There . I can say theres no requirement in the planning code for lighting on decks. I would defer to mr. Duffy if there are any such requirements in the building code. No Lighting Except that mandated by the Building Department. And i dont know if theres any in the building code, so i would defer to mr. Duffy. Okay. Thanks. He looks very pained. Good evening, commissioners. Joe duffy, dba. That type of lighting wouldnt come into plan a singlefamily home, like emergency lighting like you see on a highrise building. But if they have a roof hatch up there to that, youre going to need lighting to get off of that, so its more of a common sense approach. We do see track lighting in the floorings of decks. Now, there would be a light requirement inside the stern in the lower area, so its really there isnt a code provision, i wouldnt think, as much as your common sense sense code. Well, theres some general comments in the code that talks about that. Yeah, but no emergency lighting. Theres no such thing as that in a singlefamily home. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your illumination. Oh, youre so im so okay. We have two issues. One deals with the height of the building, and the other, how far you want to strip the deck down. Im fine with the height. Ill live with that. Yep. Okay. They lost the pen how tthou. Im not fond of decks, as everybody here knows. No. But you have to allow normal usage. So do we allow a barbecue pit . Maybe a freestanding barbecue . Okay. I see the fire pits a no thing. What about the permanent structure in regards to the storage, the 15 feet by 36 inches . Is that a no . Im not supportive. Im not supportive. Okay. So thats a no. So what are lets go the other way. What are we actually going to allow on the deck . No lighting. Well, we have to have some lighting. We established that already. Minimal requirements as peregress perthe city and code. Yeah, thank you, youre welcome. So no gas service yutensils. Okay. So no permanently affixed gas to the property. How about heaters, because it gets cold . Then, that there you know, thats where we thats the thing. Well, he can use the temporary five gallon ones that he can just fill. Unless were going to be here all night. Anything thats portable. How do you want to phrase it . I dont know. Just think about enforcement, please. Mr. Teague, you look eager to jump up here. Joe, you, too. You guys can come together. I dont want to speak any more than i have to, but just wanted to say that in your discussions, which things about wanting to prohibit or permit when it comes to open flames or cooking facilities is just what are you trying to prevent . Is it light, which the fire pit would create a light source . Is it danger from fire and cooking . Is it gathering around cooking and serving food . And if its more of that, you maybe want to be more comprehensive in just no cooking facilities, be it in that area or not. Just whatever youre trying to prevent that would kind of help guide what you prohibit. So no cooking facilities, no permanent storage facilities, and no permanent Lighting Except that required by any safety provisions. And no four story, going future, perpetuity. Nsr . Yeah. Is that a motion . Yeah, i guess its my motion from before, with the modification that the that the new building height, with the exception of the how do we get the how do we get the new building proposal in there . Isnt a permit on revised well, we have the revised plans, which youre asking to be modified to eliminate this lighting, cooking, storage that you just discussed. So its the motion motion from before with the opportunity to move grant the permit based on the revised plans, with the exception with the restriction. With restrictions to a limit of no more than a 500 square foot deck and and restrictions with regard to no cooking, no permanent structures, and no permanent lighting with the exception of that required for safety purposes. We need to say no cooking . I just want to be clear. I im okay with that, but you know what if thats thats what mr. Teague suggested, so and and no fire pit, which would go along with lighting. And just to be specific, no additional fourth level. Okay. So the motion the motion from commissioner swig excuse me. Mr. Duffy would like to speak. Welcome back, joe. Sorry commissioners. Just when the word permanent structures, i think fixed would probably be better than permanent, because people do bring things up there that are movable, but fixed and permanent would be better if thats okay. I would accept mr. Duffys friendly well, i need some clarification because i dont understand, then, if that means someone can bring a fire pit a portable fire pit with a propane tank. That is not fixed. Its just plopped down and taken away or if they cant. So like i said, no fire pit, no cooking. And weber okay. So a heater, they can bring out if they want, thats not fixed. I am raising this because its going to become an issue with the neighbors. No, then no then no barbecue on the roof, really . Really, youre not going to let this is what were trying to protect. Yeah, i think no fixed is fine. No fixed. Okay. And that would include any gas utensil, i guess. Is that better terminology, including a fire pit or cooking. Or no permanent gas supply. Fixed. No permanent gas supply to fourth level. I think the propane tanks in the area was okay, then . Yeah. Okay. Okay. So the motion, then, from commissioner swig is to grant these four appeals, issue the site permit on the condition the penthouse be removed, that there be allowed a deck no more than 500 square feet with transparent railings, and did you want an nsr . Is that part of your motion . Okay. And that there be an nsr recorded to document that no fixed lighting is allowed except for whats required by code. No cooking facilities, and no fire pit be allowed. No permanent structures, and that there be no fourth story is what you said, as well. How are we ever going to replace you . With the adoption of these revised plans, but these plans also need to be revised further to reflect reflect. The decision. The requirements just imposed. And previously, you said this was on the basis that these features that youre removing or the restrictions are out of context with the surrounding neighborhood. Is that the same true. Okay. Okay. On that basis, then, and on that motion, vice president. Vice president fung fung aye. Commissioner lazarus aye. President honda aye aye. Commissioner wilson no. Okay. The motion passes with a vote of 41. Item number 8 is a rehearing request, the subject property of 259 avila treat, the appellant, Patrick Mulligan is requesting a rehearing. We decided november 15, 2017, at that time the board voted 50 to deny the appeal at that time that the permit was properly issued. Mr. Mulligan, you have three minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon or good evening, president honda and commissioners. Everybody now agrees that the one update from my presentation before everybody agrees that the house was rented in 1992 to 93. I have a couple of questions that you might think about. What is the im sorry. I cant hear you. Could you raise the mic, sir. Raise it . Yeah. Youre kind of a tall guy. What is the legal basis that planning sites requiring evidence, that actual physical residency is the sole determining factor for occupancy in San Francisco. My second question is about the permit holder install the bathroom and shower, etcetera after they bought the building in 1993 . The whole structure at 259 avila was rented in 199293 era. There by, the San Francisco rent stablization statutes govern, merging the current illegal inlaw unit under the current permit eliminates an affordable unit, a rental stock of San Francisco. The basement garage and residency aspects are all considered under rent control. Likely, the inlaw was established in 1993 when tenant k moved out and before the permit holder moved in. The Property Owner, terry cook, leased the rental to miss kay and sold the property to current owner. Miss cooks son has had his own Construction Company at that time for 25 for 27 years before he became a winery owner. It makes sense that any Property Owner would enhance their property in every way, especially as it likely suffered some damage from loma prieta in 1989 before putting it up for sale in 93. It doesnt matter when the unit was established, either before the rental or after, because it exists today as an affordable unit of housing and there by requires that 311312 notice for its removal. This means that the permit was not issued correctly, and wed respectfully ask for a rehearing. In regard to the permit holders point that the Costas Hawkins renders that mute, may i say it doesnt address any local rent control rules passed before 1996. Frankly, its not eliminating limits on singlefamily rent. The local regulations defines a unit and does not specify any occupied unit. It does not say that anything or anybody needs to occupy the space. All gomped by the San Francisco rent control act, with no residential occupancy requirement. Hundreds of whom are currently constructed in San Francisco, see the chronic will on monday. I have a copy if you want to see it. Thank you. Thank you. Well hear from the permit holders. Welcome back. Hi. President honda, board of appeals commissioners. My name is alfonso. The permit holders respectfully request that the board deny the rehearing request regarding the approved site permit issued for 259 avila for the following reasons, and these address the issues raised in the appellants brief. The appellant claims that the Planning Department staff was negligent in their determination that no rental unit would be lost during the proposed remodelling project. We contend that the review performed by planning that the appellant described in his brief is consistent with the standard of due dill dense on all projects reviewed by the department and therefore no due diligence. The appellant claims that because a miss patricia kay rented a room at this property, that a second unit exists. She stated myself and my husband along with our son lived in the entire home with no inlaw unit. The owners at 259 avila street contacted miss kay and spoke to her by phone. Miss kay confirmed she rents the entire residence are no additional tenants. This is confirmed in the attached email which states, in the fall of 1 92, my son, husband and i rented the residence at 259 from teresa cook. My memory of the down stairs is it was a large room which we used for our tv and toy room for our son. The appellant claims the rental of the property by miss kay proves that there was a second unit on the property. The appellants submitted excerpt from that ordinance said and is not exempt from the ordinance unless both units are rented together as a single tenancy. As stated previously, miss kay has confirmed that she and her family had rented the entire house at 259 avila street, and therefore, the ordinance does not apply. As discussed in the previous hearing, the owner had signed an affidavit asserting that their family has been the sole occupant of the residence since they purchased the property. The neighbors have also signed letters stating the owners have also been the only occupants of the property since 1993, and these are attached as exhibits 3 and 4. In conclusion, the there are no extraordinary circumstances in the case, there is no evidence that any portion of the home was separately rented as an independent residence, and there has been no documentation provided by the appellant that proves that a secondary tenant ever existed. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Teague . Good evening again, president honda, commissioners. Cory teague for Planning Department staff. Yeah, the only new piece of information thats provided here is the same argument that was provided in the original appeal, that there was, in fact, a second unauthorized dwelling unit in the building. As such, the removal of that unit should trigger a conditional use authorization. As we discussed before, actually, the dr hearing at the Planning Commission was continued, i believe, for one or two weeks to give the Planning Department time to research that further. They did, and determined that there was no evidence of any unauthorized dwelling unit. The typical procedure we go through there to determine if there are any documentation in the Public Record related to the space having being used as a separate living space is we look through our files, case files, we look through Building Permits that have been issued. We do an eviction history request with the rent board to see if they have any documentation related to a second unit at the site. We also just do a basic internet search, as well. All of that was conducted here. The rent board are no evidence of any eviction history in an unauthorized unit or a second unit of any type at this site. We had no other documentation to indicate that the that the space in question had been used as an independent unit. And as was mentioned, the appellant made the case about a specific prior tenant, and that prior tenant made clear in her email communications that her family rented out the entire singlefamily home, and that the space in question during the time was never used as an unauthorized dwelling unit, so with that considered, i would ask that you not grant the rehearing request. Im available for any questions you may have. Thank you. Anything, inspector duffy. Okay. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Okay. Seeing none, commissioners, the matters submitted. I think this falls short. It doesnt reach the bar for a rehearing, as far as im concerned, and there was no manifest injust. I would agree. That would be my motion, madam director. Okay. Thank you. President hondas motion to deny the request. On that, commissi. Vice president fung aye. Commissioner swig aye. President honda aye. Commissioner wilson aye aye. This was item 8, the propertys at 21 brompton, appealing a letter issued on december 1st, 2017 regarding whether the subject lot at the subject property currently being used for work could be considered a single nonconforming use, and it could be paved with a surface parking lot. Other geng and welcome. You have seven minutes. Good evening. My name is patricia hayes, and im here with my mother, brothers dan, sisters geralyn and joanne. As youve read in the background materials, this property has been in our family for over 43 years. Last december 16, our mom with our Family Support purchased a 50 interest from our Business Partner mr. Bernie kelly, which included the 21 brompton parking lot. Its important for us to keep the property. Were San Francisco tied family. However, we were immediately concerned about the parking lot and the need for us to address its status once we became the sole owners. We he were mindful that the lot is an unsecured, unlit and unwanted liability. We also know how vital the parking is to the glen Park Community, as an interim use. We wish to pursue its interim use because we know its zoned in ct and rh 2, and our longterm goal is to develop as a residential next use. If our intention was to pursue permanent parking, we would be pursuing a change in the zoning, we reasoned that in the shortterm, we could develop a paid parking lot which could improve the property with paved parking, landscaping, lighting, and safety. It will generate income which will hasten our longterm Development Plans, providing a good out come for the city, visitors, residents, and tenants. This led to our request for a letter of determination to the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Sanchez acknowledged its use as parking since the early 70s, but he did not find it to be a legal nonconforming Public Parking use. We believe that the record shows very clearly that the existing parking use is a legal nonconforming use. The city is on record since 1971 prior to the hayess use of nonconforming parking, it has continued for 46 years as such. In recent years, city planning documents eventually dropped the term unauthorized parking and grandfathered to parking. The 2012 board of supervisors adopted glen Park CommunityDevelopment Plan and the environmental lot refer to our lot as parking, stating if the parking lot along kern is ever developed, parking plans in the area include a gravel parking lot, and if you ask most people that have parked on our property, they believe its free Public Parking. Furthermore, the city has never taken steps to prohibit the well known use of parking at 21 brompton, so we request that the board of appeals allow the continued use of 21 brompton as a parking lot, albeit a paid parking lot. As we stated, we would like to develop the property sooner. The alternative will be to fence off the lot as is, we will eliminate parking, and traffic in the area is already very grim, and it will create more double and triple marking in an already grid locked area. It will delay longterm development for an unspecified number of years. Alternatively, approval to proceed will provide he aesthetices, status quo and development with a long time family. We hope you will concur that 21 brompton has operated in a legal nonconforming parking lot in direct planning as soon as possible to allow our family to proceed with a paid Public Parking lot. We truly believe this is a good solution for glen park. We are together as a family in our goals. We have an existing good working relationship with the planning team, good relationships with the glen Park Community, and an open collaborative mindset to create thoughtful long and shortterm Development Plans for 21 brompton, and we thank you very much for your time and consideration, and we hope you agree. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Teague. Thank you again, president honda and commissioners. Cory teague, Planning Department staff. So on august 21st of this year, they submitted a letter as to whether the property at 21 brompton avenue