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