He was excavating the concrete floor. This was for a weeks time. Taking down drywall, during that time. The noise was disruptive, obviously. The fact that he was doing heavy construction, without a permit. We reported this to the city, with a citation number 201963731. I believe that was a friday complaint, and i believe, if i am not mistaken by tuesdaywednesday, the owner was issued a permit to do work at taraval. Instead of issuing a stop order, for his work, the city actually turned around and gave him a permit to continue the work on taraval come overthecounter. The owner violated San Franciscos municipal code under the californias unfair competition law and housing law, because of the rest of the San Francisco residence, including myself, have two apply with these rules. I have a permit application, outstanding since january, im not hung one nail or taken down one nail, im still waiting for that to be appropriate in the owners eye, in his brief, insinuating that the city is improving, by all means go foz he had i understand there is Due Diligence the city goes there to make sure everything is compliant. The next page, talk about the noise level. Jack hammering, seven days a week, random time times. It was expensed by myself, my neighbors, well above noise level that is permitted. I pulled his permit application. Question 1720, was incorrectly completed. Intentionally done so to mislead the city, to think there is no height addition to the building. In fact im he is actually adding a roof deck. The condo conversion. He received a condo conversion, under the application of new construction. I know that there is a Conversion Program the city offers. That also stipulates of a commercial unit is converted to condos, it stays as a commercial condo, commercial unit. It doesnt get converted to a residence. Like i said before, it wasnt until he was caught tran, you have time in rebuttal. Your time is up. Dinky. Thank you. We will hear from the permit holder. Good evening. I am mr. Wong, i am the owner of the building at 2901 taraval street. May i have the overhead please . I am here to respond to the appellant, ms. Lee appeal of my current permit to convert the commercial space into the residential unit. Again, before i begin, i just want to say that i did want you to see her brief, that is why i included it, which according to this gentleman here, who i handed it to, is quite unusual. I did want you to see it to be fair to her, just because she did not get it in on time. That you had a chance to review it, because i think after you review her brief, you realize, the accusations and insinuatio insinuations, and the words she uses like getting caught, and mansplaining. Her strategy is to call into play, a lot of Different Things, it is muddying up the waters, just talking about the appeal of this particular permit to convert commercial space to a residential space. She is convoluted the different ordinances, like the or noise ordinance. She cites we are not supposed to go above 5 decibels. That is for work outside of the normal construction hours. 5 decibels is equivalent to a screw gun. You cant do construction, without making more noise than a screw gun. We are well within the hours. We dont work on sundays. She says we are doing it seven days a week, we are working monday through saturday. Another claim is the dumpster. I dont own the dumpster company, i dont own the dump truck nominee. I can only hire them or fire them. The guy that parked the truck up there, i didnt like it either, i fired him after that day. I apologize to her, in an email. I had no control over it. The only control i had was to the dumpster company, they have a yearly permit to do the dumpster parked on the streets. I hired them, but they are responsible for the permit. All of these things are not relevant to her, to why this permit should be appealed. I mean, yeah, these are problems that we have two fix as a construction goes on, that is not a reason why the permit should be appealed. Also, in her original statement, she stated that she was concerned about the neighborhood losing a commercial space. We were population dense. I find it interesting, in her brief, all seven or eight pages of it, she does not mention one word about losing a commercial space. It feels like it is disingenuous. She says that to stop my work in progress, filing this appeal, and then does not address it, not one word. To me, that is disingenuous. Our building is located in rm1 zoning. Low density. With the Planning Department, and the Building Department, they said that this low density is a situation where my commercial space is an ideal candidate to be a residential unit. There was not a lot of demand for these commercial units. The best use and highest use would be to convert them to residential which a me, my building, the neighborhood, and the city as a whole. They were the ones that suggested it, while i was talking, this is going back 79 month ago. My architect and i went through the motion, to go back to the planet apartment on the Building Department and get this permit. Was issued overthecounter, it was nine months work prior. It wasnt something where the Building Department just issued a permit to someone right overthecounter. She doesnt see all of the things that came before it. The other thing is, many of the neighbors have expressed support for this, residential unit, because they see the vacant commercial spaces. They see the trash in the doorways. They see the graffiti. My building, which is right next to hers, she cannot like that. You can see they tag my building. The neighbors are saying when someone is there, they are living there, this doesnt happen. It happens mostly with the empty commercial spaces. Theyve also said, one block away, theres a whole block of commercial spaces, as you can see from this photo. So, there is plenty of commercial spaces, maybe too many. Also in her brief, she is throwing out a lot of stuff out there, in the hopes that it will convolute the whole conversation here. In doubts, we dont have the time and bandwidth, in this hearing, to dangle to tangle all of that. I hope, and trust that the knowledge and expanse of this board will see that, and be able to discern what is applicable to this particular permit. We dont have the time to address all of the things she has mentioned, which happened quite a while ago. So, i am hoping that the board will see that she is trying to lump the end with a lot of Different Things that we cannot get to it all. Its like going pasta on the wall to see how much of it will stick. It is all dried pasta. I asked the board to review the facts of the case, and in doing so, will find that her appeal has no merit, and that i am respectfully asking the board to uphold the permit as issued, without any new conditions and without any delay. Thank you for your time. I have one question. In her oral comments, she indicated that you had no permit to do the work on your 39th or your taraval, can you respond to that . I had a permit to work on the upstairs, first. That was two weeks before the permit downstairs. In apartment upstairs, which includes a roof deck, which is a separate condo. We need to put support posts that go all the way down to the foundation. Telling her that, she asked me about that. I said hey, we are putting in the support posts. Its in the plans for the upstairs to put a post there. She thinks when the permit says you cannot do any work downstairs, that you can even be in the downstairs. Just want to ask, im sure our representative of the department will have further comment. Im hoping when you hear their statement, you know, i dont know what theyre going to say, i am hoping they will basically say that i am doing everything that is proper in the permit was issued properly. Thank you. We will now hear from the Planning Department, mr. Sanch mr. Sanchez. Thank you, scott sanchez, plenty department. Subject property 2901 taraval street, rm1 zoning district. Constructed approximately 1945, based on the records, as a ground for commercial use with a singlefamily residential use above. The applicant, in 1980, was the previous Property Owner. Continuous authorization from the Planning Commission to allow that use to continue indefinitely. Probably became a nonconforming commercial use around 1960 area determination requirement. They had not abated. It still has to be a commercial use, otherwise the rm1 does not allow commercial uses. They recently sought condo conversion to convert the building, from the one unit, residential, one unit commercial to make a commercial condo on the lower floor and a residential condo on the floor above, and subsequent to that sought to convert the commercial condo into a residential condo. There is nothing in the planning code that prohibits that. We need to make some adjustments to their condo map with the department of public works. Im not aware of any planning Code Provisions that would prohibit what they have proposed here. Under the rm1 zoning district, three dwelling units are allow allowed. It was sought and approved under the base density. No neighborhood notification required for adding a wall unit, it is code compliant as proposed area there is actually incentives for conversion of nonconforming uses under residential spaces, because there is a provisional code that allows you to exceed density limits, if youre converting a commercial, nonconforming commercial use into a residential. You can also seek various waivers from the planning code. They do not need to do that, because it is allowed under the zoning. In terms of the order of things, their goal is to quickly and efficiently make it into a two unit residential condo. The process that they have followed would be the quickest path. By doing the condo conversion first, then it is a much simpler process to convert to the residential unit. No notice is required, it is completely code compliant project. There have been an enforcement case that was done illegally, by a previous Property Owner. My understanding, from our enforcement half that the current owner has required permits to restore the location, as a complaint. With that, i am available for any questions youd otherwise it is a code compliant condition of the unit. Thank you. We will now hear from the department of building inspection. Joe duffy, dbi. The building permit, for the addition of a dwelling unit, a residential unit to include a living room, kitchen, four baths, three bedrooms install energy efficient, and replace windows, energyefficient units. [please stand by] [please stand by]. Exceeding the scope of the permit. Dbi did receive complaints from miss lee and the building inspector found that no work had been done that was outside of the approved scope of work. Bearing in mind there would have been a 16day work to do. So work could have began and then subsequently stop. I heard reference to a permit on the upper floors that did involve posts going down to the floor. And regarding that, but if there is a standalone permit on the second floor, it could still be done technically, because it didnt interfere with the work that was under the appeal if that makes sense. I dont see anything that has been brought up, as i said, regarding the Building Code issues on this permit. And im available for any questions if you have any. So no notice of violations to the permitholder . Only to tell them the permit had been suspended. We closed a complaint regarding the scope of the permit. That got investigated. Thank you. Thank you. Any Public Comment on this item . Hi, its me again, susan. I came to talk about the trees, but im sitting here listening and this is exactly the same thing that goes on in my neighborhood. Its people with a lot of money come in, start work without a permit. There is no way a permit filed on june 24 for a project that big could have appropriately been issued on june 26. She complained for him doing work without a permit on june 24, there should have been a stop work order and she should have had a chance to sit down and negotiate with this guy how to do it in a way that is respectful to the neighbors. Yes, she did bring up a lot of issues. Thats because there are a lot of issues when youre next to Major Construction like this. And maybe she wasnt right about the noise ordinance, et cetera, but its a lot for the average lay person to take into account. He should have gotten a stop work order. There should have been time for her to sit down with this guy and work out a way this could be done to minimize the impact on the people who already live there. This guy who started work without the proper permit, if you let him do that, youre sending a signal to all of the people in San Francisco that its okay for them to flout the rules. Its clearly its clear, just from listening here tonight, that he flouted the rules. And i really dont think you want to be sending the message to people all over the city they dont need to follow the rules and can stomp all over the people who already live in the city. All over the city, people who live here now, are having their way of life severely impacted by people who want to come in and build mcmansions in working class neighborhoods. Which this is. Four bathrooms, that is highly unlikely to be characteristic of the neighborhood. Its happening all over the city. You need to send a message to builders they need to follow the rules. Thank you, but, maam, the department got up and said he followed all the rules. Have you worked with dbi . Because they dont always enforce the rules . They may not have given him a stop work order, that doesnt mean he should have had one. If he started work without a permit the Department Just said he had all the permits. Thank you. The department is not infallible, believe me. I worked with them a lot. Any other Public Comment . Welcome. The three people speak today. My name is michael nolte, im native san franciscan. Ive done a lot of things in San Francisco, one of them being Program Director of organization of coalition of residents. And you know, one of the issues we have here is that a large number of the people that live in San Francisco are renters and renters have rights, too. Its unfortunate that a lot of times, yes, owners can do certain things and they have more money, but the average renter does not necessarily know all the rules and when something happens within their building, they have to figure out, what is going on and how to fix it and how to make things amenable to them. I think, yes, maybe a lot of the City Departments say, okay, well, everything is hunkydory, but the real issue here is a renter is now thinking about, well, this place is going to be turned into a condo. And that changes the makeup of the building. The building will be two condos, or more later on, and that means its a higher paid parcel. So the owner makes out of the property makes out. So we see this kind of problem all the time, where the change of use of the its a change of use that is happening here. And so thats the problem i see, is the change of use. Its not necessarily what is on the agenda, but the problem here is a renter is being asked to deal with a lot of problems because the building owner, he has property rights, but then what are the rights about the person that lives there . And how are they being dealt with . Im not saying that the Property Owner doesnt have any rights. What i am saying, this could have been handled better and, you know, the City Department heads can come in and say, this is what the rules are and the laws are and what not, but the poor resident and neighbors have to figure out and deal with the outcomes. So anyway, this is an ongoing issue about how many City Departments pass the buck, too. Thank you for your time. Any other Public Comment . We will move onto rebuttal. Miss lee, three minutes. Do you need help . Im just going to finish up my last point. I filed an appeal. The owner found out the appeal was filed. Received notice on july 12, which is friday, and literally the next morning, hes still doing work on the units, on the permit that was suspended. This was a picture taken. Im not sure, you know, why the dbi said there was no violation, but a notice of violation was issued on july 17 per public records. I went online to find that. In conclusion, i guess, again, there is a lot of facts that ive pointed out, a lot of rules. Im just going to leave the board with the fact that, yes, individually, everything that hes done, or permits hes requested was probably approved, compliant, et cetera, et cetera. But if you look at what hes trying to do, its pretty much mirrors what our City Attorney has put in one of the recent cases. If you get a permit to remodel your kitchen, it doesnt mean you get to build a new wing on the back of the house. They tried to make a quick buck by flouting the risks and cheat devel developers. Let this be a warning to those who think they can flip as many houses as they can. They look to profit off San Franciscos housing crisis. Im going to leave the board and general public with that statement. Thank you. I have a question. So you live close im sorry, are you done . Are you finished . Yes. Do you live in close proximity to the property . I live next door. You applied for a permit to remodel your home . I applied for a permit to add a storage room in the down stairs unit not downstairs, ground floor. Given the noise complaint that you have, how are you planning to do that in your own property . Im not going to do excavation work. The issue i have is excavation work. I think doing excavation work with jack hammers seven days a week at odd hours is quite disruptive. Putting in drywall is like mr. Wong has said, normal construction noise. Okay, thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from mr. Wong, the permitholder. Thank you. First of all, i am a native san franciscan. I went to school here. I went to college here. I work for the Fire Department. I am a