Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  October 18, 2019 4:00pm-5:01pm PDT

4:00 pm
>> good evening to the october 16th, 2019 san francisco board of appeals.
4:01 pm
to my left is deputy city attorney who will provide the board with any legal needed advice at this evening. at the control's is the board's legal existent and the process clerk. i am the board's executive director. we will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board this evening. upfront we have the acting deputy zoning administrator, also representing the planning department and planning commission. we also expect joseph duffy, senior building inspector, representing the department of building inspections. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board request you turn off or silence all phones and electronic devices so that they will not disturb the proceedings please carry on conversations in the hallway. we will have -- the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders and respondents are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these
4:02 pm
parties must include their comments in these periods. members of the public were not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone for rehearing requests, parties get three minutes each with no rebuttal. to assist the board and accurate preparation of minutes, you are asked but not required to samiti speaker card or business card when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. four votes are required to grant an appeal or rehearing request. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or schedules, speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call us into the board office. this meeting is broadcast live on cable channel 78 and will reboot -- will be rebroadcast on 4:00 p.m. on channel 26. the video is available on our website and can be downloaded from online. now we will swear in or affirm
4:03 pm
all those who intend to testify. please note any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to the rights under the centering ordinance. if you intend to testify at any of the proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary wait -- -- wait, raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. please be seated. item number one is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who'd like to speak on the matter within the board's jurisdiction that is not on tonight's calendar. is anyone here for general public comment? okay. please approach. >> good afternoon. i am a resident at a 128 unit condo building and i am also on the h.o.a. board. i had the pleasure of being
4:04 pm
before you on may 15th for the hearing for the steakhouse to appeal formal enforcement. i wanted to provide a brief update on the situation. i have one ask at the end. it spews a large amount of smoke and older into our homes. in violation of the conditional use permit. it is worse than it was before when i was in front of you. no improvements have been made. our eyes are burning from just sitting in our living room. on an average night, whether or not the windows are open. i was a 40 to 50 units that are impacted. we continually do not have access to fresh air for up to 12 hours a day, seven days a week. it was decided that it does not contain a significant certificate of inclusion and penalties will increase -- a crew. we are under the impression that the permit will be issued quickly if not almost immediately. unfortunately, it has been over five months and the problem
4:05 pm
continues unabated. the permit has not been issued and equipment has not been ordered and the work has yet to begin. this is contrary to the decision your body made in the spirit of that decision and refilled that the restaurant and the building owner are delaying the process by slow rolling the responses to city permitting agencies requests for additional information. additionally, they were also incomplete. we feel that they are using an incentive to get their work done it is a safe harbour for dragging their feet and not getting the permit done. we appreciate it does take time to go through proper city approval but we believe the current delay is counter to the intent of the board of appeals and is allowing a horrific situation to continue. this is without any regard of our health. our ask is, what will it take for the city to hold them accountable and allow our community to breathe fresh air? they have been on formal notice
4:06 pm
of violation and have allowed to operate with impunity for over one and a half years while we suffer. people have been forced to move out of the building because of this. my wife and i have been forced to get hotel rooms on hot nights when you just need a window open all of this is that our own expense. we respectfully ask the board of appeal revisit the issue. the smoke cannot be allowed to continue. we would like to clarify between the board and planning that the imposition of fines that was mandated by the board does not preclude planning from implementing fines or other measures immediately rather than waiting for the permit to be issued and that 12 week countdown to begin. thank you for that time. and thank you for always being responsive to us and other homeowners that have reached out to him. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, board. thank you for your time.
4:07 pm
i was scheduled here tonight for a full proper appeal for a permit to grant in our neighborhood. i was at 2901 pine on the baker block. the homes there are 39 feet on average. the power poles or 39 feet as well and the permit was granted for the installation of a massive vertical installation from verizon that is well over 50 feet above and hovers like a flying u.f.o. above the street. that will be appealed at a later date because the department of public works asked us to move the hearing to early november. as of the filing of the appeal on the 19th, your staff, the board staff notified verizon that the permit was suspended. it is not a valid permit and has been suspended until the hearing however, on monday, two days ago , a truck rolled out and
4:08 pm
construction began on that poll. they started placing this extension on top of it. not only was the beginning of the construction illegal and not allowed, but the process didn't even match the original plan. two things happened. even if they had a valid permit, what they did was wrong because they did not match the permitted plans, but regardless, the permit is suspended and illegal to begin the construction as a result. they did it nonetheless and when they're asked about it, they said don't worry about it, the people outside said, we are just cleaning up some of the cable which was a miss representation. i would call that fraud. we don't know what to do. quite frankly, which is why we are here. we agreed to postpone the hearing as asked in good faith,
4:09 pm
as good residents, leaving the permit suspended, and yet behind our backs, no notification and construction had illegally began i hope the board keeps that in mind when you see you guys in november in terms of who we are dealing with on the other side, but i know there is no response from the board, per se, but if off the record some but he could tell us what to do, i've never had a case in the neighborhood where construction was illegally started, so we don't know what to do to effectively stop or get rid of what was done. that is why we are here, in a bind, blindsided and surprised by something which we believe is effectively fraud and went against the board's own suspension of the permit. thank you for hearing me. >> excuse me, sir? >> yes? >> did you see them attached something to the antenna? >> they had a permit to come out from 8:30 a.m. until 2:30 p.m. around tune -- around 10:30 a.m. , i came back home.
4:10 pm
we don't work in the neighborhood around that time. i happened to come back. at that time they were up there doing some work. i asked him what are you doing? are you was -- installing anything? and they said no, we are cleaning the wires. when we came back home at the end of the day, we noticed it up there and i had the pictures to show. >> so it was physically attached >> it was physically attached. not even just loosely. i mean they took a metal bolt, to rolled it in there. >> did you call 311? >> we did not. >> i would start with 311. >> okay. >> i can follow up with public works. can you give me your contact information? >> your phone number, your e-mail. >> i will give you all of that. this is in reference to appeal it. it should have the permit number in all the information. >> it is the corner of pine and baker. >> i will get back to to you tomorrow. >> thank you so much.
4:11 pm
>> good afternoon. my name is peter and this is my daughter. as a concerned citizen and resident, i live across the street. i can see the tower from my bedroom. we were a little bit blindsided with folks coming out and starting the installation process. to date, i think we have worked in good faith. we feel like verizon has been a bad actor. there is a suspended permit and it will hit construction. a little bit -- we need a little bit of health -- help and guidance with managing this with verizon is a large corporate entities. >> thank you. is there any more general public comment? okay. we will move on to item number two. commissioner comments and questions. commissioners? >> no. >> okay. we will move on to item number three. before you for discussion, the possible adoption and minutes of the september 25th, 2019 board meeting.
4:12 pm
>> any comments? do i hear a motion? >> we have a motion from the vice president to adopt the minutes as submitted. on that motion... [roll call] >> the minutes are adopted 5-0. okay. was there public comment on that item? sorry. a little late on that. in any event, we will move on to item number four. this is a special item with possible action taken by the board. discussion about policies and procedures regarding the length of the board meetings. >> commissioner lazarus, it was your request. would you like to have any comment on that or make any suggestions? >> i may have a couple of suggestions. i did request that we have a meeting not too long ago and i
4:13 pm
think we had to curtail it only because people had cars in the garage that they weren't going to be able to get out. i also have some concerns about trying to do this business at that hour. i don't consider it fair, primarily for the public, because i know i can't give my full attention to the items i am hearing at that hour. i thought we could talk about ways that we might be able to manage the meeting so we are not doing business at midnight. >> after a very -- i'm very sensitive to it. having been -- having ones left this commission early during a meeting and then to find that it went to 1:00 in the morning, that was a fung night. >> i know you guys were really happy about that. >> i had paid my dues to the redevelopment agency. i absolutely understand commissioner lazarus' point of
4:14 pm
view. you are not at your best at 1:0. the issue is the unpredictability -- the unpredictable nature of what is going to be on the agenda and what the public is going to want to say on that day. i was thinking that we can curtail the beginning of the policy that says after 10:00 at night, we will not be starting the next item, but the item starts at 9:30 a.m. and maybe a three hour item. we don't know that. at best efforts, i would suggest that maybe we put a curfew on it and just not begin any item after 10:00 p.m. at night. and with the understanding that there maybe an item that starts at 9:30 p.m. that goes to two and a half or three hours. those were my only -- i am not
4:15 pm
in conflict with your position. i support your position. that was the best result i could come up with. if anybody else has any ideas, i would gladly entertain those. >> i think commissioner tanner has those it -- has that experience. >> i think that idea of not taking a new items past 10:00 p.m. and making sure it is known, maybe we even added it to the beginning statements of folks who are here in the audience would know that your item is last, maybe it is 9:45 p.m. and it may not be taken up so they can plan ahead and we have tried that and we have also tried to either not take up items past 10 or have to affirm that we vote as a board if we are going to take up an item past 10. we have to make a decision that we will do that. another idea that might be something we try, and an offender of what i've propose is let's the appellant and the permit holder make their case,
4:16 pm
let the rebuttal happen, let public comment happen and then have us as commissioners ask our questions. our questions may be answered through the course of that exchange and then that might make things a little bit more concise just to -- hopefully it wouldn't be past 10 starting any new item. >> i am also like other commissioners in the city that start at 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. and they go eight hours and that is their day. with this commission, most of us had a job -- have a job that we do for eight hours and then we potentially come on for an additional seven or eight hours after, which as my vice president indicated, makes for a very long day. the concern i have is that if the public is here, or appellants, or permit holders and their case is last, do they show up, do they not show up? i think that, ultimately, it would probably be more enforceable or better for the public if we tried to mind the
4:17 pm
caseloads, which are directors to a very good job of and we rarely go to midnight anymore, whereas six or seven years ago, we were going to 11:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. fairly regularly. our reg -- our latest case was 1:45 a.m. how would you feel as a permit holder that if you sat here for six hours or five hours and then found out that, i'm sorry, we will not take your case? i think that we should probably, scheduling is probably the most important part of it because if the people are here already, it is unfair to have them come back again. >> very true. >> but i am very sympathetic that even at 10:00 p.m. or 11:0- i start going kind of crazy. >> one thing we could potentially do, the next meeting on the 203rd has six cases, estate cases, it looks like, two are continued.
4:18 pm
>> they have been fully heard. they should go fairly quickly. >> but that might be one where we try to either mind the time more, mind the questions more and try to be more cognizant. we do have heavier agendas. the three of us are the main offenders of asking lots of questions which are not necessarily always germane to the decision we are making, but maybe interesting to us. we could try to impose a category amongst ourselves and restraint to see if we can make some progress towards not having anyone get turned away, and at the same time, not becoming such a late hour that we are quite tired. >> i think the best way to pursue this is that, i don't know if we have to codify this with a written document or approval, but the commission
4:19 pm
will reserve the right to discontinue a hearing with new items called after 10:00 p.m. i think that is the best that we can do and the suggestion of managing the agenda, you know, it could be a three item agenda, but they all could be two our items. i think that it is a team effort here, but i think we should go in with some recognition that we probably will not start a new items after 10:00 p.m. that night and the executive director will do her best scheduling jobs of mitigating the risk on that. >> one other suggestion i might make is that if it looks like october, what was it, november 6 th with 10 items, right from the beginning that public testimony be limited, even
4:20 pm
though early items might only have a couple of people, that is one way to also control the time if there is certain types of cases later in the agenda, there will be a lot of public comment. >> is that possible? >> maybe ask the city attorney. can we limit? if we know we have a heavy agenda and we are trying to get out in a timely manner, is it okay if we limit the time? i know that i have had that conversation before. >> it is permissible to limit to two minutes if the length of the agenda -- if you think it well -- >> what about one minute? >> it is less clear whether that is permissible. >> the agenda, if it is looking very heavy from the outset, it is probably defensible. >> thank you. >> okay. >> for clarity, the plan is not to start agenda items after
4:21 pm
10:00 p.m. unless the board affirmed to take an item, as well as adding statements to the agenda and make an announcement at the beginning of the hearing regarding this policy. did we also want to say -- i guess for the minutes -- >> the questions from the commissioners would take place after the case is fully presented. >> i think the executive director has discretion as to the size of the agenda to limit public comment. >> so we can memorialize this policy and this next time. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> good evening, commissioners. my name is jeremy paul.
4:22 pm
this discussion brings to mind a matter i had before the board of appeals early in this century and it would suggest the importance of a very proactive director at watching how these things go. this particular instance came to mind. there was an unexpected bowl large turnout in the agenda and the executive secretary at the time called the parties into the hall for a quick powwow and asked if we would agree to a continuance because of the large turnout in the late placements on the calendar. as it turned out, it was a turnout -- a surprise to the permit holder and a resolution was found before the continuance date. sometimes being proactive from the director's chair can make
4:23 pm
things work very nicely. thank you. >> thank you. >> sometimes the director can try and people won't agree. [laughter] >> i tried for november 6th. just bring your cup of coffee. okay. thank you. is there any other public comment? so we will now move on -- >> you had actually suggested that for those cases that may as a result of this get put over that they would come up first on a docket subsequently. >> right. we can acknowledge that. if someone had to wait a long time and then we told them, sorry, we will continue it, we will put them near the beginning of the agenda or near the beginning. >> okay. we will memorialize that in the minutes. >> i had one other thought. sort of a take or leave suggestion which is that when we continue cases, which sometimes can add to a later caseload, it may, in appropriate cases, make
4:24 pm
sense for the parties to submit a brief update on what has happened since we continued to help move things along an advance in advance of the hearing actually beginning. that may not be appropriate for every case. >> and the idea we would read it ahead of time and know the information. >> yeah, so they don't have to take up a lot of time and we don't have to take up a lot of time asking questions about stuff that could be written down >> maybe a three-page brief. >> okay. >> okay. thank you. we will now move onto item number five. this is a rehearing request for number -- for appeal number of 19-066, subject property at 18 th avenue. they requesting a rehearing. at that time, upon a motion by vice president lazarus, the
4:25 pm
board voted 5-0 to grant the appeal on the condition it be revised the plans address outstanding issues identified by the department of building inspection and two, are approved by these departments. on the basis that the permit would be properly issued. the determination older -- holders and the permit description as to comply with n.o.v. 201-95-6051. reinforce the existing fence, add a new post, install new fence board. this is permit number 201916123271 and we will hear from the requester first. you have three minutes, sir,. >> welcome back. >> computer?
4:26 pm
good evening, everyone in this room. i am the appellant. today i will take the opportunity to present the evidence that suggests injustice during the previous hearing. the procedure for the hearing was not afforded. parties should have presented for no more than three minutes. however, mr. duffy from d.p.i. talked for about six minutes before being deflected. the board of hearing should have presented -- [indiscernible] the respondent and d.b.i. have not assured evidence that the new fence is completely on their property side. we have evidence that -- [indiscernible] the fence is completely on their property. it should provide a fence joined
4:27 pm
without properties surveyed, how will d.b.i. know the property line is correct? [indiscernible] mr. duffy from d.b.i. proposed a surveillance, but the board refused. the board of hearing should have given the appellant the opportunity to file an appeal related to the new permit suggested by d.b.i. in case the spatial -- special permit is not properly issued and approved. the permit was shown to be improperly issued which mr. duffy acknowledged at the hearing. therefore, they should have the right to file an appeal against the new special permit. the board should have granted the appeal with an extension because the permit is completely involved with the fence.
4:28 pm
the board ignored the appellant 's -- [indiscernible] the respondent lied to the appellant that they will permit a fence of a certain height. what the respondent it is completely disrespectful to both the appellant and city law. they illegally registered their backyard. [indiscernible] the hearing of the appeal should be granted. thank you for your patients. >> thank you. okay. we will now hear from the permit holder.
4:29 pm
>> good evening, commissioners. i am the tenant and the respondents from the private hearings. we are respectfully asking the board denied the request for hearing on the basis or has not been any substantial new evidence presented by the appellant that would indicate that the updated north side fence is on the property side. as the appellant stated in the written request, the appeal to the department was in relation to the north side fence. through the appeal process, the appellant included additional information around the backyard renovation. this resulted in a clean set of plans and including the work done to our backyard. we have been working in good faith to ensure the requested revised plans are drafted and submitted by a professional designer. as an update on this matter, i received a completed draft on the site plans this past friday and submitted them for review.
4:30 pm
as the appellant has the burden of proving the board's decision was wrong and provided no such basis for that finding. he could have submitted surveyor findings as evidence to support his position but he failed to do so. additionally, this request would give the appellant additional opportunities to contest the permit and construction completed outside of the property line. and the request, the appellant specifically request to have an opportunity to appeal the conditions which are the landing in the back alley. this would indicate a dispute is beyond the fence and is well within our property line. we are actively working with s.f. planning and d.b.i. to ensure these elements are correctly documented, reviewed, inspected, and improved. we believe the rehearing request to appeal the additional work is in overreach. the process has been fair and the respondent and board have
4:31 pm
followed procedure in both public hearings. the appellant is claiming unfairness. i would like to point out that at the august 7th hearing, the appellant did not comply of section 60 of the rules of the board of appeals. his son spoke in public comment. it states that persons who are not party to an appeal shall not represent parties. suffice to say this process has been an undue burden on myself and my family. i spent in a considerable amount of time trying to resolve this issue at the onset of construction. the appellant is not willing to accept the outcome of the board 's decision on the rehearing request is an attempt to get what he wants rather than rely on the board for their adjudication. based on these points, specifically on the basis there haven't been any new evidence submitted that would imply manifest injustice, we respectfully ask for the board to deny the request for a hearing. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the
4:32 pm
planning department. mr. sanchez, anything? >> we will hear from mr. duffy. >> evening, commissioners. just on the appellant's rehearing request, i didn't hear anything new either. i would sympathize with him on his property line issue, maybe at the rear of the property, but certainly right next to his property where the fence is, it is completely nailed. the fence is attached to the permit holder's property clearly maybe as it goes up the yard, it's towards the rear, there is a possibility goes over the property line, but i don't think so. we are going to see a special conditions permit with the property lines defined on them and i will have a discussion with the permit holder about how those lines were defined. if it was discovered that the fence is over the property line,
4:33 pm
d.b.i. could follow up with that and -- quite easily by requiring that all work be removed to his side of the property. i think the property line could be something that could be resolved. in the past i have also seen examples where if both property owners could split the cost of the survey, it is only one side of the property. we are not having the whole property surveyed. it is the north side. we don't need the front we're side. it is only one side. i think that it would be a good deal of effort if they both decided to split the cost of that. they could at least resolve that other than that, d.b.i., if there is a special conditions permit, we will follow up with the inspections on the work. he has some issues with some of the concrete that was poured without inspection, but that is all he had to say on it. >> joe, this is the first time i have ever heard you use the term defined line from the department
4:34 pm
i thought the department doesn't >> we don't get into boundaries. >> so without a survey, how do you determine where the line is? >> that is up to the permit holder to put it on the drawing where is. if you see any plans d.b.i. look at, the property line is shown, that is where it is. it is shown on the drawings. we take it as we get it and we deal with it. if it is -- usually the onus is on the person making the complaint to provide the evidence. that is typical, that is our usual d.b.i. line. if you think it is over the property line, go ahead and prove it. in this case -- i think it would be will be a good effort. we can't enforce it. we can't force a permit holder to do that unless -- sometimes there is clear evidence it is really over a property line, but certainly where the fence starts at the rear of the property
4:35 pm
going back, you can clearly see from the photographs that i had at the previous hearing that the fence is actually connected right to the trim of the permit holder's building. it couldn't be over the property line otherwise the whole building is over the property line. >> doesn't the appellant have a fence that runs on their property line? if the two fences are fence is our meeting, it might suggest -- >> there is only one fence, i believe. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> i will make a comment to the appellant directly. we were all in attendance that evening. if any party, even though you are -- you have set a certain much of time, it is not absolute if we have further questions or there's information that my
4:36 pm
fellow commissioners or i want to hear, where we have the ability to let someone speak, as long as they want roselawn is we need to, also, at the last hearing, it was indicated not only for me, but from presidents wake that this is a boundary line dispute and the only way to solve that is to hire an outside surveyor to decide where that line is actually at. this board is only to determine if weather permits were issued properly. in that particular case, i believe they were. also, to have a rehearing, it is manifest in just. something that is so special that was not heard in the last hearing. there is nothing that was presented in our packages or early this evening that would suggest that. >> would you like to make a motion? >> my motion is to deny the request for rehearing on the
4:37 pm
grounds that there was no manifest in just. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner haunted to deny the request on the basis that there is no manifest injustice. on that motion... [roll call] that motion carries 5-0 on and the request is denied. we are now moving onto item number six. this is appeal number 19-067. subject property is a 21, 825, 829 hampshire street. and alteration permit, kitchen and bathroom upgrade. three apartment units and no change to its existing layouts and life safety equipment. this is permit number 2019060627775. for further consideration.
4:38 pm
on september 18th, 2019, the board voted 5-0 to continue this matter to october 16th, 2019 so d.b.i. can revisit the property and report back to the board on various projects and permits. we will hear from the department of building inspection first. mr. duffy? >> i think it is 10 minutes, right? >> i think it is six. on this one, i did follow up on the case with the contractor. i met the contractor and the architect at the property and i did not meet the tenant. we were playing phone tag and i did speak to his attorney, michael, but i inspected the building and the work that was
4:39 pm
done, the work has been started in five of the units. the only unit they haven't worked on was 821, which i believe the appellant lives in. the notice of violation was issued by d.b.i. was properly issued to get exceeded the scope of the permit. they had filed a permit to comply with that. it has not been issued yet. what they did was -- some people get ahead of themselves the call it a kitchen and bath remodel and decide they will remove some walls. the units are quite small so they ended up changing walls and they got into trouble for that. they fell the permit to comply with the notice of violation and i also spoke to the contractor pretty sternly about the fact that some sheet rock had been placed without inspection. that will have to be removed and they would have to -- we will have to inspect it. i did speak to him about his behavior in relation to their scope of permits, and having respect for security in buildings.
4:40 pm
if there's people living in the building. he did agree to do better and i will let the attorney for the permit holder speak, but there was a letter about some concessions about agreeing to do certain work and stuff like that i think they want to remove the language of unit 821 from the permit, which is the units that the tenant is in. there are other issues as well with -- that they want construction from 7:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. they are all tenant landlord things. i have no problem with them. the only thing i would say is it is hard to police them. it will not be easy for d.b.i. to do that. we don't want to do that. we don't mind doing building code stuff, but if someone starts at 7:25 a.m. instead of 7:30 a.m., that will be hard to manage or -- manage that.
4:41 pm
we are not there for that. that will have to be an agreement between the parties. i think with -- taking the reference to a 21 off the permit , and the new permit that is required, that will put them back in good standing, in my opinion anyway. i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> it is your opinion that all the miscellaneous stuff which may come from -- we had a document in place in front before we set tonight, so it hasn't been presented formally, but anything that may come up formally on that list, that is really more cymbeline nature then permit -- civil in nature. we should note that in your recommendation to keep it tight and just deal with staying out of that unit. >> correct.
4:42 pm
that's right. i did speak to the contractor with d.b.i. and the tenant. probably a good idea would be to put a sign up the building in case someone shows up early or keep the doors up. some signage for subcontractors. a lot of the times, if he is not here, the electrician will show up and leave the door open. obviously these people are living in the building and i do sympathize with them. there are five units being remodelled and he is living in one unit with his wife and two kids. that is not an easy situation. contractors need to take that into consideration that there is still someone living in the building that is under construction. the tenant also has the option going forward of contacting our department, the building inspector, if there are issues related to the work that is taking place. and the work that falls under d.b.i.'s jurisdiction. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. the attorney for the permit holder.
4:43 pm
you have three minutes. >> thank you. good evening, board members. i wanted to follow-up. at the last hearing we addressed all of the tenants' concerns at that time. i expressed many of them fell out of the jurisdiction but that we were bending over backwards to do everything we could to satisfy his concerns and the letter you saw a copy of that was sent about mr. duffy and his council for transparency and accountability expresses our concerns about how to address what he is worried about. in their we put in limiting time of construction, monitoring noise levels, giving him advanced notice. all of that can go on time. we are more than willing and happy to have the current permit modified per mr. duffy see's suggestion to exclude 821. we have no intent in working in that unit. if that will satisfy the tenant, then they can feel that is written in stone, we are more
4:44 pm
than willing to have that be expressed in the permit. my understanding is you have the authority to do so, and mr. duffy has recommended that. we are fully in favor with that. if you have any questions, i'm happy to try to answer them. the manager of -- and the owner his here, as well as the contractor. mr. duffy says he has been properly admonished. we have taken that to hard. going forward we will comply and not let the contractor anybody get ahead of the job. we want this to finish as quickly as possible. that is the fastest route. if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer them. >> just a comment, you guys said you wanted to abide by the rules , you are were working with the tenants in good faith and it is hard to believe the tenant has a different story. it is tough to say who is right or who is wrong. and now the department comes before us and says, hey, these guys will not wait beyond the
4:45 pm
scope of their permit. >> if i could address that, the permit that was before you is not the one that was beyond the scope of the work. >> but it goes to the totality and entirety of the job project. >> i understand that. >> and it goes to the reputation of the permit that is of the person speaking before us. >> absolutely. to be fair, the presentation was about that permit and whether we had exceeded the scope relating to that permit and whether there had been noise issues that had exceeded the sound decibels about that issue. when mr. duffy brought up the other ones, we addressed them separately. i agree with you that that notice of violation, frankly was not on the computer system and our architect was the one aware of it and he probably should have let mr. duffy no earlier. there were errors that happened. we take full responsibility. the position we took, just to be fair -- >> i understand. i'm putting you on point that we don't see this again because it would be not in your client's
4:46 pm
interest. >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the attorney for the appellant. >> ladies and gentlemen of the board, thank you for having us back. thank you for giving this matter the extra consideration of a second hearing. we really appreciate it. in respect to the short time, i will try to be brief and address some of the concerns that have been raised here, as well as concerns that were raised last time we were together. first, there is some conversation on the power of the board and what conditions can be opposed -- impose, when conditions can be enforced, what modifications can be made here. while i am no legal scholars such that i can give exact boundaries of where those
4:47 pm
authority start and end, i would remind the board that the powers are substantial and large and that they do include revoking permits, granting permits, modifying permits, and condition permits. the board -- if the board would like to take another look at our moving papers, i can provide a site mac to the paragraph that we discussed. the second thing i want to address is that just by taking my client's apartment number off the permit addresses a situation ladies and gentlemen of the board, i would like to be really blunt here. the conversations we have been having this whole time have been without a single day of work happening on my client's unit. all these issues, we are here before you on have all occurred without any work in my client's unit. there has never been a concern about work and my client's unit, there has been a concern about the work all around my client's unit as a means of forcing him out of his home. we do agree that his apartment
4:48 pm
number should be taken off the permit, especially if the intent is to work at the apartment. there has never been a conversation or concern about some point seeking in and doing something sketchy in my client's apartment. all these issues, all these problems, the notices of violation, the board sounds particularly concerned. they came about without any work in my client's unit. so i really push back on the notion that just by taking my client's unit of the permit we are resolving the issue in its entirety. next, joe duffy both and my conversations with him over the phone, which i did really appreciate the phone call, it was very nice, as well as the last time we are here together, there has been concerns about what d.b.i. can and can't enforce, or what means d.b.i. can do to enforce or what means this body has for enforcement. i can't speak to the inner workings of how the city will interact, but from what i can tell, if conditions are imposed
4:49 pm
on the permit like the conditions we request, if those conditions aren't met, the permit is suspended until the conditions are met. last, i want to speak to the fact that what resolution we have had here so far has only been with the board's oversight. it has only been with the board 's involvement and it has not been just on the word of the landlord. it has been with someone looking over their shoulder. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i would like to ask a question. >> yes? >> i don't disagree with anything that you are saying so we will not have a conflict, but i have to listen to mr. duffy and be careful that whatever conditions that we place on moving forward, they actually can be -- somebody can actually be held accountable, or when the
4:50 pm
building department says, that's a great idea, that we take this letter here and put it in as conditions, but d.b.i. can't hold the developer or the permit holder accountable for somebody showing up five minutes later or whatever. that's where i find that we have a conundrum and that we place -- we can place all the conditions on the -- in the world on this even though it is not in our jurisdiction, but d.b.i. will be the first to admit that they can't be 100% watchdog on this situation. that is what i am wrestling with >> president, my response would be that i don't think it would be fair for us to sit here and say that d.b.i. is 100% watchdog for any aspect of this situation
4:51 pm
but if the conditions are placed on the permit and those conditions are violated, it seems that making a complaint to d.b.i. is the same about those conditions. it is the same as making a complaint about work outside the scope of the permit issued in the first place and there are semi mechanics there would be advised here. beyond that, i don't think would be fair for me to sit here today and tell d.b.i. had to do their job in much finer can't -- mechanics, but as a private attorney representing a private citizen in a building where he is afraid to lose his own, that is my first response. >> i want to raise the issue of aspiration. our aspiration is to protect the public against people who may not be never do wells, but at the same time, we can only aspire to it and not by -- bite off more than we can chew. i just want your understanding on that. >> thank you for that. i appreciate it.
4:52 pm
>> did you have any response to the letter that you received from the permit holder? does that contain the condition that your climate that your client is seeking? >> those are the same conditions that were present in the up parent opposition. when i saw that letter yesterday afternoon, it didn't cause much of a reaction either way. it felt like it was the same conversation we were already having. the only thing i would add to it , and i don't recall if this is a concern that my client had a chance to raise, is that there is a point raised on the second page of that letter about adding security. as this board is well aware, we raise security as a major issue. the only concerned with the cameras is that in the description of the cameras, in the event a camera happens to be lined up on the client's front door, there is an invasion of privacy and in the event that that is the terms we operate under, they would need to be additional conversations to protect my client and his
4:53 pm
children's privacy rights. >> thank you. >> thank you. you can be seated. is there any public comment on this item? commissioners? this matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> i guess it is me. i don't have a problem taking the appeal and conditioning it with these additional terms, but as senior inspector duffy indicated, enforcement would be difficult. at which point, we have a starting point going forward. we have done this in the past. generally you are allowed to work longer hours if the contractor, as well as the tenant agree that they will shorten their hours and both parties say they have. i don't see a problem with it. >> the only question i have, looking at this list, is the
4:54 pm
practicality of it. >> i was not going to read the whole list. >> i was just going to say, if the department of building inspection will be called in to respond to each item and adjudicate what was or wasn't done, or if a complaint on one of these items leads to them stopping work until d.b.i. can go and investigate the veracity of one, that would be great. >> i would be willing to condition it on the work hours that the tenant's address be removed and if there is any notice of shut off of utilities, and then strongly advise both counsellors, tenant, and landowner to work this out. >> i would be willing to support that motion. >> any further discussion?
4:55 pm
that would be my motion to accept the appeal and condition it, that construction hours will perform from monday through saturday from 7:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., that they will provide 48 hour notice to the tenants or any -- for any plant shut off any utilities and -- >> and the permit would remove 821 from the address. >> yeah. >> on what basis? >> keep it very short and no arguing.
4:56 pm
>> i want to make sure. you said earlier that when i stated i didn't find this shocking or changing anything because it was the same suggestions made before. the parties have mutually agreed to all of these terms. >> my point is you want more restrictive as wrist -- as agreed to this, so i assume you have no objection to us applying these conditions that we are discussing to the permit. >> as an entirety, i am not comfortable putting this whole list as a condition. >> i want to make sure that there wasn't a carte blanche. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> the permit holder has agreed to the conditions. >> that is what i said. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner honda -- >> it was a joint motion. [laughter]. >> a joint motion. >> we will go with honda. >> we have a motion from commissioner honda to grant the
4:57 pm
appeal and issue the permit on the condition that it be revised to require the removal of the unit 821 and the scope of the work and to limit the hours of work that construction will be performed monday through saturday from 7:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. and that hampshire will provide 48 hour notice to mr. castro of any plant shut off of the utilities. >> any or all utilities. >> any and all utilities. >> mr. duffy is playing waccamaw [laughter] >> it should state remodel of two apartments, not three. i think the language of the permit says remodel three apartments. we need to change that. >> we can change the language on the permit. remove a 21 and clarify that only two apartments are being remodelled. >> correct.
4:58 pm
>> this is a joint operation. >> so on the basis of that, the appellant agrees to these terms. >> both parties agree to these terms. >> on that motion... [roll call] >> that motion carries 5-0. [please stand by]
4:59 pm
5:00 pm
>> commissioner honda: we have a special guest in the back. maybe we could have former president frank fung vote on that. >> i think we'd need a charter amendment, and we're not prepared to do that at this point. okay. we'll hear from mr. paul. >> i was hoping that former president fung to testify in this matter. you might see him tomorrow. yes, those thursday afternoons. thank you, commissioners. dang jeremy paul on behalf of the project sponsor. i just learned of a personal tragedy in my life so i'm having trouble gathering my thoughts. lost a good friend, but i would like to tell you what happened that brought this case to where it is.
5:01 pm
a bit less than a year ago, i was meeting


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on