Commissioner swig commissioner wilson will be absent this evening to my left is robert bryan the City Attorney with legal advice and im Cynthia Goldstein the boards executive director we will also be joined by were joined by representatives from the City Departments that have cases before this board. An easter person and anticipating Joe Duffy Rincon point the department of building inspection and Scott Sanchez representing the Planning Department and Planning Commission and from the tragically and rebecca the Deputy Director and commission barbara phones and other Electronic Devices are prohibited. Out in the hallway. Permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes no rebuttal. To assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or Business Card to the clerk. Speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. The board welcomes your comments. There are Customer Satisfaction forms available. If you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 Mission Street, suite 304. This meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. Dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. Thank you for your attention. Well conduct our swearing in process. If you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. Please note any of the members may speak without taking please stand do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. Thank you very much commissioner president lazarus commissioners one housekeeping having to do with item 8 regarding an alteration permit the parties ask that will reschedule to january 2016 and need a motion in order to move that it. So moved. Thank you any Public Comment moving item number 8 seeing none, we have a motion to move this to january 27th. Commissioner president lazarus commissioner hondas and commissioner swig thank you that motion carries well move to item that general Public Comment please silence all Electronic Devices. Any general Public Comment tonight. Seeing none, item 2 commissioners questions or comments. Commissioners . Okay. Seeing none well move to item 3 the boards consideration of the minutes of the Board Meeting from november 18th. Additions, deletions, or changes to the minutes may i have a motion to approve. Thank you any Public Comment on the minutes . Seeing none, we have a motion to adopt commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus and commissioner swig okay that motion carries thank you very much we will move to item number 4 which is the jurisdiction request the subject property 4400 pacheco street the requester asking they take jurisdiction over the application which was issued on august 2015 by the department of building inspection the jurisdiction request was filed on november 6, 2015, did permit holder is gavin and it compiles with the first floor at three bedrooms and second floor existing bath and three bedroom legalize one bath and add one bath and windows well start with the requester you have 3 minutes probation officer present to the board give it to the clerk and can we hold we need the building inspection to listen in on this. I saw him here. Yeah. He was here. Sir hold on one minute waiting for the inspector to return. Okay. Go ahead. You can begin. Okay. Commissioners my name is steve we opposed the building next door to pa cherish since 1977 my son and brotherinlaw lived there built by the same contractor about this same time last year the Police Department busted a house and confiscated 200 plants we were gastroglad to see it sold we saw a job card and assumed they were going to make improvements since it had on a grow house late in december a wall was built between the living room and it wasnt exactly what we thought that was going to be and saw the plans and we realized the plans didnt match the condition on the plans we called the inspector and told no inspection were you made we saw the tenants moved into the building we filed the application to the jurisdiction of the legal notice that period has passed we filed it the building inspection inadvertently approved the plans and intended to do the work was misrepresented overhead please in herons she speaks of the approval by the City Departments the plans dont reflect the conditions as the building was sold each flat had one leadership and dining and assessed by two sets of stairs with a back wrongly staircase it was existing a wall between the living room and difrng nothing back stairway and a second bathroom didnt exist we believe that either the dining and the living room are notice both being used as dwelling units the added basket was previously occupied by the back staircase it had 8 bathrooms and the planner noted that was odd no number of bathrooms that what about built in a building we believe that the misrepresentations were drawn to avoid a conditional review application and the notification required by the application the misrepresentation were drawn to say appearance of that real meeting sro or dormitory type of occupancy we building that the plans their intent was intentionally misrepresented and inadvertently approve the plans should have been a conditional use permit at the proper time thank you. Well hear from the permit holder now. Okay. So commissioners and mr. Mcdoesnt were here to answer two questions. State your name. My name is eric lee here to represented my parents so the four issues raised number one inlaws are not shown other plan and number 2 the stairway that was removed removed and a bathroom was put in its place the inspector went to the department of building inspection this was approved december 7th i brought 5 copies of these i dont know wait thank you. All right. So all of these have been approved and were in addition add a fire strictly system and number 3 bathrooms and now 11 bathrooms each individual room is a rented out we rented 20 20 lawabiding students the minimum lease is one year a longterm renter and thai choose to share the bedrooms and anyone is currently sleeping in the living room after research that is perfectly legal at neighborhood notification maybe required for doing the work on our property we went to the San FranciscoPlanning Department website there was some listed we didnt extend outd outside of our building and not roach more than 75 percent of the existing frame so really 240 reason we see that require a neighborhood notification i just want to emphasize my are parents are good citizens and my dad worked every single day and didnt claim disability they have to buy this house and boric acid their bank account we do everything with the regulations and playing apply for multiple permits and going to multiple inspectors and through the proper channels late San Francisco has shortages we know that people want to rent and we believe weve come applied with everything there is thats it. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you. Good Evening Commissioner president lazarus and members Scott SanchezPlanning Department the issue the jurisdiction permit for that that was issued several, several years ago this week they did file and receive a new Building Permit application that rises this jurisdiction request and it is not all the points raised by the jurisdiction requester and the points were were raised by the gentrification requester were alarming that someone came in and not representing the conditions staff found that two Staff Members reviewed it last friday and felt comfortable approving the permit a couple of issues insuring two dwelling units they have open space part of that permit that was issued on monday has a rooftop open space with rear yard open space staff looked at the pocketed this is Group Housing and would like more of an issue over the past each year not a clear line between the independence of dwelling units and open spaces this was come filed with our planning code revisions there was questions about the family room and leadership and the appearance they were sleeping rooms staff had the project manager remove the doors from the plan before approving it so again, this is a jurisdiction request the permit im speaking of is a permit issued on monday that has a 15 day appeal the neighborhood can appeal that to the board of appeals if they have questions and advise them to speak with the permit holder and come to an understanding about had a the permit does we think that permit that was issued on monday addresses the concerns that is the subject of this jurisdiction request but beyond that im not necessarily opposed and requiring the requester that the only thing matters it the permit that was issued on monday with that, im available to answer any questions. This was no a cu. No keeping it as a dwelling unit is permitted to Group Housing that is a condition and conditional review. A separate portion the code relating to Student Housing. That is related to starbucks u Student Housing it is a use that is operated with a specific Institution Just the fact that students live in the building is not Student Housing it means theyre a group of San FranciscoState University students that are living there that would be operated by San FranciscoState University or other institution to our code. Another piece i cant remember somewhere a singlefamily can rent a room to a student isnt there something in there. I would double check our code i cant say anything to prohibit someone that operating or you know renting out to a student or you know. So the original as built didnt reflect the current work. That was the obligation of the jurisdiction requester i didnt see a clear are you able to that so im assuming that was the case and that the revision permit documenting the existing conditions it benefits the jurisdiction requester to see the new revision plans that are here. The other question excuse me. Is that that is a singlefamily dwelling unit 11 bedrooms. Under the Building Change for that. No, i mean under the planning code there is no limit on the number of bedrooms more or less a Building Permit issue for the sleeping rooms but under the planning code nothing that prohibits that yeah again, the definition within Group Housing and dwelling unit are not maybe cleancut as you one likes but we would review any complaints and make a determination to see how to functions and operates whether or not the Group Housing has somewhat people come in and laugh fully get a permit and it is consistent with Group Housing this is something we have a purr enforcement on you i imagine the services on building youre only allowed a certain amount of garbage and 15 People Living in a property that will steady the services. That is about the number of people people have large families and can have larger groups of individuals and that is the information we need. Okay. Thank you mr. Duffy. Good evening, commissioners joe duffy dbi the permit under request as you can see is to comply with the complaint first floor add 3 bedrooms additional 3 bull u full baths and third story remodel the existing bath and legalize one bath and add windows at the site i check the the writing is on the wall on the permit and appears to be okay. Except an actual complaint that should have been reviewed it looks like our last entry on the complaint was by inspector miami left a note to contact us on the 7 of october we we received the complaint and we left it note to schedule for the complaint investigation no entry on the 7 of october no plans at the job site the contractors will schedule an investigation i heard a permit issued on monday according the permit but it is interesting to see two permit that comply with the complaint when you have an actual complaint you write it up we want to know what it is youre doing and getting another permit without us getting in there we need to get into the this i dont see that happened in the writing we can look at that from our end because the complaint is an actual complaint there is an allegation of existing conditions in the shown correctly some other case that was before the board the conditions unless youve got approved plan somewhere it is hard to know what they had we realize on citys records in this case city assessors was shown that building as coming up as two units and two stories, 8 rooms with 3 baths with a Square Footage of 23 hundreds square feet maybe thats the existing conditions for someone to draw the plans before they start verse what they want this is something the architect we assume will do correctly unless previous plans it is hard to verify what the comprehensive conditions actually were lets see another permit this year i for one bedroom remelted structure im not sure which thorough but one of the baths is referenced we have inspection on the permit we have the cover and see inspector cone were moving along with the project im available to answer any questions. With that particular case really related not necessarily to the complaint or the subsequent permit but relates to whether the preemptive that was issued by your department was appropriately issued right. The first time. It didnt get through the third floor if youve got on actually complaint it needs to go through the third floor it doesnt say that on the writing sometimes, it is on the Building Permit application i dont know if it is on the Building Permit not shown on the writing but a process for at floor because of the complaint that was filed. What was the date of original permit youre complaint occurred in october. Will they put down a 13 complaint. In 2013. That was for a plumbing issue that did go through Plumbing Division so maybe its a okay. On that end. A couple of questions so the notice of violation was issued theres been no access by the department. We didnt look at the complaint. We could have done that they need to get a you this straightened out maybe even though inspector doesnt realize there was an actual complaint. The other thing although the records dont reflect the property was sold in the brief it noted there was pictures of the unit for sale maybe that would be that would be helpful that is active. Thats the only part of investigation anything we can use to look at the existing conditions from the person is alleging that so thats what it is so inside the property as well were seeing a lot of this people are adding bedrooms if this market the shortage of hard for people in so many cases make a dining and moved it into the living room and converted it. The plans need to be accurate. We expect the excited conditions to be accurate that is what the architect should show im not sure the Plumbing Division it was a plumbing complaint maybe thats fine weld need to follow up with the october complaint with the department of building inspection to make sure that everything is above board and the other thing on the fees to mention it is something that the applicant i want to read from the puc charges on 6 hundred plus their adrc 3 bathrooms i thought that was something remiss but you know when our adding extra usage of water. Mr. Duffy educate me on a light prior safety this is a house 20022 square feet to a bunch of bedrooms with the population of the housing is growing had i hear that a stairway stairway has been disabled or done away with that is a assess point how is a change so drastic as this held account for life safety. Thats a good question in a singlefamily not as much a 3 unit more of an issue that will not change the existing believe it or not because of a singlefamily dwelling a 3 occupancy. So will this multiple bedrooms being added obviously ill go for the assumption those bedrooms will be occupied and it leads someone to building that the occupancy by 1 or 2 its a significant occupancy and like our safety risk. The way the code addresses that in the bedrooms they have to have the egging regress windows every bedroom and there is supposed to be proper existing and wouldnt increase the number of exits in the building i definitely dont think this is the case but in the rear yard you can exit into the rear yard that is allowed not to make it to the public way that is okay. I imagine just from the one what type of building any bedrooms have to have egress window. Thank you any Public Comment seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. Anyway weve heard most of the case but the question has to satisfied the criteria to take jurisdiction which is whether the city erred in the appellant not being able to file on time i dont see that happening here he has an opportunity to file an appeal in a timely manner. Yeah. I think the recognize by there was a job notice in a window there was recognition and unfortunately probable an assumption