Cases before this board. Sanchez is going to be representing the Planning Department and Planning Commission pr and well also be joined by joe duffy who will be representing the department of advised the ringing of and use of cell 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 now do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. Okay. Thank you commissioner president lazarus and commissioners one housekeeping item we just received a withdrawal of item 6 appeal number 1014 dealing with an alteration permit that matter will not be heard moving to general Public Comment is there anyone that wishes to speak on a matter within the boards jurisdiction not on tonights calendar seeing none, item 2 is commissioner questions or comments and commissioners. Id like to wish our missing commissioner happy birthday today. Okay. Anyone else. Thank you. Is there any any Public Comment on that item . Seeing none, well move to item 3 the boards consideration of the minutes important the august 12, 2015. Additions, deletions, or changes dleekz to the minutes if not may i have a motion to approve. So moved. Thank you. We have a motion from commissioner Vice President honda any Public Comment on the minutes okay. Seeing none commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus arrest commissioner wilson thank you and commissioner swig is a absent so that that motion carries 4 to zero item 4 a jurisdiction request for santa fe avenue we have the requester taking the jurisdiction over the permit application issued 0 on may 22nd the appeal period ends and the jurisdiction request was filed on august 10, 2015, the permit holder to remove two residential Living Spaces for storefront at the ground floor and rove a stove from the first floor and the basement level the street floor level to be returned to commercial use with the application well start with the requester please step forward. You have 3 minutes to present our case to the board. Thank you. Well as i stated in my letter my landlord never contacted me to let me know he was seek a permit for demolition if i had known i would have begun done a. Could you speak directly into the mike. Sure i received no notice from the Planning Department had this is a requirement for the code the Apartment Building is registered as africa rh2 two Family Residential two addresses 6865 and 3 built in 1908 and under rent control my landlord previously. Im sorry to interrupt you it came back came to my attention is there someone representing the landlord okay commissioner fung thank you for brooishg it is if you could stop the clock he might not intend to be here would you want to continue . Why dont you finish. Okay my landlord has previously requested a permit to diminish demolish it and turn it into a storefront none of the other units many my building are effected i believe the permit should not be granted because the entire building is registered as residential not commercial so is cannot be illegal turned into a storefront built in 1908 and it is a rent controlled building if any landlord forces me to move out of my apartment this would a illegal move to make it a storefront it is registered as a reciprocal and would constitute an illegal eviction. How long have you lived there. 3 years. 3 years. As it you. I have one roommate. Thank you. Mr. White horn the permit holder brief indicated he was going to pull excuse me. He was going to do have this permit. Cant move. And reissue it so you can appeal the full permit instead of asking for jurisdiction. He did say that he sent that letter as i said he got the proof of the permit on may 22nd i founded on june 17th it was about two weeks after he sent the letter i was pretty much behind the game i didnt know i had no choose to file regardless. Okay. A good clarification on the building so mr. White horn thank you you can sit down anyone on behalf of the permit holder well like to hear from inspector duffy. Yeah. Mr. Sanchez as well. Connect correct. Scott sanchez Planning Department the property is located within a rh2 Zoning District the permitted to remove a between didnt trigger a be neighborhood discretionary review authorization and possible removing it the jurisdiction requester raised concerns about the unit may convert to the permit indicates some of the print shops and on the two dwelling units and given the fact within an Residential District would be concerned because any there could have been a commercial use permitted and it would have continued on providing concern conditions but to restore it the location will not be permitted under the code well have concerns and were not opposed to the board taking jurisdiction to investigate this further and the permit holder intend to withdraw the permit that would be probably better thank you. So one question two illegal units he wants to remove one. The permit shows that it says the existing legal use is two dwelling units and the print shop and the two units it is removing two illegal units on the at the unit 665 first floor commercial so we have concerns what that goes to and the concerns to return to commercial space per photo and planning land use approval i think we need more information it is possible that maybe permitted but if it is more than 3 years then the nonrestricted performing band has not enough information at this point to say the permit was properly issued. Mr. Duffy. Good evening, commissioners joe duffy from dbi i kind of agree with mr. Sanchez in that i havent seen any drawings or the plans not sure what theyre talking about on the ground floor but theyre indicating someone is indicating two residential units 665 storefront and basement and then the basement per 817 is an administrative code we use for commercial occupancies theyre not saying final until the appellant has filled the basement it is unfortunate that the permit holder is not here to answer questions probably looking at the plans would be beneficial and im sure if it came with a visit to the property we may have to do as well just to clear up what it is. You know what the status of the permit is at this moment. The permit is issued i did not check the history but if the applicant wishes to cancel it with dbi no problem and get a refund it takes a couple of weeks for this to happen weve not received that not that im aware of. Thank you. Any questions okay any Public Comment on that item . Okay. Seeing none commissioners the matter is submitted. I have a question i think so their concerns about the permit this is a jurisdiction request i dont know if it meets that standard or not in terms of notice to the occupant obviously i dont want this mr. Sanchez if you have an answer. Thank you Scott SanchezPlanning Department i think so our concern how to applies to the sidewalks before you separately the jurisdiction requester has raised concerns about the permits well investigate in this matter but certainly on first review there could be a permit if we find a flaw they could cancel the permit and require the corrective action. The question becomes was the city caused the applicant the appellant to not get proper notice i dont know if this is the case. Well, if the permit allows something i mean it is unclear pa what is available now it may offer something if at all possible requires a conditional use authorization and whether or not a notice was done more fatality flaws. If it is band for 3 years. Exactly to restore a limited commercial use if band for 3 years with a conditional use authorization to reactivate the use thats the concern we are supportive of the jurisdiction request to allow time but separately if it is denied well investigate the matter. I dont know if this is a question for you or mr. Duffy are you able to suspend the permits. Weve done it before. Well perhaps without having enough information we could continue and the development of any information that either planning or building needs planning, of course, can act on its own with respect to this permit holder. Mr. Duffy would like to sorry commissioners just wanted to add in the cancelation of the permit is probably option because suspending the permit creates appeals on the suspension and if the permit holder wants to cancel the permit maybe it maybe indicated to the office that was what they wanted to do i can accommodate that we havent done inspectors so if the permit holder wants to take that permit away and not do that this was the best solution. The problem hes not here we dont have any assurance that is what he wants to do. So shall we continue it. If we continue this is a jurisdiction request that means we could. Do you mind commissioners, if i ask the appellant a question. No. Could the appellant come back to the podium please. Mr. White horn. Two questions, mr. White horn one in the permit to remove two illegal units is there another tenant that be affected or is that space vacant that stays space is vacant that was the x landlord son. Is there any work that was started. None whatsoever. Can i add one more thing. No actually. Okay. Whats the best course of action. Im going to ask to continue it or to allow for the jurisdiction request. I probably am leaning towards continuing. Okay. Make a motion commissioner fung. Move to continue this madam director. Do you want to continue it particular to allow the departments to do investigation or thinking the permit holders will come forward with more information. Ill expect both to occur. Okay. What do you think october 7th . That is actually a very full calendar with. November 14th. Yes. Move to continue this case until november 14th. Okay so theres a motion by commissioner fung to continue the request to october 2015 to allow time for a dbi and Planning Department to investigate the status of permit further and to ask the permit holder to provide more information on his intentions is that the goal. Yeah. On that motion commissioner president lazarus arrest commissioner Vice President honda commissioner wilson arrest commissioner swig is absent that that motion carries 4 to zero mr. White horn if you have any questions get in touch with us. Next is appeal number 5 versus the department of building inspection with the building approval on pen people avenue protesting the issuance on june 15th to add a permit to erect a building for a 5 story with 14 hundred square feet of a i need to make a disdisclosure i have an existing relationship with reuben, junius rose and ive retained it as council and reuben, junius rose representation is appearing before the board will not have any effect on my decision today. Well hear from the appellant now you have 7 minutes. Good afternoon i need guidance im the appellant i understand we need 4 out of 5 votes and Going Forward id like a 5 Board Members to hear my case which do we have a fifth member here. Theres never a guarantee to have 5 on a given evening so if i were you id precede. Im sorry, i cant hear you. Theres envelope a guarantee on a given evening to have all 5 members here we encourage you to state the merits of your case. Id like to address 5 Board Members and whatever there is 4 out of 5 you know id like. The standard procedure is that should be the discussion among the Board Members need where the additional vote would effect the outcome well continue it otherwise well precede it here. Did you understand his point. So mr. Gonzales the point is if the boards missing member the vote of the missing member makes a difference in the procedures little board will continue the merit matter and theyll review the video what another procedures to participate in the final vote but they would like you to proceed. Ill precede anyway . Yes good afternoon im Robert Gonzales mooens live on pennsylvania avenue 25 feet from this project one block away ive first time learned of this project in april 2014 and filed the application on may 2nd the developer makes allegations i want to respond to briefly on page 1 paragraph two he says i misunderstood section 311 and the discretionary review authorization process and quote projects that may qualify for a variance for certain planning code requirement as in the case with the projection garage door are code compliant for the section 311 unquote he provides no authority for much exception, however, the Planning Department says the planned are not complete with the code compliance and put the project on hold and told the developer if we wants double doors seek and get a variance on page 2 the last a pagers and similar soundproducing Electronic Devices are prohibited at this meeting. Participate the develop quote the only changes those requested by the appellant and underscores requested by the appellant ive not asked forces changes on the contrary it is clear quote the project should, scaled down in keeping with the neighborhood characterization it would be of interest to know what the developers makes no notice of the planning requirement which ordered all the changes 33 he retired to in the developers brief i requested no changes whatsoever as i said in my brief all Residential Construction in San Francisco must be in compliance with the planning code at the time of the 36 notice on april 2nd the proposed project was not complete or considered code flient on april 2nd the Planning Department was without planning Code Authority to send out the notice but did so in a direct violation of the planning code and making the notice void the Planning Department can use its discretionary powers this is discretionary review authorization is premised on the existing existence of a quoted flient project that didnt exist with that on august 7th or october 9th or any other time during the process on october 9th the department did not have any power over the noncompliant project on august 11th the department sent the project sponsor a notice and plaza played a hold on the project the department ordered the application revised within thirty days and if not the Planning Department threatened to cancel the application as for the 311 notice on april 2nd the Planning Department was out planning Code Authority to order any revisions new plans were filed open november 25th i was provided hard copies on october 9th the notice for discretionary review of the april 2nd plans was called before the commission i argued again, the project without notation the Department Took discretionary review and ordered it without conditions and ordered the permit some weeks after october 9th the department had a dr ruling and paragraph 5 it states quote with the proposed notifications the garage entry would be code compliant and allow for permitted landscaping isnt setback the commission admits the project didnt comply with the planning code and so if never compiled with the planning code the commission if have the authority to use discretionary review on october 9th there is a difference between the plans of september 25th the april 2nd plans never met the standards of planning code the september 25th plan has 20 pages of new plan and i represented as meeting the standards of planning code how have those new plans are not a notice to the neighbors the new plans are not in compliance with the code theres a privacy violation it is violated by the revised fourth floor deck that has a direct view into my master bedroom from 25 feet away in conclusion id like to say that board of appeals should confirm the Planning Department never had the authority to exercise any time and the project plans were not because the project plans were no according to to board of appeals should deny the application of june 12, 2012, 2013 i is you to do that may i have another minute. You have rebuttal also, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Well hear from the permit holder now. Good evening members of the board tom of reuben, junius rose here on behalf of the appellant also with me the project sponsor larry and our architect jeff were available for any questions you may have i just like to make a couple of points in the materials we submitted to the board first, this section 311 and the discretionary review process were both proper under the planning code and were consistent that standard Planning Department procure no new section 311 notice was required typically in the building envelope is expanded in any way a new notice is required thats innovates the case here it is proper for the Residential Design Team to review the frontage proj