For rebuttal. They are affiliated and seven to three minutes. Members of the public have up to three minutes each to address the board. For jurisdiction there is no rebuttal. Given that the board has a vacancy three votes are required to grant an appeal or jurisdiction request. If you have a question send us an email. Public access and participation is paramount to the board and makes the hearing process. To enable participation its it broadcasting and streaming live. To watch the hearing on tv go to sf. Gov. It will be rebroadcast on channel 26. A link to the live stream is found on our webpage. Public comment can be provided in two ways. Join the zoom meeting by computer. Head to our website sf. Gov. Org or callin by telephone. Call 16698900. Again, sf. Gov is broadcasting the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen dial star nine which is similar to raising your hands. You will have three minutes and our legal clerk will provide you with a warning. There is a delay between the live proceedings to what is broadcast. Its very import tan that people calling in reduce or turn off the volume of their computers otherwise there is an interference. If you need a disability accommodation or Technical Assistance make a request in the chat or send an email to the board of appeals. Chat cannot be used for Public Comment. We will swear in all those that would like to testify. If you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidencey weight raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . Okay, thank you. If you are a participant and not speaking put your zoom speaker on mute. Commissioners, we have a few housekeeping items for item 5a and 5b. 20 dash 6 and 207 at 2647 chestnut street. They would like this to be continued until january 13th 2021. We would need a motion and vote to continue. Ill make that motion. Okay, is there any Public Comment on the motion . Let me look over here. No one is raising their hand. We have a motion from commissioner honda to continue. Roll roll [roll call]. That motion carries 40. Those items are continued. Our second housekeeping item is item number seven appeal number 20070. The parties would also like the matter continued to january 13, 2021. Ill also make that motion. Okay. Any Public Comment on that motion raise your hand . Okay, i dont see anybody raising their hand on that motion commissioner. I. President lazarus. That matter is also continued. We are moving onto Public Comment. Thats not on tonights calendar. Is there any member that wish to speak on tonights agenda. If so raise your hand. If you called in you can press star nine. Okay, i dont see hands raised. We will move over. Commissioners. Okay, well move onto item number three. Commissioners adoption of the minutes for november 4, toss 20 4, 2020 board meeting. Is there any Public Comment please raise your hand. I dont see any Public Comment. President lazarus and Vice President honda. Aye. So, that motion carries 40 and the minutes are adopted. We are moving onto item numb bier four jurisdiction request 208. 2891. The appeal period ended on october 15th. Lindsey and john its a revision to 20161026. This is for the first level. They service the basement on the first floor. So, well here from the requester first. Welcome. Thank you. You have three minutes mr. Paul. Thank you director rosinburg. Good evening commissioner this is a new experience for me and nice to see you all. I look forward to being back in the same room. This is a really amazing situation thats happened here. The property in question we had a proposal and this is the dr that went to the Planning Commission. They limited the scope of the project. They have proceeded. Work began and then the project sponsor exceeded the scope of the permit. Not just by a little bit but a lot. They ellegally exask a serrated the backyard undermining the foundations of both properties. The Apartment Building to the east, who im speaking on behalf of us undermined the dr requester. They felt they had they are entitled to note it legalized the illegal exask a invasion. They had a right to know. Comments were made about the notation and the extend of the Planning Department to not inform. I understand his reasoning and feels the obligation is limited only to the original permit. At some point, they think the bbm requester and dr requester is no longer interested and doesnt need to know. That doesnt make a lot of sense but id like to share the screen now and show a few pictures. Lets see if we have it. Do we have it . Yes. Sorry, we see, yes. 30 seconds. My time is up. Okay section 3307 stop screen sharing. Section 33. 7 of the Building Code requires a notification to be provided by the project sponsor. Without that, this is not a validly issued permit. They are used in a case back in may and familiar with them. This excavation was done. Time. Okay, thank you, mr. Paul. We will hear from representatives from to permit holder mr. Gladstone. Welcome. Can you hear me . Yes, we can hear you once work began there was more usable space existing under the building than previously thought. We filed a separate permit to create Additional Space downstairs that doesnt involve any building expansion and cannot be seen by any neighbor. It involves a new lower level where Additional Space will be created. Bbm noticed the Second Review of the permit. A dbn provides notice when the permit is initially reviewed. They approved this before the bbn was filed on december 2, 2019. It should be been sent after the bbfn filing. They reviewed the permit once it was filed. They usually ask for a rereview so the plans are consistent with what decision was made by planning earlier. That was decided much earlier in the process when they determined if it meets the planning code. Put mr. Sanchezs east side email on the screen. Around the time the bby request was filed they aformed the aappealent they would need to track this on dbis website. This is when it occurs. You forgive the mistake and not track the permit as advised to do so. The implications would menu set the precedent of allowing future precedents to track issuance of permits through the dbi website to make a later filing. If you were to set this your board with the request of jurisdiction. A final word. 30 seconds. They give independent notifications. You can see in my brief it says, quote, only when dbi issued alterations, unquote. Does a notification get sent to the owners of the adjacent properties and of course the permit before you involves no structural additions. Thank you very much. Thank you. Well hear from the Planning Department. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you, good evening, Scott SanchezPlanning Department. The matter before you is the property at 2622 greenwich street. The subject property was the subject of a previous request where the Planning Committee took view. The permit is a revision to the permit. It doesen require section 311 notice. After the original permit was issued it exceeded the scope of the work by the requester and may have been issues related to the buildings and their foundation. Ill refer it to disaccuse those matters. The permit before you was filed on september 27, 2019. It has additional on october 19 around or after that time. The jurisdiction contacted and made a complaint regarding additional excavation. We had conversations with the planner. They could file a bbr or requirement for future permits a and track the status online when it was issued and available. There are other agencies that require prevision. There are a final set of plans because they have been updated there is a policy and not a code requirement. It doesnt livein the planning code. We could establish a fee. This predates our current requirements and loss of notice of permits by the Planning Department. 30 seconds. Its not subject in the bbm. We performed this on our first review and not subsequent reviews. It will require a separate notice. We dont notice every time a permit ingredients brought back to us. Im available for any questions the board might have. The bbn was properly followed. Time. Thank you. Thank you; we do have a question from commissioner swig. Scott, this really bothered me. I looked at it if i was the neighbor next door how would i feel. My reaction, i cant use the word but id feel pretty bad. The other thing mr. Gladstone used the word significant change. I dont know, but this wasnt moving, you know, a light socket. This wasnt moving a wall two or three feet or something internally that wouldnt have had a Significant Impact on the neighbor. This was the removal of a lot of dirt. This was the removal of this also exposed, it seemed two neighbors foundations. I would term this as significant and should have involved some level of notice to a neighbor for their review and appropriate feedback. Why am i feeling this was overlooked a Significant Impact and notice for the first time so a neighbor could have provided that feedback in the appeal. Under section 311 it doesnt require notice for this scope of work. Excavations in basements dont requirement it under section 311. Its for the expansion and changes of use. The scope of work here doesnt require notice under the planning code. These permitments are permit are reviewed routinely. As far as our understanding of this. Staff told them about the scope of work. There was communication after planning approved the permit. They were aware of the permit. Its my understanding they had knowledge of the permit. If they have concerns and would like to appeal it to the board. The on mechanism for that is the bbn wont get you notice of permit issuance. Its just when they first review it. The question of where was the notice when the permit was issued. They dont address that. The Building Code has certain is there triggers. They informed the jurisdiction requesters. We can track it and when issued they could file an appeal to the board of appeals. Thats the process we have for these types of permits. There is no city or code requirements for notice of the scope of work. So, my point is if they were informed to lookout for the permit. They werent dell diligent about the permit. Is there tough luck and werent diligent. Is that your understanding. We dont have, i think what happened here is covid19 happened between. Staff approved this last october. It wasnt until september when the permit was issued. There is no other process they could be notified. They have to track on the tracking system to see if it is issued. There is no other legal method for this im thinking of a case and it might be apples and bananas. We all think its endless. It was a case in which the permit holder continued to dig and dig and exposed a foundation on at least one side of the project and we heard from that that appellant that was upset with the scope that seemed to change in a neverending fashion. More explanation was done. What was the difference between that case and this case. In terms of, i think whatever it was decades of construction. This is work over the last few years and in this case, you know, none of the work required notice. In terms of the case in sacramento i cant speak to the Building Code be the scope of work doesnt require notice. Ultimately, in this case there might be harm caused to a neighbor who he is foundation was exposed there was harm caused to the neighbor in the sacramento. How do you deal with that harm. Thats within the department of building. The chief inspector has been working. Thank you. Thank you. We will now here im sorry. I saw your hand before. Did you have a question . Let me just confirm that the president is with us. I lowered my hand. Ill wait for inspector jesse. Inspector jesse, welcome. Dbi and its on our radar for a year. I got involved for a month ago. For a brief introduction to it i have been to a meeting and encouraged people to work together. Ill give you a brief overview and noticed we contacted on october 19th. We issued notices. We also issued the violation. They undermined and exposed it. Its not the engineer and come up with a solution. At that time and this is something i learned a month ago. The engineer from the project due to the excavation that was done. Both neighbors hired a sip separate engineer and worked with a way to come up with a Building Permit that would provide a common wall to address the foundation. You will hear me talking about the under pinning the proper process. They didnt do an permit. They did do the retaining wall permit. They build it in front of the neighbors wall thats not acting for the foundation of this permit. It addressed the immediate yacht concerns. Maybe the engineers need to speak to this. Was there under pinning required on the neighbor side as well. The neighbors seem to indicate that. The owner of to property didnt seem to be imposed to that. They got the Insurance Company involved. These people need to get together and cooperate. This is a separate request. They issued the permit that got reviewed. I checked them out with the bureau. It doesnt fall under the notification process for dbi. 30 seconds. It didnt fall under that. There is notification required. This is before they do the excavation. That was pretty impossible because they didnt without a permit. It wasnt lack of notification. There are a lot of moving parts here but my takeaway time. Sorry guys. We have a question from president lazarus. Inspector, jesse, id like to clarify is the permit in question the one to respond to the nov regarding the excavation . Thats a good question. No. They did takeout a permit on their own property. Its a common area to address this. That was issue on the 28th of october. They report these retaining walls. That was the permit to address the nov this is a revision thats a bigger permit. What this is for is when we did this they would go on another level. They would have to apply for that. They serviced the basement on the lower level. So, because of the excavation that was done without a permit. Does that make sense. I think so, they took advantage of the situation and now they are taking farther advantage because they created this extra space and plan to use it and thats the permit we are talking about. There is no farther excavation in the permit in question. No, no, no. Basically, with the fixed permit to address our novs thats the foundation for this new lowered area. It didnt put any concrete or foundation under the neighbors side. We have two different opinions on that and i know i believe the engineer knows apparently some discussion with the time there was no need for under pinning. Now hes saying i believe there is. Thats in the background there are so many. The question i have with the neighbors if we open up to an appeal and where will we get to that at that point. There is that end of it as well. Thats just me thinking like that. Well be six weeks talking about this and if we are, thats fine. Im not sure what they expect. To clarify, the parties have some coordination that happened between engineers but not enough. It seemed like there was a lot of cooperation a year ago. With the permit issued for the provision we were contacted again. What can we do about it. Not much was happening for a year im not clear how that all broke down. The neighbor, i left them there and we had a discussion among themselves. We will figure out what they will do and these buildings on either side. Under pinning installed. Okay, just to end my questions. In your view no department has contributed to a delay in appealing the permit. Not from dbi. We do notification and thats not one of them. Its not a notification. Its not as part of the department bureau. I knew it was an issue tonight. This is not one of them. Its not part of it. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Commissioner swig has a county then Vice President honda. Sure, mr. Duffie, you left me hanging there as you were forced to end your time. Would you like to finish your thought please on that so i could get a full range of understanding of this or did you just handle it properly with commissioner lazarus. Well, if you would like to let me word it. I know i was appreciated for time. Its a typical situation where you have someone who did something they shouldnt have done. The remedy, we are not 100 sure everybody is happy with the remedy we are wondering if work was done with our department but they got a permit for that. It seems like they took care of it quickly but what needs to be done with them. Its usually to do it but the importance for the under pinning work would have to be done from inside the neighboring property. It could be done but there might be a different opinion from the engineers. I think, the engineer said the under pinning is required. I think that shows everything. Maybe the people dont like this. Lets go in and there are some issues. All right, i dont know where to ask this of yourself of ask this of mr. Russie. Is the issue here really that is the issue here that the permit is a bad permit and should have been subject to an appeal or is the issue here that the permit was issued appropriately but the, simply the time ran out on the jurisdiction request even though the situation is flawed it just tough luck because thats the way the cookie crumbles. From a legal standpoint or making sense. I can, mr. Russie you want to speak to your part . Can i jump in for a second, greg. Sure. I think as it madam president remind us we are gone off into no mans land. What is before us is the jurisdiction request if the city caused the apellet to not have a case or file. Thats what im asking. So, where this is a bad permit or good permit thats before us. Exactly. Before is the jurisdiction request and where we could appeal on the project or not and if the city caused them not to be able to file in a timely manner. Right. Would you still like mr. Russie to respond. I think i need mr. Russies opinion to if there was a flawed nature with the citys ability in issuing the permit. Just like darrell was trying to get me back on track. All right, good evening, commissioners. I havent heard anything from planning or dbi that would indicate they made error to t