Its similar to 44bonview and this is needing upgrading immediately to the public attention. So pretty much the outcome is that if the rear view would be removed, hell have to be more of a financial burden and his family will be in shock pause theyll lose another bedroom. So, please thank you. Youll have more time in rebuttal. So well now hear from the Planning Department. Mr. Sanchez . Thank you. Subject property at 44bofview, located within the r. H. 1 Zoning District and the special use district. I believe that the district was added to the planning code in 1991. Under this district it requires a 35 rear yard and approximately 24. 5 feet for the subject property. And so the main issues here relate to the extension of the rear and the ground level retaining wall and grading issues as well as the deck on top of that structure which for lack of a better term could be described as supported on fourbyfour posts. The Planning Department does not have evidence that the defendant confirmed that that structure is legal. Nor do we have evidence to show that it is completely illegal. And in addition to the permit holder has stated that they did aerial photo review going back to 2002 and we have additional photos going back to 1992 or 1993, and it shows that it has been in place for quite some time. And, in fact, it was used in part by the appellant for justification for a space in 2012. So those are some of the background on that aspect of it. So we dont have Firm Determination for the board, unfortunately, at this point. Based upon the availability of the records and its possible that it was constructed in a time in the 1970s or the 1980s when such structure was allowed. But we dont have a permit to that effect, nor i think have we been able to research all of the permit records at this point. And i think that there are some concerns with the plan and the quality of the plans and the complete information that are on the plans. But as the appellant highlighted, the Property Line window which is not shown in the existing condition but you can see from the photos that i think that theres other things too, like the rear elevation is not properly showing the post. And theres room for improvement on the plan. Also i think that theres concerns about the deck and what is shown as the existing and proposed deck. I dont have kind of kind of the ability to definitively say what theyre showing is correct. I think that based on materials that the ark pellant has shown, theyre not accurately reflecting the deck. The deck and the plans are shown as being relatively flat against the top of the roof but the plans or the photo shown by the appellant shows that elevated deck by about two feet. The deck is allowed on noncomplying portion of the building. I think that its a legal noncomplying portion of the building, however, we require a 10day notice which was not done in this case. I understood from the appellant or the permit holders brief, that a notice was done. And maybe i misread their brief, but i dont see any evidence of such notice. So i think that the primary concern that i have here would be related to that deck and we could definitively say that the deck that is on top of that structure should not have been approved without the 10day notice to the abutting property. Theres the larger question i think from the board of whether that extension itself is legal. And, you know, the aerial photos it doesnt appear to have been in existence for 30 years or more. And it was cited in the appellant materials in the 2012 variance application as justification. And theres no evidence of any complaints on that until until now. But, you know, that is the situation that we have now. So i dont have more definitive answers for the board at this point in time but those are the best answer as we can give to the board now and im available for questions. Okay, we have a question first from Vice President honda and then commissioner swig and then commissioner tanner. Vice president honda . Vicepresident honda so, mr. Sanchez, the appellant filed it was approved because of the structure that hes now appealing. So the variances theres many factors and i have heard that variance back in 2012, and there are many factors that go into a variance. And it wouldnt be just because of that structure but that was part of the context and part of the justification that there are similar features in the surrounding neighborhood. Its not to say that the variance would have been denied without that. But it was part of the justification. And perhaps the appellant appelt have anymore information at that time and they didnt look further into the legality of that structure and that would have been more recently. But, yeah, it was part of the justification. Vicepresident honda okay, since you were the Zoning Administrator at that time that made the ruling, how large of a percentage would you say that that that portion coming out on the permit holders Building Made a difference . I mean, you know, its hard to go back in time to those years. But it is a factor. Its not necessarily the deciding factor. Its not going to be more than 50 of the reason for the decision. You know, it certainly gives support to the context of the neighborhood and, you know, if im going to have to put percentages on it, you would say 25 so its the supporting factor but not the deciding factor. Vicepresident honda thank you. Clerk we will hear from commissioner swigs. Commissioner swig in your testimony you stated or alluded to the fact that there were lots of problems with these plans, or several problems with the plans. Dican you briefly run through ad establish, just like a list and then let us know whether you think you need more time to work with the Planning Department, to work with these plans. And, therefore, to enable us to make an easier decision or do you think we near a position to make a decision tonight given the problems that exist with these plans . Thank you. So in terms of the plans, the main issues that i saw and perhaps chief inspector duffy will have additional comments, but the plans do not show on the ground floor the existing condition of the Property Line window at the bedroom. The rear elevation does not appear to depict the piers, or the posts for the portion that is extended. You know, i think that there are relatively minor issues but i think important details that we would want to have more complete and accurate plans. I dont know that we have plans that show the removal of the stairs. Thats not on this plane plan sd that was work done without permits so i dont know that we have a permit that documents those stairs. And so i think that theyre somewhat easily correctable but theres a concern in terms of the overall quality of the plans and this is based upon the review of the plans submitted by the permit holder in the briefing materials. Commissioner swig should we if we were to make a motion tonight, and it involves citing these three elements that are relatively minor but they do exist, you can handle it that way . Or is it more advisable in just anticipation of looking towards deliberations that we ask you to work more closely with the permit holder to revise the plan and to mitigate any ambiguity and move towards that clarity that would make us all feel more comfortable . Thank you, Scott Sanchez, planning again. I think that its achievable through the hearing process tonight where we could outline that. I mean, its primarily properly documenting the existing conditions which i think that is different from the plans. I think that the permit holder explained some of the issues that led to how they develop the plans. You know, that they acquired the property after a lot of this work had been done and may not have had the benefit exactly of knowing what the previous conditions were. I think that some of those are probably pretty easily remedied. A contin yuncontinuance is alsoa possibility and we could probably do it either way. Clerk okay, thank you. We now have a question from commissioner tanner. Commissioner tanner thank you. Mr. Sanchez, can you explain a little bit the relationship between kind of thinking from the appellants point of view, the extension that is there now which we have evidence going back to it was there since the 1990s, that that extension was maybe would not be allowed today because it extends too far into the rear yard. Is that accurate . Scott sanchez, Planning Department. That is correct. In fact, even without that extension, the building are all extend into the required rear yard. So because under the bernal heightings special use district the rear yard requirements were greater than that of the rh1 zoning. So theres a portion that contains probably the kitchens and its probably identical for all of these buildings. That portion itself extends into the required year yard separate from the structure that everyone is talking about now. So, yeah, it definitely the building is definitely within the required reariard in Bernal Heights district. Commissioner tanner and such extensions require variance which got them the extension that goes into the rear yard is that correct . Scott sanchez, planning. That is correct. And assuming this is a legal noncomplying structure, if it were to be demolished and replaced as it is currently located and situated, that would also require a variance. The plans that have been submitted by the permit holder do not show the demolition and recon strukdz oreconrecon struks the fourbyfour posts but a variance would be required to replace it. Commissioner tanner great. And the plans seem to show that there would also be the infill below the bay, is that what is happening . I think that the appellant also raised concerns about the fill required and to your point perhaps the accuracy of that representation. Do you find the plans to accurately represent what is happening and considering the slope of that yard, is that part of what needs to be revised . Scott sanchez, planning again. So the plans dont show an infill under that, they show the replacement of the post with fourbyfour and sixbysix. There is some gradin grating wor that structure to sort of lower the patio at one end of it and raise it with the retaining wall as you get closer to the rear yard to create a flat area. Inspector duffy, i believe, had visited the site and can maybe provide better comment as to whether the plans accurately reflect the site conditions. But it seems reasonable what they propose on the plans would be code compliant because they dont have a retaining wall more than three feet in height in the rear yard. Commissioner tanner thank you, thats all of my questions. Clerk okay, thank you. We will hear from the Department Building inspection. Mr. Duffy . Commissioners, d. B. I. So i got involved in this project and im the appellant with d. B. I. One morning and with the contractor and he was explaining that someone had started excavating next door and he thought that it was an addition that they were doing and he showed me some photographs and i was a little bit disturbed. We had an inspector that couldnt get access a few days before that. So i made it my business to go out there. At that point i was dealing with the previous owner and possibly the previous contractor and the architect. And im looking at what they had been doing and what they had shown on the previous permit. And it was a complete fabrication of not existing conditions at all. We ended up revoking that permit. And then this gentleman now who is the permit holder and had taken over the property, and the gentleman before who did the plans was mr. Chan as well but he was ken chan and this is art chan. So i met with him a couple times and went to the site. I advised them that they really needed to get a good set of drawings into d. B. I. , the Planning Department. And as well as encroached in the rear yard to their neighbor and to speak to him about the concerns that he had about the work that was going to be done. I think that the neighbor the appellant was more concerned that there would be an addition in the rear yard and that turned out to have a patio, like a split level patio, which necessitated the forms being put in. And as far as the permit thats before you now, you know, they did work pretty hard to get that accurate. Im not sure that the approved plan i think they are not the approved plans and the stairs in the plan im pretty sure they were shown as existing. And i thought that we had got the rear elevation really good on the new drawings, the ones that are retained and i talk about the old drawings as the ones that we had to revoke. There may still be shortfalls in them. And i did see the photos in the appellants brief on the deck and i think that deck definitely did not out to the edge of the roof. I think that the new one is misrepresented. Possibly because they didnt have access to it earlier. So its good that people Work Together and thats why we encourage that because thats something that can be pointed out between the two parties. Its hard for the departments when theres a set of plans put in front of the d. B. A. Staff and for us to say what was there and what is 100 accurate when youre looking at something on paper. But i know that they have worked hard to get to this point. And it looks like theres still issues. In regards to that rear addition, we see that all the time, and Scott Sanchez will tell you the same thing. Over the years in San Francisco, it must have been before i got here, anyway, there was a lot of additions and bump outs done. And at some point in time what is legal and what is illegal is very hard to figure out. And the neighbor, you know, he did bring that up with me originally. And we said, well, its going to be reviewed by planning and building. And here we are now with the issue permit and its very hard sometimes when someone buys a property and theyve got something that is nonconforming that is over 30 years old that they didnt build. And the one thing that i noticed about it is that it definitely needed to be strengthened and they did that. And, you know, its by a licensed engineer. So the window the property window, i probably missed that on the drawings. I believe that property indiscernible i dont think that though its not shown as existing i think that the post shows it as being a solid wall. So im not that concerned about it though the plans should be 100 accurate. And maybe we need more time to just get these drawings tidied up to where they are approvable. But im available for any questions and i can read out the notice of violation that we wrote initially but thats from the previous owner. So i dont know if you want to hear that from me. Clerk okay. Thank you, mr. Duffy. I dont see any questions yes, we do. Commissioner swig . Commissioner swig so following up on kind of the same question that i asked to Scott Sanchez. Should we you know, you said, well, these arent the plans and these dont look like the final plans to me and yet were having a hearing and these are the basis of which our decisions are being asked to be made. Should we wait and get a final set of plans . Should we wait and let staff sort out the ambiguities and maybe yourself sort out any of yours and get a fresh set of plans that really look like what were doing here tonight . We could give it a short period of time to do that, yes. That would probably be a good idea. Part of the problem here as well is that commissioner swig is that were in a covid thing. And we probably would have been approached to me by these people one more time beforehand and we havent had that opportunity, unfortunately. But i could make it my business to have one more look at the drawings. Im sorry that i didnt have that before tonight. But i would like to maybe get another couple weeks on this if possible. Commissioner swig im sympathetic to the challenges of the covid virus is presenting to all of us but were making a decision of permanence here and from my lips to gods ears, i hope that our covid experience will be ending in the relatively near term. So i think that in the spirit that we are making something a decision on something that will be permanent and we have to live with integrity for both the project sponsor and the nextdoor neighbor, the appellant, i really think that we should live with that inconvenience and got a proper set of plans. Is that prudent . The deficiencies that mr. Sanchez mentioned are definitely something that we would want to be right on. And the few things that he mentioned, i may have a couple, but maybe not as many as mr. Sanchez, but i would want to double check on the scope of the rear yard. I thought that i had them and i thought that the rear elevation had been shown correctly on the proper set of plans that mr. Chan did this for this permit. I thought it was right and thats pointed out that its not right and i would like an opportunity to look at the full set of drawings again with the permit holder and a very short recess so that we could we could have better information. Commissioner swig thank you mr. Duffy, i yield. Okay, thank you mr. Duffy. Were now moving on to Public Comment. Is there anyone here for Public Comment . If you called in and you would like to provide Public Comment, please press star, 9 on your phone right now. We will give it a moment. Okay, the phone number ending in 0879, you have two minutes. Can you hear me . Yes, hello. Hello, this is brian, sorry, i have been waiting here the whole time without any kids and then the moment that i am supposed to speak is when all of the kids jump in the room. Of course. Exactly. My wife was nice enough to take them out for a walk. And now, you know, between all of the people going over and everything else, im excited to be here to be able to speak. Im actually the neighbor directly adjacent to 44bonview, im at 52 bonview street so its unfortunate that i get two minutes relative for everyone else speaking for so much longer so whatever the process is to join the to join the complaint against this flagrant violation of what is being built, i want to join. My comments are that from my perspective that theres a couple of playful words being used here. I see legalized existing storage to habitable space. To me that is saying adding existing habitable space to existing structure. And to me that reads as adding mass and density to the building. And it seems like in a very substantial way. And living here in the northwest bernal special use district, my expectation would be that adding dramatic amounts of habitable space to a building would require going throu