You know, the deck does meet our Design Guidelines, its set back fairly substantially from the adjacent Property Lines. I know the board here has heard quite a few appeals about deck yards and privacy concerns, and some projects that do have the deck right up at the Property Lines, and in this case, its set back from all lot lines. It is a small lot, and, you know, perhaps for the size of the lot, it is a generous size deck, but it is within reason for a deck in San Francisco as weve seen it, and it does meet our Design Guidelines. So with that, im available for any questions that the board may have. Just confirming, its code compliant, does not need modifications, and im available for questions. Clerk okay. Just i dont see any questions from any of the commissioners, so we will move onto chief building inspector duffy. Do you have anything further . No, nothing further. Im available for any questions. Clerk commissioners, this matter is submitted we do have a question. Vice president honda, do you have a question . Vice president honda i dont have a question. I was just raising my hand for commissioner comments after. Clerk okay. This matters been submitted. President lazarus commissioner honda . Vice president honda thank you, president lazarus. So commissioners, whats before us is whether this permit was properly issued. You know, in remembrance of our late commissioner or our commissioner that moved onto the planning, frank would have had a ball with this, but in this particular case, you know, this is San Francisco. We do live in an urban environment. You know, granted, that the permittees actually had additional process to this matter. My opinion is that we would accept the appeal and condition it on what inspector duffy recommended. Clerk okay. Commissioner swig . Commissioner swig i was going to say the same thing. Thank you. President lazarus any other comments . Clerk i would like clarification from inspector duffy. He referenced two boxes that Vice President honda 9a and number 9, and to eliminate roof number 19 was to horizontal. Correct, Senior Inspector . Thats correct, yes. Clerk so box 9a should say yes, box 19 should say horizontal . You could check the people that pulled the permit, but its a twounit. I believe its a twounit building, but on the application, they have listed as singlefamily. I believe its a two unit, so it should be corrected to say two units. Clerk geddes, are you still there . Hello . Geddes . I just wanted to clarify, this is a twounit building, that is right. Yes, im still here. Clerk it is a twounit building, correct . Yes, there are two units there. Clerk thank you. And inspector duffy, just to be clear, you wanted it corrected on the permit if that is an exterior deck offver the first floor, not over the roof . Correct, its not a roof deck. Okay. We can make that change. And then, box number 19, julie, its to say yes on that one. Clerk yes on 19 and yes on 9a. 9 to 9a, just from one to two. Clerk okay. Okay. So whos making this motion . Vice president honda that would be my motion to grant the appeal and condition the permit that the foregoing corrections be made on the permit. Clerk okay. We have a motion thats good language. Thats fine. Clerk okay. We have a motion from Vice President honda to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that it be revised to require the following changes that they remove the reference to a roof deck. Its an exterior addition of a deck over the existing first floor, and box 9 should change from 1 unit to 2 unit, and box 19 would be horizontal, and on the basis that these correct the errors on the permit and permit application, correct . Can i add one other thing . Clerk sure. Box 7 and 7a should not say singlefamily dwelling. Clerk okay. Box 7 and 7a should not say singlefamily dwelling. Yes. Clerk okay. On that motion [roll call] clerk okay. So that motion carries, 40. Thank you. Im going to hang up on you now, okay . Okay. Thank you. Okay. Vice president honda before we get started, i think we should congratulate i think we have the acting chief deputy building inspector in our midst right now. Clerk yes, we do. Vice president honda congratulations was it deputy chief inspector so does that mean that were going to lose you here at the board of appeals now that youre the big shot . No, im not the big shot. Im just the acting chief building inspector. Vice president honda congratulations, joe. Clerk congratulations. Yeah, ill keep at the board of appeals. Clerk okay. Excellent. Okay. So we are now moving onto item number 9a and 9b. These are appeal numbers 19135 and 19137, brian raffi and Roxanne Davis versus department of Building Inspections concerning the buildings at 40 and 50 alta street to jerold balzer. Proposed work includes industrial moment frame at ground floor, plywood sheer walls and foundation. The same work is to be performed at 40 alta street under permit 20170909596929, so we will hear from the appellants first. Since we have two appeals, we have 14 minutes. So mr. Raffi and miss davis, who would like to go first . I hope if i got the time right, cheryl takes part of the other. Good evening. Any time . Clerk yes. So do you want to take seven minutes and miss davis take the other seven . Yes, and id like to eat into her time because i know her statement is shorter than mine. Clerk okay. Is that okay with her . I dont know. Clerk miss davis . Miss davis . Miss davis. Im here. Yes, thats fine. Clerk okay. So well give you a warning when seven minutes comes up, and you can decide what you want to do. Yeah, ill give you a sevenminute warning when it comes up. Okay. So good evening. I hope that everyones family and friends are healthy during this time. I know that this is the fourth time that the board has heard this case, and the board is conscious of the time spent on this. Ill just introduce myself. My name is brian raffi. Im a native of San Francisco. [inaudible] until march 15, when lots of employment ended, this march 15, i Trained Medical students at ucsf and also led walking through tours celebrating two of our neighborhoods, San Francisco and north beach. I say this because i love the city, and ive given back to it. 50 alta is only my second adult apartment. I didnt plan on staying, but ive lived here 34 years. It is my home, and id hate to be displaced from it because i cannot afford to remain in San Francisco. I know this hearing is now only about the two remaining permits. The other two permits scheduled for today have been dropped by the appellants. I want to remind the board that our appeals were never ever about appealing everything as is falsely stated by the defendants attorney in our current brief. We are here because we as 40 and 50 alternate we as 40 and 50 alta do not want to be displaced from our homes. The first plans approved ultimately stated there would be no tenants in the building during the construction. We welcome the seismic upgrade. We agree the seismic retrofit is necessary, and its mandated by the city and law, but the board of appeals has the ability to revoke this permit because of the landlords malicious intent and dishonesty. San francisco code 37. 9 states an owner can do Capital Improvements in good faith without intent. Owners and their attorney have argued that the reason they explained our ignorance, they made a mistake in the plans and the filing. Specific examples are on record at prior board hearings regarding this property and their briefs. One example, if this was a simple mistake, there would be no tenant in the building during construction. It should say there would be tenants in the building. Why did they wait until the last minute to withdraw that permit . It caused tons of confusion and we put tons of hours into something essentially moot at that time. If for whatever reason the ownership and management had changed, and they start open and honest communication and do everything they can to keep tenants in their homes without harassment, we welcome that. However, only time will show if these stated changes are lip service. I really thank mr. Balzer and leafi leavitt for getting many of our questions answered. [inaudible] if the sterile work is no longer required, why does the unit need to be vacated . There is no documentation that this is necessary. It is also read that the tenants may be evicted for a seismic retrofit . Why is 50 alta a unique case . Theyve withdrawn permits for other work and just want to proceed with the retrofit. That suggests to today, theyve been misleading the boards and other tenants. [inaudible] they sent a short letter stating they were revoking the stairwell permits but no other information by only mentioning the new intentions for temporary evictions in their brief, there is a stated lack of transparency the last few years. In an email dated may 8 by their attorney, ryan patrick [inaudible] why did their attorney say there were no plans . After us and julie and you pressing, they admitted there were no plans, and we got them late friday, so that communication remains unchanged. Owners and management are delaying the process [inaudible] to change the nature of the discussion. They want to make sure the appellants cannot provide a concise argument and they want to make sure the board of appeals dont have the information they need to make a decision allowing the management and the attorneys to argue at the hearings that the tenants are misinformed and dont have any evidence. The tenants dont have the need to have a law firm on retainer 24 hours to handle submittals. Lastminute changes leave us scrambling. Is this intentaional strategy . The fact that no notice by email or letter about the plans for 50 intentional or unintentional . Does that mean that the april 8 email applies only to 40 alta and not 50 . I mean, should it be the policy for us to constantly chase and correct the owners and managements constant mistakes . Thats seven minutes, if you want to continue. I have about two minutes left. Thank you so much. I can forward you a copy of that email if you want. Our fears have not changed, and the questions we now ask ourselves is did they change their strategy about how to empty the building because we resisted . Have they figured out some other way to get rid of us . They did take a rental unit off and put their office in their illegally . Are they planning to make life unbearable by having the seismic work drag on and on. These are not unreasonable concerns of ours given the past history. All the wonderful talk sounds great in the moment. A dog thats abused by its owner always remains cautious and trusting when the owner gently holds out his hand and talks gently, saying thats okay. Why . Because the dog knows that he was abused previously after the owners words. Mr. Balzer emailed an answer, which is great. We thank him, about the timeline, which would be the same outlined in the first package, but upon a days reflection, is that answer realistic . Has anyone talked to the construction crew about the plans, if they change anything . Does social distance change anything . It would be better to get an actual timeline from the Construction Team to address covid19. Mr. Ryan twisted and misrepresented the intent of working out in good faith some monetary assurance to make sure we would not be displaced permanently. Secondly, mr. Ryan existed the reality of what i said. The lawsuit was unjust and without merit, therefore, the holding of the check was not allowed. In closing, i would like to say again, all of us welcome a real change in the owners intent and actions, but we are skeptical. We trust the boards decision regarding the issuance of these permits with or without restrictions or in whole. I thank you for your time. Clerk thank you. Miss davis . Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Well, first of all, id like to thank the board for your patience and just for your being there to help us. You know, help us refer to the facts that help us make our lives safe and fair. Im grateful that youve given us the opportunity to state our case and to defend our tenants rights. Im also grateful that the owner has decided to cancel the work outside of the mandatory retrofit so that we tenants dont have to be displaced, especially now with the world sheltering at home. In order to keep our discussion relevant, i want to stick to or bring up two concerns just for the record, the transparency and the timing. This is a little bit redundant because the transparency, even though jerold balzer says they will stick to the retrofit work only, his history of keeping us off balance so our arguments with always irrelevant, so they dont have any trick up their sleeve, we want the building to be safe, and we dont want to lose our home. So as for the timing, its concerning because out of the 12 units, two have been under construction, under renovation for two years, and, like, theres no urgency to complete. Its just like theres no end date. Even before the lockdown, these units have been empty and off the market, and whats concerning, without a deadline, the work could go on indefinitely. It should take four to 12 weeks to do the retrofit, and then, is there a way to ensure a completion date for the retrofit within, like, Standard Building requirements so that the job doesnt languish, you know, into infinity . So these are unprecedented times, and im hoping we can come through this healthy and with the necessary rebalancing that needs to occur. Just a little kudos, San Francisco has done a good job of keeping the numbers down. I feel blessed to live in this beautiful city and beautiful neighborhood where ive lived for almost four decades. And its exceptional and welcomed. Im a teacher with the San Francisco school district. This is my sons my son was raised here. Hes not living here at the moment, and we want to do whatever we need to keep our home life focused on fairness and safety, and we thank you again for helping both the city and us tenants. Thank you very much. Clerk okay. Thank you, miss davis. I also want to make an announcement. I see a lot of people who are on this zoom meeting, and if youre here for Public Comment, were only taking Public Comment by phone, so you need to go to our website and call in on that phone number. So i dont know i just see a number of names, and i dont think theyre direct participants, but if youre here for Public Comment, we do have a phone number and an access code that you need to call from our website. Go to sfgov. Org boa, and all the information is there, so thank you. I just want to im giving you time to do that now because were going to hear from the permit holder. Mr. Patrick, you have 14 minutes to respond, and were going to put you on spotlight. Im going to unmute you. One moment maybe were doing it at the same time. Can you hear me now . Clerk yes, i can. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for this opportunity. Its good to see youre healthy and well, and you guys are doing a great job. Doing a hearing like this presents a lot of logistical difficulties, and, yes, thank you for your efforts to keep the gears turning during this whole crisis. Id just like to clarify whats at issue. Its whether or not the seismic permits for 40 and 50 alta were issued properly. There hasnt been any evidence to suggest that these permits were issued improperly. T what the permit owner is asking that you deny the two appeals and approve the two seismic permits. Theres going to be displacement of the tenants of 50 alta and un one, ain unit o temporary, for 17 days. [inaudible] weve tried to, given the long history of when we first got here, presenting everything we wanted to do to upgrade this building to streamlining it, to say okay, well, because its going to be such a battle and because theres going to be all of these logistical hurdles, how can we stream line this to make it as to take care of these safety issues, and thats what weve done here. If the project has moved and been refined, its because we want to take care of the mandatory seismic, and thats it. And thats where we are here today. I asked jerold balzer here if you want him to answer any questions. I also have our architect to speak to any questions, and im also available to answer any questions. Thank you. Clerk okay. Are you are you finished . Yeah. Clerk okay. Im not seeing any questions from the commissioners yes, i see commissioner swig has a question. Commissioner swig thank you. Let me actually put my unmask myself. Im confused about displacement. Is there going to be in this new set of permits, is there going to be displacement of tenants or not, and if so, how long . Mr. Swig, the displacement is stated in our brief. The work the seismic work will cause the temporary displacement of one tenant, and that is the tenant in unit 1 at 50 alta. Neither of the appellants will be displaced. Commissioner swig okay. And in hearing the appellants testimony, something concerned me, and in previous hearings, weve been through a number of hurdles and things have changed and theres been switches in the past, and its been fairly inconsistent. So i but now you have a hurdle that none of us anticipated, which are new construction rules, and those new construction rules including social distancing. So in your in your plans and in your timing and timeline spreadsheet, what is the difference and is there a difference between what is represented in your brief and a new reality that is associated with social distancing and new construction . Well, were all dealing with the uncertainty of social distancing and emergency orders, and i ideally, the constructions going to have to start after these emergency orders and the social distancing stuff is lifted. Thats the only practical way to deal with this. Commissioner swig okay. So your if this construction is now allowable, and construction is starting, theres no restrictions on you to start this project. But are you representing here that you are going to complete this project when we are no longer under this these new rules or these current rules and stick to that amount of time that you represented . Yes, and, i mean, i think it would be completely unreasonable to go ahead and start a Major Construction project while everybodys sheltering in place. Just because you can do something doesnt mean you should. Commissioner swig okay. Thank you. Clerk okay. Thank you. Is there im looking to see if there are anymore questions. I dont see any questions at this point, so we will hear