tv Government Access Programming SFGTV October 30, 2019 3:00pm-4:01pm PDT
one out and the original permit. >> which was not put into the briefs. >> i thought i had it. maybe --. a awe while you look, i have a question for planning anyway. >> yes, i do. >> sorry. it says single dwelling unit t a third floor and new garage for apartment. so it is an alteration permit. there is a possibility, president swig, that they are doing the foundation last. and doing the work inside. i don't know why they are doing it like that. i don't know that -- who knows. i don't know. i am really sorry -- >> president swig: and to that point if you are doing inside renovation, so if any cracks or settling is going to occur, it -- >> president swig, it will occur in the building. doesn't the frackinger to impact
of a renovation from next door only occur when there is construction and dealing with redoing the foundation or building a new foundation. >> president swig -- >> yes. >> i am kind of leaning towards myself just for comfort for the appellant is that the d.b.i. do a site visit. and that latch moving down an inch and a half is quite substantial. >> there's 10, 12 notices of violation on this. we have written up -- going out there again is no point. >> there order of abatement and notice of violation. i couldn't even print that many violations and i couldn't print them all. >> the question i have here is that the appellant has stated that there is damage to his property. the permit holder said that her building is not responsible and the work she is done is not responsible.
i am trying to figure out if d.b.i. can go out there and see if there was work done on that side. >> we have that notice of violation. >> was there work done on that side? >> yeah. >> so the excavation was done -- >> there was. okay. >> the permit holder -- >> it's the violation. >> the fact that all the foundation work is done at the end was not true. >> what ewith did was on the 30th of july 2019 and nov2019-37491. work at the site is encroaching to the neighbor's property at 3425 sacramento street. survey provided by the complainant per structural support. obtain a permit for encroachment at portion of concrete and provide engineer's evaluation and shoring plan and repair plan. and include full scope of work or repair work. now, regarding the blame game, we're not getting into the blame
game. we have work with the documents. that is between the engineers and the judge and the courtroom sometimes to figure all that out. but us going out there again, we have been out there so many times you can't get the people to move. >> so happy to do it and i should ask again. >> an i get it -- >> that wasn't clarified earlier. now that you clarified it, i understand a site visit would not be necessary. >> it is an abuse of the permit system. unfortunately. i really sifrp sympathize with the appellant. who wants to do construction work for 20 years and live next door to this for 20 years? >> commissioner honda: what is going on? any type of enforcement that d.b.i. can persuade them to do this? and file a lawsuit maybe and i am not sure if they looked into
that. this is a very, very unique portion. and trying to have the timeline and there is pressure on them. what happens if we comment on the permit? is that true? a notice of violation and the lack of communication and the lack of will and i can't blame them for filing this. >> i think we will straight than out. so this is whenever the cases and familiar with everyone at
d.b.i. and the building inspection and make sure the appellant is trying to make sure severing on the up and up and understand exactly what is happening. and with the right plans are the engineering reports that d.b.i. required to approve the plan set for the shoring, is that correct? >> an it looks typical of what we request, yes. it's got a sequence and how he wants to do it, why he needs to do it, and there is a geotech report there. i would tell the appellant as well, as i said earlier, he should come down to the department. >> an it sounds like he has done that. and to be confused ant this and with the plans on file that they
are going to use at the job site and use to construct the shoring and do this work. and based on that engineering report. and that to me is what i am hearing from him. i don't know if we can resolve that tonight and to understand what is going on and happened orderly. >> and to bring someone with them for the abuse plans on the fourth floor. >> the licensed geotech and the appellant could bring his own engineer to speak with this gentleman and d.b.i. and make
their own assessment and provide that to the appellant. >> we constantly get everyone and get both parties from that area. if they get the permit upheld and thank you for that my cue. which is and if we approve this permit and violation and safety issue and however, a permit was approved 20 years ago and nothing was done with it.
and use the words, i think, and we can do all the right things according to the safety and security in terms of getting it down, and the will part. and to move the permit holder and stimulate the permit holder's will to get this done. and put fences metaphorically and terms and conditions around this and penalties that don't get this done in the time limit and state that the penalties start? what do we do about this? and put the language around this board recommends d.b.i. to pursue all options to get this work completed. and putting a rubber stamp on something.
and i am sure there have been discussions about that at d.b.i. we have another one up that i am dealing with as well. that is similar. >> an i feel like the enable ebb of continued bad behavior and at the same time, by not approving we are placing the safety and security of that area. and the stumbling block. a question for the city attorney. can we condition this permit to be done by a certain time? we have very little power as far as putting in penalties. what can we do? >> i am not aware of the board's power to impose penalties for not completing within a certain amount of time. i don't know what the advantage would be with trying to put an end date on the permit itself because we want the person to
complete the work. >> okay. thank you. we are losing a commissioner at 8:00 p.m., so we should probably move this along. >> any public comment on this item? >> seeing none -- >> you will be time in rebuttal, ma'am. sit down. we will hear from the appellant mr. van roden. you have three minutes. >> believe me, i want to get it done, too. as far as the safety issue, it was an open hole for three years. it has been going on and the hole than there for eight years. so is it a safety issue? i don't know. i have been flagging this to d.b.i. for a long time. they are not on top of it. they are not watching what is going on. i know there is, oh, we can't really do anything. they are not even looking at what the work to be completed by the plans and what is happening on site.
they are not measuring and way deeper and other stuff. and the other address was the other side of the neighbor with another problem where they poured cement way into the property. it is not just me, right? so couple other things. here is the notice of violation that they still haven't complied with that should be addressed. >> overhead, thank you. so provide assessment report from structural engineer regarding stability and foundation of building. has not happened. they just submitted a new permit. that is absurd. sorry. but i have had i have had an engineer and asked to go on site because like an iceberg. he can only see my property and not the other side. i have asked to get on. i got a lawyer involved. she refused. that is her right. but i have tried. i have an engineer to review, whatever, but it is getting o it of control because they are rubber stamping this and no one is looking at and the real
permits on file. they're not putting a garage in. it is a store front. no one knows what it is. it needs proper review before you move forward is my view. this is the other side of the building. if this cement wall is my property. this is how close they are. and this is where the cracks are happening. they were right up against the property and parts of the -- the buildings are attached as well. it is pretty major. i need more than, oh, we can't do anything, sorry. that's my rebuttal. >> so are you done, sir? >> yes. >> i understand the frustration. i truly do. the city departments are here to work with you. and as senior inspector duffy says, you should reach out to them. >> u a did you see my attachments of the emails? i have been to the d.b.i.10 # 0
time this is year alone. i spend my life down there. >> at this point you have a member of the department right here. you should reach out and he needs to be your new best friend. seriously. >> agreed. >> and saying that you are not happy is not going to make this matter better. >> i have reached out and gone through the proper channels. >> are you listening? >> i'm sorry. >> he is right there. after this hearing, you can take him in the hallway and have a chat with him. >> my only request is that proper oversight and revision of the notice of violation on the property. >> leave that up on the screen. on the overhead please. i want the -- i would like the counsel for the permit holder to respond to that. thank you. >> thank you. >> just keep it up. we'll get it back after. >> we will hear from the permit holder. >> you have three minutes, sir.
>> thank you. as far as the engineer's report, that was and notes on them and the engineer other than me. a civil engineer came to the site. from the building department to the engineers went several times and then notice of how that work to be done. the other thing is in a friendly way, i am very happy to reach out to the appellant if he would like to and the owner's engineer. as far as inspection, i was there several times and we have a time card from the city. the city inspectors come several times for concrete pour, for retaining wall, other sites, other parts of the project. they also require independent inspection and our engineers to come and look at the steel and
the concrete and provide independence. i am not here is to defend it, but i physically on site and as a witness and never there when d.b.i. inspector with their name on the time card. and the name of the inspector with the city with several dates following up the work and doing the inspection. the work in the last year or two is progressing. before that and steel has been inspected. it is a basement. it's a basement of the building to be converted to a floor. so a lot of the work was done before we come to the east side of that work. >> sir, how long have you been involved with this project? >> stop the time please. >> i was there -- i don't know the exact date, but i was there on part of the project, on the east side, excuse me, can i ask someone --
>> i'm sorry, please come up to the microphone. >> the question, sir, was how long have you been involved? >> i am figuring out the time. >> he started in 2009. >> so for many years, 10 years, you have been involved with this project. >> intermittently. >> in 2009 i came and another contractor and he build -- there are several parts of the project. >> i understand that. i think what is just disturbing to this board is that length of time this project has been languishing aened the number of violations that are serious. the impacts to the neighboring property and what we are trying to understand is first thing is the permit that is before us properly issued. but what is the resolution going to be? when is it going to be resolved? if we were to uphold the permit, will the work be completed? it seems it would not be. >> an i'm sorry, we have had at least eight concrete pours. the whole foundation is now completed. this 22 foot section is the last section. the north is done. the west is done. and half of the east.
and that violation came in when we did a year ago when we did the east section. he was concerned that it wasn't -- that when we did the second half of the east wall, which we haven't touched yet this, 22-foot section that it be done correctly. >> when you got the n.o.v. that is on the overhead from what march of 2018, did you supply the engineer's report to resolve that violation? >> yes. >> did you supply it to the appellant? >> did you supply that report to the appellant? >> this report and this packet is to resolve the n.o.v. from march of 2018? in addition to the later n.o.v. from december of last year. >> it is the same area. >> the same issue. >> what has your conversation and communication been with the appellant? >> it is really hard to talk to him. retried -- >> describe trying. what does that mean? >> we wrote him letters. we have tried to go over and talk with him. he is just belligerent and stops the project.
we are at the last section. this is -- we went down 26 feet. it is like what is happening on union square. the front of the building was a three-story -- >> ma'am -- >> you are saying we didn't work. but the reality is that i should have brought in the job card. we had eight concrete pours in the last two years. we are at the last section. this last section is a 22-foot section and there is concern that it would be not -- nothing would happen and so they went back to the original plan and -- >> ma'am, we get it. she asked a question. you don't have additional time to argue your case. the commissioner asked a specific question. >> i think my question has been answered. thank you. >> thank you. you have a minute and 13 seconds left. >> it was issued in december -- the one on the projector. >> the work has been delayed until now. that was issued. then the engineers made some reports. went to the building department. i wrote some letter.
so i am not trying to go around d.b.i., but this process from the december to now is been in permitting process. the owner cannot do anything. here we are. there very much was issued august 9. >> sir, i will wait for you to finish your time. >> that is it. >> okay. as a geotech expert, do you think by having that much of a hole at the neighboring property caused this issue for the settling of this other property? >> to be honest, i can't answer that except toe are lie on the owner's engineer who inspected his property. >> have you let that owner's engineer inspect your property? >> we actually will give him a civil notice to come over and look. >> they had an 832. >> at this point we'll have our ruling. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> i think you guys should have
a conversation in the hall after you leave so that we get this done. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy, is there anything further? >> scott, one question. they mention there is a violation of regarding planning on the vacant store front. is that a planning issue or building inspection? >> no active planning code violations on the property under the building code and there are requirements for vacant building ordinance. maybe the issue at hand. >> that was it. thank you. >> commissioner, this mater is submitted. >> go ahead. >> do you want to start? go ahead. >> somebody start. >> i will start and i don't know where it's going to end. this is very disconcerting case. inspector duffy said it. and while this permit may be properly issued, i have serious concerns about how this will be resolved in a way that would give the city any confidence it will be resolved in a matter to meet the building code and and
in the continuance time that the parties get together to understand the permit history of the property, understand what is going on if the appellant does want to have an engineer of his own at his own expense to inspect and make their own reports and findings regarding his property and that of the permit holders be made available and returned at such time as the items are completed. >> i also would support that. having as much as i don't like kicking the can and creating more work for the board, i think this project is abuse of the system. and how it works. and if i was a neighbor, i would be truly upset to see my home settle like that in a way and not be addressed. and to be honest, this board has wide and broadening powers as i have been told. the permits potentially just can be cancelled and you can is that right process all over again
around new permit for something else. go ahead. you make the motion. >> vice president, president? >> i am open to other options besides continuing, but i don't know that i feel comfortable just upholding the permit today. >> sorry. like i said, by issuing the permit, i feel like i am enabling a junkie to continue the bad behavior. but by stopping the permit, there is a safety risk. so that is why i went to my mentor mr. duffy and asked him for his solution. he gave me nothing. >> did you hear that? you got nothing. >> so i really don't -- by all legal rights, we should approve this permit. >> an i think that is the concern for the safety of san franciscans.
>> that scares the heck out of me. i wouldn't mind -- i would like to have a continuance. i think i would support a continuance because i like mr. duffy to come back here after meeting with both parties and putting all the ducks in line, and what's been done. what's not been done. >> how much time? >> what permit has been completed, what permit is not completed and exactly what are we talk about here. so i know mr. duffy does not want to do this. because he's frustrated with this project after 20 years. but i would ask him the favor to indulge us with this continuance until november what? >> so what is the purpose of the continuance? how much time do you think will need to get done? no since calendaring it unless we have a specific agenda of what we expect to happen. >> how much time he need and the permit holder if you plan to
hire an engineer -- if the appellant needs any time and the date that mr. duffy suggests work in your schedule. >> sorry, joe. it is a good idea. i don't mind how long we take. and at least a month i would imagine because of getting people together and going out there and when i was researching this, there are so many records and 20 years of records. where do you start even? and notices of violations and so many of them. and we could try to put a chief building inspector tomorrow morning and the chief inspector hernandez who both know this very, very well. mr. sweeney would know it as well. i will reach out to both parties and speak to them tonight in the hall about the that move forward. the appellant needs to get a peace of mind that the work is
being done in a safe manner, and then there needs to be a commitment from the people that have the permit to bet the work done sooner rather lan later. and when we hear about excavation and property coming into a rainy season, you start to get concerned. i have and myself personally. i know we were dealing with it. >> a giving you an e-ticket. >> a there was claims from the appellant, but from the year of permits that they are not following them. that is disturbing. i hadn't heard that before. so we do need to look into that as well. hopefully severing is and november 20 or december 4? i am looking at the director and also the appellant if those dates would work for you. >> november 20 is way too busy. >> december 4.
december 11? that is questionable? >> i leave about this time. >> a possibly commissioner tanner and commissioner tanner definitely. possibly commissioner santacana. >> i would rather we stick this to the 4th for the continuity of the hearing and hope that something falls out. then we are in january. >> commissioner honda: can a representative for the permit holder come to the podium? the geotech. so what we are suggesting, sir, and i hate to be extremely frank, we don't trust that you are going to get this done in a timely manner to protect the
neighboring property. that is just my honest feeling on this. my question here is, we don't want to go through winter here. what we would like to do is at the end of the hearing, you, your client, the next door neighbor, and the representative of the department go in the hallway and hash this out. so that we can make your property safe during the wintertime and that the rains don't effect it and we can assure that the neighboring property owner will be safe as well. what is your timeline to get this work done, is ir? >> this work as soon as they give us the permit, we will proceed right away. it's been delayed -- >> right away is not a time. week, month, days? >> how long will it take? >> no. the question is, if you were to have -- >> ma'am, please sit down. sit down. >> how many days, weeks, or months? >> give us about two months to get a bid by the company.
>> and a permit to be completed. >> willing to go through the winter with the temporary shoring? >> we would like to have -- we have 22 feet. >> i will ask you a question. give me a date. i don't want to hear anything else. >> i can probably do it in a month. >> two months. >> i can do in in a month. they will finish it. we have the concrete pour on monday. >> thank you. >> thank you. please be seated. thank you. >> i am a little stuck, commissioner, because of the timing. we can't do it on the 4th. >> november 13. is that too soon? that is three weeks. >> that should be enough. >> i want them to talk it out and get this done. >> and do you want to clarify? is this to enable the appellant to go on to the property with his engineer? >> enable time to to go to the property with the expert if they choose to, to meet with d.b.i., and d.b.i. to prepare a staff report with the outlining of the
issues of the property. >> more homework for you, senator inspector duffy. please come up. >> i think november 13 might work. >> does that work for you, sir? november 13 is also a wednesday. >> we will kwar clarify the appellant will go on with the licensed professional if he chooses. >> so do we have a motion? >> do you got what i said? >> usually your version of our motion is usually better. >> i want to know who to attribute to it. >> continue this item to november 13 to provide teem for the appellant and expert to access the subject property for the department of building inspection to prepare a staff report outlining the history of the property, and the assessment of the safety and i think that is all. >> d.b.i. to make an inspection of the property. and for the parties to meet if they so chose. >> we have a motion from commissioner tanner to continue this item to november 13 so that
the appellant if he so choose cans visit the property with his expert, d.b.i. can prepare staff report, and d.b.i. can also inspect the property. on that motion, vice president lazarus. >> aye. >> commissioner honda. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. that motion careys. i hope the party cans work together. >> please have a conversation in the hallway. >> i am going to pass the gavel to the vice president as i unfortunately have to depart. i apologize to the public. >> we are moving on to item number 10a and 10b. this is appeal numbers 19-088 and 19-094. daniel greeman and david donofrio versus department of
building inspection. applying the issuance on 11 gladys street to the site permit and vertical addition to add a second story. variance reference 2015-004717. and we will hear from each oi plant will have 7 minutes and the permit holder will have 14 minutes to respond as well as the responding department. mr. greeman, who wants to go first? >> prior to hearing i need to disclose that i am a partner in a project and their appearance before the body this evening will not have an effect on my decision. >> welcome. >> good evening, members of the board. >> can we have the computer please? >> that would help. >> good evening, members of the board. thank you for being here. i know how valuable your time is
because i know how valuable mine is. and there is only five of you, but i feel there is a death of time that can never repay you, so thank you for listening. i am daniel greeman and i have lived in san francisco for 20-something year. i have lived at the property adjacent to the applicant for 21 years. it's a property i built. i do construction. i do not have a contractor's license. as a homeowner, you can build some houses. i have built a house next to the applicant and one two doors up and very familiar with what it takes to build a house. slide one, i do oppose the granting of this permit. i think it was based on at best suspicious information. let's take a look at it. number two please. this is a photo from the air of the site location.
in blue, the one to the right is my house and the applicant's house is there at 11 gladys street in red. the hill is to the lower right and very high. so we'll see that in future image, but there is quite a slope here. but that is the situation you are looking at. this is block 5710. some of the lots are 25x100. many are 20x70. many are 20x50. but generally speaking the layout is that the backyards kind of line up which is convenient when you have to do construction and there are certain things you have to do in the city. we have earthquakes here. can i have the next slide? this is the applicant's from the applicant's application. that is their ground floor. the black indicates walls to remain. i want you to observe the wall on the right, i.e., to the east. it is indicated being 3 foot thick and to remain during construction.
we are going to be talking a about this wall a lot. in fact, i am going to guess that 90% of what you are going to hear is about this law. i don't have to guess because it is coming from me, but they will mention this sooner or later. next slide please. i believe this project to be a default demo. this is their calculations. >> de facto or default? >> a de facto default. what did i say? default default. i'm sorry. and de facto demo. and they are already stating they are removing 50% of the horizontal elements but not so much the vertical elements. again, this is going to the major argument. next slide. i wish that was bigger. you see the little red circle there. that is the east edge. again, you are looking at that wall, but edge on from the north. and if you look below it, it
says rock and soil. to the right of rock and soil is the first floor, possibly a basement floor, of the appellant's applicant's property. it is 9 feet below grade at that point. actually, i think it's 11. further photos, let me show you will show you this wall to be as much as 18 feet below grade. the property is 25 feet across, 18 over 25 is well more than 50% grade. they want you to think they're going to leave a wooden wall built in 1941 in contact with 11 feet of soil in place on a building that is going to have a third floor and wrap around deck and will trigger a seismic retrofit which triggers the 30% not 50%. this is a seismic redo. i know. i put four dormers on my house
and triggered the whole seismic thing. i am happy because now i have a real foundation. next slide. that is a photograph of the 9 feet or 11 feet. notice how deep it is. that bluish fence would be my property. next slide. that is a shot from the south and soil from the roof and is the top and is 19 feet below grade. next slide please. again, soil up against wood. again, soil against wood. next slide please. definition of demolition, 50% of horizontal. 50% vertical.
and it is my point they are going beyond 50% of the vertical. next slide please. well, there is the calculations. again, that is fine. they say 18%. i will say 60-something percent. next. again, soil up against -- again, it is soil up against wood from 1941. if it's not bad enough, they have a 19 foot wooden wall to remain during construction of a third floor and zone five seismic area holding back 19 feet of soil f i think the best part comes next. next slide please. no, next one. let's read that. this is the report that this company hired in 2018 by the appellant. i'm sorry. applicant. the last statement. you can't hear me? i can't read it from there.
>> you can take it up from the overhead. >> the site description from the engineering company they hired in may 2018 says the following. last sentence highlighted and would be in your brief. and observation on site. it appears the existing perimeter walls were repaired and patched with concrete at some point in the past. really going to tell me that they submitted plans saying this wall is just going to remain over all three stories. next slide please. so when you calculate the walls they will have to remove, it really is about 55% and that is a minimum. next slide please. because when you actually build something, you will have to put in a drain because you are down slope recommended by their
engineers to be 12 inches. there is -- >> thank you, sir. you will have time under rebuttal. >> your time is up. >> essentially -- >> your time is up. thank you. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the attorney for mr. donofrio. or mr. donofrio. any attorney will do. just kidding. welcome. good evening. >> we get kind of cranky at a certain time. >> oh, it's not a problem. >> give me one moment while i load up my slides please. >> tonight has been unusual. >> go with this one.
may i have the computer please? great. good evening. thank you -- >> time please. sorry. >> good evening. thank you for your time. i am david donofr oikz, the owner at 19th gladys street t adjacent property to 11 gladys street. my home is perpendicular right there and we are going to pay a lot of attention to theose wall. and the home covers -- >> i'm sorry, which one is your home? >> the first one perpendicular right there with the reddish deck. just to the south. so you can point on the computer screen. yes. >> thank you. >> don't say it is the one in the blue box. >> there is quite a few i will say misrepresentations and the building application. and here is we see classified as
instead of a three-story building a three-story and is crossed out. that could have been done at any time. there is no initials or anything. and there is no decks. these are the plans that were submitted and note a third floor and multiple deck. in addition, the estimated cost is $125,000. i just spent $10,000 redoing floors on a tiny studio so i can't imagine how much this is actually going to cost, but that seems quite low. has has been talked about t plans don't accurately reflect the site conditions on the east wall. the aerial photo, we see the soil against. the demo calculation from the submitted plans. looks a bit more like this with the red line being where that retaining wall needs to be and that whole wall has to go. we are talking maybe 17, maybe 20. it is a very large retaining call in here. there is a lot of alternatives
that we put forth that would potentially avoid this illegal demolition. this in my opinion creates a hazardous condition. an almost 20-foot vertical cut, 10 feet from my house. if that comes down, i go down. there is also 10 million gallons of water in the reservoir in the backyard and very concerned about that. i really appreciate additional review sending this to the sac or something that says pulling the permit or something that just gives us the assurance that this project is going to be safe. because as of now, the things submitted don't seem to give me a lot of confidence. thank you. >> thank you. okay. >> good evening, commissioners. i have written a brief basically and there is a number of points and i don't really need to argue about whether it is an existing 1-story building over a basement or two-story building or is it going to be a three story
building. that is the building permit hasn't even had a chance to see it. and they have a really good architect who knows what he is doing and when they get to the building department, they will opine whether it's two or three story. doesn't need to be one out of construction or need a second to be regress and all the changes, if any, maybe there is none, but if there are and they are substantial, i am sure planning will want to see them back to see what the demo counts look like and all this is going to get resolved automatically. i don't need to worry about it because i know the system going to work. what i am concerned about is the slope stability issue, the peskin ordinance. there is a requirement that you have to fill out to answer at least two of the three questions yes. which is going to require some type of review.
and the request i make because the planning department has already said they are reasons and reaches out during the work and looks at tier two question. if in the discretion of the building department that this project has the substantial impact on this slope stability of this site, this is a 20-foot vertical cut a massive reservoir that someone at the building department should take a look. if i am wroj, they will say, no, there's no problem. if there is a concern, and ask and take a look at it. that is all i am making a request. someone specifically watched the question of the building department. and now the geotechnical who wrote this report on the reservoir. >> eddie lao.
i am geotechnical engineer licensed in the state of california. vice president lazarus, commissioner honda, commissioner tanner, i have been in tract for and i am providing some consultation to patterson. that is why i am here. i am looking at the owner of number 11 and have every right to develop. the issue here is whether the development is going to cost significant risk to the neighbors. i think one of the issues they have heard about is and retaining water about 10 feet high and on top the wood
retaining wall. total work is 10 or 20 feet retaining wall. the issue is where that existing retaining walls are safe. and the issue to safeguard the neighbor. on top of that, about 400 feet and from the reservoir. and manage the project and the public utility commission in 2000 to do the assessment retrofit of the reservoir. at least i think that the development or the planning department and if they have enough objection to start
digging at the poll of the reservoir. >> 30 second, sir. >> i think i can finish here. >> good evening, commissioners. architect in san francisco here. i wanted to bring a couple of discrepancies in the plans to your attention. overhead please. thank you. the roof area is calculation is off. they didn't include the overhang and the slope of the roof area. that is the roof is 55%. there is a demolition of the horizontal planes. the grade -- thank you, sir. >> you will have time in rebuttal. >> thank you. >> got a lot of hired guns here. >> we will now hear from the attorney for the permit holder. you have 14 minutes. >> welcome. >> thank you, commissioners. i do not need 14 minutes. it is getting late today. >> want to loan it to them? >> just kidding. >> let's just get through this.
jody knight. we are happy to be here and a long road for this project and been through a lot of hearings. so happy to be here today and hopefully we can move on with this project. as you know, we are here about a project at 669 square foot addition to a 9170 square foot home and is an appropriate project to make a usable, livable, single family home for rob and his family. we have been reviewed by planning staff, zoning administrator, and this eps the board on variance appeal. to remind you about the project, i know you have read the brief. legal, nonconforming structure, on a very small lot essentially in order to build anything, you have to have a variance which is granted. that and the argument with the
. >> and obviously, we understand that we're going to have to comply with every building code, and the project will do that. if you could -- if you could overturn a site permit by making hypotheticals about the fact that the project couldn't be built as proposed, then we would essentially have nothing built, and we would be in an endless loop with site permits. and so i -- with that, i will let the city staff address what they want to address, and maybe raise some more things on rebuttal, and thank you for that, i appreciate it.
>> commissioner honda: you still have 10:56. >> i'm done. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner honda: no, really. thank you. >> clerk: we will now hear from the planning department. >> commissioner honda: it's funny. i just realized this has been before us prior to the variance. >> can i have the clock reset to 14 minutes? >> commissioner honda: who said that recently that they would not use all 28 minutes and then used every minute of it? >> scott sanchez from the planning department. i'll run through the entitlement history. this started in january 2015 with a project review meeting with city staff. in april of 2015, the variance application was submitted for variance in the rear yard. the building permit application was submitted in looks like
december 2016. that's the permit that is on appeal before you now. the environmental review was submitted actually before the permit was submitted. it was submitted in june 2016. the environmental review was completed in september 2017, and the i looked at the historic resource potential of the building, it was rescheduled to b. it was performed between march and april 2018. during that time, there was one discretionary review that was filed. hearing was scheduled before the commission on august 23 and continued to october 18. at that time, the planning commission unanimously approved the project. they did not take discretionary review and approved the project as proposed. subsequent to that, there was an appeal of the environmental determination to the board of supervisors which was heard in january of this year. they upheld the planning
department's determination. the variance was issued at the end of january 2019 and appealed to this board, heard in april, and it was upheld by a 4-1 vote. commissioner fung voted against the variance. >> commissioner honda: we got rid of him, so it's okay. >> and the permit before you was issued in august of this year, and the two appeals that are now before you. the project, as has been noted, is a legal nonconforming structure. the variance was heard by this board and completely upheld. there was no legal action taken on that decision. the decision is final. they're now pursuing this building permit consistent with that variance decision. the project as -- as proposed is otherwise code compliant. the -- there's -- the plans that they have provided do not
show it to be a demolition. as mr. buscovic noted, after review by additional agencies, that will be caught. i would note that anything that's below grade, that doesn't count, so if they need to change out foundations and retaining walls, those don't count towards the calculation under 317. what we have before you, the plans don't show it to be a demolition. even if that entire rear wall were to be demolished, based upon my review of the plans, it would still fall under the threshold of being a demolition under 317. there are still three on walls they're doing very little to. it's adding a story on an existing building. they're not doing a lot to change the facade of the building, to change walls or demolish walls.
it meets residential design guidelines. the planning commission unanimously found that. this is also within the bernal heights special use district, but there is nothing within the special use district, considering the variances have been granted. >> commissioner tanner: i have a question. can you speak to the issues regarding slope and just how that process would unfold, how would that review take place and when? >> that is something for the department of building inspection to make the appropriate determinations, that level of review and whether it goes to s.a.c., the department of building inspection. i'm not aware of anything that would give the planning department any authority to say what projects go to the structural advisory committee. yeah, that would be news to me.
>> commissioner tanner: and i don't know if this would go to d.b.i., but a seismic review upgrade for this project, if that would be part of this addenda. >> it's my understanding that would be done in review of the addenda for the site review that is before you, but i would defer to the department of building inspection. >> commissioner tanner: okay. thank you. >> commissioner honda: last question, mr. sanchez. it was mentioned by the appellants the dam upstairs, because it's my understanding, according to the appellants, that this is in an induction. >> i can't speak to that. >> commissioner honda: so is there any potential concerns in regards to that? >> the environmental review didn't find that there are any additional mitigation measures that were needed. it was taken to the board of supervisors on appeal and upheld, so i don't see any issues on environmental review.
>> commissioner honda: someone spent some money. okay. thanks. >> thank you. >> clerk: we will hear from the department of building inspection. >> commissioner honda: is this an easier one than the last one, joe? >> i hope so. that was one of the all-time greats. >> commissioner honda: hopefully you get to resolve it before you retire, and you can use that as a stripe on your shirt. >> thank you, yeah. thanks for -- we've got a permit here filed on december 8, 2016 and permit issued in april. this is the site portion of the project which they're going to move into the addenda process. at appeals, we do hear people bringing up the structural issues and the stability. they're good issues to bring
up, it's just that the addenda will deal with that. i know along the process any restrictions that would be in this, for example, if it does fall in the slope stability area, any of that will be dealt with by our structural plan check. and the structural engineer at geotech will need to produce whatever -- it's going to have to meet code basically for that: these -- basically for that. these projects are challenging. people in san francisco, i sometimes wonder myself how they're going to get this done or if they even want to take this on. because when you get into this, there's zero lot line, there's possible excavation, i heard
references tonight of wood against soil, those conditions. all that's going to be dealt with in this project, and they can't deal with it without facing it, and i think they know that. obviously, the appellant does, as well. and along the addenda, right, during review, if the appellant wants to -- or mr. boscovic, on his right, wants to come down to d.b.i., that process is available to them, and if they're not getting a response, i'm happy to put my hand up and say let me know if you're not getting satisfactory response to questions during that review. the people doing this process should have nothing to hide. there should be an open line of communication between them. it does have to meet the california building code seismic, you know, whatever, structural. and the other thing i heard was
the valuation, and it can be reviewed. it looks like it's a small enough house to begin with, getting a small addition. but 125,000 is low. that can always be raised before it can be done on a correction notice voluntarily by the permit holder. a lot of people -- sometimes architects put that down or someone just on their behalf. it could be double that, probably. depends on the interior work that's being done, as well. so on the demolition, obviously, we spoke on that before, as well. if they end up exceeding the scope of demolition that's shown on the approved plans, or if they get into a situation where they're potentially seeing inferior framing that is shown on the plans to remain, and it can't because it's inferior, they should contact the department of building inspection, get an inspector