Transcripts For SFGTV Board Of Appeals 20240713

Executive director. We will also be joined by represents from the city departments that have cases before the board this evening. Scott sanchez, deputy administrator, representing the Planning Department. Joseph duffy, representing the building of inspection. The Board Meeting lines in are as follows. The board request that you silence all phones or electronic devicings so they will not disturb the proceedings. Appellants, permitholder and respondents are given three minutes. Members of the public who are not affiliated with the party have up to three minutes to address the board and no rebuttal. Please speak into the microphone. You are asked, but not required to submit a speaker card when you come up to speak. Speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. The board reserves the right not to call an item after 10 p. M. If you have a question, speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting. Or call the board office. This will be rebroadcast friday. Now we will swear and affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note, any member of the public may speak. If you intend to testify at any of the proceedings tonight and wish to have the board give your testimony weight, please stand if youre able, raise your right hand and say i do after youve been sworn in or affirmed. Anybody who is going to testify, please rise. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you, please seated. We have one housekeeping item. Item 5 has been withdrawn. Andrew lee versus the zoning administrator, 1333 taraval street. That item will not be heard. Were moving to item one, general Public Comment. This is an opportunity for anyone who wants to speak on a matter. Is there anyone here for general Public Comment . No . Okay. Well move on to item number 2. Commissioner comments and questions. We will move on to item number 3, before you discussion, adoption of the minutes of january 29, 2020. Sorry, i have a cold. Let me have a little water. While shes choking, any deletions or changes to the minutes . Motion to adopt. Clerk okay. Thank you. We have a motion from commissioner swig to adopt the minutes from january 29, 2020. On that motion, santacana yes, lazarus aye. Tanner aye. The minutes are adopted. Thank you. Well move on to item number 4. This is appeal number 19133. Tom johnson versus San Francisco Public Works Bureau of urban forestry. Appealing the issuance of november 15, 2019, sylvie dhaussy, the tree removal order. It causes issues because the trees require annual pruning and grow back quickly, hitting the facade and roof. The sidewalk is too narrow to allow any replacement trees to be planted. This is order number 202245. Well hear from mr. Johnson first. You have seven minutes, sir. Good evening. I want to thank you for your time and attention. And i appreciate being here. I am my name is tom johnson. Im a homeowner at 5407 Diamond Heights. This is where the trees are locate thad are in question. My purpose here tonight is to keep our trees that have been part of our building structure since 1971 when it was built. I have been a homeowner there since 1985. So 35 years. I can only assume that the trees were originally planted in 1971. So basically trees have been part of our building for 50 years. In 2002, the original tree branches began to crack the sidewalk. We voted to remove the trees and plant new ones. So 18 years ago we planted these trees that are in question. The supposition is theyre ill suited for the space and would cause problems in the future. I say lets wait and see if problems arise in the future and not be premature cutting down two healthy trees according to urban forest. It was 35 years before the first trees caused a problem. My request is not to chop down healthy trees. Here are the reasons not to remove the trees. The boulevard is a busy street with fossil fuel pollutants by vehicles creating Carbon Dioxide which is poisonous. Our trees help absorb this krod Carbon Dioxide from the air so theyre environmentally sound. I know all of you are environmentalists if youre in San Francisco, right . [laughter] and this is in sync with the plan to not remove trees. Ive been advised not to get into the weeds with homeowners, but this is something that is germane to this whole complaint. There is one womans complaint about the trees. She has lived here for 20 years. The trees are okay for 20 years. Then in august, 2019, she said they were breaking blocking sunlight in her unit and causing dry rot on her windowsill. Her complaint in august, preceding the complaint, the trees were pruned back from the door to remove safety concerns. This precaution was taken before the august 26th hearing where it was stated at this hearing that the trees are a safety hazard. Presiding officer at the time even remarked, what is the safety hazard . This was a false statement that was made that claimed that the trees were a safety threat when they had already been cleared by six feet from the door. Her other allegation about sunlight was removed by pruning the trees back and taking care of the dry rot, which the whole building had dry rot for 20 years. So its not just a window sill. I asked her on november 22nd if she was okay with the trees. Overhead, please. So i know its hard to see that, but this is her answer to me, that the trees are okay the way they were pruned. The homeowner on the other side of the building said that the trees were okay for him, too. And thats an email from him saying he doesnt want the trees removed. I apologize i cant find it. But its an email from the other homeowner saying he doesnt want the trees removed. I apologize. The homeowner it all comes down to one womans desire to impose her will on my wife and i. She dropped this letter at my door suggesting that we move. This is definitely dropped by somebody in the building because you can see there is no address on this letter. So this is the start of trying to get us to move. We were called by this woman, saying it would be too expensive for us to live there and they raised our dues 70 a month to prove the point. The complaining they also complained my home office was run as a business and so i had to which it isnt. Its not a nail salon or anything like that. So i had to go and get another address, which was costly to me to do that. What im getting at here, there is a pattern of harassment to me and other homeowners. There was another homeowner that submitted a complaint to the city regarding this woman. The city and county. So its not just me that doesnt get along with this woman. The previous owner of unit number 2 moved, partly because she couldnt get along with this woman. If you have any questions about that, you can contact her, but that was one of the reasons she moved. The other thing that is affecting the whole building is this is a picture of the trees. And on the far righthand side, you can see there is another tree, a smaller tree. I woke up one morning and this number one unit was out there with a chain saw cutting the tree down. It was not voted on, approved. It was done unilaterally. So i think what i have what is going on is a pattern of harassment to me and my wife. And i would ask you to keep these trees because they bring so much enjoyment to us. We love them. Were treehuggers if you will. We want to keep the trees as they are and as theyve been for 50 years. So thank you very much for your attention. Commissioner honda ive got a question. Considering Diamond Heights is unique to San Francisco being that it was formed in the late 60s, 70s, the bulk of the buildings were done in mid 70s, right . Is your property, besides h. O. A. , is it a p. U. D. . I dont understand. A lot of properties are pud. Planned unit development. Im not aware of that. Commissioner honda thats a question ill ask the department. And also, did you when the other person was cutting the tree, did you file a complaint with the city . I did not. I should have. Commissioner honda you still can. Thank you. Well now hear from the determination holder. Good evening, welcome. Can we share the microphone . Why dont you take turns and lower actually. This is our president of the youll have to speak into the mic. Shes the president of the h. O. A. What is your name . Sylvie dhaussy. I have it, never mind, please go ahead. So first of all, tom johnson is focusing on me, which you know, we had a vote regarding removing those trees. And actually i did show you in the response that we all agreed, including the neighbor on the other side who said if the city feels like they need to come down due to other safety hazard kilometres per hour, that is a hazard concerns, that is a different conversation. They would like to keep the trees, but there is no space. Also, he said i was okay with the trees, he just cut them. But i said i would prefer if it was removed. Regarding the bushes on the side of the street, we agreed to have them cut down because the garage next to it, unit number 6, the owner when he was coming out of the garage could not see the traffic coming. So we reduced the height of the bushes. What else . Go ahead. Good evening and thank you for listening to us. My name is alice, im h. O. A. President of 5407 Diamond Heights boulevard. I think you have all the papers of the response to the appeal. To make a long story short, i believe when the oldest buildings have been built, for the pud, the first development, they were not there were no trees planted in front of any buildings. If you go down Diamond Heights boulevard, you wont see any trees in front of any buildings probably for the same reason that mr. Mark stated in his ledger, there is not enough space for the trees in front of this building. There is enough green. There is park nearby and canyon. And i dont think this the trees in front of our building add much to the environment right now. But they do damage the building. Yes, were taking care of dry rot and it happens every decade. 20 years like mr. Johnson said. And, yes, growing trees are contributing to having a dry rot, so its a big expense for us as well. In terms of the tree, but its not a tree that mr. Johnson mentioned, its a bush on the other side, the south side of the building. And its never been it started to grow with the rains last year and we made a decision to cut it shorter. We didnt destroy it. We trimmed it. And we also have been trimming it for many, many years. And one of our homeowners needed that to be to have clear access driving out of his garage space. I dont think the harassment case is actually having place here. It just is regular relationship between homeowners. Some of them agree and some of them do not agree. And we had a vote for majority of four people have voted for what is english . Concurring with the city into removal of those trees. I think it has been initially done wrong 50 years ago. Thank you very much. I would like to add that i never threatened him. I dont know where that note came from. I saw the envelope said vanguard. I have no idea who it is. I dont care if hes in the building or not, as long as he doesnt create problems for the other homeowners. Do you have any questions for us . I do have a question. Other than the dry rot, are there any other safety concerns with the trees . Well, actually, when they were planted 12 years ago, to replace the older ones that we were told we should remove by the city, the woman named kerry derky, one of the homeowners said he was going to plant dwarf trees there. We said, okay. But it didnt turn out to be dwarf trees. They grow and they completely, as you saw in the pictures in the back, they completely block unit number 1. So the problem is that the view of the window are blocked, that is a safety concern or the esthetic. The light, there is no view. There is no light. Is there any other safety concern . If i open the window, the branches were coming inside. Those are the issues, thank you. I cannot do that. So when the trees started to grow and it turned out they were not dwarf trees as we expected, the branches were starting, you know, from the bottom of the tree. And half of the tree was blocking, the growing branch were blocking the visibility when you come into the building. And there was a Police Officer who recommended us to trim all the lower branches from the building from the trees, which we did. So now there is a clear visibility, but since the trees are growing wildly, it becomes a hazard to concern will catch fire, how sylvie and other neighbors who live will escape. Thank you. Great, thank you. Maam, with the scarf. If you could fill out . Thank you. Well now hear from the department. Welcome, mr. Buck. Yes, good evening commissioners. Chris buck with San Francisco Public Works Bureau of urban forestry. Well look at the power point, if you go to the computer. It provides context. We can go through images of the site. If we can go to the screen. Thank you. So this case before you, we originally received an inquiry from Property Owners within the building to just get our sense on the trees themselves. And so its a typical process where the public would say, these are street trees in the public rightofway, what do you think of these, would you approve them for removal . Were looking at the worst first and large trees and large volumes and quantities. So our initial staff decision was to deny the request to remove the two trees because they relatively speaking, compared to what were used to managing, theyre not nearly as large as what were focused on right now. So we told sylvie and other folks there that we would not typically approve the removal of these trees at this point in time, but if they wish pursue removal on their own, then Property Owners can submit an application and pursue it on their own. If approved, they would be responsible for moving the trees. Thats how we got to this point. Our initial review again, was some degree, there was a little bit of a sense of we wish these trees were on private property, because its a unique setting. As the commissioner honda said, Diamond Heights is challenging. Im think being amethyst, gold mine drive, those two neighborhoods. The land use there is really narrow sidewalks and a lot of the landscaping that exists is on the back of the sidewalk, kind of tucked in among the buildings. Variation in the architecture, so some homes that variation between the buildings, there is a little more space to have trees or plants. Something a little bit more than just small ground cover. With that said, i just wanted to point out some of the images that we have. This shows the trees as they were earlier in the year. And heres a side view. The challenge that we have at the department and the reason why once this went all the way to the departmental hearing, why we essentially reversed course, where at the staff level we approved, but the departmental sorry, staff level we denied and here at the departmental level were saying removal is reasonable. I had an Inspection Group on what do we anticipate our position being board of appeals. Would we not look and say is this enough room for street trees . The answer is really no. Im showing the photos. I have a diagram. This photo is provided by one of the respondents. Its a challenging limited space site. When we look at the order that regulates the planting of street trees, this is a good resource for us, because nowhere does it show placed tree, or tree basin with a back up to the building. That is something we never typically do on our own. That is a guiding principle. We dont even have a detail for when we would plant the back of sidewalk up against a building. We have enough problem with trees and upsetting people when theyre at the curb, let alone up against a building. If you look at google over the last 10 years or so, there has been a lot of work to get these cypress trees established on the site. Im sure this is what the police were referring to, not necessarily the safest. Interesting, because its a little entry way. Its neat, but from a Public Safety standpoint, might not be all that welcoming. There is also awnings or eaves above the site as well, so really what i wanted to bring your attention to was the really limited space that we have here. We need a fourfoot path of travel for pedestrians. And thats really located along the curb, so we cant shift the site and try to place these trees at the curb. And so one thing im sort of obvious thing that i want to put out there, and unfortunately, i did not have enough time prior to the hearing to reach out to both parties. Im going to float this evening that one compromise would be removal, but where id be willing to try to broker some sort of an agreement between both parties on what form of landscaping or even smallish tree could we all jointly agree to, that its not just a kneehigh or waisthigh shrub, but something a little more ornamental, that is not going to get public works into trouble longterm. I feel that the trees are young and small but were already having problems, right, with the management of these trees. So think of it as almost like zoning. Someone is trying to put a really Tall Building in an area that is not zoned for trees. Thats the situation where we are. Again, idea world, not that im looking to shirk responsibility, but this is its a difficult case. Its important to both parties. But were not in the business of planting trees, street trees that are going to be an asset longterm so close to the building. I think thats mostly what i wanted to cover. There is not a lot of options that are treelike. But there are some that might get a little bit taller, but not dominate the facade. And thats what were concerned about. Realistically, we were hoping to punt on this. We said this is not really a big issue for us, lets move along here. Understandably, folks in the building are, no, no, we want to press the issue now. So one concern i have is the trees have been pruned since these photos were taken by our own tree crew, but were looking at annual pruning. So even if one of the homeowners wanted to prune these on their own every year to keep them away from the building, were just looking at a conflict here for the rest of the time these trees are there. Theyre going to eventually damage the sidewalk from the tree root system. So its difficult, but we need to say no to trees here longterm. I would be willing, if both parties are willing, to try to review [bell ringing] landscaping material to come up with a compromise. What is your sense that these trees have contributed to dry rot in the building . Dry rot, i dont know a lot about dry rot, but generally what i say to folks, look around the rest of the city. There is planting and landscaping all up against buildings all the time. And people seem to be managing. So i dont feel like that there is fog, there is up on the hill, you know. Weve got plenty of moisture here year round, but im not an expert on dry rot. To be fair, when you look at all the vegetation that is everywhere in San Francisco on the shady sides of the street, on the sunny side, unfortunately, i dont think that is something we can they can point to here. Commissioner honda mr. Buck, so having grown up in Diamond Heights when the houses were built and playing when they were being built. All those streets, gold mine, amethyst, amber, all have similar sidewalks and there is all trees in that whole community. Are you saying that all those trees have a right to be taken down at this point . No, a lot of the landscaping that exists is set back. And is not in the public rightofway. Theyre not traditional commissioner honda so most of the streets, like amethyst are on the sidewalk, in the front and theyre in a small box that is no more than 2 foot by 2 foot and in the public rightofway. The trees that are in the sidewalks, basins toward the curb, many of those are not allowed to be replanted. Over the last 10 years or 10, 15 years since ive been here, its hitandmiss. There is a few sites where we removed a larger tree, there will be room, but more often than not, theyve been too narrow to replant. So largely over the last 15 years, theyre essentially getting phased out with owners putting landscaping in their setback areas. Commissioner honda at one point or another Diamond Heights will be treeless. Street trees, along the curb, yes. Thank you. Any Public Comment on the item . Okay, seeing none, well move on to rebuttal. Mr. Johnson, you have three minutes. Thank you. I feel a little ganged up going against urban forestry, but i want to state this has not been a problem for 50 years, weve had these trees. And now all of a sudden, in august 2019, we want the tree removed. Its been stated a couple of times its a safety issue. And that has been resolved. You can see there is clearance there getting in the door. Nobody is hiding in the bushes. Thats not a safety issue right now. There is a letter that came to me from the urban forest people that said safety is not an issue. And ive got a copy of that, too. One of the urban forest people told me i had many meetings with them and the board of appeals and even supervisor mandelman got involved one of them told me, he said, tom, if this wasnt a complaint, it never would have been on our radar. We never would have looked at these trees. Theyve been there. Theyve been pruned every single year and the pruning has been effective. Its not been a problem until august 2019. And you can see now that the trees are moved from the house, theyre not touching the condo. Theyre not a problem now. Nothing we cant take care of. I think we owe it to the trees and to the birds to keep them. And for the sake of ourselves, our sanity, and enjoying the trees. So i hope that we get to keep our trees because theyve been there for 50 years. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You have three minutes. Time for rebuttal. I just want to say that those trees have not been there for 50 years. They have been trees since mr. Johnson moved in, but not the same ones. And, yes, we do have to prune them every year. And that is getting costly. And some members wanted to have them removed completely because that is a high cost to maintain them. Thank you. I would like to add that, you know, every 25 years, we learn new things about how to deal with environment, how to deal with landscape, how to deal with buildings and new codes are coming in. And were understanding differently than 50 years ago. I would agree with mr. Buck that we need to think about something which will have a good curb apeople, but if those appeal, but if those trees are a Public Safety hazard, well need to think outside of the box and find what would be presenting building well and keep everyone happy. Thank you. Things change. We have to accept it. Thank you. One question, since youre the president of the h. O. A. , just to be clear, the h. O. A. Voted on it and they did vote to remove the trees . Yeah. Commissioner honda thank you. Since we have a few minutes, i just want to assure you, there are plenty of trees in Diamond Heights. Now theyre putting National Assembly them in the middle, there is a median and theyre putting trees in the middle. Thank you. Mr. Buck, anything further . Thank you, commissioners, chris buck with public works. Just to confirm the subject tree is right now, they appear to have been out there the last 10 years. And its been a lot of work to get them established to the size and height they are. One recommendation i would have is just thinking through how we might achieve resolution on this. One idea and im just suggesting ideas here would be continuing the item with the idea that i work with both parties to resolve middle ground to the point where perhaps, if there is a middle ground approach to a different species, there is something that is not just kneehigh, but something a little more ornamental in height, that continuance, if we achieve settlement, then mr. Johnson could withdraw his appeal and he wouldnt be back before you. It would give us a time line and deadline to work together. Its just an item i havent we havent been able to do yet together. So thats a suggestion that i have. I dont know if either party is open to that. Another decision would be to support our approval of the application to remove the trees with a commitment that i do that as condition that we try to have middle ground. There could be a chance we could not get to a perfect middle ground. That could be helpful to have a continuance. There is that threat of coming back and arguing before you. But those are just some thoughts i have. Just trying to figure out longterm the best thing we can do here. I just dont think a traditional this is a large tree, and i dont think this is a good longterm strategy. I do worry if denial of the permit to remove the trees occurs, were really just were stuck in a difficult place. Again, this is not designed tore tradition for traditional street trees. Accent, yes, but not typical street trees the way we manage in San Francisco. Mr. Buck we all have questions. You have achieved congratulations brainwashing me fully to the position of man, if we dont if we can, we dont reduce the tree population. Youve heard me in recent months be very critical about buff and critical about buff positions related to not filling tree basins, tearing down too many trees, et cetera. So congratulations, youve achieved your initial mission of me becoming a treehugger. I remember our first my first tree case here. I thought that the suggestion of keeping a tree which was on fulton street was absolutely ludicrous because it was tearing up a sidewalk, it was tearing up a sewer. It was creating havoc, but, boy, you convinced us all, that even though this tree was creating havoc, costing citizens tons of money, we should keep that tree and i believe we kept that tree. So i dont give up trees that easy anymore as a result. So the question would be, how do we keep flora is there a tree that could be replaced . If we went to say that these trees are a nuisance, and these trees are a Health Hazard based on the fact that they would block the entrance that a bad guy could hide behind, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, is there a species i think you may have covered it is there a species, and would it be your recommendation we not cover this over with cement and actually put a real tree up there, instead of a bush . Correct, commissioner. Our resulting decision said some form of landscaping. I think where we can go with this is a real hard look at in reviewing what species. So there is a couple of examples to give the commission a sense that we have some starting places. One is a hollywood juniper. Very slowgrowing, but it chugs along over time, up against buildings all the time, but provides visibility. Another idea, might be too windy or foggy there, but uhhuh hawthorne tree. Its not a maintenance issue. I think we can get there. You know, the applicant may prefer no tree, but i do believe that as you stated, were in a Climate Emergency with carbon and many other things and just trying to maximumize what is possible for this space, i believe we could get to the middle ground where the h. O. A. Is not overwhelmed with future liability or maintenance and it could be there longterm. I feel like there is an answer there and thats what i would like to explore with both parties. Would it easier that if we agree there should be trees there, that we uphold the appeal, and with the contingency, with the caveat that the trees be replaced once removed. Or you think its better that we do a continuance to let you work it out . One way or the other, it seems trees would be placed back in there, so that would be my inclination to get a mandate that some form of tree be replaced if these trees are removed. It would be mandate, required. Yes, and i would just add to that, the trees that really need to be a little more ornamental in nature. We break up our three tree categories, small, medium and large at maturity. And what we end up settling on may not even be in the current tree list. Because were thinking traditional street trees at the curb, but it would be something that is still common, near to the public rightofway, when its really wide. I would add to that, i also want mr. Johnson to understand it wouldnt be a large tall tree that is going to get above the roofline, but this would be something that would be better than just landscaping and basin, but something vertical to some degree. And that is sort of the thread where we try to thread the needle on this one. I think there are options for both parties to review and consider. Which option would you if were going to go in if we were to go in that direction and im not saying we are, because i cant tell mr. Buck, before you answer that, could i get clarity on what our options are here . As im thinking this through, if we grant the appeal, the trees stay. You cant grant the appeal and conditional it. If you deny the appeal, the trees are coming down. Im thinking the only option, if people want to look at alternatives is to continue. Well, you could grant with conditions. If you know what the condition is. If youre granting, then the trees stay. Can you condition the trees staying on them being replaced . Youre revising the order okay, stay. Can we grant the appeal and require that the trees be removed and replaced with a suitable yes, because part of the order is no replacement. Were changing that and replacing it with whatever. Thank you. So we can direct aggressively, or, we direct aggressively at this point, or we let you take matters into our own hands by trying to resolve and reconcile a solution . Correct . Correct. And my only concern would be considering both parties, if mr. Johnson said hey, it means trees have to go back, well, they cant go too large, if he and i get at a crossroads, you know, i think special consideration needs to be given to what were trying to achieve. Well be very direct if we go that direction. Okay. And thats why a continuance could help both parties feel like if theyre not being heard, there is a threat of coming back publicly. At which point i think the city resources are stressed with trees and we should figure this one out. Either way, i can make it work. I have a question, similar to what commissioner swig said, it seems a little bit like this is not a normal case where we approve the removal. They seem to be fine trees. I understand theyre close to the building, but with continued pruning, i mean how many years until we run into a real issue . You showed the image of a tree bushy and large, but the bottom of this tree has been trimmed, so it seems that the boughs are not growing back at the base of the tree, so that situation is irrelevant. It continues to grow in height. With proper pruning, im trying to understand when there is actually an issue with this tree and the building. There is an issue now in the sense that we had irate, very aggressive h. O. A. Position about the inappropriateness of these trees at the front of this facade. Now, following our departmental hearing, we went made and pruned the trees, because were hoping, lets prune the trees, moved on and it see if things quiet down. With epruned them in we pruned them where we did heading cuts and its just going to sprout out. Were on a 35 year pruning cycle. So these are a like a oneyear, pruning off the building. Theyre going to be wrapping, its going to keep sprouting back. It was a number of years to get them to the point where you could remove all the lower branches. The trunks are very close to the walkeways. So i just see major problems ahead, about but youre right, this moment, you know, people walk by and they dont think the sky is falling. But it is longterm worry at this point with appeal and these trees are and thats where we feel like were i guess i feel, thankfully, we have an appeal, because it seems like the bureau is not inclined to replace the trees, which is also distressing. Now youre here saying we can do something. We have people in communities in dire straits because were moving a tree against their will. Now we have two holty trees and healthy trees and its inconvenient that theyre, and that we should grant the appeal since the department didnt look into the Solutions Prior to the hearing. Maybe i need to be more forceful on this point. There is day one entry in our managing trees and its right place right tree, right place. This is wrong tree, wrong place. Nowhere does it see plant a tree up against a building. I hear you. As i told the supervisorss office, to these appellants its a big deal. We tackle much larger issues, i hear you, its really not a question of tree health. Its not a tree health issue. This is like someone trying to put Sales Force Tower in the park. This is a zoning, 101. Just hoping for the best here is not its not going to go well. Were going to be back here. Its not going to be easy. And in terms of city resources, its going to be a drain to be dealing with h. O. A. That is not on board. Thats what i mean can i interrupt. When youre pruning, i thought the rule was not to prune more than 30 of the tree. Correct. So at which point from the time that you got the the tree was there and the city resources and the city pruned the trees, that looked like that was more than 30 . No. Its right in that wheelhouse. 25 , 30 . We had the prune the trees well, we had to prune the trees back from the building and then the idea was like i said, again, that looked like right, we are we had to prune them quite a bit. To get them in that space. And not to get you guys totally out of trouble, but at which point, that tree is definitely the wrong tree for that particular location. Its a large stature tree and to keep it at that size is going to require a ton of work. Sorry to interrupt, but what type of species would you recommend in place of it . The closest one would be hollywood juniper, which is, there is thousands of those, up against buildings in a similar setting. And thats why but youre right, commissioner tanner, most Property Owners theyre figuring their landscaping up against the building. Its not something were heavily involved with, so i appreciate the question. Its a good point. Totally fair point. Mr. Buck, can you help me understand your concern about the rightofway. That is not addressed if you just replace it with a smaller tree, right . There is adequate space for the public to walk down the sidewalk. So our concern about the public rightofway, there is very limited space for this tree to grow. Within the public right of way. So its limited space for trees to grow here. I wish i could go back and talk to my planning folks when the neighborhood was designed. I was just going to go there. It just wasnt designed to traditional tree line streets in mind. Thank you. Commissioners, this matter is submitted. Well, commissioners, i think we have a couple of options. One, is to deny the appeal and let the trees be removed. As the member of the Department Just mentioned, this is a much longer problem. Weve had that issue off ocean avenue in areas that were developed in San Francisco after the 70s. Or 60s and 70s, where they really didnt plan on having large stature trees even though they planted them into the sidewalk. You know, its hard to even walk on some of these streets with the trees in them the way they currently are established. So option one is to deny the appeal and let the trees be removed. Option b is to grant the appeal and condition it that two smaller stature trees in the hollywood juniper family be planted. There is a continuance, but i think that uses a lot of the resources that would be option 3. I dont think it makes sense to continue a case like this when we can just resolve if it we can. I dont know we need to specify the species. I think we do and the reason why is because the appellant is not going to particularly agree with the department in a decision of picking a tree. So if we pick that tree, that means that decision has been made already. Or the order could say a tree to be chosen at the discretion of the department, which i think personally would be adequate, because it may be that the appellant prefers a different tree that mr. Buck agrees with. Okay. Make a motion no, you grant the appeal and condition the permit that the department has the choice to choose a tree or two trees two. Two. But if we have limited space i would only prefer to continue if its not going to be two trees. Im disappointed this case is here and were taking these trees out in the first place. Can you put two small trees there . That was my motion. Two trees. On what basis . On the basis that the current trees are inappropriate for the neighborhood and the new tree would fit in. Okay. We have a motion from Vice President honda to grant the appeal and amend the public work order, condition the order on replacement with two trees chosen at the discretion of the urban of forestry on the basis that the current trees are inappropriate for the location. On that motion, santacana aye. Lazarus aye. Tanner aye. Swig aye. So that motion carries 50. Side note to the appellant, please work with the department because the department has the ultimate choice of what tree is going to be planted. And likewise, thank you for bringing the case forward so we were able to get to this resolution. Before our executive director calls the next item, i am required to recuse myself due to a conflict based on ownership of property within 500 feet of the subject property. Thank you. So we will wait for wow, i got the chair twice in a row. We will wait for president lazarus to leave before we start. You do know i have my own gavel at home, right . Yeah. No, for me. So were moving on to item number 6a and 6b. 6a, appeal 19134. 197 67, 1969, 1971, broadway condo association. 1973 broadway appealing the issuance to chris porter of an alteration permit. Revision to permit application 201806061104 to clarify scope of demolition and correct nov. This is permit number 201911056442. And we also have appeal number 19142. This is the broadway condo minute association versus zoning administrator. 1973 broadway appealing the issuance on december 3, 2019 of request for release of suspension of Building Permit application numbers 20150. Vertical addition for a new bedroom, sitting room with a new full bathroom, side additions and 20181104, additional demolition beyond the scope of 2015 permit suspended on august 13, 2019, because construction had exceeded the approved scope of work. On november 18, 2019, Building Permit application 201911056442 was approved by the Planning Department to correct the record of the scope of work completed at the site and verify that unauthorized demolition had not occurred and they request that d. B. I. Releases the suspension of the subject permits. Well start with appellants first. Since we have two appeals, you will have 14 minutes. Good evening, commissioners. My name is sara hoffman. Im an attorney for the appellant. And before i start, id like to introduce lynn fisher, who is one of the appellants, lives next door to the project and shell be telling you more about that. Good evening, members of the board of appeal and others present. My name is lynn fisher, thats my husband john. And we own and live at 1967 broadway which is the first floor in a threeunit historically significant condo property built in 1895. Our condo abuts the eastern Property Line of 1973 broadway, the subject property owned by the porters. Around two years ago, with none of the condo members having received any written notice of intent to excavate, the porters began their unlawful demolition and extensive excavation work adjacent to our building. Our experts have advised us that since this time, our foundation has been significantly weakened by the construction at 1973. With this damage, interior walls throughout our home have cracked. A wall buckled with a nearly 1inch protrutrusioprotrusion. Doors no longer open, including our front door. The other units have also experienced extensive cracking and damage to their fire escape door. We are concerned about irreparable harm and extensional threat to our building and inhabitants. One of the most frightening experiences, the building trapped me, the front door had shifted so substantially, i didnt have enough strength to force it open. Despite d. B. I. Issuing multinotices of violations, theyve continued to move ahead with their project without taking steps to remediate the damage. This has created huge stress on me, my family and the other owners of our property. I had perhaps expected the city planning and inspection processes to protect our property. Instead, they have allowed serial permitting to masquerade a demolition as multiple renovations and accepted misrepresentations and calculations by the permitholder all in an ever changing playing field. They should please held to the original permit and all serial permits rejected. If youve not had an opportunity to view the subject property, we have a picture that clearly shows this is a demolition. All that remains of the lovely Historical House built in 1880 at 1973 broadway are segments of the exterior sidewalls. No floors, no ceilings, no roof. And most recently no facade. Please understand that its not the goal of our h. O. A. To delay the completion of 1973 broadway project. The condo owners do not enjoy looking on a construction site and would welcome the completion of the project, but unless remedial work is performed at 1973 broadway and on our property, were concerned that further damage will occur to our homes and our wellbeing. I implore this board of appeals to revoke the Planning Departments reinstatement of the permit in question, to require the remedial work and demand the porters rescale their design to the renovation they claim and originally permitted. Please protect our rights as San Francisco residents against the unchecked construction that has turned us into a mini millennium tower. I implore this board to not allow the Planning Commission and the department of Building Inspections to continue to turn a blind eye and neglect adequate oversight of this project. Thank you very much. Thank you. This appeal concerns two decisions. The first was the legalization of the second round of unlawful demolition work that occurred at this project. And the second decision is a reinstatement of all of the permits associated with that project as a result of the demo work being legalized. This project initially started as a vertical addition with interior renovations, but from day one it created problems for the neighbors next door. There was significant excavation and demolition work performed beyond the scope of the permit that undermined our clientss foundation, causing significant damage as youve seen. The developer was issued a notice of violation and was allowed to legalize an additional 625 square feet of demolition. When work on the project resumed, the permitholder demolished additional Building Elements theyd been told they werent allowed to demolish. The pictures you see today, just the facade. The facade being completely gutted in addition to the interior of the building, which has also been gutted. And so were submitting today that the developer shouldnt be allowed to legalize this additional reckless demolition work, particularly when we still have unresolved, unrepaired damage that has been caused to the neighboring property. They erred for a few reasons. It does meet the definition of a demolition. At the very least, the permitholder should be required to submit correct plans, because the plans and calculations are riddled with errors. For example, we have on this image here, you see the garage door and a small section of the facade remaining, when in reality, the picture shows that its being taken out. Moreover, this cumulative stepbystep demolition work has triggered the threshold whereby notice of this demolition work would have been required. There was no 311. No neighborhood notification for what is tantamount to a demolition. There was no environmental historic review. And finally south of mission, that this work should not be allowed to go ahead. The project should not be able to resume where there is significant damage created by the product, created by the unlawful demolition work and has not been addressed. And so our clients are here today asking the board of appeals for relief and youll hear more about the demolition work. Good afternoon, commissioners. Pat buscovich. I dont like to present calks, they were intended to protect Affordable Housing. Every time we have this conversation, its as if they work, they dont. We need to get rid of them. As fast as we can and come up with a strategy that does work to preserve Affordable Housing. But theyre saying they demolished 71 . And 36. 6 of the wall. Again, you cant get that accurate. And i havent got access to the plans, but from what i can see on the plans, there is a number of criticisms. The first is, this is their third permit. They started off with one permit and tore down more of the building than they should. They tore down more than they should. This is the second exceeding the demolition calks and now theyre at 37 . According to draw rooms, the parapet. Even when you look on the side, theyre including parapets in the calculation. Theyre excluding the garage and in my declaration, you dont include the garage door, so that affects about 3 . So from what i can tell, theyre probably just under the threshold of a demo at 50 . Probably 48. But theyre probably off by about 10 . Theyre relying on an interpretation, you dont include the garage because its not conditioned space. In the interpretation, you dont include nonconditioned space added to the building. Why does it matter if theyre not a demo . Two reasons. One, we want to get this stuff right. If were going to use this code, lets get it right. More important, they havent started the Real Construction that is going to cause problems. The fire walls. If its 36. 6 , they can tear down 12 of this building and still not be demolition. Thats 700 square feet. Its not 36. 6. Its probably mid to high 40. If the drawings are right which im not sure theyre right at the threshold. Theyve been back twice. Youre about to say they can tear down more of the buildings, but i dont think the calculations are right. My name is mason kerby, architect in San Francisco. And the first time ive ever told Pat Buscovich to be quiet. That worked out good. There are two elements to my analysis that raise questions with regard to the demo. There is three sort of representations of demolition involving criteria that inform historic setting. There is a demolition consideration under the planning code, but also one within the Building Code. I had a moment to go back and reconstruct the nature of the quantity of demolition included in the plans from one revision to the next. I would draw your eyes to the second portion of the analysis, which is the horizontal summary. By my math, theyre at 49. 58 . That assumes in satisfying one of the four prongs of the planning code definition that we rely on this particular diagram. And what i would show you, the denominator in the fraction that substantiates the 50 , includes portion of exterior patio, which is representing to be preserve and not demolished. So there is a slight imbalance with regard to the fractions. The more obvious consideration that i would draw your attention to is the first portion of the analysis, where we know that 100 of the interior walls are being removed. Section 103 of the San Francisco Building Code notes that its unlawful for any person to demolish a building and they offer specific rules and regulations with regard to what is a demolition. And specific, were talking about the principle portion of a construction that alters twothirds or more of the interior elements. And this clearly passes that threshold. I would raise the final observation that within this section 103, 103a, the penalty involves an acknowledgment that for five years, from the date of the unlawful demolition, no permit authorizing the construction or alteration of any building or structure from that site was issued, except for alteration with the same number of residential units and the same or [bell ringing] as the building or structure was lawfully demolished. In this particular instance, this project started out as a site permit to add a fourth level and extend to the rear. So there seems to be a question with regard to inappropriate enrichment if this moves forward. Thank you. Commissioner honda thank you. I have a question for counsel. Why hasnt the repair work been done regarding the damage that was done to the Adjoining Properties . And is damage done to both properties, or just one side. I cant speak for the property on the other side. But, this being significant damage done, as youve seen to our clients property on all three levels, there has not yet been repaired because i understand there is issues and maybe hell speak more to this, their Insurance Company has not agreed to pay for it. It is subject to litigation. Were hopeful they can work that out. Ill ask council that question as well. Thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from the permitholder. Good evening. For the porters. Theyre to my right. Needless to say, this is the first renovation remodelling project that the porters have undertaken and theyve learned a lot of lessons and been at it for quite a while. After the Building Permit was first issued in 2017, there were revisions to the structural plans which did result in an alteration permit. After that permit was issued, the association, the neighboring association appealed the permit in early 2018. At or about the same time, the initial site demolition and the excavation of the garage area did result in some unexpected site conditions, some sandy soil was encountered and additional excavation work, we heard about it tonight, the 625 square feet, which was undertaken by the contractor to access the rear of the property. The contractor was ultimately allowed to actually proceed on an interim basis to stabilize the shoring of the property, which in turn stabilized the lateral and subadjacent support for the neighboring property. And stabilized the shallow footings of the associations property, which had been damaged during the initial excavation. After the stabilization of the foundations which provided support for both properties, the association did file a lawsuit in april of 2018. Alleging that both the Property Damage that commissioner honda asked about, and raising an issue regarding easement between the two properties. Meanwhile, the appeal of the alteration permits would have been filed by the association was briefed for a hearing before this board, but was then withdrawn by the association in may of 2018. However, work could not start again on the project because when the porters put in an application to reflect the new demolition, and get a new permit to update the amount of demolition, it was routed to planning and the association filed a request for review. The hearing for the review was scheduled for january 31, 2019. However, once again, just before the hearing, the d. R. Request was withdrawn. Meantime, the project had been sitting idle since april of 2018. Work did not begin until may, 2019, more than one year after theyd been halted twice by an appeal by the association. In june of 2019, in the meantime, the porters and the association entered into a new easement agreement, on how to address the easement between the two properties and the construction of new stairs that would be shared between the two properties. So the only thing that is currently left in the lawsuit is the Property Damage issue that commissioner honda asked about. Ill address that in a second. Unfortunately, when the project started again in july of 2019, and to the considerable chagrin and embarrassment of my clients, the general contractor did in fact somehow manage to demolish an extra portion of the front facade of the structure in excess of the revised permit. Simply stated, there is no explanation and no excuse for it. However, the project architect immediately contacted the planning and received a direction on submitting revised plans, revised calculations and new demolition permit. Obviously the key to the new demolition permit was whether this additional work had resulted in a de facto demolition under the planning code. In order to address the issue, there was inspection of the property when members of the Planning Department were given free rein to analyze the issues and visit the property and ask questions deemed appropriate. Following that inspection and that visit, the architect responded to his request for new drawings and the permit in question was issued and suspension of the Building Permits were lived lifted. Lifted and here we are, following another appeal. I want to stress before the board that the porters do not have an explanation or excuse for the additional front facade demolition. Instead, all they can say is you might expect, they will not be proceeding with the contractor as they move forward on this project. At the same time, i should note that they have paid a huge price for the inexperience. The project has been dormant for six months of the last two years. Theyve incurred expense as well as Legal Expenses in connection with all of these appeals. They would like to move forward, particularly as many of their other neighbors are now complaining with regard to the inactivity on the project. There are a variety of arguments provided by the association with respect to this appeal. They now suggest again that an unlawful demolition has likely occurred, but they present no calculations in that regard. Planning has concluded that such is not the case. And i believe weve shown so in our brief. Even if the calculations were revised per the suggestion of mr. Buscovich with respect to the garage, which they should not be, the vertical calculation does not reach the required level. Issues are raised with regard to other sections of the Building Code and the planning code, but as we point out in our brief, neither of those sections with applicable here and they have been considered by d. B. I. And the Planning Department. Finally, the association does raise a concern about the risk of further Property Damage. No evidence is presented in that regard and i would argue there is none because the foundation has been fully and completely completed. But if further Property Damage occurs or is threatened, the place to address that issue is in the pending civil lawsuit between the parties. And, again, to address the issue raised by member honda, the case is set for trial in april. If to the extent there is additional Property Damage, it will be addressed by settlement through the Insurance Company, by motions at the hearing or by evidence presented that there is further danger. The civil lawsuit is the place for that to be resolved. The only question here is, have the permits been rightfully and properly reissued . In sum, there is no question that mistakes have been made in connection with the project. I will tell you that lessons have been learned by my clients, but the permits have lawfully and properly been issued and released based on the calculations. The porters respectfully request the ability to move forward and complete the project with an appropriate contractor who will not do anything further to impact the neighbors and or the compliance with all the plans. Thank you. Commissioner honda question, counselor. Is the current litigation with the past contractor . That is yes or no. No. He did all this wrong, but theyre not suing him . He did. Who is the contractor . Greg Cook Construction. So cook and associates. No, Cook Construction. One lawsuit at a time. We have to figure out what all in damages are i get it, but you know, whether the permit is valid or not valid, im sure youve heard this board has wide powers. So to me this is Humpty Dumpty. Why let your clients go forward building their beautiful home when they destroyed somebody elses . I would respectfully disagree they destroyed anybodys home . Would you like to live in a like that . I would not be happy with the inability to open my door for sure, absolutely. And there is a process. The question is why should we let your clients go forward in building their home when the people next door home has an issue . There is a process in place in the lawsuit for the payment of compensation for the repair of the property. And i am confident that the lawsuit will be resolved in the appropriate course. Thank you, counselor. I have a question. Was there any monitoring in place before the construction started of the Neighboring Properties . The monitoring that was put in place, there were monitoring of elevations placed on the site of the property. So there have been eight i think now survey results provided to the association in terms of the movement of the property. I would say that of the eight survey monitoring results, i think three have noted movement of the property in excess of what would be expected or tolerated in three of the eight different locations theyve been monitored. Theyve been three small amounts of movement. Thank you. Thank you. And we continue to monitor by the way. You do have six minutes and 50 seconds. If you wanted to use that time or your client. Im fine. You dont have to use it. Thats fine. We will now hear from the Planning Department. I think i can say that section 317 is horrible. Thats fair and mr. Buscovichs comments, very challenging to achieve. It needs a complete rework. Its something weve attempted for many years without success. Unfortunately. Its a public process in order to have successful legislation that has not unfortunately has not advanced our proposals that we put forward. So the item that is before you started out in 2015 with a relatively modest vertical addition. That was the main scope of that permit was submitted in april 2015. Underwent section 311 neighborhood notification. Between april and may, no views were filed and the permit was issued in october 2016. 2018, february, the Property Owner submitted a permit to do an infill to expand what they had previously approved what had been issued two years prior. That permit then during the course of our review of that permit, we found out about the first course of work beyond the scope of permit. That was the horizontal floor area demolition. Staff held this permit until that was resolved. We had suspended the original permit. Had the permit come in to resolve that issue, which i think has been outlined for you by the permitholder. Once that matter had been resolved or we believe it had been resolved, we did the section 311 neighborhood notification on the infill permit. And that was done last year. There was a d. R. Filed on that, but as was related, it was withdrawn prior to the hearing. That permit for the infill has not yet been issued. Thats still pending. But what we have before you now is there was a subsequently another allegation and validation of work beyond the scope of permit from last summer. And we had them submit the permit to document additional demolition, this being at the facade of the building. Staff did do a very comprehensive site visit and also reviewed very thoroughly the plans, reviewed it with the zoning administrator, with other senior staff and determined that the project did not meet the demolition requirements of section 317. Which as i understand mr. Buscovich testified that he believed as well that it did not meet the threshold, but i think there is a differing opinion perhaps in how close it is to the threshold. But as i understand it, today, even, the appellants are acknowledging its not a demolition under 317. If it is a demolition, if there is work beyond the scope yet again, this board knows that the Planning Commission takes these items very seriously. You know, they have in some cases had people go back to what was there before. And another alternative is what they will often do is have you maximize the density of the site. This is a singlefamily home in an r2 adu. They can do six dwelling units. They could do the additional story as well. There is opportunity for more housing on this site, which i think the Planning Commission would to see. We cant require someone to do a home sf project, but six units and better utilizing the property would be an option if it goes that far. But at this point, this is still a singlefamily home, correct . Correct. And so you know, we do believe that the permit was properly reviewed and approved that is not demolition. That it is something that will resolve the violation, which has been pointed out by the permitholder, there are these issues, theyve exceeded the scope of work twice. That is primarily the Planning Issues are related to that. Exceeding the scope of work. There were issues raised about ceqa, the California Environmental quality act and the building, given its age is a potential Historic Resource, but given the work was done without permit, this is you know, if people ask how you get around ceqa, you do work without permit. Under ceqa, you look at the existing conditions. When something has been removed without permit, there is no ceqa work to be done when something has been removed already. This wasnt a known Historic Resource, it was a potential Historic Resource. And its not in any way to give some leeway to the Property Owner. Happy to here they recognized that they needed to move on with a different contractor. We dont comment on what they should do legally, if they should sue their past contractor, but certainly their contractor has caused them serious delays on the project by exceeding the scope of permit multiple times. The issues about potential damage to the adjacent property are serious and that should not happen in the course of construction. I think even it doesnt make sense how it could happen in this case. But that is something that they will need to work out in that appropriate process. That is not something the Planning Department is typically involved in, we look more for the department of building inspection in terms of if work is done beyond the scope of permit, if there is damage to other buildings, the department of building inspection can document the damage for the party. Ill let Senior Inspector duffy comment on that. Other allegation, that the project needs another 311 notification. Its gone to 311 twice. So a third, i dont know what that would accomplish, but that would only be potentially for if it was a demolition, which would then require conditional use authorization and more than a 311 notification. So but then again, i just heard tonight from the appellants representative, mr. Buscovich, that they think based on the new knowledge and the understanding that the garage door doesnt count, that its under the 50 for the vertical elements and would not be a demolition under 317, so we dont get to that issue. Yet, looking back, i dont think ive aligned anything for you tonight, but this permit does correct the violation that has occurred of the property. We think it was properly reviewed. Its a path to compliance. No one wants to be in the situation with the damage to the neighbors property and the years of delay. I mean, its been five years since the permit was submitted. I dont know when construction started, but certainly they need to gather with their attorney, the Property Owner, and find a good qualified contractor who can do the work according to plans. Not have this be an ongoing issue, not causing any further damage to neighbors properties. And being in xiecompliance withe planning code. Im available for questions. Man. So, where do i start . So let me start with, you know, when the first breach of promise occurred, breach of promise is im going to build this and then somebody built Something Else. And then your department i dont want to make your department guilty, i just want feedback here and your department goes and when they expanded the footprint or they did too much digging and your Department Said you exceeded your scope and basically you covered their rear end, the department covered their rear end by issuing another permit that made that okay. We suspended the permit they had and required them to get a permit to correct the work they did without permit. I dont know what else we could do. Is that enabling . Im not april tacking you. Attacking you. It seems like enabling that bad behavior . Is that enabling or fixing . Its the only thing we have to fix it because if someone has alleged and shown there is work beyond the scope of permit, i guess what else could we do other than to correct that through the permitting process . But then again, it happens again. And there is mr. Fixit again, which enables it fixes it, but enables. Thats strike two. Right. So in addition to my, you know, dislike of section 317, there is also weaknesses in our enforcement process, whereby generally for assessment of penalties, its only if someone is nonresponsive. So if you speed, you get a ticket. And that ticket is going to cost you something. That does not exist in the planning code. At most, what we do and what the code allows, we can assess its for our enforcement time so time and materials and then 2,000 added onto the cost of the permit. And that is what we have in order to penalize. What i understand, this is happening once or twice, where is the penalty . How do we stop someone from doing this again . I dont have a mechanism in the code to allow it. If we see a larger pattern, we can refer this to the District Attorney office. We have done that in other cases and gotten a Million Dollars place from someone with pattern of violating the law. Im not aware of a pattern. And that wasnt enough for you know who were talking about. That wasnt enough for some. But we have someone who tore down a Historic Resource and we did a settlement there for a half Million Dollars. That is something that is more for the bigger violations. Here we have someone that happened twice, but they promptly came in to address it. And but you still they still, oh, gee whiz, i broke the law, mea culpa, you enabled them and they got their mistake rectified and they got what they want. Thats really again, im not attacking. Im just sitting here scratching my going you know, thats really bad way to raise a kid at the very least. But then where does the Humpty Dumpty factor kick in . So that then now we have a torn down facade of a potential historical building. And now were enabling again. Where is the Humpty Dumpty factor kick in where you say, enough of this, we let you off once, we let you off twice, now youre going to rebuild it the way it was in the first place because youve broken the law twice. No matter whether it was malicious or not, you know, oh, gee whiz, its the first time weve done renovations. The law is the law, the guidelines are the guidelines, how far do you go before the Humpty Dumpty factor kicks in and you say rebuild the thing the way it was and start over again. Arguably, they broke Humpty Dumpty twice, because he was broken the first time, they were putting him back together again and then they broke him again. There should be no third time. But in terms of additional demolition, the facade theyre proposing now is the same as originally proposed. The project with the excess and scope hasnt gotten larger and larger. Theyre still basically back to the same project that was approved in 2016, that went through neighborhood notice which was fine with everyone in 2016. I think really the main issue is here not putting aside the violations and exceeding the scope multiple times, which is inexcusable, the core it is the damage to the adjacent property and i dont know how that is addressed through these permits. Where im going to go. I like to show my hand in advance as you well know. And mr. Duffy gets to speak now. So the appellants counsel will the appellants will have a chance to prepare to answer this. But what do you think how do we cure this . What do the appellants want to cure this . Obviously the damage has been done. Youre doing your best to wrangle it given the limitations of the law. So what do we do . What do we go to fix this without enabling somebody who has broken the law three times . Exceeded the scope three times to get away with, aside from the alleged naivety about renovation. How do we hold them accountable . Can i interrupt for a second. When we see this, sorry, but when someone demos something by accident, oops, it fell out, we see Something Else being recommended to be replaced. A larger space, a different space. But you just mentioned that it really wasnt their error has not gained them larger space. It doesnt seem to be the case. I mean certainly its not like you knocked a wall out, and im going to change the design of this. Im going to change the facade, but knocked the wall out and hired the wrong contractor or whatever the situation may be, but theyre not getting an additional gain from this its not getting them into their home any quicker. Its not like the house that fell down by itself and then instantly came up to 7,000 square feet. They were generally approved for a building that large to begin with. Thats a separate. There was nothing really for the accident that happened, there was no there is no huge benefit here other than basically, you know, pissing in the wind and making all the neighbors mad . Yeah, if it is a demolition, again, the end result is there could be a sixunit apartment building. I dont know if thats the goal of the appellant. If it does get to the Planning Commission, i can see them wanting more density on the site and not having a singlefamily home. You said if it is a demolition. Youre saying if it were a demolition. Youre taking a clear position it is not a demolition. I believe, even mr. Buscovich has stated that tonight. I have a question. Is your position also affirm that the plans that were approved to lift the suspension dont materially differ from the original plans . S that my understanding from staff. In terms of what is proposed, i havent even necessarily heard that from the appellant. The scope of work at the end of the day, the end project will be the same as what was proposed in 2015. I think the concern is just how theyre getting there and they think its a demolition, in which case if it is unlawful demolition under the Building Code, there is a strict requirement where they cant build anything than what was there before for five years or so. That is very restrictive. If it was unlawful democrat under the Building Code. This is one of the problems with 317, if it is a demolition under the planning code, the Planning Commission is going to tell them, put more density there. One last question. Your position, your response to commissioner swigs questions about enabling, essentially what youre saying, if they presented the plans, were going destroy all this stuff and put it back the way it was, youre saying as far as planning was concerned, that wouldnt have been a problem in the first place . Right. Since it doesnt meet the 317 demolition, there is no additional process they would have to go through. If you want to demo your facade and rebuild it exactly as it was. The process that would have been saved for the facade is that it would have had to go through additional Environmental Review. I guess that is correct, there was if its even a benefit, but they would have saved time on Environmental Review of the demolition of the portions of the front facade because that would have required preservation review. Sure, but there is putting it back. It would have been asinine to do that. I just want to youre next. So, i just want to understand the history of this process, because what is at issue, youre maybe saying that the big issue seems to be the damage to the neighboring property. There is pictures, thats not in dispute, although its in litigation. Im trying to understand, there is alteration permit appealed in 2018 and then discretionary review for demolition and both withdrawn and didnt go to hearing. Would either of those issues present prevented the work outside of scope . It strikes me odd to kind of go after their neighbor on this and then to with draw twice and now were here a third time. Im trying to understand what the real issues are. And if any of the issues would have been resolved through taking the hears through. Hearings through. That was something i thought unusual as well. You know, typically people, when they pay the money to go through the process, they dont get a refund when they withdraw it, that they would go through the process and have the arguments heard. Unless they come to an agreement somehow and it could be resolved. I think the underlying issues are still the construction damage which i think has been known for quite some time. In terms of exceeding the scope, i dont know the exact time of the facade demolition, but that may have been after the appeal and the d. R. Certainly after the appeal seems to have been may 2018 was the appeal of the alteration permit itself. Yeah. And i think the first issue with the demolition was in the summer of 2018. And then the second demolition issue was the summer of 2019 if i recall correctly. Thats roughly when we had suspended the permits. Great, thank you. So in the spirit of Humpty Dumpty, and the facade, you just said, well the facade that was a mistake and seems theyre going to be rebuilding it the way it was before. Is that what you said . Its my understanding the facade is going to be put back as it was originally proposed. Are we out of bounds, is it within our scope opportunity this body when resolving this issue whichever way it gets resolved, to mandate and require that the facade be replaced exactly as it was destroyed . I dont see than it was before it was destroyed . I dont think there is an issue with that, because i think the plans show that. So it just be they follow the plans. Given the history of work beyond the scope of permit, whether there is reporting or monitoring they do. Im just responding. The few years that i have been here, even i have developed a gun shy attitude where even you know, im not believing anybody unless we mention it in the motion. So i just wanted to ask if thats appropriate. I dont see an issue why it wouldnt be. Not that i dont believe anybody, i just dont believe anybody. I dont believe anybody either. Okay, thanks. Scott, one last question. Is there a history of issues with this particular contractor . Ive only heard of one other issue that i just actually heard of tonight. But im not aware of a pattern. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Well now hear from the department of building inspection. Finally. We get to hear from joe. Good evening, commissioners. So, as you all know, these are difficult ones, we deal with them occasionally. There was one, 42nd avenue, something similar, damaged the properties next door. When youre sitting here and listening to this and really bad management. Somebody wasnt taking care of stuff. There wasnt outreach. When you go to do a vertical addition on a zero lot land and you start jackhammering somebodys slab, youre going to see next door and you should have prepared for that. You can do your monitoring, but youre pretty much assured there is going to be some shaking. And the notice of violation on june 22, 2018, provide protection of a adjoining building. It caused cracks to 1977 broadway. Demo of slab and garage may have disturbed the soil. Stop until its cleared. Call for inspection before proceeding to prove protection is in place. You end up having the pictures of the cracking plaster and you talk about monitoring. Sometimes what this comes down to is the dollar amount. Obviously, its annoying and upsetting to have someone crack your plaster. There is a fix for that. I dont know if there is structural damage. I didnt see an engineer report on that. But cracking and plaster, it is going to happen. They should have been it should have been agreement before hand. Just like reflashing. Just like the portapotty on the street, the construction fencing. Maybe that wasnt done right. Now were here and sound like three years later, 2020, dealing with this. So i just wanted to say that first. If the contractor is no longer involved, then the new contractor will come in. Maybe a Liaison Officer or Something Like that that can deal with issues as they go on. The department now at d. B. I. , we have initiated something internally in the Building Inspection Division where an adenda is issued, we call somebody before the project and say before you start demolition, you must get a building inspector out there and discuss how much of this building youre going to take down. If you run into an issue where you have dry rot or something that needs to come down, do not take it down, get the building inspector, well write a correction notice, tell you to get a revision permit and then you can go back and take that part down if you need to. Since we started that, probably started last year, 2019, im the one that does the calls actually every month. I get a list of them and call the people. Everyone is grateful for the call and we havent had anybody else. And what we do, we document that we had the discussion with them when we make the call. Put it on the spread sheet. If they come in a year and say, oops, we took down some of this, then guess what, things are going to change. Its not like oops anymore because you were told before hand. A wall may fall down accidentally, we did get that recently, it was a big stormy weekend and the building, the shoring just completely failed, but we were able to put the wall back up. But what im saying, things are going to get better. Were hoping to see less and less of this. They are tricky projects, because our favorite 317, section in the planning code, keep so many of these old walls and try to building around it. When youre finished you have what is a new building anyway. From the d. B. I. Point of view, were working and discussing with planning, affidavits are coming into play and drawings where someone is going to have to undertake that theyre understanding how much of this work is staying and how much is going. So there are efforts being made. I dont think were going to see as many of these in the future thankfully. Just talking about the penalty on this. The penalty on this is the holdup. The delay in getting this project done for these people, i dont know what the situation is, but my experience is, that you hold it up, you hold it up, and theyre sitting there a long time. As a matter of fact, the last permit taken out was to tarp the building for the winter. As we speak, its on a tarp. I know theyve done wrong and contractor done wrong, but hold is up forever is not the answer either because its a just a monument with a tarp on it. They need to figure out the cost of the damage at the property next door. The permit was it looks like its been properly reviewed and issued. As i said, it definitely is a troubled project, but im not really i mean, revoking the permits, where does that put you . Just means another permit. And i do think that maybe when up go back to the main permit, there was no really objection to the addition. I did hear the owner of the adjacent property speak they wanted it put back to less of a project. But that ship has sailed. They had their chance, now youre coming back four years later and asking for that again, they need to have a bit of good faith here. And thats my speech. Im available for questions. I have a question. So i think that good faith went out the door when it wouldnt open. Same question to you. Is there a history of issues with this particular contractor . I think this contractor has been in business in San Francisco for some time . Ive come across Cook Construction before. I only know of one property, some workers went on an adjacent roof. I know, it involved somebody near and dear. But i was d. A. S. Patched out there dispatched out there this happened three times. On demo . Well, possibly. And that did happen, i agree with that, but there is obviously when you hire someone like mr. Buscovich, he is going to file complaints and hes right to do that. Somebody is watching this one and they got caught. I dont know who is managing it. I dont know what the contractor was thinking. But if i was doing a project and i knew the neighbors next door, there was damage, you know there is going to be a lot of scrutiny. Come on. I dont know if the contractor, if there is someone new coming in and they want to be doing it better. By the way, there has been nine different inspections and there was a big holdup in the project and we have been out there. We were out there in 2018. Im glad to hear that a lot of the concrete seems to be in. The monitoring is good. If it didnt move that much, that means the foundation didnt, it was more cosmetic. But i may be wrong. I didnt see an engineer report or recommendation. You would like to see the extent of the damage, was it hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars . What did the engineer recommend . And i didnt know if that was in the brief or not. Well ask that question. Thank you, joe. Any Public Comment on the item . We will move on to rebuttal. Oh, there is, sorry. You okay, madame director . The worst cold that developed in the hearing. Im both a neighbor and friend of the porters. I live two blocks away from the construction site and it has been a construction site for years now. And to my knowledge i believe its been about a year and a half of delays that occurred. And theyre a growing young family and want to bring their kids there. They have young sons they want to bring home. They have another one on the way. And theyre good citizens. Theyre trying to do a good job. They hired someone that wasnt good. Theyre trying to come to resolution here and move on and get their home finished. As a neighbor, it is an eyesore. Year and a half of sitting dormant is not great for anybody, all the neighbors included. So anyway, i hope that we can come to some sort of resolution to help them get their house built. Question, if you were the neighbor, the next door neighbor, what would your opinion be . In regard to . Them going further. If you lived next door and your front door didnt open and the reason why its gone on for multiple years is because of multiple mistakes. Understood. Would you be trusting of that neighbor after that point . Ill answer to the trust of the neighbor, you have to know the person, right . I dont know how well these neighbors know these neighbors on a personal basis. I know these people on a very personal basis. You know them well and this happened three times in a row, youd still be, well be good. Of course, you have to have discussion around it. They said theyre going to move on, i think thats a sign of good faith. Im just asking because youre giving a character reference. I think knowing these people, they are good people. And they will make right whatever situation happened. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . Are you part of the association . An officer in an officer . You can approach, thank you. You have three minutes. Good evening. My name is lewis bowman, im owner of 1969, the middle unit. I wasnt going to speak until this last person came up and spoke essentially giving a testimonial for the porters. I dont know the porters. Ive never met them. I saw them here tonight for the first time. Because theyre not there. But i do know by my involvement in the association and having followed this case obviously closely and involving communications, i can say this. That from the moment that they took control, ownership of this property, until today, the relationship between the two Property Owners has been extremely tense and acrid. And the primary reason is from the very beginning, if you were going to be doing a major renovation of an adjacent property, it seems like, at least i would want to reach out to the other party and discuss the project with them. And talk about what we plan to do. And try to bring together some kind of consensus. The opposite has happened throughout the entire history of this project. And we have been treated weve been treated with such arrogance the entire time this project has been going on, that you have no rights, were doing what we damn well please, and to hell with you. That has been the atmosphere since the beginning of this project. And you need to know that. And that easement issue that has been resolved is a case in point. That easement has been laying in place for 50 years since that property was condominiumized and they through their lawyer said you will get a better bargaining position if you write a letter and disavow the easement that puts a threat on our property from a market point of view, because the only way you can have a second fire escape is through that easement. So we had to spend a year and a half negotiating a settlement on this easement that was already ours just in order to preserve the Property Value of our property. This is the type of people that weve been dealing with. And you are now seeing theyve broken the law three times. If you grant this permit, it will be broken again. I assure you. Sir. Question. So were your interactions only through the h. O. A. , or did you deal with them directly . Did you deal with them directly . No, i have not. Everything youre aware of has been through the h. O. A. . Yes, it is. Your interactions were with counsel . Interactions through counsel primarily. But also they have written personal notes to the head of our h. O. A. Who has shared the communications with us. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . Okay, well move on to rebuttal. Well hear from the appellants. You have six minutes. There is an old adage, that its easier to ask for forgiveness than permission and it seems to have been embraced by the c contractor here and were asking that the board of appeals not accept that. First i would like to address a few of the assertions that the foundation settlement, the damage there has been stabilized. That is categorically not the case. This photo that weve shown you on the overhead, this one was taken recently and that was new damage, i believe it was december last year. So damage has continued to occur. The foundation has not been stabilized. And to address mr. Duffys question, which pat will go into detail, were looking at damage to the foundation itself, not just cosmetic cracks. Were looking into six figures to repair it. And this quote has been with the Insurance Company since early last year. The survey monitoring result have shown up to a half inch of settlement to this building. And while markers were placed on the clients buildings, they were placed without knowledge and consent. It was only after we started asking questions that we saw the results. Weve heard a lot of trying to blame the contractor for everything that happened here. And say well, theyre not going to work with them anymore, but as recently as november 2019 and this is those under appeal, cook general contractor is still listed as the contractor associated with the project. So to move on to the meat of the issue, why we believe this is a demolition, youve heard from mr. Buscovich, this is very much on the cusp of one of the planning code definition of a demolition which is 50 of the vertical and horizontal elements being demolished. But because the plans are inaccurate, its more than that. It refers back to the Building Code n. The Building Code, demolition is something involving the alteration or removal of twothirds or more of the interior elements. Here we have 100 of the interior elements being removed. On that basis, its a demolition under the Building Code. This triggered the threshold under 11b2 which requires neighborhood notification for the removal of more than 75 of the interior elements. Finally to address the really big issue which the damage that occurred to our clients property. This is significant. And to draw a line between these permits and the damage, the very real concern is that if work resumes on this project without the damage being addressed, were going to see further damage occurring. And id ask the board not to trust the superior court is going to resolve this. This action was filed two years ago. And just yesterday i had to go down exparte to oppose one of the subcontractors trying to push the trial out to october. So its by no means a sure thing were going to get relief. Were asking for the plans to be correct so that the Planning Department and the Building Department can assess what is appropriate here. And were asking that work not resume on this project until there damage has been addressed. And ill if youre not sure whether you can actually uphold the appeal on that basis, i might suggest we continue this until maybe april, after the superior Court Decision should have been released and we can address the next steps for the project Going Forward. I believe mr. Buscovich wants to address you. Counsel, i want to seize the moment. Can you stop the clock . Im getting confused here. I dont see the benefit can you enlighten me as to the benefit of what you are arguing other than the money piece . I understand the money piece. Your client wants to get aid for the damage. If i was your client, i want to get paid for the damage. Your client wants to be assured that theyre not going to have their next door neighbor finish their be able to finish their building and then be left high and dry stuck with hundreds of thousands of dollars. I understand that. What i dont understand is the if im also your client and they want to postpone until this financial settlement or legal settlement could be resolved, theyre living next door to a blighted horrible situation. Thats number one. Number two, if it goes that thinks a demolition this is a demolition and the next door neighbor, if theyre being portrayed as the meanies that they are, im not going to agree with that, then if they go along with demolition, what we heard from the Planning Department, is that your clients could have a brand new home sf sixunit apartment building. Is that what they want . So i dont understand i understand the money piece, but i dont understand why you want to live next to a blighted building and why you want to risk the affirmation that the demolition that would enable a sixunit brand new home sf Affordable Housing unit to be built . Can you give me some feedback on that . And then mr. Buscovich. So for my clients, its not just about the money. This isnt about someone writing a check. Its about the fact that for two years their home has been destabilized and that damage has not been repaired. They have a real fear based on what has happened every step of this process, that if work resumes on this project, its going to present yet another imminent life safety risk to their property and wellbeing. Thats why were asking that this work not resume until the damage is able to be repaired. So in fact, what youre putting us in position to do is look towards a continuance, because if we find for the i dont understand why, but a continuance therefore would enable the superior court judgment, continuance would enable that this continuance has a stipulation that proper safety and stabilization elements be in place to further prevent the building from suffering grievous harm, correct . Yes, i agree with that. I dont understand why did your client file a discretionary review, appeal, withdraw both of those and theyre here the third time deciding to go through. If they were concerned about the issues, why were those not addressed through the means available at previous junctions . At every step, i can assure you i dont like coming here. I would rather work things out cooperatively and my clients would rather work it out. Thats not the question. Why were those not pursued . We did pursue those remedies. I cant get into the discussions, but there were reasons why those appeals you had the appeals, managed to work it out, you withdraw the discretionary review, so youre here now asking us to work it out for you . Essentially . Great thank you. I interrupted because i didnt trust my senior memory. You have a minute, 43 seconds. You were about to say something, pat. You can use your minute and 43 any way you want to. So im not here for a demolition because im not sure theyre there. I think theyre very close. If it is a demolition, what probably is going to happen, its going back to the Planning Commission, theyre going to say put the Building Back and add a unit. Not six units. What i hear, theyre so close, theyre 72 of the floors are gone. They say theyre 36 or 37 percent of the walls. I think its 45. Once you get into the 40s, the threshold to review increases. Where people are looking at this building a lot more to make sure whatever else youre going to do, youre not going to cross that line. Im asking you to ask the Planning Department to look at the garage, the concrete stairs, the parapet, theyre all included in the calcs and you see that the number is closer to 45, 48. It may not cross the line. If the drawings are correct, theyre close enough that they should be recognized as truly where they are. Theyre at 45 . And scott can tell you, at that level, planning would move this building a lot closer. In terms of joes comment, when you dig in loose sand this soil is well known, youre supposed to send a letter to the neighbor. No letter. They posted stickers without permission and settled the building. And, yes, minor cracks are okay, but these cracks are huge, the footings need to be replaced. If they get the calcs right, theyll be paying attention to how close to work with demo. I have questions for counsel. For the appellants. Youre the litigation counsel, too. Yes. I think you said because the contractor is not playing ball, it keeps going place. Why isnt the h. O. A. Covering the damage in the meantime. Because most Insurance Companies have exclusion for damage caused by Earth Movement and that that apparently applies even when the Earth Movement is caused by someone elses negligent action. Really . What insurer is that so i dont use them [laughter]. You have an ongoing case in superior court, a judge overseeing the dispute and presumably you have evidence in that case related to the damage and how it was caused, why couldnt you seek relief we cant provide, which is a judge overseeing the construction through some sort of injunction . Yes. We could seek that relief. Because we cant do that. We cant have ongoing monitoring. We cant have you come back every 30 days. We cant have experts testify. Thats no what we do. My solution would be that the relief the board can provide is exclusive to the remedy of the board of appeals. If the court provides that, the only other remedy we have is revenge. Essentially what your claim would boil down to. So the court cant order the city unless we join the city, not to issue permits for this work to occur. And so thats why were seeking relief in this form. And i think there has been some frustration from my clients because were seeing insurance litigation counsel playing this proceeding against the superior Court Proceeding and everyone is pointing fingers in the opposite direction and our clients are here out of a sense of desperation, there has to be some remedy here and were asking the commissioners to provide that. Thank you. Well now hear from the permitholder. Thank you. First of all, commissioner, i was not the attorney first involved with the easement issue. When i did get involved, we did address the easement issue as as fast as we could. I am not the attorney right now in the litigation. There is an Insurance Company can counsel. Were monitoring and encouraging a fair result. And how we do that remains to be seen, but there is a trial in april, april 4 and hopefully the case will resolve. In advance to that, i talked to the lawyer today and encouraged continued conversations with the association. You know, the remedies in the superior court action are such that if a showing was made of interim or danger to the property, an engineering report could be provided, the court could issue an injunction and the project could be stopped. The issue here is there is no engineers report as has been mentioned. There is a fear of Additional Movement. I understand that completely. Ive not seen the evidence to support that. I do believe that the foundations have been stabilized because of the concrete finished, but, yes, there has been Additional Movement that needs to be addressed and i understand that completely. The best way to address that is to get the project started again, and get the contractors in to protect their property. I have no problem agreeing with the other side to do that. We just want to get the project started again. Were not intending to build a larger project. We want to build a project that was permitted and the project approved by the Planning Department. Mistakes were made. We concede those. Three mistakes were made, two actually, i dont want to count any of it. Were obviously aware that if it happens again, ive got no credibility, no one has credibility coming in front of anybody. So but, the commitment that is being made by my clients toys finish the is to finish the project permitted. And if there is litigation over that, there is a process in place to cure that. As far as the demolition issue, i think weve demonstrated that the calculation on the vertical is 36. 6 , i dont believe that mr. Buscovich is correct in his consideration of the garage. But if you take into account all the things that mr. Buscovich, either add or subtract from the calculation, the calculation is 39 . Were not at 40 . Everything i heard from everyone out at the site, my conversations is that theyve looked at this with a finetoothed comb, as well they should. And theyve determined there is not demolition. And that the project should move forward. I do believe if d. B. I. Or the Planning Department had a concern in that regard, wed be dealing with them and theyd be telling us we can move forward. We can move forward appropriately and correctly to build the project as permitted in 2015 and to encourage and deal with the resolution of the civil case. We dont dispute the Property Damage. We do say that were here to protect their property moving forward, about but we do need to move forward. I have a few questions. There was assertion that the contractor that has been much maligned during this hearing was pulling from as recently as last november . I can. The client is in the process of selecting a new contractor. We did ask Cook Construction to pull the permit to protect the property in the interim. As you can imagine when youre trying to find a contractor to take over a project, its always a little tricky. And the contractor is looking at this project knows there is challenges. Has the new contractor been identified . Its not been selected yet. Were still in the process. Theyre in final negotiations. My client can answer that question. I think thats something that would, you know, under our purview, as a neighbor, from their perspective, it would be give pause if its released to the same contractor that is the root of many of the issues. You can assured that i have advised my client under no circumstances should this contractor continue on the project. There is assertion from the appellant that markers were placed on the appellants property without their consent, knowledge. Thankfully, they were there because it did note the half inch of settlement. Can you speak to the process by which the markers were or were not placed . All this was before my retention. My understanding what normally happens in these projects, a neighbor agreement is entered into. You approach the you mind if i since you werent there, can we get your client to explain. Weve heard from both sides. Your attorney started after. Id like to answer her question first, but then to go into, can you start from the beginning, how you acquired the property, has happened what has happened, what your communications are like . So maybe start with so i guess to pick up on commissioner hondas question there is an assertion that the relationship has not been great between the neighbors. Youre not living there, so youre not there living and sleeping and being neighborly this that way. Did you provide notice to your neighbors when you began the construction work, hey, were going to be doing that renovation . We did. Mr. Honda, ill dovetail. We purchased the property january 2015, we met a gentleman at a baseball game and he lived in the home for 30 years and was looking to sell it to a young couple, starting a family like they didnt have kids, but thats who they felt they wanted to sell their home to. Someone who would enjoy it and live in it for a long time. Once we took ownership, we had a couple of barbecues and everything in the back. And john, we actually had a good relationship, traded barbecue food, wine and discuss what we were doing. We discussed in detail what we were planning on doing. Obviously, i have not done this before. And as we started doing plans, youd be working with an architect who would come up with a neat idea and we would say, well, that seems cool, why dont we add that . And wed ask, is that difficult, does that take more time . They said, no, this is not that big of a deal. Im a lot smarter than i was yesterday based on experiences, but you know, we were just kind of flying by the seat of our pants. We didnt have intention of filing multiple permits because theyre pretty expensive. Indeed. Not to interrupt you, you moved in, you had the relationship, you began the project. Did you notice your neighbors when you were beginning to the project, when the permits were issued and you started construction . We discussed when construction was starting based on the date. I dont know if we gave them an official notice that we were starting. There was notice, because there was 311 notification. Right, we met a couple of times at the house and the meetings were about an hour, they asked questions, what were you doing, following ahn on those. Up on those. We sent them the plans to show them the scope of work we were doing. And in regards to the markers placed on the property. I dont know how detailed you were with the contractor at that point, awere you aware they placed them . I dont know if they did that. And would you say in terms of the relationship an communication improving or deteriorating, how did that go from what seemed to be an amicable relationship . It seems like you were speaking mainly through attorneys. Right, there was an easement issue and i guess we were not aware there was an easement on the property. And we sent there is a letter that went back and forth with each of them. Then we got a call from their attorneys. And then immediately they served us with a lawsuit. I reached out a few different times. Saw them in person and asked if they wanted to have a meeting to discuss this to see what the issues were and how to resolve this. And the next thing i knew, we had a lawsuit, that was sent to me and served with papers. After that, we tried to reach out again to try to figure out, what is going on, can we resolve this . And they just said talk to our attorneys, talk to our attorneys, we dont want to deal with you directly. So i followed suit and hired our attorney and hes been representing us since. Can you speak to the issue with the contractor . I know its difficult to find a contractor these days. There is a lot of competing projects bigger in scope than yours. How is that search . Its going well. Eve looked the a weve looked at a couple that we had looked at prior to selecting Cook Construction. We had three bids in the beginning. We dusted off the other two folks, checked where they are in stats on projects. It seems like theyre both good. So similar question, when these accidents started happening, sir, i mean what were you thinking when the first one happened . And what was your conversation like with greg . I was very well, first of all, i was clearly very upset, but second of all, i did not know they took out more of the house than they were supposed to. How did you find out . Well, i found out in the first one, is i guess with the first floor, in order to dig out the basement area, they said well weve got to bring these tractors in because we cant do it by hand. I said are you sure more time and more expensive. Right. And we went through this whole thing where its going to cost more to have manual labor than this and well replace the wood, so were not trying to i asked him the question, are we allowed to take out this area . Absolutely, we do this all the time, this is not a big deal. Well be putting the same wood back to where famous last words, right . Lot smarter today than i was. Thats what happened the first time. And that was the first issue. And the second . The second one, i had no idea they took out the front of the house. We were out of town that week. And all of a sudden, we came back and saw the red tag, or got the letter and we asked them what happened . And it was a similar story. Well, we were working to put this piece of steel here and in order to do that we have to do this. I said, but weve been through this once, did you have a permit to do that . They said, no method and means of construction and that is normal. I said does the city know about that idea . And i said because the last time you told me that and where are you when this happens . Where are you in the room, standing up and telling them about this method and means idea. The same thing happened the second time. My wife and i both distraught, upset, frustrated, because we dont know what it means for the future of the project. And weve been working through it the best we can to get there. Thank you. Okay thank you. Anything further . Okay. Counsel, can i ask a question . I didnt want to ask it of your client because it felt inappropriate to do so. So, heres where im having my im not disagreeing with your point of view, but the track record stinks on this. Every promise that has been made has been broken. Every the statutes are clear. You dont take out this and yet its been taken out. There is no reason my apologies to the Property Owner, but you know, the credibility of the Property Owner has been vanquished. The only leverage left to get the next door neighbors their money to fix their building is to hold up the situation unless your client wants to arrange for a letter of credit to cover the damage personally. Thats a big obligation and im sure your client is well overspent on this project at this point. Or to personally financially indemnify the next door neighbor against further damage and damage inflicted. What other way out of it, given, you know, the credibility issues that now exist, what other way out of it is there . I wouldnt i would be real uncomfortable to see this project go forward, finished, these guys have a brand new home and the guys who have been damaged are still dealing with some insurance settlement situation . I mean, i feel real uncomfortable. I understand that completely. Again, ive said before, i dont know. The second time, its hard to stand up here with a lot of credibility. But i do think this. A, the owner strictly liable for the damage to the neighboring property. Second, there is a Legal Process. And the Legal Process is in the courts on how you enforce damage claims. Ive been in front of this group before. When we talked about the difference between going to court and issues in front of this board. So we have a process in place. I communicate with the lawyer defending the lawsuit on a regular basis. Im in communication with the Insurance Company. I will tell you, without getting into a lot of detail, but we have been and i think it was in our brief weve been asking for a settlement demand and a specification of the damages for months. And we got one last week. Im going to ask that question after because it was not in the brief. We got that last week. Its in my declaration. The demand was sent over to insurance defense counsel. Directly. There have been communications as recently as today with respect that demand and setting up a process, perhaps mediation to try to get it resolve. There is a process in place. We talk about hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages. Yes, i believe theyre claiming hundreds of thousands, whether its really truly what was the specific damage claimed . Im going to say the demand was in the 450,000 range. I cant remember, that sound about right. But whether the case is worth 250 or 500, now is in a place where we can have that conversation where we couldnt before. Where is the leverage . The leverage is the lawsuit. The leverage is the trial. Well, no, im uncomfortable at this point, and maybe you can ease my discomfort, where is the leverage if we allow this permit to move forward . Im not saying that we didnt uphold the appeal. Im saying deny the opportunity for this to move forward at this point. If we dont do this, where is is the leverage for the neighbors to get assurance theyre going to get paid, that theyre going to get their building refreshed at no cost or obligation to themselves . Again, i would have to say forget the courts. Well, there is two places. Number one they didnt ask for this. Theyre not in a horse race. They have to be assured theyre going to get fixed. So if the leverage disappears, we move forward on this permit, where is the leverage that these neighbors now have . There is two things. Leverage can be a specification that there be engineer on site to ensure that the project is built further without further damage to the property. I have no problem i know my client would have no problem in any kind of specification that an engineer be on site to ensure the safety of the project, visavis the neighbors. So that the only thing were dealing with Going Forward is past damages and how we get the property repaired in the lawsuit. I think if youre talking about leverage and assurance youre not going to have increased damage to the property, that is one remedy. Other than that, you know, again, thats why we have is your question answered . Yeah, it would seem to me, it would seem to me that the suggestion of postponing this decision tonight and moving this forward to later point is the only leverage that is there to keep the heat on your clients to get this thing settled an get these people paid. Other than having an engineer on site, i think there is no control over the Legal Process. The courts could decide there is no room for us on april 4. There could be further continuances. I cant control that. Thank you, counselor. Just to be clear, your clients dont have settlement authority. No, theyre being defended by an Insurance Company. And the Insurance Company defends, we have to stay out of the way. Thats what the policy says. Regardless of what we do, we cannot prompt them to settle sooner or later. Last question, are your clients doing this as a spec project or theyre planning to live there . Theyre planning to live there. Lets move on. Thank you. Well hear from the Planning Department. Be brief here. Just mr. Buscovichs comments about having additional review of the demolition, this had very thorough review of the demolition calcs. They sent a lot of time there, reviewed the revised plan and with other senior staff that specialist in demolition. Were comfortable with how it has been handled on our end. Second, correct the record, i misspoke earlier when i stated how that would be a possibility. It not be because of the existing residential unit. Im sorry . Home sf would not be available to the site because of the existing residential facilities. Thank you. Well hear from the department of building inspection. Commissioners, ill be brief as well. Im sure you saw in the brief, you know they showed the photograph of the really wide crack. The other photos, if i could have the overhead overhead please. This is typical of a project next door. You will get this if you live next door to someone who is digging in sand. Its unfortunate. It does happen. But it needed to be discussed before hand. This is a pretty minor crack. But it looks like i just the other crack, im not sure what they have to do to fix it all. Again, without an engineering report, Detailed Engineering report, im disappointed not to get that and the monitoring, thats important. The other thing im not sure about here tonight, are they finished pouring the concrete on that site . I didnt hear that. Maybe they did. Maybe they said it and i didnt understand it. Are they done with the concrete . That means there probably wont be much more movement of the property, settlement. Thats important to know. If they have ongoing monitoring moving forward and obviously that should be submitted to d. B. I. , so we can have a d. B. I. Engineer look at that as well. Because we are normally on site if there is monitoring, if requested. We had one here at the board where we wanted it for the next 12 months sacramento street . I believe it was. And that worked well. And that was terrible. What is your suggestion with regards to engineering report if we were to postpone decision on this tonight, can we attach that to getting a suitable engineering report on the project . Or is it water under the bridge and were too late . There should have been one already. Someone has a report somewhere on the extent of the damage if someone has calculated how much it is, its just not in the paperwork. The monitoring reports. Someone said it moved half an inch. Should we be asking the appellant or the sponsor of the project . Whoever did it. The damage to the property, its usually provided by the property that is damaged. But obviously theyll be recouped for that whenever this all comes out. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, this matter is submitted. I want to start for clarity we have two matters, alteration permit and release of suspension. We have do deal with them separately. Ill start just kind of generally. I dont know that ill make a motion to start out, but just kind of to express where i am. I am not inclined to continuing these items. Im inclined to figuring out the permits. I believe the court system is the leverage. Theyre going through a Court Process that will have the decisions heard and deal with the damage. I belief the damage is beyond the scope of this board. I dont think delaying this helps anyone. It delays resolution and has no bearing on whether or not how much is paid for the damage that has been done. So i am looking at notes made around monitoring, engineering report, ongoing monitoring on the neighboring property. Perhaps even though it may go out saying, just for everyones benefit to say the facade will be rebuilt as per plans to reflect the way it was previously constructed. I dont know if we can think about the permit not being issued to the specific contractor, but maybe that is too much in the weeds. A liaison or project manager that the neighbor would have Contact Information of. So there is someone they can talk to and is the direct point of contact. Those are things im not sure which permit needs to be conditioned, but thats the laundry list was making and the perspective i have. That would be on the alteration permit. I think. Yeah, look, i think this is incredibly frustrating for the appellants. And really difficult thing theyve been through and i think it needs to be and will be worked out through the Court Process. That is the most appropriate place to address past damages as well as the potential for any sort of monitoring or safety on the site that a court can oversee. I support conditions that we can impose. But you know, i think theyre here because they want to stop the construction period. But i dont mind adding conditions. And it sound like the permitholder is amenable to them. So i concur with both my commissioners. Agreed with commissioner santacana in regards to it would be pretty crappy to live next door and have that kind of damage done to your home without resolution. At the same time, the resolution that theyre seeking is not in the hands of the permitholder. Its in the hands of a third party Insurance Company, who they are notorious for trying to get the best bang for their buck. You know, when you come in front of here, we look at the briefs, we look occasion. Thats why i asked is there multiple issues with contractor . I asked planning and building who are knowledgeable and have been in the city for quite some time. And there really hasnt. Did an accident occur here . Yes. Was the game significant . Did they dig out so they can increase their floor height and add additional Square Footage to their house . No. And to me, i really despise when contractors and professionals come before us and they lie about their permits and as the counselor said, they dont ask for permission, theyre asking for forgiveness. Oops, we added an extra garage door. Oops, we added an extra floor. In this particular case, there is no gain here. I asked was there gain . Did they get an extra floor, extra room . Was there a mistake . Yes. What im sad about is that you have to live next door to each other. Thats the worst portion of it. But for us, if i felt that there was ill gotten gain and there was a reason why the permitholder knocked down the facade or additional space, trust me, we penalize hard here. They knocked down the space, but theyre not going to change the facade, to me, that makes a big difference. So at the end of the day i would not support a continuance either. I think that having a construction site on the block and create that issue for ongoing issues. Having them not repair or do further work is going to cause more damage. And so what are the two permits before us . We have one permit before us. Thats it was a revision to the two earlier permits. So the second matter is a release of suspension of the two earlier permits. So how would that be we would do one at a time, but i see what direction youre, but i would like to ask the department of building inspection if one of the conditions was that an engineer be on site . I think that monitoring be done by the department, but that was kind of commissioner tanners, but one liaison be added. Even the permitholder himself said i didnt know. Liaison with the permitholder or contractor . They dont have a contractor. That needs to be established soon. How much time do you need to get a contractor . Can you come to the podium, sir . How much time do you need what this board could do is continue this for four more months and youre looking at a graveyard where your money is parked. How much time do you need to actually contract and get a contractor . How close are you . Im pretty close. I heard they can start in march. Which is not bad. And are you identified three, identified one . Two ive identified two. Can i have the names . Lucas eastwood, eastwood development. And were looking at m. Projects. Okay. Thank you. I think the monitoring, ongoing monitoring to have the monitoring that has happened and will happen also be accompanied by the engineering report, so its not just the monitoring itself, but what is the analysis and that would be available to the department and to the appellant. Is that my understanding . That is your cue to come up, old wise one. Yes. The ongoing monitoring would be good. We typically, youd want to be getting them monthly for maybe until the Structural Foundation and framing is all done. After that, you can go it could go to twice a year. And then so monthly reports and ongoing monitoring. And that monthly report would be provided by a Structural Engineer . Monitoring the surveyor . Surveyor. And its usually submitted to d. B. I. To the to the neighbors engineer. If i understand, it should say monthly monitor big the surveyor during the time the structural work is being done. Correct. And up to maybe 12 months after construction is completed. Once more, 12 months after . Yes. Like the pictures youve shown, even new construction after its completed, youll see that type of settling. I tell friends that all the time. Just one note on the contractor of record, they want sta are the the they cant start the work until. It doesnt matter the time. Thats on them. If they decide tomorrow to go back to work, they cant until they have a contractor that puts his name on the switches his name on the permit. Do you understand that . Your attorney is saying yes. You have appraising and engineering on site . That should be part. Every time we have special inspections. Isnt that part of the permitting . Not always. Thats just special inspections so when they do the pouring, the inspector is there to make sure the rebar matches what the engineering does and theyre there to test and make sure the po pouring is correct . Im not sure on the project. I dont know how much they had to do. I dont want to overkill on the reports. I think we got a report from an engineer monthly. And the structural work was done, we got a monthly report. It was a short report from an engineer. Only until we get to the all of the framing and structural work is done. Thank you. So that is have very good point that you bring up that no construction can begin even if we move forward and approve the permit, until they have a contractor. So this gives me some comfort because it allows time for something to get done to protect the neighbor. So would you please advise this body as to what in the intermediate period, between the thyme the contractor is time that the contractor is hired and puts their name on the permit, what would you advise this body as far as conditions to be placed on the approval of these items . They cant do any work. They wont be able to do any work. I understand, but is there anything in the intermediate period that would benefit the appellants . That could be done to give them some comfort and further assurance that theyve covered all their bases . If once well, that would be i think there is some things done by the new contractor. He has to get the faith of the people next door. That has to happen. There should be a meeting between the contractor and the guy who is doing the work. Im a big fan of news letter or outreach to let them know the schedule of work, what the work hours are, what is to be expected. And the contractor should be definitely giving them that. And they also should have a condition that at d. B. I. Be involved before any work resumes. They cant just start up again. They have to schedule another start of work inspection before they resume the work. Can you give us you were about to give us specifics, but it was still too broad for me. Can you give specifics as to what we should establish as d. B. I. s involvement before construction begins again . The district. They should have these are for conditions. A building inspect inspection needs to take place before work resumes, mandatory building inspection. Anything else . Nope, im okay with that. That should be fine. And is there anything before construction begins . Apart from the other items i mentioned, the monitoring. And before building resumes and before that permit, the permit is made whole by virtue of a new contractor, is there anything that we should stipulate as conditions for the protection of the appellant . You might want to ask them that. Im stumped on that. If we get this new contractor in place, hes going to have to be very good because there is going to be a lot of eyes watching. The reason i ask, is because youre the man who does this every single day and you know people become vulnerable. And im asking you to suggest these things to limit the vulnerab vulnerablity of an appellant that has been harmed in process. The building inspector will be on site for inspections take place. You cant have a building inspector there every night of the week. We only go out when there is progress. Im not sure i can give you move much more than that. I definitely think the contractor needs to have there should be better outreach. I dont know how you put that condition. A schedule of activities. A presite meeting with d. B. I. Present as well. Thank you, joe. Same question to mr. Sanchez. Since were going in this direction and given the obvious unintended abuse of the next door neighbors, what conditions do we place upon this as youre hearing that were Going Forward . That protects the abused party. It goes without saying, but should be said that any additional demolition, they need to first obtain a revision permit before undertaking any additional demolition of the property that they simply cannot demolition, that will turn them into a de facto demo. Period. Theyre at the line. If they do any more demo, its de facto highlighting that as an issue and making them aware theyre close. 49. 6. Our calculations are little less than that, but all the same, admonished, they need to obtain the permit. I think its a good point to add even though its obvious. Okay. The first the first one was engineer on site who can provide a monthly report which is sent to d. B. I. And you want that we need to amend that. With the engineer, there is a monthly engineering report that goes to d. B. I. And to the appellants. Okay. So strike the on site. Monthly engineering to the h. O. A. To the homeowners association. Up to d. B. I. And the homeowner association. And then the second one was monthly monitoring by a surveyor with a report regarding the Structural Foundation that would be sent to d. B. I. And h. O. A. And that would be ongoing monthly and then ongoing twice a year and ten 12 months after construction is completed. Okay. Semiannually. After construction is completed for one year. Semiannual . So its monthly until the structural and framing is done. And then once theyre occupied, there is one more report after a year. To see what else has happened. And then we had the facade would be rebuilt to the way it was represented to the way its represented in the plans. Predemolition. And then we also have a requirement that the permitholder provide a liaison to the appellants. Which include phone number and email of that person. Which includes phone number and email. The monitoring could be done quarterly. Apparently monthly is a little severe. And thats from mr. Buscovich. I was going to say quarterly because it is quite a youre just causing you know its dinnertime. The survey monitor. You can change it to quarterly. Im not going to repeat this. We have it on the record. And then we have a liaison, as you said, that will with the permitholder and the permitholder must provide the appellants with a phone number and email address that they can contact this liaison. We have the additional suggestions by mr. Duffy. Construction to begin without new contractor being on file. Right, okay. No construction begins until a new contractor, not cook, or any variation of cook. Cook is cooked. Yes. And then prior to beginning work, there has to be a meeting with the contractor and the h. O. A. With d. B. I. Present i believe. And that the permitholder provide, or the new contractor provide a schedule of the work, the hours and what is to be expected to the appellants. And also that prior to the work commencing, d. B. I. Should inspect the property. Youre good. You were play of paying attention. We have one more that Scott Sanchez suggested. Any additional demolition requires a permit. On what basis are you making the motion . On the basis that this is not a tantamount to demolition but these measures help to protect the appellant and the permitholder. First determination. 6a . Yep. So on that motion, commissioners, santacana aye. Honda aye. Swig aye. So that motion carries. And now were on to the next determination which is the release of the suspension of the permits. I think ill move to deny that on the grounds that the permits should be suspended. Properly issued. Right. There is no irer. So error. So we have determination is properly issued on that motion, commission honda aye. Tanner aye. Swig aye. So that motion carries. And this concludes the hearing. [ ] its always a slap in the face to our people and we see that happening all over this country, but always reminded us that as Indigenous People we didnt actually have a place. What we were thought of continuously was as savages and less than, that the white man came to save us. When i first saw the early day statue, i think it brought me back to the time of my ancestors. I think thats where genocide started. That was a time when people were being hunted down and slaughtered and bounties were placed on their heads. Not only were people murdered, our culture was stripped from us. Prior to my lifetime, our families were still in hiding. I think some of the folks do not understand some of the very first laws that were created and what is now called the state of california was extermination laws that legalized the killing of native people. I remember specifically someone had painted in red beneath again side and they put a wine bottle in the hand of the missionaries who was leaning down to hand this bottle to the indian man who was seated on the ground. It was a powerful statement about genocide and the distortion of history and what the true history is. I think that we have to remove all of these stereotypes and strip the world of this racism in order to build it back up with factually correct history and teach people not only native American People behave like this. Were all people, the same as you. We have a 9 00 to 5 00 job. We go to school. Were also different because our history and our ancestors and culture and arts make us different. Public art is very powerful, as we can see for 126 years, the common imagery was upholding white supremacy. Its important that public arts also evolved and what was accepted and appropriate and apparent 120 years ago is not so any longer. I think that its important that the statue went down the way that it did, with Indigenous People coming out from all different walks and different places. That its important for our Younger Generation to see that we can change what history has put up that depicts us. [ ] thats powerful to know that selectivity were able to remove that symbol. We are now able to occupy that space in our own voice. The native american movements that were conducted in the 1970s are extremely important to me because my grandpa was at the forefront of them and he was making the world a better place so that i would grow up in a world where i had one less issue to face and my generation could start from where he worked and continue working from that point. The struggle has been going on for many years to remove this statue, but its only one key in all of San Franciscos history and all of this countrys history about the misrepresentation of how this land was developed and colonized. We have to fight to regain our languages, have access to our lands, to keep our religions from being illegal. That is the legacy, that we are in a continuous struggle. I think those are ways of acknowledging our path so we can move forward together. No one is going home. This has always been our home. How do we learn to live in reciprocity with one another . Thats by acknowledging our histories and moving forward and telling the truth to history. [ ] [ adjourned. Shop dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shop dine in the 49 with within the 49 square miles of San Francisco by supporting local Services Within the neighborhood we help San Francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop dine in the 49 my name is jim woods im the founder of Woods Beer Company and the proprietor of woods copy k open 2 henry adams what makes us unique is that were reintegrated brooeg the beer and serving that cross the table people are sitting next to the xurpz drinking alongside were having a lot of ingredient that get theres a lot to do the district of retail shop having that really close connection with the consumer allows us to do exciting things we decided to come to Treasure Island because we saw it as an amazing opportunity cant be beat the views and real estate that great county starting to develop on Treasure Island like minded Business Owners with last week products and want to get on the ground floor a nobrainer for us when you you, you buying local goods made locally our supporting Small Business those are not created an, an sprinkle scale with all the machines and one person procreating them people are making them by hand as a result more interesting and cant get that of minor or anywhere else and San Francisco a hot bed for local manufacturing in support that is what keeps your city vibrant well make a compelling place to live and visit i think that local business is the lifeblood of San Francisco and a vibrant Community Welcome to the Planning Commission. I would like this remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate outbursts of any kind. Please silence your mobile devices. And if you care to speak before the commission, state your name. Koppel here. Moore here. Diamond here. Fung here