Good evening, and welcome to the San Francisco board of appeals. Wednesday, april 5, 2017, of the San Francisco pleasing the presiding officer is commissioner honda and we are joined by and joined by commissioner Vice President fung commissioner wilson commissioner swig Transportation Authority is doug will provide the board with legal advice and cable car legal advice and cable car boards executive director. Were joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. Scott sanchez will be here the Zoning Administrator and hell be representing the Planning Department and Planning Commission and we also expect senior builder inspector joe duffy dbi Electronic Devices are prohibited. Out in the hallway. Permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes no rebuttal. To assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or Business Card to the clerk. The board welcomes your comments. There are Customer Satisfaction forms available. If you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. This meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. Dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. Thank you for your attention. Well conduct our swearing in process. If you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do after youve been sworn in or affirmed please stand now do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do okay. Thank you very much commissioner president honda one housekeeping has to do with with 6 appeal item no. 6 Jennifer Creelman vs dept of bldg inspection. The property is located at 143 corbett avenue. 143 corbett avenue has been withdrawn and not heard this evening move to item one general Public CommentPublic Comment at this time, members of the public may address the commission address the commission on matters that are within the commissions jurisdiction and are not on todays agenda. Anyone would like to speak under general Public Comment please step forward now seeing none, commissioner comments and questions. Commissioners . Nothing thank you and item 3 commissioners approval of minutes march 29, 2017. Do we have any additions, deletions, or changes and if not have a motion to accept those minutes so moved. Okay any Public Comment on the minutes . Seeing none, then a motion from the Vice President to adopt the minutes on that motion commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda commissioner wilson commissioner swig thank you that motion carries next item is jurisdiction request item four item no. 4 jurisdiction request subject property at 1139 Market Street. Was filed by joseph asking the board take jurisdiction over the Building Permit application which was issued on march 2 by the department of building inspection the period end and the jurisdiction request was filed on march 27 the permit holder is dee dee and patching walls for laundry and a bath tub and shoulders on twostory and threestory to comply with the violations all work complete under the Building Permit application and we can start with the requester below thomas when youre reaready thank you gary. Good evening and welcome. Good evening. Im here to call attention to the deplorable places in one hundred sros my opinion the National Hotel was beyond rehabilitation but the first one should happen the permanent residents should have been relocated and look at the work should have about this approved by someone the crew taking a year to perform would have been could done by professional craftsman i have pictures of ceiling of the first floor water dripping from it and i believe this is coming from the two showers in the southeast corner of building which were suggestion of my original complaint over sometime last year and which yet to be remodels the let us begin were not for my complaints the tenderloin vermin would be a firetrap and change the t h c were cosmetic the rats the boiler and the leaking and inoperable showers have been addressed by my complaint most people railroad not aware that randy shaw is responsible for the builder inspector and thats why dbi looks the other way i talked with tenants and visited t H C Properties the same with bedbugs and other vermin unworking elevators and wiring and cigarettes and or hot water and lack of fire exits those gentlemen have been sued under the substandard remodeling i took a lawsuit i promised not to challenge if the work was done properly in a timely matter free rent ive spent a lot of time due to the constant noise and interruptions of water the building is in a state of occasion for the past two years and recently got working showers it as far as im concerned, they should get free rent while the work was ongoing so thats the story the situation still exists. Thank you. Thank you okay. Okay well hear from the appellant now. Good evening and welcome. Richard from hanson for the permit holder this jurisdiction request is without merit should be denied if the board worries about to go into the merits we have the gentleman present. Im sorry can you, you speak into the mike, sir. I shall thank you. Should the board wish to explore the merits bill the permit holder who posted the permit and job card right after it was issued on april or march second is present his son is present tobacco elizabeth from the little housing clinic took over their housing says that a weeks ago and ready to go next week with the full operation once the permit in question is signed off tomorrow subject to being final sign off tomorrow the work is done we put in photos from before we can go into it in great detail but no merit to this jurisdiction request should be denied. Are you done, sir our i have a question so is there you stated still active leaking is it correct. Im sorry. The person stated that there is active leaking on the property if the showers above. A leak it is in the hotel but down in the store below in of the commercial space that is being worked on that is a separate motivator i think there is a separate nov that was issued because of that. No leaks inside the hotel, sir. Thank you thank you thank you. Inspector duffy. Good evening, commissioners joe duffy dbi the Building Permit on request is a former 8 overthecounter permit that was presented to dbi on the second of march 2017 approved on the second of march as well and then going and patching walls for laundry that is on the twostory and threestory to comply with the nov all work is complete a references on the earlier permit t the only issue i see with the permit is something the district inspector wants when you take out a bathtub we like a set of drawings it is something well ask for during inspection and for the construction of a wall we would like to see that there is a wall i see there is a wall constructed i spoke to the plan check staff and thats the only reason we should be asking for a drawing that can be done under a provision request i thought ill mention that im available to answer any questions. You keep the date of the permit. The permit was issued on march the 22017. The 22 im sorry the 22 of march. My question that would be what the g c is on the project. The permit was under the billiard i didnt see anyone apart from the owner. Thank you inspector. So inspector duffy where is the line drawn between work what which is approved by the builder inspector that turn out to be just bad work. Because you can higher a contractor does the work according to the statutes get the sign off and then short time later that work is shown by a leak or whatever to be not so good work so where are we on this spectrum of something in fact, it approved and should be approved by builder inspector but the work is not good and how does the public deal with that. I dont know if we are dealing with that here. Thats a good question all work this is done under our permits is done to the electrical and plumbing codes well expect that under the the code is standard you shouldnt have leaks so it should, inspected and certainly tests to check for leaks and the pressure i mean the pressure of the lines to be sure no leaks this should happen and on the bad workmanship sometimes, it didnt come into code didnt kick into the type of workmanship should be under the construction of that nature has to do with with the contractor and the clinic. Many of the walks in here the work was shoddy and builder inspector shouldnt have approved it the work is done to a minimum standard by the code inspectors but didnt mean the work is. Thats correct yeah. As long as it meets code for us i mean, if you go into someones kitchen it is finished and the door is crocked i mean it is not going to have a flag i see that all the time it is unfortunate but as long as it meets code thats what we check for the workmanship should be good, of course, it should be and not a minimum standards thats the standard; right . The Building Code is minimum standard thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you any Public Comment on this item . Are you the permit holder no your time to speak was under the time allotted under our team so seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. He never heard the requester explain why there was an issue. So. In his brief. In his brief im talking about his testimony all i heard was complaints about the workmanship and refer to the brief than the permit holders i believe submitted evidence they had posted the permit. Which is what i was going to say. Im inclined to deny the question. I concur the standard is high and the threshold has not been met without future dialogue would someone like to make a motion. Deny the request that the city didnt contribute to the lack of time limits on the appeal. Okay. Thank you on that motion from commissioner lazarus to deny this request formulate jurisdiction. Commissioner Vice President fung commissioner president honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig that motion carries the request is denied move on to item items 5a, 5b, and 5c shall be heard together. Item 5c 1049 Market Street vs. Zoning administrator. The property is located at 10491051 Market Street. Against the Zoning Administrator or the department of building inspection with the Planning Department 1049 Market Street vs. Zoning administrator. The property is located at 10491051 Market Street. Of a Building Permit application asking the department of building inspection revoke the Building Permit application because of Planning Department buildings the permit violates the planning code and the revocation on may 27, 2016, at the request of the Planning Department on the basis that the permit violates the planning code the planning code meets the notice of violation demolition of office walls and approving the tentative agreements for successor memoranda of understand between sfmta and transport of a notice of violation and penalty by the planning code for efforts to convert the residential unit and unauthorized units without a conditional use authorization and we will start with the appellant and ill ask that folks standing in the aisle to take a seat we need to keep that clear because of the fire code requirements. Good evening, counsel. Bryan pta patterson that is subject to extensive briefly that is the luxury we often have with long page limits for a brief between the 3 briefs youve received something along the lines of 80 pages of argument and hundreds and hundreds of pages of exhibit ill keep my oral remarks brief. Hold on sf has the Police Commission on one second stop the clock please. This is more interesting i wanted to go to the Police Commission meetings. Thank you thank you, mr. Patterson. Thank you ill restart thank you for your time this evening Bryan Patterson on behalf of the appellant, llc appreciate our time tonight and your attention to other unusually long brief with 3 consolidated brief filers in those actions i think the over arching point id like to convey in addition to everything that is detailed out in the brief for you tonight there is a process that should have been followed regarding this property and the city didnt properly follow the city tried to come back in targeted actions against that Property Owner has broken with the basics of zoning law and existing city law and state and principle to fairness and more importantly for the tenants safety living in a building in rooms and spaces without rescue windows which is a great concern if youre a landlord were familiar with the ghost ship incident if we are in the position of a owner of that property or similar property i think well having all have similar concerns and want actions that Property Owner spent years trying to address those problems in a way that complies with the code and legalize the residential use no viable pack to do that and faced with that unavoidable conclusions that Property Owner made the decision it had to abate notice of violations in the unlawful residential uses of the property weve gone through a process before this board and before state and federal courts including overturning a previous decision of the board in a decision from the judge which was remanded back to the board unfortunately, the city departments jumbled the gun and this board had an opportunity to decide the issues that are the failing issues in this case, the departments took their own actions and those actions are what were here challenging their preempted by a about depend on future Court Decision the board, of course, has the authority over things and lacks authoritative other ceqa and in this case, the undermining permit with that said, i think that a lot of the details is very well spelled out i want to add a couple of things to the record for the boards consideration starting with a recent declaration from qualified real estate prior and if i can i have the overhead, please . The overhead is showing this is stuck not showing the bottom but for the record this is a declaration of in support of appeal and im going to read it into the record States I Lawrence declare as follows im an independent real estate consultant and president of the firm of associates inc. Over thirty years in the profession i make this declaration based on facts known to me except the facts on beliefs that i believe to be true i submit this declaration in support of above captioned field and 10491051 Market Street the property in or about 2016 i completed this appraisal users a Comparable Properties on Market Street and the income approach users the zero zero 5 percent which are industry methodology my analysis take into account an anticipated renovation of one hundred dollars plus and tenant improvements totally 750 for the city and county of San Francisco regulatory actions including the enenhancement the resolution ordinance number 3, 3 dash 16 and the revocation number 201307262890 the permit the renovated value of the property approximately 37 million plus to 40 million attachment is a true and correct copy of my curriculum i declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct dated april 5th signed by lawrence and turn the page to exhibit a the boards videorecord this is the qualifications of cb of lan lange and lastly for the record page two ill offer a copy for the boards file as well as copies for the members of the board if the board would like to choose to accept that. And i think that commissioner president honda is indicated the board is not interested in receiving that thank you for the opportunity to present that and we have one other piece of evidence id like to introduce from mr. Gall. Mr. Gal be sworn please. Commissioner president honda. Can you pause his time as we do that thank you gary. If you request raise your hand do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. My name is john a representative of the owner 10491051 Market Street after researching the issue speaking with several Real Estate Professionals 10491051 Market Street is not capable of a salsa as a result of the party in my declaration in support of this appeal thank you. Mr. Patterson well not be accepting that copy either. Thank you. So clearly commissioners the actions of the city have deprived the permit holder of a tremendous amount of value in the property obviously taken the arguments. Thank you for your time. A question you made a comment in our remarks the citys actions will be preempted by this board the boards decision then wouldnt our decision here fall under that same category. On a different appeal commissioner there is attorney for the permit holder in response to yo