and if you look at the plans -- i haven't received them. i haven't received a brief from the owners, from the permit holders, but if you were to see them, i have seen them at
6:58 am
public records -- i would see that they are excavating considerably under this existing structure. so i guess in a sense, it was within the existing foot print but not in any sense within the existing structure. and, you know, we can go to the legislation to look at the definition of the existing built envelope. it's interesting. i'm getting this here from the planning document, accessory dwelling units adu program. it says, what i just said that it has to be constructed entirely within the built envelope, and in parentheses, the area within the walls of an existing building. well, excavating and excavation that would require a new at least 8 foot, if not higher, retaining wall, is not within the walls of an existing
6:59 am
building in any way that was accounted for by the framers of this ordinance. they do say specifically three other examples of where you could include space in an adu that wasn't within the existing walls. that is under cantilever or deck support rooms, under decks that are no more than 10 feet into height and in light wells that are not visible anywhere off-site. so they took the time to define carefully what the existing building envelope is, but they did not include the -- a notation that you could excavate under an existing building and incorporate that as an existing structure that would be allowed under a waiver for adu. so for that reason, i -- i think that you can find against
7:00 am
this permit. but additionally, there's other work that's being done in this permit that has nothing to do with the adu, except that it's kind of a domino effect. so in order to enter the adu, there's a new deck. there's no ability to determine what impact that will have on existing -- [inaudible] >> i see you. i'll just wrap up right here. the trash cans that are currently there are being relocated. that requires a large retaining wall. a number of other items are in the site -- >> okay. you'll have three minutes in rebuttal to continue. >> okay. a number of other items are in the site plan, and we'll talk about that later. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. is the permit holder here, miss winfield, an agent for the permit holder? thank you. you have