Have cases before the board Scott Sanchez Planning Department and representing the Planning Department and Planning Commission and joined by joe duffy representing the building inspection the completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today will appear on the permit holder have 7 minutes inform present their case people affiliated with the parties must be conclude their comments within the 7 minutes and please speak into the end of the microphone to assist the board with the preparation of minutes youre asked not required to submit a Business Card to board staff theyre available on the 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. Please note any of the members may speak without taking mroound and rebroadcast on fridays channel 26 now well swear in or affirm all who want to testify mroound if you intend to testify and you wish to arranged and say i do after you have been sworn in please remain standing do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . Okay. Thank you commissioners we have one housekeeping item this evening thank you we have one this has to do with item 7 ab we justify received a withdrawal of those appeals will not be heard this evening back to number one general Public Comment if anyone would hike to speak on a matter between the board subject matter jurisdiction not on tonights calendar anyone for general Public Comment seeing none, well move to item 2 commissioners questions or comments commissioners. Yes. I would like to thank mr. Pacheco our past clerk for all our service that that was and wish him all the luck in florida. Any commissioners comments any Public Comment on item 2 okay item 3 the boards consideration of the july 22, 2015, minutes commissioners any additions, deletions, or changes deletions to the minutes if not may i have a motion to approval of the minutes. So moved. We have a motion from commissioner Vice President honda to do you want the minutes any Public Comment on this motion . Seeing none, then we will call the roll starting with commissioner president lazarus commissioner fung commissioner wilson commissioner swig thank you the that motion carries 5 to zero im not sure what to do with the next item without inspector duffy here hes been detailed commissioner president lazarus its a short item item number 5 for two rehearing requests on eureka street the board received a letter from the appellants for the appeal number 071 and 2 for the dbi actually now im reading this may be we cant hear that one either. That is also dr related so the only one that isnt involving the department of building inspection is item number 9 so shall we move on to that one. Okay all right. My apologies to the audience well call the next davis versus the Zoning Administrator on beach street protesting to b. J. Request for release of superstition asking the department of building inspection release the suspensions because the Planning Department is saying the elevator is constructed in substantial conformity with the approved plans i wish to disclose he have an existing relationship with the reuben, junius rose as council on a separate project reuben, junius rose of the entity will not have any effect on any decision today. Madam clerk perhaps check to make sure that both parties are fully represented. Is the judge checking to make sure that the parties are fully here and represented. I see so and is there someone representing the permit holder okay i understand i mean to be clear we do tell all parties to be here anothers 5 oclock for those types of situations. Do we know how long mr. Duffy. Im texting him right now. Okay. Scott sanchez Planning Department while this is an appeal regarding the release of superstition for a Building Permit is involves the Building Permit i dont know if there will be questions about the Building Department it gets into the details of the agenda i know that inspector duffy is valuable in all those decisions. Actually, we dont need his presence here we can hear the case. Your california i prefer not to have us sit here for business i think theres no guarantee as to what time any item will be called. You want to proceed with the first case on the calendar item 4 . Okay we will then call item 4 which is appeal clemente versus the department of building inspection the property on presidio avenue protesting the project of on altercation permit remodeling the exterior walls on the fourth story on the 12 story front yard no work to the front facade were going to proceed shall we begin . But before he do i need to recuse in front of because of a financial issue ill ask someone to chair the meeting. So the appellant for item number 4 appellant please step forward. Okay. So you have 7 minutes to present your case. Good evening madam president and members of the board im laney architect for the appellant angle who are neighbors to the north of the project site we roll call request new conditions be placed on the permit along the Northern Property line that addresses privacy light and air for the walkway will be implemented on two levels under the expansion we filled the appeal because the project was not represented to the Planning Commission and Design Review i was not the architect at that point, the professional was turned away at the podium due to a procedural times allotment i was retained shortly thereafter more recently, we had to handle the appeal when the we had been hopefully, when contacted on may 29th they were trying to settle on the first 3 issues that were initially filed it would be amiss characterization to say we were the only one adding to the settlement we expanded simply to revolve any and all issues between the parties were not here to challenge the envelope but to request the conditions on the project that a refinement to cite specific issues the money indications you have all the documents there. You need the overhead. Ill continue because of the first condition. Overhead. Dont touch that, please. On the fourth story by removing the closet by the larger lightwell the scope will bring in more light and air to the staircase we were willing to accept a modification represent by the permit holder on may 29th that was issued before us and the second condition to add a note to the protrusions of the deck along the Northern Property line and the 3 foot setback was required by the projector planner no november of 2014 specific revision is consistent with the San Francisco planner to reduce the intrusion on the secondstory and insure the air clear of the features we know that vents and decks and things on elevations sometimes pop up unnaturally and the third condition to have a distance between the property this treatment will not meant to be requested as the our values will require installation of the exterior walls fourth condition to remove repair and replace the existing vents along the Northern Property line and an initial survey done indicated that the Property Line was that the fence that is on the common fence on the Property Line was there was encroachment and it was on the appellants property so, anyway we believe those conditions would have been well received during the residential design their humble and clearly dont impact the development ive watched the appellants but not seen it so for that extends to any concerns of the measures ive watched the board on complicated issues but modifying walls this is an opportunity to make an Immediate Impact to balance between the neighbors and refine part of the codes that codes that are designed to do large things to maintain the open factors of the city we have smaller goals i believe that codes can be refined in specific ways to accommodate specific site issues we thank you for the opportunity to present i do and hope youll be compelled to refine our code and restore neighborhood respect im going to turn it over to angle a dear members of the board im angel one of the owners of the presidio avenue thank you for the opportunity to be here tonight with any husband clemente our architect lonnie our neighbor john to appeal to you to please consider the modest concerns as a Real Estate Agent of years i know the value of light every buyer ive helped to purchase asked for light as a owner of presidio for 4 two years i appreciative my clients request and put o is it on the top of search list the classification is not correct our new attorney dennis has exchanged many emails and phone calls and a meeting with mr. Silverman in an effort to resolve this matter the negotiations were stand to resolve all issues between the parties and insure that the construction project itself preceded without problems because the project will block assess to the fence between our properties and the damage to the retaining wall that was important to correct that issue as part of the negotiations in that regard we understand the Property Owners we sent over an agreement an agreement that mature roof encroachments that will be acknowledged they responded on july 13th we need to remove part of the roof when by the suggested to understand how that would negatively impact they said no negotiation thank you very much for your time and attention maam. Yes. I did not understand that part about your roof is that encroach over the Property Line. Well, the 3 homes were built in 1939 to 44 those are the original roof the encroachment each roof is encroaching each other slightly about an inch and the surveyor told me that happens a lot what was important to us in the back and ive shown a picture there earlier sorry ill put this back our house is you see the white trim there and the fence is actually sorry im sorry im not vaccinated at using that the fence comes into our building that is how i actually. I understand i wasnt sure about that. The Boundary Line thank you. Thank you. Okay. Well hear permit holders im sorry. Im john. Your time to speak b will come up in a few minutes we need to hear from the permit holder. Im here on behalf of prorldz john and janet i have a power point presentation if you could bring up the graphic please mr. Vice president and commissioners, thank you for hearing us tonight i want to briefly review the project graphing to you understand the volumes and the minimal impact on the neighbors project review from the very outset for a modest with a ground story an upper store that was setback to minimize impacts on adjacent yards what you see is an excerpt of the residential guidelines it shows a prevailing wall a firststory fourth story is permitted if it is setback to be subordinate and fairly invisible from the public rightofway here you see the subject property in the middle surrounded by the adjacent buildings on the left is the appellants property and shaded you saw the new upper story edition it is heightened behind the participate that is shaded areas in green show you the addition you can see the ground story pop out doesnt extend into the rear yard and this you were story edition is set away from the Main Building wall to the rear making it less intrusive youve heard about the appellants 44 requests they called conditions the first thing is enlarge the lightwell our response is that lightwell is redesigned it and meets the residential guidelines it was supported by Planning Department staff and approved unanimously at a public hearing by the Planning Commission that will have some effect on the neighboring light in the lightwell but many effect is minimal it is a common place thing offer made the the family earlier to enlarge the lightwell more was contingent upon the appellants what are you this appeal and avoiding the appeal since that didnt happen that offer was pulled if the table on the left in plan out proposed building next to the appellants their lightwell or proposed let that matches in width the depth required by the guidelines the guideline excerpt on the right shows you an identical situation it is not as deep always the existing but meets the standards of meeting light and air to the lightwell second condition was to insure that there restrictions on any minor plumbing or mechanic or other pro tuitions from that area at the second floor depth weve already set the railing on that roof deck away from the Property Line at the request of the Planning Department and provided a glass railing there both to minimize the intrusion maximize privacy to the yard blow and that translucent allows the light that separates the house per all new construction meets the current code we expect that new construction will steady the noise on the properties of existing the Property Line with the restrictions took place with the appellants property is a bedroom we dont expect to have plumbing vents or other vents penetrating this location there are no restrictions on this property for those assembles and the code requirements that require fire resistant between the properties are adequate and on place on thousands of properties throughout the city nothing special the thirst condition is a similar one to isolate the prompt property walls will be with the code San Francisco requirements there is no reason to do anything special outside the coincide requirements to protect the adjacent properties again, no special circumstances so moving on to the fourth condition the fence along the Northern Property line that fence was recently replaced the Construction Cost was shared by both neighbors the folks were involved in the construction process and at the completion of the fence sent a letter or email they felt the contractor did a good job and happy with that as it turns out the survey shows on obstruction with the Property Line fence that fence is not part of psychologically scope of that permit not before this board and typically alleged the Property Line encroachment should be resolved outside this commission and that should remove the roof encroachment that is considering ably larger i have a photo that the commissioner is looking for in short, were sorry were unable to resolve this negotiations broke down and this project is modest entirely approvalable the Planning Department made no error and the unanimous approval not to take dr shows the Planning Commission supported this project so we respectfully request that you uphold the permit and allow this edition to proceed and then that shows the front Property Line encroachment of the ease of ogden property on the left thank you for your time. Thank you sir, the drawings dont talk about the party Property Line wall that much the installation you referred to are thermal installations very little acutely value. There are limits to the noise transition on the Property Lines an s t c. Thats on for condos. Thats only for condos. Thats right. Any, any case the chaublg have an can you feel benefit. Mr. Sanchez thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department that property is located within an rh1 sdrrn with the notification last fall between september and october of last year there was one discretionary review filed that was by the appellant the project was reviewed by the design team prior to notification and after filing the discretionary review request the Second Review the design team was taking into consideration the concerns by the appellant and requested that the first year deck railing be setback the project sponsor made those it went forward and it was approved and didnt take discretionary review and no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances this is a fully compliant the Residential Design Team looked at this twice both times with the change after the Second Review met the residential guidelines the commission uphold that commission and now before i on appeal very specific changes the department didnt find exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that warrant imposition of the conditions we dont agree with the presentation by the permit holder those conditions with not necessary it is a straightforward matter but available to answer any questions you may have thank you. Thank you. Mr. Duffy. Good evening, commissioners joe duffy dbi Building Permit has been issued as a site permit for the scope of work described and currently going through the addenda reviews an old because of the superstition i did not see anything that would alarm me on Building Code issues ive heard about the termination of the vents those are three to four feet depending on the type of vent used they would not be allowed to encroach above a Property Line but cant terminate on Property Line bring them up to the building to the roof at least three to four feet uaw from the Property Line no requirement for s t c installation in the walls not that im aware of theres a a entitlement for thermal installation and, of course, the typical Property Line with the requirement for the zero lot lines it is sheetrock on exterior and interior as well as siding on the outside so ill be happy to answer any questions sorry inspector duffy does the sheet rocks add any core value. That youre aware of. Not that im aware of unusual in the installation. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you now well take Public Comment. So Vice President honda 3 minutes 3 minutes. Thank you members of the board im john, i live on plain street i do have the common sense with 238 presidio fence when on 2014 we were called to having a premeeting to see what was going on i was assured that some sticks were going to be put on the property so we could see how high they were going to go and what impact of light, shadow and sun and Everything Else ive not seen anything im asking that i have the thought that my light and my air would be impaired also i heard there is a city of fences we the take away one foot of our fence in order to give more space to the property at 2 theyve is that that on the configuration if not, i have an encroachment of one foot from my property to their property thank you very much for any sir if you havent filled out a speaker cards please any other Public Comment seeing none, we have rebuttal from the appellant. 3 additional minutes. As an architect i release this is you know weve gone further in the process for doing the design modifications he must admit to being dismayed a simple lightwell theyre blocking on the third and fourth story if you look at it, it is so little to ask given their house is doubling in size so im sort of dismayed as the San Francisco is built and getting more dense and some people can afford more and some less small things that keep our city vital and respectful to the community that live there i guess thats all i have. I think that this is something very personal so therefore im not sometimes overly emotional but i heard a couple ever words i thought ill try to clarify i heard the word alleged it is not alleged the Boundary Line we didnt do the survey if im sorry the fence fell down in december of 2012 we agreed like Good Neighbors to rebuild the fence and share the expense it didnt cross our minds where the Boundary Line whether or not it was encroaching not until last year they built ill up to the Property Line we became aware the picture i showed you how can our if he has be building into our building thats the reason why we ordered the survey and discovered we have the retaining wall which is totally on our Property Line and the france built under the retaining wall about 8 inches sometimes 7 inches encroachment into our property of the fence thats why we ask for it to be corrected theyre building up to the Property Line and the other thing this is a modest project is not they have about 2 thousand square feet and adding 2 thousand square feet theyre building twice the size thats not modest im glad theyre doing it and happy but i wish theyd give us the neighbors a little bit of consideration thats all thank you. Thank you. Sir. You have 3 minutes of rebuttal. Thank you, commissioners im not going to take along this is a code complying project the existing home is 26 hundred square feet with the annexation about 39 hundred square feet you saw from the rear perspective it the modest not a lot of bulk on the roof it is assemble substantially we dont believe this is the vine to settle either the events of roof encroachment and respectfully request you uphold the project if you have any questions, mr. Silverman is here. I have a question sir, the fence permit is not in question here but if there is an encroachment and theres further litigation after the matter how does that effect the construction. Im not sure it does where the new wall would overlap the fence increase like i think a 4 by 4 member that is bolted in board on the side of retaining wall that goes up a ways and the fence support is lagged into that if any is absorbed by the new wall it cant be cut on the other side if the fence is to be moved. Okay. Thank you. Uhhuh. Anything further if the department mr. Silverman is there still time. Affidavit silverman for the sponsor just to clarify theres been a lot of discussion about the fence the fence were talking about is in the rear yard the appellants told us they intend to tear down the fence we have no objection no issue about the fence today thank you. Okay commissioners the matter is submitted. Well, you know theres a couple of points one is you know the old concept of a bird and hen probably should have been taken the question is whether the proposed plans volume does it present extraordinary circumstances with respect to the neighbor i dont think so i would have throughout the project sponsor would have wanted to create as much acoust acoustical isolation but one wall doesnt do that much it is up to them it is relatively easy to spend the to provide the acoustic separation for both parties other items i find not to be extraordinary in terms of us taking further action. I also concur with commissioner fung unfortunately, it guess not more good neighborhood relations and hopefully Going Forward something can be worked by the permit was issued enrolling and no Department Record in issuing this. Im in agreement move to deny the appeal and uphold the permit is the code compliant. Thank you. We have a motion then under commissioner fung to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it is code compliant the president is recused commissioner Vice President honda commissioner wilson commissioner swig okay that motion carries with a vote of 4 members thank you. Would you mind commissioner Vice President honda thank you very much while i call the next item okay. So were moving back to item 5 the rehearing of the subject property on eureka street the board received a letter if the appellants requesting a rehearing of the appeal versus beginning july 1st, 2015, at that time the board voted 3 to two to uphold the permits on the basis their code compliant the permit holder is charles and to remove the gas stove and pipes and update to code and the project as per notice of violations we start with the queries there are two items they have 6 minutes. Good evening thanks for hearing us tonight members of the board could i have the overhead. Please state our name im one of the tenants on the overhead i have a letter into Supervisor John Avalos given to the committee the commissioner have to agree whether or not to receive a new submittal. Two different supervisors supervisor campos and supervisor avalos in support of our case most important document in the brief that i wrote is on the second to the last page you wont mind looking at that its a summary of the the building inspection the department of building inspection looked at the 3r that was issued and on piece of paper they looked at the san born map in the previous times weve discussed how sand board maps may be wrong the change of use was not required by the city and another indication if the assessor that choose the two units i imagine they assess whether or not the tax are made and on the card it states 57 u represent streets 2 flaps 1987 the last time we didnt have this piece of paper but we didnt have it so were hoping you get look at it and see that the assessor property card we were talking about whether or not to look at that card or not if you put it altogether on the one side not positive evidence but on the other side of this question we say positive evidence that the Assessor Office has considered two units for tax purposes that an actual assessor visited the property in 1937 and decides there were two flats on the bottom it says recommendation to determine the legal occupancy in 2013 that inspection didnt occur the dbi made the decision of a singlefamily dwelling based on a permit filled out but a window contractor that installed 3 aluminum windows probably took him two hours. 3 hour report. And you can see the roofing never had a Cross Section and you know the building garage was put in under the how is it was actually put in the concept that was put in illegal behind the garage our house is the original drirm was evidences last time and it was testified to so this is a garage was put in into our apartment and you said last time you dont take assessors cards right here is evidence in the Planning Committee i dont know but it shows several things there is water taps are assessors records and sand born maps to make determinations about old houses so i hope you can take into consideration and weve been informed i have a disability here a note from my doctor asking to consider my wellbeing i dont know if you can read that or not sorry i really am amazed that board is willing to allow this to be removed without a walk into the dwelling how can a determination be made and as we showed you dpi sdp have convincing evidence for the manifest of injustice is happening here we ask you to look at the documents it need to be investigated i theres a will that here in the system that is going to allow several apartments with the a next to it id like to show you in a 15 walk through of my home there are several units 12 of them just from a 3 minute walk through all those houses have unit a we called dbi because of a health issue the landlord will be able to get rid of thousands of people with unit as this is unfair to us and unfair for the rest of the People Living in unit as im binge you to take time to bring time to evaluate the actual records and use your power to correct this situation and stop the manifest of injustice the city deserves better and you guys have the power joe duffy testified when you asked mr. Fong directly if hes familiar and not familiar with this case his testimony is strongly enforcing the decision of this court and it is clear that hes stated last time is was it was not the case i ask you to do whats right as our supervisors. Thank you. Well mare from the permit holder. We also have 6 minutes. 6 minutes . Uhhuh. Ladies and gentlemen, of the board my name is charles the Property Owner were now back at a fourth hearing concerning the permits recommended to my property on eureka the first hearing was held on april 29, 2015, in which the board upheld my alteration permit and a second hearing was held on june 3rd, 2015, in the same case because the appellants requested a rehearing this rehearing request was denied and my alterations permit was conformed by this board a third hearing was held ton july 1st, 2015, in the present case because the appellants appealed the electrical and plumbing permits required by the dbi in order to fix the attention permit the appellants made the same argument in their prior case and my permits were upheld by this board now the appellants have forced this fourth hearing bans a rehash of their previous arguments section 9 of the rules governing a request for hearing requests the Health Commission board grants the hearing request upon a showing of new or different material facts and circumstances have arisen and those facts are material furthermore, the appellants must state why any present was not produced at the prior hearing first, the review of the appellants oral arguments in the written briefs there is nothing new and if not all the arguments and obligations are already reviewed at the prior hearings even the exhibits attached to the requests for rehearing are basically the same as the exhibits in their prior mrooekdz excuse me. The appellants are here again simply for the purpose of detailing my compliance with the notice of violation their appeal must be denied based on the following appellants arguments have previously been addressed by the board in prior hearings both in the appeal case number 15043 and then the present case two, no new evidence or circumstances have been presented today appellants arguments is a wishful speculation without any documentation or support to support their position no manifest injustice to the appellants if their request is denied im 71 years old and retired and have been suppressed beyond reason by this details in that matter appellants action to date is the real injustice and cant be allowed to continue i therefore respectfully ask this board to deny the appellants request foyer a rehearing and allow me to proceed with the necessary work in order to abate the notice of violation thanks thank you for your time and consideration any questions . Thank you mr. Duffy. Commissioners joe duffy beginning on this case i think weve all heard a Building Permit that was upheld this the electrical and plumbing permit a rehearing request on that i the raise in the brief some comments im not familiar ill skip that my job up here is to look at what, if anything, action the Department Took in relation to the complaint notice of violation on a permit in this case not my job to know everything about the case in the last case i knew the details but that doesnt mean i know everything about the permit so the appellants were informed by Senior Housing inspection davidson if they got new evidence to bring it back to housing i believe the chief inspector was involved in that discussion as well a few months ago im not sure why they havent gone back to dbi with the information dbi have not reversed the notice of violation so therefore in my opinion all the permits are valid and the work needs to be done im not saying that to have someone evicted from a like where they live but im really saying where we have in that case a complaint filed a notice of violation issued and permits objected im available to answer any questions but up to the board in this case. Actually mr. Duffy there is a big difference between the appeal of those two permits and the hearing requests and the first one the first one has already passed that appeal was denied rehearing request was denied that being the removal of the unit whatever it took i dont know specifically you dont know now remaining the walls or cabinets thats in effect should the permit holder want to do this if we took this on and revoke this the only thing we can deny the new appeal or revoke an electrical and plumbing permit that means that the pipes can stay. I know i agree with you. I had a question the last time in regards to the gas meters there were to on the property i ask do the question on the notice of violation for remove what was the determination regarding the second meter are they good evening to cap it or have the meter removed completely if it is a singlefamily home why have a secondary meter. We have singlefamily homes with secondary meter but it is capped to the source so wherever that source is it has to be capped im not sure that means losing the meters or not. Thank you. I do have some information as well today he went to the Planning Department for the sand born map only for information it it doesnt matter if i can have the overhead the sand born map from 1950 has it it down as a dwelling it was in the brief as well document as well implicit i a document we used whenever theres a unit for clarification request greater a project sponsor and there i couldnt find any action sometimes, we when people obtain a permit to get the use of building and give them a new cf c i the a permit search that doesnt happen the permits were saying no action but if there was an ax it changed the 3r report to a one singlefamily dwelling. Following up on sxhunz question i think somehow to deny those permits then the project sponsors sitting with the permit to correct an nov but no ability to correct the nov; is that correct. Hes between a rock and hard place. Yes, sir. Thats right theres another avenue they were given the opportunity to go back im not sure if the assessors records will make a difference and where that would go if they got the notice of violation overturned by dbi maybe dbi will do something with the electrical and plumbing permits themselves i believe that recently, there was a case brought to the department of building inspection something similarly on the gerrero street there are avenues that they could go to if they so wished occasionally the department will reverse its call on some permits so maybe that might be an avenue for them as well im not sure there was nothing to stop them contacting Housing Services in between the hearing and the rehearing request im not sure why they didnt do that maybe something theyll followup with im not sure but a thought i had myself maybe that was possible an option for them. Okay is Zoning Administrator says he has nothing to add well call for Public Comment is there any . Thank you. Good evening commissioner president lazarus pardon me im jeremy a legislative aide to commissioner avalos and he brought up shortly youll be getting a letter from commissioner avalos weve become aware of this last night and trying to get my head around you have the opportunity to look at it more thor that issue raises concerns going back to the resolution you pass in april about this issue of notification 2, 3, 4 people if unpermitted unit and the lack of demolition permits and supervisor avalos is very concerned about the legislation in the lots affordable by stop sign and rent control housing in the city the appellants raised serious questions about the history of that unit and whether which switch kitchen is 9 original kitchen in the unit it doesnt seemed to me that has been fully roved commissioner avalos buildings this is a loss of one dwelling unit removed is hard to bare obviously we defer to yourselves and the bishgsz and glad to work to facilitate some resolution there is another way david chiu loud for the legalization of a second unit and from our reports this is an excellent candidate that wouldnt require too much work take into consideration. Any at Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, commissioners the matter is submitted. Nobody. Okay as mentioned before here this is before our board four times at this point our requirements for rehearing are very district requiring manifest injustice in that form has been brought before us in the past i the support and i descend on the last vote in this particular case i feel that this case has been properly vetted already. I feel the same as my fellow commissioners, i suggest the appellants follow the advice of mr. Duffy if they choose to go and take this any further im sthimic to the legislative aide and the points raise by mr. Al loss but i dont see a clear manifest injustice weve vetted this properly on multiple occasions therefore unfortunately or unfortunately, i think that ill side with my fellow commissioners on this one. Go ahead. You had a better job than i do thank you move to deny the rehearing request no new evidence or manifest injustice. Thank you a motion from commissioner president lazarus to deny those to requests on that motion commissioner fung commissioner Vice President honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig motion to deny the request passes and no decision will be issued the next item is item six the jurisdiction request the subject property on 20th avenue board received a letter query that the boards take jurisdiction over the application which was issued on may 14th the appeal period ended in 2015 and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on july 14, 2015, the permit holder is sarah oconnors treaty with the compliance to replace the kitchen sinks and removing the gas line and improve the Carbon Monoxide detectors and with hardware mr. Nolte you have 3 minutes. Im representing the tenants on this property can we turn this overhead on. You need to refer to it, it is working. What were here about is this Building Permit to remove a second lot in the building this Building Permit was filed to comply with the notice of violation and on the permit in the notice of violation clearly states there are two units on in the building now if you look at the permit applications it shows on line under present use it shows simply residential and on line 98 one unit interest if we go down on the next line it is r3 singlefamily and it does indicate on line 161 is in compliance of the notice of violation heres the second page to this permit application is it coming in okay youll note that this is the box for the city planning to sign off in ink they did sign off and here is the notice of violation which indicates i dont know if i have it in the right place it indicates there is field inspection sacrificing i says theres to dwellings therefore this is a removal of an illegal unit were asking this permit be south sent back ive not looked at the plans on this as indicated on the permit two sets of plans ive not seen them ive not be able to review them i went up to micro film today theyre not able to be reviewed thats the purpose for this being late because of the tenants were never notified we were not aware of this situation simply not aware even though theres a notice of violation they were not aware of the permit coming i have the tenants with me and they can say a few words. Good evening my name is a jimmy a tenant at 20th after the inlaw unit i do not want to leave yeah. Thank you. Im also living with him and same unit we dont want to be evicted thats our home. Thank you okay. Thank you we can hear if the permit holder now. Good evening, commissioners im jerad henderson the representative of the permit holder i want to point out that is a formally contested unlawful permit the tenants with the tenants and the occupant under sdor are is not a tenant have been represent by an attorney since january 27th advised them to talk with the dbi weve engaged in settlement discussions when my client which we thought was a legally created room within the building we found out that mr. Czar had put in a stove and vents not proper we had to start over and engaged in more settlement discussions got the permits to comply with notice of violation that was posted out at the property jimmy knew about that jimmy right there and the attorney know that this and known about the first duty it ended up dismissing were going to file a second one nothing theyve not been aware have to say their surprised by all this it highly, highly unlikely it is basically, their using this as leverage in the unlawful detainer it is made in litigation theyre aware of this and filing in request almost two months after the permits were obtained so i just think this is not the proper femur the superior court of california is the proper forum their misusing peoples time it is not about the permit but the settlement with an unlawful detainer case so counselor are you finished. Yes. So your saying they have full awareness that the permit was issued. Jim i didnt see name is on the complaint which i submitted in any paperwork if i could put it on the overhead. I read on the brief this is a family dispute. Every predating the eviction notice it is also regarding whos the representative of the estate and the Probate Attorney is here could a tell you about that as well. Thank you mr. Sanchez. Skwoomd so the subject property is list on all records we have as a singlefamily dwelling the Planning Department did review the permit in question thats noted in the system, however, staff did put on a and not access a fee for the review of it no notice required nun performed in b b n request on the property no reason that mop would have gotten notice if the Planning Department of this permit and no discretionary review for the this permit and as the case of the previous matter so with that, im available to answer any questions. Are they required to sign not under the planning code no, no requirement for posting are for mailed notice. No on the back of the permit apathy put n a and you said they reviewed it. They put their initials. Oh, thats their initials. So mr. Sanchez is the square feet on the property it is the Planning Department is the room illegal as well or the kitchen facilities. Whether or not the kitchen is illegal or not is a matter for the department of building inspection. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Duffy. Commissioners joe duffy dbi ill read the words on the permit and answer commissioner Vice President honda question i think it will answer itself thanks joe to comply with the notice of violation replace the kitchen sink remove the gas range and gas line to installed the approved smoke alarms and fix cabinets so the notice of violation was as a result of a complaint filed i thought i had the complaint and the details so the notice of violation startles off that positions by the housing inspectors inspector making the last legal use of the building is an r3 singlefamily dwelling with the permit application the ground floor consists of a ground room and two dwelling units the ground floor is convert into a separate game room as a bedroom and bathroom and kitchen and garage the permit research failed to produce the plans to remodel it to its present use this answers the question a permit in the 7 that was completed for rooms on the ground floor for a sfwrnl and earlier was converted to the illegal unit that was the subject of the permit to remove. Are you done. Yes. Inspector. So the rooms down are legal. Thats correct. The rooms and the bath are legal on the presence of the kitchen that is legally permitted; is that correct. Thats what it seems like yes. Thank you. Any Public Comment . Seeing none, commissioners the matter is submitted the reseem to be getting a lot of cases involving evictions and therefore the cosponsored nov and the permit appeals and the question. Was this permit faulty in its issuance i cant find it so im not prepared to submit to support the appeal director just a reminder a jurisdiction request so the issue was interest any our on error on the part of city in filing. I see what youre saying. I find no error on the part of city and therefore i cannot support of jurisdiction. Any comment. Move to deny the jurisdiction request. Okay. Thank you so that motion by commissioner fung to deny this request commissioner president lazarus commissioner Vice President honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig okay. That motion to deny the request passes with a vote of 5 to zero item 7 ab have been withdrawn with the valencia street not heard tonight well move on to item 8 young versus the department of building inspection with the Planning Department approval the property is on muniic street to alley wu of on alternative to remove the rooms and separate Electrical Permits are required were starting with the appellant you have 7 minutes to present our case. Thank you. Good evening im here here on behalf of the appellant requests the board of appeals deny the respondents application for the permit for additions and alternatives and repairs shes a chinese speaker living on muniic street with her husband and children she moved into the occupant in 2011 it is habitual except for the kitchen it will modify the kitchen this unit could be legalized the under the influence on creating the dwelling units in the maintaining of Affordable Housing removal of kitchen would be in direct contradiction to those policies additionally ms. Shoe appeals the application inform demolish the unit because the proclamation cantonese certain inaccurate information the first item of inaccurate information in item 9 of the application only one dwelling unit in the building dwbl is legal unit and illegal unit there are 3 units in the this are buildings one on the top floor one someone lives in and then the family of 3 on the ground floor and ms. Shoe lives in the basement theres also separate tenancies in the basement rooms that is not related to must shoes tenancies the second item of inaccurate information is that the respondent claims no change in occupancy there will be a change in occupancy because 8 People Living on this and 4 of them in ms. Shoes units shes received several letters that indicate that her landlord intends to evict her and precede with the demolition wu complains no notice the kitchens were built because she was residing in pier 30 32 that a family friend took it upon himself to modify the kitchens never saw the rent we find it highly incidentally probably her son lives in the top unit and still is in and out of unit also, we dont think her knowledge is relevant because her son is the landlord he owns part of the property and she had a property manager working for her we do think this is relevant that by allowing her to dont worry about the kitchen well be allowing the removal of another Affordable Housing in the city and in referencing what is already been said that the San Francisco housing crisis mayor ed lee in 2014 acknowledged we need to preserve the Affordable Housing for low income households and legal listing the dwelling units are important in the housing unit currently, the housing like ms. Shoes is not available for the price she pays 650 a month that costs upwards of three or four thousand dollars in the city of San Francisco they she is likely to lose this units but the possibility of legalization has not been determined by the dbi inspector and given the shortage of Affordable Housing in San Francisco we could make some sort of effort to encourage legalization from doortodoor we thank you for the opportunity to hear our appeal tonight and asking you to deny the application. Please state your name for the record. Im f. There are 4 separate tenants here arent there. A hotels. 8 people who live there. Tenants or separate tenants isnt there. In ms. Shoes units. In this building. In that building 8 separate tenants. Oh, 8 are separate arrest 8 occupant how many groups. Okay 3 groups of occupant was is a family of 3 that lives on the empowering one a family of 44 in the basement and a separate tenancies in the basement a room that is rent and that person has a separate relationship with the landlord. Okay. But i thought the top floor the second floor has United States top floor is the landlords son that owns a part of building i dont know what his ownership interest is. Are you aware sorry of the configuration is there a kitchen on the top floor as well. Yes. Thank you. Thank you no, but if you havent filed auto a speaker card you have okay. Great well hear if the permit holder. Be prepared good evening. Im jamie i represent the respondent permit holder chow wu were respectfully asking the board uphold the permit that is approved without conditions my client may moved to remove two illegal kitchens from the basement and ground floor levels on muniic street very quickly in response i want to point out my client more her son korean resides in the singlefamily dwelling the top prosecution or portion is vablthd and the ground floor is occupied and ms. Shoe occupy a basement level with another tenant legal use of this premise as a singlefamily home with one dwelling unit, however, as you may know it is used by at least 8 people as several separate dwelling units due to the presence of illegal kitchen on the basement tea ground floor levels of the home appellant appeals that alleging two permits in the position navigate the appellant is incorrect that was issued in cornerstones with the law and as a necessary step to convert the ground floor back to they are last legal use mistakes in the permit application that appellant allegations are actually not mistakes at item 9 a of the permit application the application asks the applicant to identify the number of dwelling units the number of dwelling units on the permit application is one ive stated the legal use is a singlefamily home second point that appellant allegations a mistake on item 24 that question asks whether or not the alteration will constitute a change of the occupancy that was answered in the negative that Entertainment Commission will not constitute a change of occupancy as restoring the premises to a singlefamily home id like to point out that it is highly unlikely that the basement level of this singlefamily home that ms. Shoe and her family could be legally occupied there is a kitchen it is my understanding it would be impossible to legalize the basement with a kitchen. I would like to highlight as ive done in any brief it situation is slifth distinguishable from on the board heard my client was not responsible for the installation of those kitchens or the leasing of this premise to appellant or any of the other tenants at the house my client made the unwise decision to leave the house under the control of a family friend to return to procuring that person installed the kitchens she leased out the spaces o to all those people my client is 62 years old not new desire to reside with a group of people she didnt know and would like to remove those kitchen to take position of house with that, im free to answer any questions you may have. The basement has two tenants are there too kitchens . The basement has one kitchen it is our understanding there are two separate tenancies in the baseme basement. There was another question but i cannot ill wait. I have a few questions counselor it was stated by the appellant earlier the landlords or the owner felt proposed lives on the top floor is that true or not. Not true. The owner never lived on the property. She the for a short period of time. Her son. I believe he lives with her and hes the coowner. How long did he live on the property. My client and her son purchased the property in august of 2009 lived there are inform a short period of time to take care of the sick friend. The son is pier 30 32. Is there current any litigation. Nostril killer but we already engaged in a brief bout of litigation in San Francisco small claims court. The rent that was received on behalf of was illegal taken by the project manager and my client has not seen a dime of that rent money and not septsd rent from the tenants residing in the room and pays for all utilities to the premises. Thank you do you remember. Yeah. In your brief you indicated there was some difficulties in procuring this permit can you elaborate on that. I cannot i brought a representative from our Contractors Office perhaps he can its my limited understanding that there may have been some other type of illegal construction at this home i dont believe it was done by my client maybe the previous owner and only came to light when in issue arose. Thank you. Well hear from the building inspection. A couple of questions were the improvements made the improvements of the illegal kitchens or kitchen made since 2009 . Yes. They were were actually not sure when those kitchens were installed i can tell you that prior to my clients purchase something actually made a report of illegal units at this property it was a fooshd property maybe prior tenants after the property was purchased they loud the dbi to inspect and the floor plan and consistent with a previous floor plan signed off under previous remodeling. Who funded the kitchens. It would have been the financial friend and project manager so no record of no record of funding the construction, the acquisition im assuming of equipment goes in the kitchen a ghost. This years nothing and trying to get information from the prior prompt manager has been difficult. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Duffy. Commissioners joe duffy dbi the Building Permit overthecounter approval on the undocumented level for kitchen determined for the plumbing and electrical separate electrical and plumbing primaries are riders the permit was actually filed in march of 2015 and issued in june 2015 there are no active complaints on the property i checked that today, there was a previous Building Permits on in 2005 to add a half bath and floor remodel the kitchen, kitchen slash bathrooms and fourth floor at ground floor and basement floor we signed off on august thirds 2005 given a certificate of final closed sessicompletionr remodeling the kitchen and abandonment by the dry rot that was in 2005 as well and that permit got signed off as well im available to answer any questions inspector duffy what physical inspectors have bun done to the property to date. The only physical inspectors i could tell you was for the Building Permits i referenced in 05 we havent been i dont think weve done inspections on the new permit it would have been suspected it maybe 10 years. It looks like someone is running a hotel out of a singlefamily dwelling and two units and someone has collected rent and no responsibility for the issue at hand. Okay. Thank you. Anything mr. Sanchez. Thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department the subject property is locate with the rh1 that allows a singlefamily dwelling has been noted the permit seems to remove two illegal units from the building they may be able to avail themselves to legalize one unit one of the two units because of the limbs bans all the Historic Records we have it does appear to be a singlefamily dwelling the Planning Department reviewed and approved the permit no nos and no dbi on the proposed no notification is required no complainants on the property requiring illegal use the department came in separate ill be happy to answer any questions youre looking at me scott. I dont know if you have any other questions. I do we have two inlaw units on the bottom level and according to the appellants they said someone living on the top and on the main level i mean what i mean since the legislation at that point supervisor chiu was passed in october ever 2014 well have many, many case 3 in a row to this point i think that the legislation is flawed but i mean what does planning have to do we have three or four dwells doesnt planning have something for running a hotels i mean. Certainly they have been operating in violation of the planning code this violation corrects that violation we kanltd retroactive penalize them we dont have this ability there is due process concerns i dont know if we can character the chiu legislation people are availing themselves people have to choose to 0 come in to legalize units people have contacted the department of building inspection that go through the check list to see if they cant legalize and probable had seems more people coming in to legalize than to remove thats the gut by the number of appeals. Do you you know how many have been approved. Ill get the reports and look at the numbers and get that information to you on rebuttal but i think that doesnt may have been approved typed. Was the the notice of violation a building or planning notice of violation. No planning enforcements on that oar would planning issue a notice of violation on that. Yes. It certainly could be you know we didnt have a lot of information on our end but two issues one the illegal unit only zoned important one unit and anything more is a violation and the concern perhaps to groupings is it being broke down or a hotel short term stays but certainly how it is described it violates the code but the permit corrects the violation so share your concern the people have profited from violations and maybe the time is convenient to correct it i wish we had the ability to access those penalties. But unfortunately, it boarded didnt see the ones that are trying to add only the ones trying to remove so from our stand point it is zero on the other. We have had a unit that could be legalized that could come here one day. Any Public Comment on that item. Okay seeing no Public Comment well take rebuttal from the appellant. Im sorry from the appellant first. First oh. You have 3 minutes for rebuttal. So first, id like to is whether or not the son or the coowner resides in the top unit is irrelevant must shoe and the other tenants in the building seen him come in and out and he resided there while there were illegal kitchens as far as the the responsibility is claiming her client has no knowledge and didnt contents consent i find this highly, highly unlikely a Property Owner with thousands and thousands of units for her so see no rents i think is also an inaccurate statements theyve only returned rent for the last year. Finally as far as benefiting from doortodoor those unions in 2015 the landlords told ms. Shoe theyre going to sell the house theyll be evicted at some point it seems as though they bought the property as an Investment Property and now convenient theyre trying to sell it, it is unfortunate for must shoe and the other tenants in the building because they approve the from the illegal units and benefiting them into bringing them into compliance with the planning code. Are you done. Question. Yeah. Who do the tenants pay rent to. I believe that was the property manager for a long time. Is that paid in check or money order, cashiers check. I can check that for you i believe they pay in money order. In cash. Hard cash . If you dont mind the crisis clients i can is that okay yeah. Thank you. Well take rebuttal from the council my client didnt dispute that is a unfortunately situation unfortunately for the tenants and my client but i would like to remind the board that the question before you here tonight was whether or not this permit was faulty if its issuance and the we are is no my client someable allowed to remove the kitchens her testimony the presence of her units creates a liability for her no notice of violation issued on the prophet one can be issued by the Planning Department and the Planning Department those concerns in addition to the ones regarding safety with having a kitchen on the ground floor level where it doesnt belongs concerns my client very much. What about legalizing one of those. I dont believe my client would be open to that as ive said earlier she this property was never intended to be chopped up and leased out to tenants she purchased that with a purpose of a singlefamily home. Who paid the mortgage. She pays the mortgage. And i have not yet seen evidence that the appellants could produce to show theyve made rent pavement to my clients directly or indirectly according to my client shes not seen any a payment. She was gone from 2009. From us from 2010 until 2014 a very a long time she was in touch with the friends and family regarding the property with no idea those units had been stalled and the house leased out discovered february of 2014 and immediately fired the property manager then he attempted to sue her the property manager alleged she was severed a no fault judgment and the court said she doesnt owe the property manager anything in 2013 did they do anything. It was only a short visit and retained my office in the summer. When they fired the property manager what happened to the rent and the tenants stopped paying represent they attempted to tender it on a few occasions to take a look around she wouldnt accept it recently then the last question is the appellants have said that the owner has been into the property many times and hes been peru. In the United States supportably and at the property. Sponsorly once or twice. I dont know for sure it had to be at least a half a dozen times. The son was aware of the kitchens from quite a long time ago and the mother. They both discovered the kitchens in february of 2014 they didnt know up to this time it had been done to the house. Thank you. Are you ready thank you. Thank you so they were paying in money order to the property manager until august 2014 when that they attempted to pay the landlords chung wu not her son chung wu responded she wasnt going to accept the rents. It was an eviction. She was going to use the nonrestricted payment of rent to offset any rent board mandated payment for evictions. Thank you. Thank you mr. Sanchez. Scott sanchez Planning Department in response to commissioner Vice President hondas question about the legalization process as of last week on july 30th the department of building inspection had received 2 hundred and 7 screening forms this is the first step to determine if someone is eligible for legalization 2 hundred and 13 followed through the Building Permit and 35 of those permit were about associated with notice of violations to correct and they choose to legalize the units rather than removing them of the number of permits issues or issued are 47 and further 11 more permits approved and ready for issuance waiting for the owners to pick up and pay the fees. Thank you mr. Sanchez. Mr. Sanchez just to refresh me there is an rh1 it is allowed one additional unit. Correct there is a been described as an amnesty for illegal listing units they can do it up to one unit. Legal nonconforming. Legal noncommon right. Up to two units. I believe up to two units but increases when you have 10 units in the building a they told her to go to two more thats our recollection but they can only legalize one. Mr. Sanchez in this case we have an appeal by one of the tenants and have you knowledge or should we ask someone else where are we other two tenants in that picture. I dont know what the status is i think one of the parties to the appeal would best know the status of the tenants in the building. Mr. Bottom of the hill barred so you there are 3 tenants currently two downstairs and one on the main floor, one is the appellants where are the other two . I dont know the answer to that question. We talked to those attendance multiple times and didnt receive a response. Have notice of evictions offend to the remaining tenants. The permit was superintendant but given a 60 day with the relocation experiences and my client will be paying at least 20,000 and then shell payouts the other tenants. Can he hear if the appellant on that matter please. One of the tenants that lives think the ground floor is here lee chung im not sure whether the last tenants who lives in the single room on the basement. But both of the families have one person here and what about the main level someone on the main level. I referred to the ground floor is what youre saying is the main level. The main level and garage level so thank you. I have the last question. Yeah. Your appeal in our brief your request is only that we revoke this permit or deny the permit. Uhhuh. What about the oh, never mind okay. It would be been a rhetorical question. Im glad i can bring some joy. Mr. Duffy anything. Theres a question for you. Actually not quite sure how to phrase the question whats the proper way to file out this permit when youve got a illegal people in there. Thats a good question the Building Permit is filed out correctly when you fill out a Building Permit application it asks you for the Legal Distribution of the building the legal description is at singlefamily units with one dwelling unit known as an r3 and a legal 3 unit would be an r2 from 3 to one it legally will be a change of occupancy or adding units from r3 to r2 in answer to our question had you fill out the box the number of illegal units it is the legal number now how many are in the building. And the same for the number of occupants. Theyre not dealt with theyre talking about the occupancy whatever youre talking about the Building Code the occupants under the Building Code so the residential is r3 or r2. What we see sometimes, people adding units to say theyve legalized it when they bring in the permit. Sorry. What theyre saying is 2 units we see that in reverse. In the description of the work thats where you describe your removing the kitchens sinks it sometimes says illegal unit but not rescued in the permit like youre losing a dwelling unit not the proper way to do it. Mr. Duffy permit language is terminate the gap what does that mean to you. We spoke in one of the earlier case that was dealt with the plumbing acquisition but cap the gas lines to the source you have to remove the source. Where it candle stick park at the source that would be a few places but usually it means to take the gas piping whoever the work from an illegal area to a legal remove the gas piping to wherever that gas stove it might not be far but not putting a cap on the end of the gas pipe if the gas pipe was installed from the mainline. In the olden days theyll by the time let you cap it behind the stove. It is remove any work without the benefit of a permit. Thats likely the water heater is down there. Okay. Commissioners the matter is submitted. I guess ill start i was going to share my rhetoric alter question it is a volunteer i understand program and you know the fact that a supervisor would want us to take over and basically take on a policy position it does reflect their flaws in the city in what the city is trying to do, however, the question here an actual twofold the question is whether this permit was issued in error but the rhetorical question if youve got of the Property Owner wanted to legalize it 2 people or tenancies are out related to our question it is same thing who gets to pick that at this point, im afraid i canned support the appeal. I concur with a slight variance i think with because of history of that property and the amount of occupancy and the level of occupancy id like to see the building inspection make a inspection on the property to determine what is physically there so the permit is we dont do this rhetoricly and find other kitchen on the property and other nonpermitted and illegal usage i would i personally feel to continue this until the building inspection can make perhaps what i was dind to do also to condition this permit that utilities be removed from the basement. You want to mr. Duffy move that on . And just i want to respond to commissioner Vice President hondas request if the building inspection wants to go out there as of this time no active complaint on the property if we go there and see the illegal conditions are we writing a notice of violation then were back with the earlier permits it sounds like dbi has not seen the conversion apparently we never got called out. Even after this hearing because of this hearing the tenants can call 311 and file a complaint and those permits would be appealable; right . Exactly. This could gone for quite a few. It will more likely come from the tenants. Why issue an nov if there are a permit request to get rid of everything illegal. It is illegal until removed. They cant remove it youre putting them in an awkward position. But that is if i i mean, i feel someone is profited gridlock at someone expenses at someones expense here you know and when you ran a property not everybody is completely aware that the unit is legal or legally some people go into nonpermitted and illegal spaces were in a great shortage of housing in San Francisco and weve seen them with valid lowes leases 26 years and they felt that was a legal property and unfortunately, this legislation has caused a loophole we see our board actually sent something in regards to that i mean, i understand but like i said after this hearing the tenants could call 311 and ask for an inspection and that permit is then appealable as well. Thats right. Only in if a new permit if this permit corrects it, it is before you. Unless they find anyone else anything else view the property to make sure if someone as blatantly done that amount of work its not held to that area i imagine that a house has electrical plumbing and heating that several of the other aspects and systems have been affected legally. I have a question for the permit holder attorney excuse me. Mr. Duffy unless you have you filed for a permit to take out is an illegal kitchen to the best of your knowledge is there other work to convert this to a building occupyly. My understanding dbi was given plans of the allowing lay out of the house and no other violation were identified. That was im sorry. No, im sorry to interrupt they had an issue with what should be storage rooms uses and bedrooms. You said earlier in your statements that your sellers were unaware of the what had been done to the property no, if idea so how do you know the electrical and plumbing and roofing and foundation has not been scombrauftd if you didnt, 3 other illegal units. Shes conducted multiplied inspectors r inspections having contractors. Do you have a written inspection of the property. I dont the contractor doesnt prepare one. A verbal situation. Inspector im sympathetic to your point of view and in support. Youre still going with that; right . No, i understand where youre going with that im trying to provide a condition that will help you with that im sort of in commissioner president fongs position the condition on this would be very simply because as mr. Duffy spoke of theirs a litany and significant documentation of upgrades and permitted construction just prior to the purchase of the home in 2009 so the condition might be to remove the kitchens and back to end and the home back to the permitted conditions through as of the last legal permit. That actually is my clients intent. Well, what i would do noted even give them the option of that intent but make that a condition of this ruling and deny the appeal with the condition that the that intent become a requirement. Certainly. Is that a motion. I think ill make that motion. And deny the appeal with the condition that the home be returned to the standard that was last approved by the department of building inspection during the last permitted renovation. I think mr. Duffy has a question. Whilst he gets up there it it was me and i was the tenant i would see if there is anything on the permit and file a notice of violation if there were me. Just i do agree with commissioner swig and commissioner Vice President honda that is does seem to have a valid permits and signed off and it looks like the installation of kitchens were dealing with here maybe the using the storage room as a breem and stuff like this but the fear we have they get the permit and never do the work and never complete the work that is what happens someone else moves in the market that is can we put this permit is good for 12 months that gives them 120 months no standing violations i dont know if the board can put restrictions they complete this work and show evidence that the work is completed within a framework the permit code will expire. What would be if we conditioned it what is the penalty any penalty it is the same as the permit had expired. Yes. It certainly it seems to me that the permit holder is intending to restore this im not quite as skeptical as Everything Else. Im not skeptical but a fair point i am not skeptical but my motion id like to ask of the City Attorney can we tighten the condition youll make me work for my money tonight. Within the 12month period that that is a condition of the motion be implemented and well sorry to interrupt but what a notice of violation on the property a thats the deeds restriction theyll not been able 0 refinance or sell now and then none of that is applicable with the deed restriction sorry. Tom owen City Attorneys office im afraid that once you deny the appeal you basically will given up jurisdiction over the matter im not sure how it comes back to you how we would enforce it. If we put a condition thats my motion conditional on returning the home back to the most recent approval by Building Department im trying to pit teeth. No teeth. Plus the fact that it gives it a blanked permit we dont know what has been changed since 2000 whatever we disapprove with the tenants. No. Theres no question for you im sorry. So is do you have a motion then. Yeah. I made so my question for your motion in order to make it is difficult 90 to not know the changes if necessary to in order to bring that back to its previously condition i think that is your motion. If this is difficult deny the appeal. Okay. It would be well need to coordinate with dbi to find out what recreations are needed to the permit thats the challenge. I understand ill change my motion deny the appeal based on that is. Permits ways issued correctly. So the motion from commissioner swig to deny the appeal and uphold the appeal that was properly issued. Issued. Okay on that motion marry commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus commissioner Vice President honda and commissioner wilson no arrest theres a vote of 4 to one that motion does carry and the permit is upheld. Quick break okay quick break. Welcome back to the wednesday, august 5, 2015, meeting of the San Francisco General Hospital were calling item 9 again appeal todd davis versus the Zoning Administrator the property is on beach street for b. J. Real estate for a request of a release of superstition release the two permits the Planning Department includes that the penthouse was not removed by the Planning Department and in conformity with the approved plan. Director i made an earlier dloeshg demolish i have an existing existing relationship with the reuben, junius rose i hired the reuben, junius rose for appearing before the board will not have any effect on any decision today. Well hear if the appellants attorney you have 7 minutes. Good evening, commissioners im showing 3 minutes on this i dont know show i oh, there you go im nicely and i represent the appellants todds district Attorneys Office davis an the overhead is a picture of the project overhead please. It is 721 beach street right next to breft breft cafe a penthouse on the 40 foot Tall Building and todd davis is asserting that both the neighbors and this commission this board was deceived in the prior hearing led to building this would be just 8 foot high penthouse the small as needed to be on the lead up the project neighbors appeal to this board following the approval the project by the Planning Commission when the project sponsor was meeting with the commission on the bulk and scale the project sponsors lead the neighbors to building that the project sponsor has removed the large penthouses from this units from that building appellant and i sincerities that that deception deseat continued when they presented plans given to this board that do not reflect what was being built which was exhibit c to the appellants brief which shows as you can see and roofline theres no elevator penthouse shown that is the first page of exhibit c no elevator penthouse this is what the project sponsor presented to this board that the penthouse was minimal if it was even existed at all project sponsor in their brief assert that the drawings in our c exhibits of our brief were just wrong because of the facts or copy this was what was presented to this board slowdowns showing the elevators did not appear the version in the c exhibit is in color but it is what this shows i have the color version for the board if we want to take it. Project sponsor did not provide the approved planks we never saw the approved plans more did this board at the last hearing which say was the attachment a i believe to project sponsors perceive on this and but this is what the appellant or the board project sponsor was saying what was going to be built project sponsors incorrectly when it and i sincerities that page 3 of b of their brief the skater penthouse is constructed consistent with the plans by the Planning Commission and by this board this board approved plans showing no big penthouse at project sponsors exhibit c page one the penthouse is shown at the merging is only 9 feet tall so the Planning Commission didnt approve that penthouse project sponsors at neighborhood merging repeatedly lead the appellants to building this would be 6 to 8 feet tall penthouse area and that was at 3 different meetings at least and we have in our exhibit e we have 3 people that are attest to that project sponsors have never stated how it is that a penthouse over 8 feet is required under the ada the rational being used in their hearing before when then commissioner fung was asking about that they dont touch on that now the ada aushlt can be viewed as a red herring because in their page 19 of their exhibits showing the approved plans only a residential rooftop only a residential rooftop for the one residential unit being built any number of single unit buildings dont have an elevator thirty to their rooftop roof deck that was repeatedly saying that penalty would be 8 feet tall in the brief that project sponsor attached as exhibit b at page 2 at the bottom of the second line it states in theyre in writing the penthouse is supposed to be 8 feet tall now that was a neighbor saying it go nobody disabused the board of that notation that was an 8 foot tall penthouse so it gets to be a problem that the integrity of the hearing the last hearing is really in question and if why have neighborhood meetings, why have a Planning Department review this when we can bring us documents that show theres no opinionated going to be up there neighborhood meetings where it is lead to building 8 feet tall, 6 feet tall the Planning Department failure not to point out that discrepancy in the prior hearing thats why the permit should stay in place. Thank you. Thank you commissioners john with reuben, junius rose on behalf of the folks jeff and eileen have a long presence in the neighborhood for thirty years jeff was on the Fishermans Wharf with the appropriate development i have to frankly say i take it a bizarre appeal to respond to it is absolutely false the elevator penthouse is not indicated in the plans theyve been in the Building Permit plans the plans that the gentleman showed
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.