Boards executive director. Were joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. And the front right now is greg and others with the board of trustees i believe well be joined by Scott SanchezPlanning Department. And representing the Planning Commission and joe duffy dbi inspecting please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other Electronic Devices are prohibited. Please carry on conversations 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. 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 youve been sworn in or affirmed please affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. Okay. Thank you very much commissioner president honda and commissioners one housekeeping has to do with with item 7 appeal is notice of violation of violation on 660 3rd street we jointly worry about for a continuance and want additional time we need a vote in order to move the item they want it heard on february 22nd. Motion to continue. Thats what is needed. Motion to continue this item until next week. Okay any Public Comment on this motion okay commissioners the most from commissioner swig to continue this item to next week on that motion commissioner Vice President fung and commissioner president honda that motion carries the item will be put on the february 22nd calendar. So going back to the regular calendar item one general Public Comment this is an opportunity for anyone that wants to address something on with the jurisdiction but that is in the on tonights calendar any general Public Comment seeing none, item 2 is commissioners questions or comments and anything commissioners. No. No. Item 3 the boarders consideration of the adoption of the minutes of the february 8th. Unless additions, deletions, or changes may i have a motion to adopt the minutes. Any Public Comment on the minutes seeing none, then we video a motion to adopt. Excuse me im sorry i believe i wasnt sure about the vote on the last item i thought the vote on the continuance 3 to 2. Excuse me not a continuance but my motion. I dont. 3 to 2 on my motion for, 3 to 2 on your motion against. 2 to 3 on your motion and 3 to a two. I know that commissioner wilson voted against your motion i believe that citizens did as well. Is there. I thought commissioner wilson. The first one commissioner wilson voted yeah, and then nay and the reverse. Im pretty much she voted no on both commissioner Vice President fung if you want to us check well make a correction. Scott sanchez Planning Department. Was my recollection that commissioner Vice President fung voted for the motion. Thats okay. If it needs correction. The results are the same. Okay. So a motion from commissioner swig on the adoption of the minutes on that motion commissioner Vice President fung and commissioner president honda that motion carries meaningful to item 4 a rehearing request the subject property at 1712 castro street william and listening i didnt are recks west stone versus the Deputy Superintendant with the cases on january 18th it at this time the vote was with commissioner wilson absent to issue the permit that the glass railing be transparent on the basis it is code compliant the permit holders are with the 200 plus a spiral assess and new sliding glass patched skylight from the requesters first. 3 minutes to present your request. Thank you we request this hearing based on several preliminary facts that our position as appellants the board of appeals can i cannot it especially in the light that the appellants have not been truthful and evasive and selective in the real facts of the situation it is utter no ones that the responsibility reapply to the photographs of our backyard we specifically were stating they showdown the backyard of the neighborhood to the north the claim when the gentleman showed did photos of their cousins and neighbor to the north backyard by said that was our barbed was a bogus smoke screen of misinformation they claimed that the shade if our trees please note they showed on a single tree to the south end of the the rainy part of winter barely casts a shadow as far as their yard and all of a sudden and amazingly and the respondents have shown in the photos 6 and 7 to illustrate the claim the fact they used this doctrines lighting to shows ours acacia tree and our memoranda lemon tree from a low obscure angle that shows the trees in the opposite part of lighting is a series of less than factual statement by the respondents please look at if where the height is of their property versus our bedrooms as to what it is going to be when they build a deck over our head the issuing will sorrowing impede our rights to privacy and the visible right of their viability and their childrens and twice as the Vice President pointed out when they go up to the hour and a half or down indoctrinates the or not were ignorant of a law how can a build and lawyer and agent claim not to know the lie their disingenuous. Why want build on the cousins we respect the right to live here and to the live in privacy thank you. Once again for your time this evening we ask you reject this month manifest injustice will result the request in allowing the roof deck to summarize. Stop the clock are you trying to use the computer. Not yet. So when youre ready to make sure that you say that to they know. To summarize in documented the gentleman has mischaracterized the description those are incorrectly in our original respondents brief. Now morph as a photograph of exhibit d shows it is the large tree in their backyard that blocks the sunset to our backyard and house heres a photograph of the tree blocking the sunset i took in our backyard and note that it is not this tree and its appreciative shadow that was cast on our property is not limited to the rainy days of the year i diagramed that in the brief and looking at exhibit d 6 as you can see our backyard is small and shaded we want more outdoor space and access to sunset the plans for a modest roof deck will be able and should be approved approved with the citys rules and regulations and 2 1 2 years after filing the permit id like to briefly respond to some of the other claims many are argument from the original brief that were talked about we addressed the owner on when the roof deck was conceived with the model mr. Wet stone refuses again and again that was planned by the remodel and offers his 0 own prescription for the consequences with no regard for the previous decision mr. Wet stone repeats a claim well be infringe on his privacy we detailed in exhibit a that multiple properties have views in the appellants window in the backyard and in fact, are more intrusive from the proposed roof deck since the roof deck the roof hatch from the Property Line by 10 feet no safety issues in the proposed it was corroborated by mr. Sanchez mr. Wet stones brief was a misrepresentation that were comprehensively are you feuded duration the appeal this didnt support my manifest injustice this is a convenient disk attempt to deny the feasibility to build untruthful roof deck we have spent a lot of time into first trying to find areas for compromise and from the appellants fabrications and those personal accusations have been draining to us both please reject mr. Wet stones brief for a see. Any comments from the commissioner any Public Comment come on. Good evening and welcome. Want to state that the permit own photograph showed clearly that the entire commission and everybody that the windows in question which were 3 bedroom windows 2 and 16 castro one were clearly visible in the photographs they showed taken from the roof where the roof deck will be so the gentleman just deflate his own argument it is clear the point is the last ruling by the commission here was based upon evidence that was presented under oath by the individuals that applied for the permit they provided questionable information false information, abridged photographs and incorrect wrong photographs to because the evidence they attempted to get their permit issued by the commission that is the problem why we believe that my brother and i building this is an manifest injustice i want to state something ill state it for one reason i spent my whole professional career in Law Enforcement i served as an advisor to the police chief and serving as the bureaucracy of investigations with the District Attorneys Office 35 years i understand law and to make statements and the evidentiary facts whether things are presented in that regard there is the letter of the law and the spirit of law this is not the letter of the law we are dealing with the spirit of the law and i think in that regards it is more important to air on the side of spirit of the law than the letter of the law when the individuals was here applied for the permit and every step along the way done everything that is counter preview to present a true and factual case in theyre part so my brother and i as the Property Owners and landlord and others that are effected we request a rehearing request be issued by the commission and give us a better chance to present the facts in a very clear honest factual way not to wrong evidence and considered some other testimony fraudulent evidence this is a clearcut case in this case thank you very much thank you and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. Richard. Thank you any other Public Comment. Good evening and welcome. Name Michael Ricks brother i grew up at the 1716 castro street and Property Owner with my brother that the property were talking about now it is 1714 which is with rental we my brother and i rent it out to the people that are with us and helping us nicole bill who just spoke but when what i want to mention is this because of the owners on castro street not filing credible for a permit which is documented which is a circumventing of the law and second less than truthful when they explained why they didnt file the correctly for this permit with the city of San Francisco i strongly feel that whatever they say here today should not be strongly considered as correct documentation because myself i wouldnt file 4 permits circumventing the law ill follow the law of the city of San Francisco if they cant follow the law properly then what at the say in a public hearing under oath not considered correct information and the last hearing there architect was here and uses an overhead an aerial photograph of a number of properties in noah valley with decks that shouldnt be allowed to be used in this hearing or the last hearing because every property has its own specific locations and this property is different the one were talking about 1712 castro street and certainly different than the properties in noah valley and thats what id like to end with weve been a long time residents of noah valley and owned property and not had my problems over all the years dating back to 1940s of new problems and as a result a problem now. Thank you, very much. Any other Public Comment. Seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. Question whether or not the threshold for rehearing has been met ive not heard any new evidence and not convinced by the argument of manifest injustice. I concur with the Vice President that is a rehearing request the merits to allow that is manifest injustice ive not seen any new information a material fact not shown at the prior hearing that leads me to believe that manifest injustice has occurred. Move forward to deny the rehearing. To deny this request on that motion commissioner president honda. Commissioner swig that motion carries with a vote of 3 to zero. The next item 5 a rehearing request for the subject property at 37513753 20th street appellants are requesting a retearing of the appeal to grant the appeal on the condition the permit holder come applied with the code and provided a settlement at no cost to the adjoining neighbors and any fresnos or screening no higher than the property it is code compliant and the permit holder is here and a new living level 0 blow the structure and below grade and replies the wood windows and replace as indicated living room and bedroom and bath well start with the requester. Good evening and welcome. Good evening he will everybody for weeks i tried to convince you that the project next door is too big and much too big next to where i live of course, i didnt succeed you thought that the architect did a good job and that the cottage a historic cottage is a challenge for the architect sometimes and in this case, i guess that was a challenge to build something which includes the comb it is a challenge if you turn a home into a monster home if you trigger the size of the existing footage of the home then that is a challenge the two questions are the issues i want to bring up that came up at the last meeting one the height of the 3 story addition of the home it goes beyond the limit and everybody agreed on this the height goes beyond the height limit which would require a variance but it didnt get a variance the Zoning Administrator said that that was included in the variance that was cast for moving the pop out box towards the neighbors Property Line however, there was no such discussion i was there that he meeting and actually, i have text here of the acknowledgement here i dont know but it was not discussed at the variance it should have gotten a variance if you go beyond the height limit and the second question i have is what exactly is the height limit and how much is the deep story pop out box not pop out but the arithmetic beyond the height limit i hired an expert and maybe some people know here Mary Gallagher look at the code language and found a mistake made and applied the code language to the plans however, the Zoning Administrator does not agree with that he came up with speaking different where do we stand i want you to allow this to be addressed again in another meeting thank you. Thank you. Well hear from the permit holder now. Good evening and welcome. Good evening shawn architecture good evening commissioner president honda and full Board Members the permit holder is traveling ill be representing him im sure you reviewed the page on the claims i wont rehash the information here there is no new information and the project has not changed obviously we believe that is clear that theyve not met the requirement for a new hearing im available to answer any questions. Thank you nothing from the department no any Public Comment step forward. Figure georgia swish swishing i was here at the 18 i watched the hearing it struck out you didnt have the site plans in front of you commissioner Vice President fung mentioned that twice and commissioner sanchez mentioned it didnt have the plans requested do architect to show you the plans on the overhead they were hard to see i think he showed you page the lower two pages the critical thing as i see it the top 3 floors this was not addressed when you upheld the appeal you dealt with the function and all the structural the underground and the digging excavation there was great before you that didnt deal with the site plans and the floor plans that relates to the programming and the programming makes the math i think that is something very sponsor important to deal with you saw the renderings they were nice and didnt i think detail the dictators theyre from the side can i have the overhead, please . Thats the cottage that little house and the project from the side angle so you didnt have a headon thing from the door and living room and bedroom window so this plus the fact you didnt have the site plan i think that a problem and demands a rehearing he found it on the Historic PreservationCommission Website that i can only do an 8 and a half by 11 ill be happy to show you next that according to her discussions with mr. Baine after the january 8th hearing the programming has changed at the level so heres the programming as it was in the Historic Preservation commission and i assume when it was before you only is 18 can i have the overhead, please . This is the top most level oh, in the second level sorry, sorry sorry the top uppermost level this is a den thats the deck thats the marketrate bedroom and bath. Can you pause the time zoom in. Sorry. Should have enlarged it im sorry. Thats fine my eyes are getting older thank you gary. This is the top floor you only saw the basement and the lower units smaller unit it is not clear you may have seen the first floor but not this and the level below the programming changed and the issue is math and she is seeking relieve from the math on the rear that is important you examine the programming to make a a full hearing and use your discretion i believe youre allowed to u