Separate do you deputy Zoning Administrator. We also have joseph duffy, senior building inspector representing the department of building inspections. The Board Meeting guidelines are as follows. The board request that you turn off or silence all phones and other Electronic Devices so they will not disturb the proceedings please carry on conversations in the hallway. Appellant appellants, permit holders, and Department Respondents are given seven minutes to present their case in three minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with these parties must include these comments within the seven or three minute period. Members of the public were not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. Please speak into the microphone for rehearing and jurisdiction request, the parties have three minutes each with no rebuttal. To assist the board and accurate preparation of minutes, you are asked not required to cement a speaker carter Business Card to staff when you come up to speak. Speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. Four votes are required to grant an appeal, jurisdiction request or rehearing request. If you have any questions about requesting a rehearing, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call and visit the board office. This meeting is broadcast live on San Francisco government t. V. , table channel 78 and will be rebroadcast on fridays on chan youll 26. The video is available on our website and can also be downloaded downloaded. Now we will swear in or affirm all those who add intend to testify. Any member of the public may speak without taking the oath pursuant to their rights under the sentient ordinance. If you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand if you are able, raise your white right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. If you will testify tonight, please stand. Do you swear or affirm the test and when you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth thank you. Please be seated. Okay, commissioners, we have one housekeeping item, item number 8 , which is appeal number 19063n by the appellant, so we will move on to item number 1, which is general Public Comment. This is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the boards jurisdiction but that is not on tonights calendar. Is there any member of the public here for general Public Comment . Okay. We will move on to item number 2 , which is commissioner comments and questions. Commissioners, anything . I want to acknowledge it has been a tough week in our country and also in california. I work in palo alto and one of my coworkers was at a festival when the shooting occurred. It is a really tough time. I just want to offer our thoughts for the survivors and victims and their families. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on those comments . Okay. Thank you. We will now move on to item number 3, which is the adoption of the minutes for the july 31 st, 2019 Board Meeting before you for your consideration. Commissioners . I think on the last item that commissioner hawn devoted no, and it said it was 50. That is true. Thank you for that correction and one minor spelling error, his name is spelled differently. I believe we will correct that, thank you. Is there a motion to adopt those revisions . Moved to adopt as revised. We have a motion to adopt as revised. On that motion. [roll call] okay. That motion carries. We will now move on to item number 4. This is a rehearing request. The subject property at 3620 buchanan street. 5098 Bay Condominium Association the appellant is requesting a rehearing of the appeal. It was decided june 26th, 2019 at that time, the board 440 to deny the appeal and uphold the rear yard modification on the basis it meets the three criteria required under the planning code. The determination holder is gas like building l. L. C. The project description for the project proposing to demolish a noncontributory one sorry garden house currently used as office space and a portion of the noncontributory garden patio, and to construct a new four story eight unit residential building, eight class one bicycle Parking Spaces, four class to bicycle Parking Spaces, and one vehicle parking space. The portion of the existing garden to remain will be used as open space, and the new building will extend to the rear Property Line. The project proposes know were yard located in the project area at the lot, and the new building will extend to the rear Property Line. And rear yard modification planning code section 134 e. Is required. We will hear from the requester first. I move to affirm that this has been reviewed. Yes. Commissioner, have you had an opportunity to review the materials for the hearing which took place on june 26, 2019 . I have, and im ready to receipt proceed. Thank you. Is the requester present . Okay. Is the permit holder present . Would you mind, terribly . Im sorry, thank you, i appreciate that very much. Lets move onto the next item. If the requester his not here then we will move forward. Okay. The next item is number 5, jurisdiction request. Im sorry, sorry, the requester is not here, so we are moving on to item number 5. [indiscernible] we will come back to it because were we are missing one of the parties. Thank you. Item number 5 is a jurisdiction request. The subject property at 1412143 albion street. The requesters are asking the board take jurisdiction over Building Application number 2019 which was issued on may 13th, 2019 by the department of building inspections. The appeal period ended on may 28th, 2019 and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office from july 17 th 2019. The permit holder is eric rice and the project description is to convert the existing carport space to include to enclosed storage space. We will hear from the requesters first. My name is lydia chavez, one of three owners. I want to make three quick points. The city, by improperly granting a permit to mr. Rice, inadvertently causes us to miss the deadline for apo. Myself, my husband and leslie lie are the sole owners of 141 and 143. Mr. Rice has a limited and conditional right to store items on our property. All right he has used as long as we have lived there and they write that we are not contesting , however, he is not the owner of the property, nor an authorized agent. He does not have the right to seek a permit on our property without the permission of the owners, and therefore the permit should have been denied. We believe that the city and error assumed that mr. Rice was acting on our behalf and that he had been given permission to seek a permit by the true owners mr. Rice argues that we should have known he would be seeking a permit and been attentive to the call on our property, with a record, including facts including submitted by mr. Rice shows the opposite. In fact, and jenny were 2019, his plans were not imminent, they had been executed on or about december 30th, 2018, when all of the owners of 141 and 143 were out of town, mr. Rice constructed two large Storage Units, completely enclosing two spaces in our garage with floortoceiling walls, bolted into place, in which and wedged between Parking Spaces. He did this without a permit, without consultation, and without notification. It was then that discussions began. As part of our research, we contacted the department of building inspection. We were told that no such Storage Units were permitted. We shared this information with mr. Rice, including the email attached to exhibit 1 with a name and contact of the person who gave us this information. Mr. Rice subsequently took down the walls of the unit, but left to the frames up. When we left town in april, we had no reason to suspect that a week later mr. Rice would apply for a permit, further, we do not think that someone could obtain a permit to build on property that does not belong to them. We do not think that a neighbor would represent themselves as our authorized agent to build precisely the kind of structures we had explicitly objected to. I have some exhibits to offer into the record. You have 20 seconds left. Okay. My third point is we know of no breakins on the property. We know of no deaths, there is no reason either would occur there. Theres a high metal gate to the garage. We offer the emails from d. B. I. And the parking structures that we gave to mr. Rice. We have two declarations attesting the construction prior to january. Thank you. Thank you. May i ask you a question, please . Sure. So in the condominium structure, is the garage space for each of you, or is it deeded out separately as condominium part of the condominium space, or is it a joint, common areas. That is a good question. There are two different condo associations that use the same garage, and everyone has their deeded space, and mr. Rice has an easement, a use of an easement between Parking Spaces for storage that he has always placed items in. So we so the Parking Spaces are all deeded, they are individual property of the condo owners . Excuse me, my name is mark raven, i dont know this specifically the answer to your question, but i believe that it is all h. O. A. Common area, which has been divided out, and then part of that common area, part of those common areas have been granted to mr. Rice and for storage, and another was granted to another neighbor for parking. These are granted, these are not deeded. I dont believe any of the space is actually deeded, it is actually all common area that has been divided up. All right. I think that is really important to know. Thank you very much. Thank you. You can be seated. We will now hear from the permit holder. Good evening, commission. I represent eric rice. In a preliminary level, the requesters have argued a lot of points on the merit. They failed to address the actual legal standards before the board tonight, which is whether the city did anything intentionally or inadvertently to cause them to delay in filing the appeal. They failed to provide any testimony, any argument, any evidence that addresses the singular question, this annular standard that is before the board, and the fact is the city didnt do anything wrong. The city did not do anything inadvertently, did not do anything intentionally, the city did not cause the requesters to be late in filing this appeal. The fact is, mr. Rice has been discussing with them, doing this very project since january of 2019. That it has been in discussions with their predecessors since 2016. This has been a project that has been in the works four years. And whatever happened in 2018 is irrelevant to what is happening before the board tonight. Once the discussion started, once the requesters were well on notice by that mr. Rice was going to do this, they did nothing to protect their own Property Rights and they failed to appeal the permit within 60 days. So that is the only question before the board tonight, but if we are to address the merits at all, which im not sure that is even appropriate, the requesters have made all source of arguments based on assumptions, based on irrelevant matters, for instance, they made the assumption that the permit was issued improperly or that mr. Rice failed to tell the Building Department what his status is in terms of his ownership and where he actually lives. All that is untrue. He did tell the Building Department very specifically where he lives, that he holds an easement, and he was very honest with them about what was going on. I dont want to let it hang, but there are assumptions, they assumptions are simply not true. I have 30 seconds left, but if the board has any questions, im happy to respond to them. Could you describe the concern, a little bit, the easement and what the nature of it is, what does it grant, what does it allow . It was attached to the opening. It is a specific you seasoned that allows mr. Rice to have four areas of storage within the carport that is part of the 141 and 143 building, and in my brief, i try to provide a brief history of what was going on here. I guess what i was curious about is how you read the easement to allow for construction or modification of the space, and if that is expressly included. I wasnt clear that that was part of the easement. The easement does not specify whether include or his can be made or not, what does exist at least say that it is exclusive possession, and to the extent there is any ambiguity about interpreting what that easement language is, that is a civil matter that will need to be resolved between the parties outside of this forum. Thank you. The easement incorporates the covenants of the condo association. Do those covenants and restrictions permit construction in the common area . The easement only incorporates article seven, the use restriction. Does not incorporate other articles including article six, for instance, which would address the design criteria that the h. O. A. Goes through, and so the easement does not incorporate other portions, only the use restriction, and they do not have any restriction on building enclosures. Okay. Is it the case that your client erected a structure in this area before you had a Building Permit that is true. My client acknowledges that he did so without a permit, but he took it down knowing that he had to take a permit. That is ancient history. Ultimately he did get a permit to do permitted work and that is what is before the board tonight my last question is as he informs the Building Department that he had rights under the easement. Is that in the record somewhere . I will let mr. Rice answer that question. The Building Department took copies of the easement with highlighting of the relevant portions so i knew exactly what i was proposing and under what status. Thank you. That is helpful. Because i asked the question to the appellant, are you in agreement that the garages, the common area in the h. O. A. And it is not granted for use by the h. O. A. . I actually have not seen the legal description and i apologize, are not able to answer that question, but i do know that the easement, which is the recorded document, does provide use to mr. Rice in the garage to mr. Rice. Mr. Rice, do you have any thoughts on that . Do you have any knowledge or opinion that that space, which is the garage, is h. O. A. Is an h. O. A. Grant, we are property as far as the condo . Im not sure you understand the question. The space which is the garage that you use, is that owned by yourself as part of your condo, is that your assumption, or is it what the appellant said, it is granted the use is granted to you, but owned by the Homeowners Association . The latter. It is granted under the condo. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you. You can be seated. Thank you very much. Mr. Sanchez . Good afternoon. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. I will be brief on this matter. I think there arent any planning code issues. It is extra not required at the time that the new structure was built in the subdivision occurred. They would be no issue under the planning code with converting parking to storage or and a. D. U. , for that matter. Im available for any questions. It is probably more of an issue for d. B. I. Or a civil issue. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Duffy . Good evening, commissioners, joe duffy, d. B. I. The permit to convert existing carport space to enclosed storage space, im reviewing the plans and i did not see anything wrong with the work itself and what they are doing. I think the issue is the issuance of the permit and how the applicant obtains the permit if you did see in the brief, there was a permit application and a copy of the typical form and certification. At the time, the permit was issued d. B. I. Were okay with that, and there was the easement was provided. And i did see in the brief that the appellants or the requesters went to d. B. I. I would probably, in addition to that, have advised them to refer to the Central Permit Bureau to do the checking of who we give our permits to, who applies to them, because if you come in if i obtained a permit for Something Else from someone else, i have to have authorization for that permit from that person. There are checks and that is done right before permit issuance. If we did do something in error and we were misled, we would look into that and possibly revoke the permit if it was issued in error, were from what i see, they did provide documentation to someone at d. B. I. , so at this point, i would say that the permit is valid, unless they can provide us with some documentation that it is not. It could be, indeed a civil issue as mr. Sanchez said. We could ask our City Attorney for an opinion on it. As for d. B. I. , we also have there are several City Attorneys that work with d. B. I. Sometimes we have to go to them for an opinion on this, as well, just because the city could be party do something later on, but for now, i would say the permit is valid, i think. Just so i understand from education, from d. B. I. s perspective, if you are provided with a copy of an easement and provide and nothing authorizing from the owner of the property, that is sufficient for d. B. I. s procedure . It seems to have been in this case, yes. As you see, it was in the brief and i read it last night. Mr. Rice said i was granted an easement for use of these two storage spaces. Whoever read that at d. B. I. Thought it was enough to give them the permit. Whether that was done in a detailed way or not, i wouldnt know that, but if we were challenged on it, we could look into the merit of, did we make a mistake and issue the permit. At this point, i dont see that, but possibly there is. Just to eliminate the pathway forward and what the appellant could do or the permit holder could do, and what d. B. I. s rule is, what can they do . Did they go to the other Agency