In the 1920s, houses were built similar from the corner of 26th avenue and ocean avenue. These houses are on 40foot wide and 100foot deep lot. They have an easement in the back which take away 12 feet from the lot. Each house has a driveway into the garage under the house, and then, all three houses had decks that were built over the driveway. These two houses still have the original deck, but the subject house at 3001, at the corner, has a deck enclosed to create an office in 1996. Around 2007, a glass buildout was built in the back yard, and then, a storage room was built here into the setback. And then, also in 2018, a roof deck was built over this grass greenhouse area. And now, theres a permit area to add a second deck over the storage room which was added in 2007. As i mentioned in my brief, im concerned abo foot, two side are required. This is the location of the deck out here. You see the original building was built with side yard on both sides, and then, but but the storage room enclosed on the side yard, and then, the deck also will enclose on the side yard. I want to know, why was the applicant allowed to build the deck and to reduce the side yard down to zero . It seemed to be a clear violation of the planning code. The storage room built in 2007 is already a code violation. It intrudes 2 feet into the side yard. How can the department allow another Story Building on top of an existing violation. I would request the board order the permit holder to alter the project to comply with the permit requirement. While were on this, i would like to show two photos here. The first photo, taken in 2011, shows the the glass greenhouse in the back of the house next to the driveway this is in the back yard. And then, in 2018, the greenhouse was replaced by a wood frame structure with a roof allaround, and then later, a roof was added on top of that. Heres a closer look at the roof. This is the approved plan for the instruction, and it showed that this roof lines up with the Main Building and does not go into the side yard. Commissioner honda 30 seconds. However, what i see very god of keeping all of that, so i dont want to go back over that. But i specifically want to go over the three complaints from mr. Tom. First, hes legalized the solarium room, we also addressed with all the planning code at the time. It was addressed with planning. And also, we had a public notice, and mr. Tom was one of them that was noticed, and how come he didnt have any question after ten years back in the ten years before . The third complaint he also had is that the the glass was put in at the top of the the guardrail is blocking the ocean avenue view, and ocean avenue, its not ocean view. And also, his house is one house away from ocean avenue, okay . So even the trees can block all the views, and the whole idea of putting the glass is to protect the privacy, not just for mr. Tom and also for the surrounding neighbors. My view is which is more important . Protecting mr. Toms view or protecting the other neighbors privacy . Thank you. Clerk thank you. Commissioner honda oh, one question. When you did the 311 notification, was there any did you have a preapplication with your neighbors . Yes. We noticed everybody, and there were no commissioner honda nobody can anything . Yeah. Thank you. Clerk sir, can you please give your Business Card to miss sullivan or fill out a speaker card. Clerk okay. Thank you. Do you have any questions . Clerk not at this time. Okay. Thank you. Clerk we will now hear from the Planning Department. Thank you. Good evening. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. Unfortunately, i do have to say i share the concerns of the appellant in this case and think that the plans were not properly reviewed by the Planning Department. Subject is in an rh1 zoning district. It has a required side yard as noted by the appellant of 4 feet each on all sides of the building, rear yard requirement when most of this work was done, 25 or 25 feet, which has since been increased to 35 feet. The issue here is back in 2007, the sun room was added without permit. They sought a permit to legalize that, and there was another permit to also legalize the storage area which is now in question on this permit, which theyre seeking to build a roof deck on. It is true that that was reviewed and approved by Planning Department staff and underwent section 311 neighborhood notification for all the work that was being done here that was being sought to be legalized. But that was approved under section 136, which is permitted obstructions in the rear yard or the side yard. It was allowed as a storage shed, so this is a very minimal structure, cant be more than 8 feet in height, no more than 100 square feet. Usually, we see those in rear yards, for storage of equipment and things like that. Whats being proposed here is an intensefication of that. I think in my opinion the original approval was likely in error, but it is the code doesnt say that it has to be detached, but it was permitted under 136 as a separate construction, so the roof decaaddition on that would roof deck addition would not be approved. Given thats the sole scope of the permit here, with respect, i would ask that the board of appeals overturn the permit here, finding that it doesnt comply with the planning code, finding that it is an intensefication of the structure or intensefication of a structure in the required side yard. Unfortunately, today i didnt have a chance to reach out to the permit holder, so i realize this is going to be a surprise to them tonight, but i reviewed all the materials last night, including all the permit history which led me to this decision. Stratly, i also have concerned about the other structure separately, i also have concerned about the other structure that the appellant pointed out. [please stand by] thank you. In instances like this when the plan was approved improperly , was this an overthecounter permit . It was. I dont think this was necessarily a clear error on the part of staff, i dont think they were aware of the permitting history. If i were to be reviewing this myself at the counter, and saying that this is a legal part of the building and not knowing that it was actually approved only as a storage shed under 136 , not having that information , i would have made the same decision. You can, if it is an existing legal structure that is not one of these permitted obstructions. You could do the work. I think that is fine. People make mistakes or dont have all the information. In this instance, is the permit holder still responsible for paying the full fee . Is there a refund when they come get a permit and actually they shouldnt have gotten the permit in the first place. You could continue the item so that they could seek to have the permit cancelled, and they may the able to have a refund. At the same time, there has not been full transparency there has been permits this year. Sure. Theres a lot of issues going on. One of which is this application and permit that was issued for a roof deck on a part of the building that cannot have a roof deck on it. Your point is taken. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We will now hear from the department of building inspection. That was the first time tonight, joe. As you heard mr. Sanchez say, the permit was converted to a new roof deck and an existing storage roof popout to convert an existing window from door to deck. It was over the car door permit. The cost of the valuation was 8,000. It was issued on the 20th of september, 2019 and suspended on the 7th of october. Probably Building Code wise, if we looked at the plan, everything is probably okay on the height of the guard rails, the structural part of it, but i too, when i was reading the brief, i was confused. In 2019 were talking about a new roof deck and then with 2018 we have two permits replacing a leaking roof with a new roof and windows and doors and then we have a revision to that permit for a new roof deck at the rear. Youre talking about a lot of decks. There arent there are a lot of planning concerns. If the applicant wished to, they could probably, the best course might be to cancel this permit and request a cancellation and a refund and start again and work with the Planning Department on how to work out all of the issues that you heard mr. Sanchez said. Im sure they can meet Building Code requirements. Most of the time on these things , it is the Planning Departments requirements that usually kick in, and then building later. Again we are just there for structural architectural stuff like yard rails with structural work. That is what i have to say on this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Okay. No Public Comment. We will move onto rebuttal on to rebuttal. Mr. Tom . You have three minutes. We will start it when you begin speaking. I would like to continue my talk. Overhead, please. I would like to point out that some construction has been going on in 2019 since the addition in 2018. The structure, the sunroom sir, you can move the microphone. It has been expanded to the north side by 3 feet, by 11 feet , making the structural lot bigger than before. They put in a glass roof on top, a wall put here, and a door put in. The door is painted the same color as the wall to try to make it less noticeable. In my opinion, this store in the roof created a possible accessory dwelling unit in the building. The ground floor is spacious with family room, with a wet bar , two bathrooms, and a bedroom and another room with a walkin closet. So i think the Property Owner should be required to apply and legalize a unit into an accessory dwelling unit. Another thing i want to point out, there has been very little electrical and plumbing permits taken. Overhead, please. This should be a printout of the electrical permit history. Only one permit, and then plumbing, two permits. All of these permits was taken out in 2007 or before 2007. You have 30 seconds. Okay. So the latest conversion from the glass house in the wood frame building and the deck on top, without any electrical and plumbing inspection. With the laundry room that has power and drainage. I think we have an unsafe condition there. I want the department to look closely at this. Thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from the permit holder. You have three minutes. My conclusion is very simple. Maybe i am very naive, but i go back to the same. Whatever approved is legal to build. Approved is approved. Maybe there is something wrong with the approval, but we can correct mistakes. We can do that. However, if someone is not living with a primary resident in there and they are taking 10 years to complete things, then it is not fair to the neighbor. I just want to be fair to my friend, and also, something is not related. These six students are having allowed parties. Should we complain again . Than this process will never end they are neighbors here. Yes or no . I want to see that it is a fair treatment. Besides that, the roof deck on top of the storage is to clean up the architectural as the main point. We are trying to make it like a deck and make it blend with the architectural style. That is the hold point. We cannot build it, we cannot do it. That is my point. Sir, when you say we, are you helping with the permitting and the plans for this property . No, i just used we. It is just as a term. Thank you. Thank you. Anything further from the Planning Department . I have one question for the beard. [laughter] so because there is an alley in the back, would potentially that structure qualify for the new state intensification where they can put an 800 squarefoot cottage in the back . The fact that there is the alley there doesnt change the rear yard calculation. It is still taken to be the midpoint of the alley a something where the Property Line is. The easement doesnt impact the rear yard requirement. They can still do whatever is allowed under the code. I thought that you were allowed now to put an 800 squarefoot cottage in the rear. They wouldnt be able to block because of the easement. They would still have to abide by the easement. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. We will now hear from the department of building inspection. Just really quick, we did receive a complaint yesterday. Work without a permit, type of work being performed, there is some information. I think that relates to what the gentleman just spoke about. The building inspector will be visiting the site in the next few days to probably investigate that so there may and you heard the Planning Department were not on an enforcement case. I just wanted to let you know. Thank you. Yep. So you would suggest that the permit holder could come ask the department be cancelled and be entitled to a refund . Yes. They get a partial refund. If, based on some of the testimony we have her tonight we were inclined to grant the appeal and revoke the permit, how would that match with his ability to withdraw it . It gets a little bit harder because weve got a revocation of a permit, but i think if he gives them a little bit of time and he chooses to do the cancellation request, i can work with him on that. That will do away with the appeal. It wouldnt be before you again. It would be a cancelled permit. Okay. That is what i was trying to get at. He needs to agree to do that because otherwise it just goes on and on. If he agrees to come down and cancel the permit, that i do work with rosenberg on these types of ones. I would say continue to a specific date for this instance to enforce the cancellation. If he doesnt do that, then you can decide whatever you want to do and then at that point revoke it. Is that all . It has become very clear that even if we continue this and if the permit were cancelled, the current permit holder is going to get a visit from both d. B. I. And planning in a very short while. That is not going to be changing no. There is a complaint on it. If some of the allegations are true and we look at old plans with discrepancies. It could end up with a notice of violation from building in a letter of enforcement from planning. It will probably be enforced again because it will need to drawings and stuff. Thank you. Commissioners, this matter is submitted. Do you want to continue it . Motion to continue to. February 5th. Okay. We could put it in january, at the end of january. It doesnt take much to go down to cancel a permit. Why we why are we allowing a few months . He said it. What is the best . The next meeting is a month from now, i would assume. If he doesnt cancel it, i dont want it on that calendar because it is very, very long. We could put it january 29th. We are pretty busy, or january january 29th or later. Lets say january 29th. Im sure they want their refund as well. Okay. That is up to the commissioners. Come on up. What happens if the Property Owner disagrees to cancel . He doesnt want to cancel it. Then a motion to thank you for communicating. Are you saying he doesnt want to cancel . I am just asking. If he didnt want to cancel it then we just continue it to january 29th and you would come back and we would have a continuation. I dont want to continuation. I just want to discuss with them at the same time, you understand you have an enforcement with both building and planning. So the Property Owners are going to be dealing with the inspections from those particular departments. Most likely, my alternative motion tonight would be to find for the appellant on the basis to grant the appeal. It is either grant the appeal and revoke the permit, at which point he cant cancel it and he is out some money, or we are being very nice to you and saying you can go downtown and cancel the permit and get some money back and end up in the same spot. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify. Thank you. Okay. So we have a motion to continue this matter to january 29th to allow time for the permit holder to cancel the permit. On that motion. [roll call] that motion carries 50. I encourage the permit holder to work with d. B. I. Thank you. We are now on moving on to item number eight a and eight b. Six dogs l. L. C. Versus the department of building inspection. Appealing the revocation on september 30th, 2019, of nine Building Permits issued to six dogs l. L. C. Nine permits were issued your model the four unit building, repair rear stairs, front facade , and soft story seismic work, however, a site visit has revealed work exceeded the scope of the permits and the plans contain inaccurate information. As a preliminary matter. I wished, after speaking with my director in my City Attorney, it is my opinion that i am not legally bound to recuse and i disagree with the comments made in the appellants brief, however in the order in order to preserve the integrity and fairness of the boards proceedings, i am recusing myself from both hearings. Thank you. We will wait to begin the case after commissioner honda leaves. So we will hear first from the attorney for the appellant. I understand he will be taking 10 minutes of the 14 minutes allotted. One moment. Thank you. I apologize for that. Just a point, i believe many the folks that are here arrived after you swore folks in. Okay. We can do another swearingin. For those who arrived later, do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth . Raise your right hand. Thank you. Please be seated. Okay. We will set the clock for 10 minutes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Board members, im here on behalf of the appellants six dogs l. L. C. Dennis richards became increasingly vocal about the fact that he believes some people at d. B. I. Were using one set of rules for folks that were favoured contractors and another set of rules for everybody else. Not only with that obviously be unfair, it creates issues with the public if d. B. I. Is looking the other way and not enforcing the planning code and the Building Code on projects where they have favoured contractors. Eventually commissioner richards , joined by fellow commissioners publicly stated that they were worried about d. B. I. Not being able to trust d. B. I. , and the City Attorney should investigate what was going on. Faster than you can say the word retaliation, d. B. I. It went after commissioner richards. They knew he was an investor in a real estate project by six dogs l. L. C. A project that had been completed and was being marketed for sale will. So they revoked all the permits for that project. Here this behavior is likely will his homeowners, contractors , engineers to put up with d. B. I. s unlawful favouritism for years. But this time, d. B. I. Went too far after the wrong target. In one sense, issue before you today is simple. Did d. B. I. Overstep its bounds by revoking the permit permits in a completed project based on most minor discrepancy between the work that was done in the work that we showed at the outset of the project . As im sure you probably know from past experience, these types of discrepancies are dealt with routinely time and time again in a revision permit at the end of a project to have the plans reflect what actually was built. As we demonstrated in our briefs and exhibits, permit revocation is extraordinarily rare. Happening only a few times per year, only one or two times per year if you take away the revocation of this board and by the Planning Department. Those this one or two times per year were extraordinary cases. Demolitions without permits, or work being done when the owner hasnt approved the work to be done. Not and never, and all the documents that were produced by public records requested by this board to d. B. I. And to planning, never has there been a revocation of permits for minor violations like the ones that are cited by d. B. I. In this case at the same time, there are plenty of examples of work, can i have the overhead, please . Work that has gone on that is outrageously beyond the permit and the permits do not get revoked. This is a rather famous one at 49 hopkins where this entire historic home was demolished without permits. No revocation of the permits by d. B. I. And no suspension of the permits by d. B. I. So the remedy of revocation is extraordinary. Why did they do it here . Lets talk first through a timeline. What we know is that back in august of last year, six dogs fought and obtained a permit for this project and then they finished seeking those permits by january. D. B. I. Inspected a dozen times, signed off on the work, planning signed off, Fire Department signed off, there were no issues. It was routine. There were no problems. Months later, though, commissioner richards, along with other members of the Planning Commission, began to speak out. Theyre frustrated with the way d. B. I. Seemed to be giving a pass to projects that had contractors who engaged in a pattern of abuse such as applying for a minor remodel permit and excavating the heck out of the project without an excavation permit. One of those notorious projects came before the commission on july 18th and august 29th. This project, and i kid you not, it involves a two story addition and over 800 cubic yards of excavation done without permit. I included links to the Planning Commission meetings where those projects were discussed in our brief, i also included a link to a meeting where the president of the board of supervisors came to the Planning Commission to decry what she believed was corruption at d. B. I. Relating to some of these repeat offenders. Shortly after commissioner richards spoke out from extraordinary some externally things took place. On september 25th, and an ominous complaint came into d. B. I. At the project. A project that essentially had been completed, all the major work had long been done. I say anonymous, but we know that just before that complaint came in, the wife of a man came to d. B. I. To view the records about the six dogs project. He and his partner are contractors who repeatedly engaged in outrageous permitting transgressions, so outrageous that they are currently being sued by the city for just these types of things. You apply for a small permit, then you excavate the heck out of it, create a lower level or a new upperlevel. Why would his wife be interested she doesnt even live in san francisco. Because commissioner richards had been speaking out about this abuse, including abuse by the company on projects and trying to make sure they dont profit from their misconduct. Then what happened . Senior building inspector jumped into action. He is a senior official at d. B. I. , but he didnt have somebody else go out to take care of this. He takes charge of it himself. He goes out to the site, and within three business days, he has revoked all the permits on this project. For work that has long been inspected and done, and he has issued a series of n. O. V. His. And all the documents that we received, again, this is unprecedented. It has never happened before. And why was this blitzkrieg necessary where they just jumped on this . Was it because of some huge amount of work had been done without permits . No. The complaint that he was investigating talks about things like no permits for the garage door and a new driveway being installed. By the way, every other revocation notice that d. B. I. Has ever sent out has appeal rights. It says right on the note is, you can appeal to the board of appeals. This notice, the only notice that mr. Hanh hernandez has ever sent out is no appeal. Mr. Best of it went to him and said, well, we can appeal this, right . And he said, no, your appeal is to add . It is outrageous. He was being told, you have to deal with us if you want to get this done. It gets worse. And the few days between the anonymous complaint and mr. Hernandez throwing the book at the six dogs project, commissioner richards received this text from ward member honda how would board member honda no that there had been an anonymous complaint about a project and how would he know that that project is a project in which commissioner richards was investigating . If that wasnt bad enough, the subsequent phone call between board member honda and commissioner richards, board member honda told him that this related to his criticism of the 18th street project, and board member honda told commissioner richards you should go down to d. B. I. And make this right. That phone call ended with commissioner richard saying he couldnt be bought and that mr. Honda could tell mr. Sweeney to go to hell. After that, commissioner honda called another Planning Commissioner and suggested that commissioner richards would loot would be losing his seat on the Planning Commission. This is another timeline that shows how quickly this all happened. We go from an anonymous complain on a wednesday, to mr. Hernandez taking charge on a thursday, the text on a friday before there has ever been any action on the complaint, and then on monday, notice of violations issued in the same day, all the permits are revoked. As i have explained, projects involving minor deviations like this come up during construction that are dealt with keenly. Dealt with by doing a revision permit to make sure that the construction that occurred matches the final plans. No big deal. The only reason that didnt happen here is because that didnt allow the board that didnt allow d. B. I. To have leverage over commissioner richards in terms of his criticism of d. B. I. And their favoured contractors. So what are we asking . We are asking that you address the immediate issue before you by granting these appeals, overturning the revocation, and issuing a special conditions permit to document the full scope of the work that was done. Were asking you to direct director q. A. Or the chief inspector. Your time is up. You will have more time in rebuttal. I will cut into his time for 15 seconds. They have four minutes left. Lets start the clock at four minutes, please. Thank you. Im sorry. We are asking that most importantly that this board keep jurisdiction over this matter because if this matter just goes back to d. B. I. , we know what will happen. We know what will happen because mr. Hernandez told me what will happen. I met with mr. Hernandez and other members of six dogs l. L. C. And he says, go ahead with your appeal. Who cares . Even if you win, you will not get anything done out there without coming through me. That kind of a threat from a member of d. B. I. , please, put a stop to that. Please keep control of this project. Lets get it wrapped up through the director and have grant this appeal. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Good afternoon, commissioners i am a licensed structural engineer. I have been doing this for 40 years. I have experienced the permit process connected to this violation. I asked her turn i ascertained for them to do a voluntary soft story retrofit, voluntary. That permit is being revoked. Someone trying to fix their building and they are revoking it. It is unheardof. In my years of experience, minor deviations are all solved at the end of the project. Everything that we are permitting is permissible under the Building Planning and fire code. All this work can be handled in a revision permit. We have gone through every issue , they are all workable. Lets give you a couple of examples of things theyre concerned about. The new walls. We show an existing plan and a proposed plan. I didnt shade one of the walls. They are down to shading, typographical errors. Even though it is clearly shown as a new wall. On the rear stairs, i note that the rear stairs were rebuilt in 2006 and they replaced the post and stringers. I told this to the plan director and now we will replace the treads and risers and the handrail. That is 100 of the stair. I disclosed everything to the plan checker. Theyre criticizing me for telling the planned checker the stairs were rebuilt and im telling you now, we are rebuilding them. We are not hiding anything here. The skylight in the roof, before we could get to the roof and tell them dont file a permit, he ran down and got a roofing permit at the last minute, would you usually dont get until the end of the job because it doesnt go up in the roof and inspect it. He did. Before we could tell him dont do it. He ran down and got a roofing permit and got a permit for the two skylights he installed. They are now making it an issue that theres more skylights of the previous tenants installed. We are happy to get a permit for those extra skylights. I can go down the list of every one of those issues. That is why they created a second complaint using my own drawings. Someone at the Building Department gave out my drawings. That is reprehensible. In summary, the revision permit or the new permit approach, if they revoke the permits, every inspection the inspector made, he did five concrete inspections for five concrete pours, they are all documented. They all go byebye, and they can make us jackhammer out all the concrete they want because that wasnt inspected. That permit disappears. Were asking we are asking the board to take jurisdiction. This is out of control. To take jurisdiction, allow a revision permit, and put it put an independent person to monitor our work. We have nothing to hide. It is all permissible. I request the board to reinstate these permits and allow a revision permit to move forward on the issues they are complaining about. If you have anything you want to question me about, im over here and happy to answer. Thank you. I have some questions. Does anybody else have any questions . Go ahead. I will be last. I have a question. As i understand your clients position, you dont dispute that there were violations, and the Building Code section that applies here permits, sort of without putting any guidelines on when to do which, it permits suspension or revocation of the permits. Do you agree with me so far . Almost. Some of the alleged violations we do not agree with. There are some, like we got the original person got permits for x number of windows. Fair enough. I agree that there is one section of the Building Code that deals with the word revocation and it doesnt have standards associated with it. And thats the section that says suspension or revocation . Yes. And as i read the code, it is up to d. B. I. To choose which remedy without any boundaries on that code. Are you aware of any legal foundries on d. B. I. s discretion in terms of choosing we dealt with this with the arts commission, too, in a very different context. Shoot choosing suspension versus revocation. Im not aware of any written annotations to the code that sight previous incidences. I did the public records request to see what is the history. Why do permits get revoked . That is the evidence i presented to you both orally and in the brief. It has happened incredibly rarely and only in extreme cases and never in a case like this. But you dont dispute taking the windows as an example that they have the power to revoke . It is legal for d. B. I. To revoke the permit on which this window violation occurred. Is that correct . Not if they are retaliating against somebody who is being publicly who has publicly criticized d. B. I. What is the legal basis for that statement . The First Amendment. Are you making a First Amendment argument . I did not see one in your brief and i was wondering about that. I didnt think i needed to make a First Amendment argument to try and have the revocation rescinded, i think i made it pretty darn clear that commissioner richards is speaking out in a matter of public concern. Im trying to help you here. [laughter]. I missed it. The First Amendment is not in your brief. The words First Amendment are not the argument in there. What is the argument . Spee think speaking on a matter of public concern and being retaliated for that. There is law that says involving public commissioners who speak out on a matter of public concern and then have and then are retaliated our retaliated against in their private capacity by the Public Employees they are speaking out against. Why wouldnt that be a matter for the courts . Are you aware of authorities that our board purviews extends to we can take into account with the code says we can take into account. It doesnt say First Amendment retaliation as part of it but it talks about the general welfare and safety of the city, it talks about character of neighborhoods , it talks about if it isnt error in the code. One of the difficulties i have with this case is even if i assumed, for the sake of argument, that d. B. I. Maliciously chose to retaliate against one of the members of the l. L. C. That you represent for speaking out on a matter of public concern, as a lawyer, typically that be something you would deal with in a court. There are causes of action for that. Im not aware with how that interacts with our jurisdiction. Your attorney is sitting to your right and i used to you dont know me, but i used to be a deputy City Attorney in private practice. What i do is represent Public Employees. I dont throw bombs like this. This is not me. What why i am throwing bombs here, just because the fax justify. And use it as an appellant body in the review and you are perfectly entitled to take into account issues of Public Policy and making your decisions. You are also entitled to take into account the specific language of the Building Code. Overhead, please. You can get a separate revision permit. So can i say, in isolation reading the Building Code that the Building Department has no discretion to revoke permits . I cant. That is not what the Building Code says. But the circumstances here, the trivial violations and the history of one revocations are used, this board has plenty of discretion to say revocation was improper. Thank you. That is helpful. I personally would like to keep the conversation today not about people, but about the subject and i would like to keep it to exactly what you just put on the board. And that doesnt involve me. I would like to talk to you, please. Keep that in mind, counsellor. You just age to yourself. You have to speak up, i am deaf. You and i just aged ourselves you have been at this 40 years. You are one of the fixtures in front of this body. Because i believe in this board. Personally i respect to significantly. You have always been very straight as far as i have seen and more straight than many of the people who have come in front of us. Im giving you a lot of credibility. Thank you. At least in my view. I have been doing this now a couple of years. Time flies. I am in my second term. One thing that confused me about this, and you addressed it in your brief, which i also thought was a very helpful to make, is why where theres so many permits . This is a simple renovation. This is like nothing. It doesnt go out of the building envelope, it doesnt add a unit, it doesnt do this, it doesnt do that. Why wasnt there one permit . I got hired to do a retrofit. That is all i knew was going on, and that involved fixing the foundation, it is a voluntary retrofit. It is not mandatory. These people are doing the right thing. We replace the foundation and somewhere along the line i found two things that occurred. When we were doing the garage his lab work, we found what i thought was a corridor, and a required exit corridor corridor, was sitting on a brick. That is not right. That was something wrong. I took a better look at it and i realized, these were posts that were shoved into place with planks on them at and at the end was a metal gate. People were kind of encourage to go down the stairs into the garage and exit out. And i thought, thats not right. I went to fire and i think i went to fred stump. Fred said, we want you to do and exit study because you may be right. That is actually dangerous conditions. We may want you to remove it. I did and exit study, which is a very complex drawing, and fire basically said, you are right. That is not an exit. The exit is on a different side. We want you to remove it. You can take the door off. I went to preservation and preservation said, why dont you send it to the garage . But we want you to remove the door on the front because that is not an accent. People should go out on the other side. I said, do you want me to include the drawing . And they said no. You are removing nothing so you dont need to show it. Hindsight, that was stupid. I should have said the drawing has to say. Day. Second thing, were working on the back deck and i think someone stepped through the deck and they brought me over because i was doing for seismic pull out i said this is brought in. Take pictures. We went down to the building inspector who looked at the pictures and said, you need to get a permit to fix the deck. We went and got a permit. In doing the deck, i lifted the hand rails to the back stairs and i said, you really need to fix these handrails too, so i told her permit i pulled the s history and in 2016 there was a permit to fix the back stairs posts and stringers, so i went down and got a permit to do 100 of the back stairs and told the plan checker, somebody already has done the post and stringers, we are only fixing the handrail, stairs, and treads , but i wrote 100 down and we got a dry rot permit at the back, and then the Kitchen Remodel, this is just my practice, i think it is more transparent when you were doing Kitchen Remodel permits, electrical requires standalone electrical permits. It is a requirement. Plumbing requires standalone plumbing permits. If you are remodel in kitchens, to me it is more transparent to get a permit for each of the kitchens you remodel, so i got a standalone kitchen permit to tie into the standalone pump plumbing electrical. And hindsight, i could have pulled one, but then i would have had one building permit, four electrical and four plumbing, which to me, was like nonsensical. And when they did the windows, which i had nothing to do with, they pulled someone to get a window permit and that was the sub. There was a roofing permit. And then there is one other permit which was an exploratory permits that i generally pull so everyone knows im working on this buildings building buildings and the one things im sneaking anything by. [please stand by] so thank you, that is exactly what i wanted you to say. So that leaves me to the obvious question, as each and every one of these permits seem to be short by a little bit here, a little bit there, you talked about the garage door, it wasnt quite right, and the stairs in the back. It wasnt quite right. Why did you not seek a revision permit at the time that you knew that these were obvious . We did get the permits for each of these items and then you file your master revision permit at the end of the job. Okay. So the reasonable i will ask mr. Duffy about this. The reasonable and customary practice is you pick up the pieces of the end when they are my new sure. I consider these minutia like. There are some things i code i have to do. Im special inspector on this work. At the
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.