Alternatives of fuzz on the future for a terrace. This is not something he was precluded from doing. Most importantly, if we are to follow their commissions logic here, if we reach an absurd result, under the commissions rationale, mr. Heng is precluded from ever challenging, or trying to have an extension like this in his terrace. If somebody were to purchase the property from mr. Heng, they would be able to, does it make sense. Thats why we think it is important for an analysis, whether that be conducted by the mission commission, to look at the merit of the project. I think it was included in the briefing materials. This right here is how circumstances have changed. This is the plague court. It poses a health and safety risk. He needs to be resolved. The reason mr. Heng seems to have this terrace installed is to solve this water issue. Thank you. Counselor, you have time in rebuttal. What happened at the Planning Commission, this is an open hearing, whatever happened there has no bearing at the body. You should just present your case. I appreciate that. In light of the briefing thank you. We will now hear from mr. Shan iger. Welcome counselor. Important policy issue here with respect to this object. While reasonably people may disagree whether this does or does not comply with the guidelines. The consideration is when two parties enter into an agreement and that agreement is the basis for withdrawing a discretionary review request area it is inappropriate to come back with the the same parties come back with the very same project years later . I think the answer to that is, no. Its a very important policy consideration for the Planning Department and the Planning Commission, which is we want to encourage parties, neighbors to enter into compromises, and agreements, with respect to projects that influence or impact each of the other properties. This in fact, the commission is not going to Pay Attention to the fact that someone has entered into such an agreement, and allow somebody to come back in with the very same project years later. Then you are eviscerating the very policy that you are trying to encourage with respect to neighbors and neighborhood agreements. We believe that the commissions decision, and your decision to deny the application, would be appropriate in recognizing and honoring the spirit and the agreement between the parties that resulted in the withdrawal of the dr the first time. Pam baer would like to make a short comment as well. Thank you members of the board. I just want to apologize for taking your time, when there are many other really important city matters that you deal with, i feel like this is a neighborly dispute so to speak that we thought we were taking action. We had an agreement in good faith. I, you know, we have the same backyard. We have the same garage, one car garage with a driveway. We have the same play area, probably really comparable. The Swimming Pool was, you know, turned into a full back wall court. If a leak is there, it can be repaired without doing what he is now saying needs to be done. I just really want to apologize. Hopefully we can, you know, we, you know, i just im sorry. Thank you. Okay, mr. Sanchez, we will hear from the Planning Department. Thank you. Good afternoon, Scott Sanchez Planning Department subject property 610 el camino del mar, singlefamily detached zoning district. The permit that is before you were submitted in april of last year, under went section 311 neighborhood proposed horizontal condition, in the deck space. Last august, when discretionary review was filed and it was heard by the Planning Commission on december 6, of last year, at the time of that hearing, through the review process, the Planning Department found the project was code compliant, complied with residential Design Guidelines, recommended approval of the project before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission chose to exercise it discretionary view, as it right. Anytime a project is brought before the board of commission, it is that board of commissions review of the project and determination that counts. The Planning Commission found exceptional extraordinary circumstances, in this case area i think it was really hammered home by commissioners fong and moore, in tran11 when the project was previously occurred, as has been stated by the parties. There have been part of a larger project next door, for the new owner to get their specs. They have proposed a similar addition to what theyre proposing now. A discretionary review was filed by the same parties here, section 14 party, to this appeal, and the d. R. s request or hearing. During the course of that, they had gone to the commission. The commission told them to i think, very politely, work things out. They came to a compromise reduction in the depth of the deck. Which is the permit before you. Based on those revised plans that had reduced the depth of that projection, of that debt, the d. R. Was withdrawn on the project was approved and constructed and it is in the condition it is today. Now, the issue is that the underlying agreement has now been voided by the permit hold holder, as is their right. They have the right to apply for this, and to go through the process. The Planning Commission has the absolute right to deny based on the grounds i would caution, i guess, what the appellant has represented here, the sole concern of the commission was upholding the rabbit agreement. That is not really the case. The commission did say, and commissioners said they wanted to honor that agreement that had led to that d. R. Being withdrawn. Missionaries moore and fong noted they had concerns with the project, at that time. It did go before them as a dr, for their final action, withdrawn. They did see the project and they did have those concerns. Even a commission or state of about the solarium in the rear yard, its a legal noncomplying structure. This building has a greater footprint, and greater extension to the med walk open space in the adjacent property. While the proposed addition is code compliant, 25 rear yard requirement, it would not be appropriate. I think the commission did express concerns on the design, on the bid walk open space. They did state those concerns. While it wasnt incorporated in the plan language in the discretionary do action memo. Redoing the hearing that was part of the concerns that were raised, as commissioner honda has noted, this matter is fully before you. So you can return with a unanimous vote tonight. The Planning Department, if that is the boards wishes. Im here to ask you to not do that, and to uphold the Planning Commission decision. A couple of things, one, i agree with the concerns that were raised by the commission about the extension into the med walk open space. Even though it is code compliant. The board of supervisors has passed legislation that will increase the rear yard requirement for the Single Family districts at 30 . Probably in about 30 days time, or so, this proposal will actually not be code compliant. A new piece of legislation that the board has approved, its 30 days from the mayors signature, or ten days it will be soon. There is the concerns about the med walk open space. When we do have an agreement. I agree that they have the right to come back and to refile, but the Commission Also has the right to say, we have concerns about this project. We dont feel it is appropriate. You guys had a compromise, at some point, in the past and we think you should honor that compromise today. With that, i am available for any questions. I have a couple. So, the Planning Department actually recommended that the Planning Commission not to take d. R. . That is correct. What basis . The property is code compliant and code compliant with the guidelines. That was 2,011, this is 2019, we have more stringent laws and codes. Is it code compliant right now . So, the recommendation i begin to is one we had for my share. It is code compliant, as of today, it complies with the guidelines. That was our analysis and review from the current permit. Are there any exceptions or variances to this permit . No. Okay. So, thats kind of tough. How often does your department recommend Going Forward on a project that is completely code compliant with no variances and no restrictions that the Planning Commission overturns . Its probably not so frequent that often the Planning Commission goes with staff recommendation, or may make minor changes to that. In this case, there review is that this was not an appropriate project so they denied the application. Ourselves, upon the briefs that were supplied, we got memos from our City Attorney as well, in regards to, you know, what basis the Planning Commission and where we are at now. I mean, generally speaking, private agreements between Property Owners should stay private and not have a city seal on it. And we are not we are no not there are times where terms of private agreement may be reflected in approval. Because, the Commission Finds that is appropriate. There can be terms of a private agreement that can be acceptable and implement a by the city. I agree. Usually we turn those into an and sr, or incorporate those into that did not happen in 2,011, the d. R. Was not withdrawn based on the agreement. They could have gone to the Planning Commission and said we want you to adopt these changes the Planning Commission was not given that opportunity, because the d. R. Was with strong. Withdrawn. Now that is happening again. Two commissioners were there in 2011, they have concerns, at the time, that is why they wanted you guys to work it out. You guys work it out so we didnt get a final say on it. Now we get our final say i we outthink the deck is appropriate. The concerns about the noncomplying sort structure, solarium, and the intensification of that. While not requiring a variance under current law, it is still intensifying the structure that extends further into the rear yard than other structures. I get it. You being here longer than i have, we are usually here, we are talking something that has required in a variance or an exception to go into the rear yard, or allowing extra bulk, or height. Here we have a fully code compliant project, and, you know, as i told the counselor before, this body is bonobo, what happened at the Planning Commission has no bearing. Thank you. Please. I would like to pick up on that, actually. Im not totally following what you are saying about your agreement let me back up. I read the transcript, which i assume is a complete transcript. Someone can correct me if that is wrong. I dont know that i agree that the Planning Commission granted d. R. And denied the permit on the grounds that they had concerns about the merits of the project. There was musing on the record. It seems clear to me that this issue was on a private agreement. Can you explain to me what are the actual concerns . If it is code compliant, you know, youre talking about mid block open space, but this terrace would not extend rear yard than the requesters terrace would. Im just not following the argument. I can only to the extent that the commission elaborated on their thought process, at the hearing. You know, i can only speak to what is in the materials that have been presented. Commissioners moore and fung, they were stating about concerns that the project, when it came before in 2011. Going to a reduction is making it more palatable, in their minds. Perhaps it would have been better articulated, their concerns, with the permit rather than, you know, more than just honoring the agreement. But, again, im going to be speculating somewhat. Other concerns were also related to the encroachment into the mid block open space. There was reference to that. The encroachment and the existing legal noncomplying solarium, and how that was problematic. I think problematic was a specific term that commissioner hillis used in his description. The noncomplying structure is the solarium not the terrace . How does it have the lack of compliance . It is in intensification of that portion that extends beyond the rear building walls of the adjacent building. Not that it is noncomplying in terms of the rear yard requirement. It encroaches further into the rear yard, then either of the adjacent buildings. That is getting larger. It has increased floor to ceiling height. So, what is confusing, a lot of what is brought up is confusing to me on this. Normally, at a noble hearing we would have heard from the project sponsor about the project. And defending the appellants position that the project was walking a view. I am using an example, not pertaining to this case. Blocking a view, destroying my light, expanding the bulk with great intensity. You have heard this week after week, with us. I heard the project sponsor not address anything except, weve got a conflict here based on an agreement. Then i hear, appellants counsel, didnt talk about anything about their project. Did not talk about distress to my client, blocking view, blocking light, my kids are going to suffer because they cannot do this, they cannot do that. All of the stuff we normally hear. Nothing detail related to the building. Only the agreement. Did you hear the same hearing i am attending . I did. The focus has been on the agreement. The project is before you, and if the board thinks the addition is appropriate then, you know, that would be to approve it. Let me continue. This is just my problem. Then, you step up here, and you say it is code compliant. When you tell me 100 of the time that something is code compliant, with very few exceptions, so code compliant would mean to me that this is unacceptable project. Other than there is several civil end, there is no nsr. Is there anything on the title, anything in official city file, anything that says, as we have done here in this board, many, many times. Here are the and conditions. You cant do anymore more to this if you want to get this thing done, right . Is there anything related to the agreement that has been referenced by both parties that is in the official city record . No area. Okay. Is this not a civil case that is out of our jurisdiction . I am hearing code compliant. I know that the bears are upset with their nextdoor neighbor, and i know the neighbors upset with them that, you know, that they cant do what they want to do with a very nice house. Also, the easy way out of here is just fix the leak and lets stop this thing right now. I am trying to find why we are even talking about this, based on what you are telling me is a code compliant project when the agreement is not even in the city records, and really is a civil private agreement between the two that should be hurt in in a and of law. May in rebuttal, both lawyers would like to address the project as was the agreement. Give me some feedback. In mise chelation my speculation, based on the agreement with the revised plans in 2011, commissioners moore and fung would have taken d. R. And they would have restricted it as such. They got their chance in 2018. They took that action. This is now a condition of approval. Effectively, this is the only scope of the project Area Department is denied. The commission is stating their opinion in 2018 when they got the chance, and 2011, they saw it and told them to work it out, they worked it out and it was withdrawn based on the revised plans. Now they want to come back, expand it, and that is where the Commission Says no, we dont think that is appropriate. There was some testimony to the fact that they thought it was large, and it was not an appropriate addition. It comes down to that. There are plenty of projects that are code compliant that the commission may deny or modify. That is their Discretionary Authority. Not very often. If we grant this appeal, and then the code changes, can you explain what happened to the plants . I mean, so, there was a grandfathering provision in that ordinance. Yes, it was based upon if they have the permit submitted before january of 2019, it would not apply. If this permit was denied, if it was upheld, they would not be able to reapply for that, and other reasons area. How is the co different . Lets say they apply 60 days from now for the same project. The code would prohibit the reapplication for the exact same project within a year. But say the year passes, the new law is effective, its a 30 rear yard requirement, instead of 25 . The deck they are proposing cannot be as large as what it is now. I dont know the exact dimensions, and how much shorter it would get. It would get shorter. My last question is, if the Planning Commission had wanted to impose conditions on this, based on the merits of the project, they would do that . Yes. In this case, the whole scope of the project was this deck addition, so they denied it. There was no other aspect of the project they would have approv approved. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Duffy, did you want to add anything from five any Public Comment on this item . You are the third party, so you cant beat. Come on up. Welcome. I will fill out a speaker card if you want. I just want to be brief and remind folks that the Planning Commission denies a lot of permit applications that are code compliant. If the project is not consistent with the rest of the neighborhood, that is a valid reason for denying a permit application. This is going on rampantly, in my neighborhood, and a lot of right neighborhoods in san francisco. People are buying things, remodeling them, upscaling them, and putting giant mansions on little lot. This is not quite that. But it is sort of in that mode. It sounds like the people that want to build this deck that is doing something inconsistent with the rest of the houses, in the area. Being code compliant is a floor. It is not a ceiling. That is the meaning of discretionary in discretionary review. Just because it is code compliant does not mean it is automatically something that fits in the neighborhood, or that is a reasonable considerate thing to be doing to their neighbors area i was in the exact same position. You can have decks that loom over you, and really invade an area that has been open space for decades. I just want to remind you, code compliant is not the only thing to consider. Thank you. Do you live in the neighborhood . No. Any other Public Comment . We will now move on to rebuttal. Mr. Armstrong, you have three minutes. First of all, it is interesting to hear the hypothetical as to what the Planning Commission would have potentially done if they had not exercised discretionary review based on the 2011 agreement. It would have been nice to have heard this on the merits. Second of all, the plans have in fact change compared to 2011. Those lands did not have a railing. The new plans do have a would you mind if we pulled this backup . This is an example example here. You can see, these are photos taken in 2010, you can see the arrows here. These are provided in the briefs that we submitted. This now has a transparent railing to take into account the concerns regarding sunlight. And then mr. Heng i would agree, would be absolutely ridiculous if i came back with the same project on there are at least four aspects of the new plans that are different from the plans in 2011. There were steps, there was permanent planters, there was a skylight, even the Termination Point of the terrace is different now. Its not apples for apples, in my view. The second thing i would like to say is that when we negotiated the agreement, there was a clear intent that when this project was over, we start all over again. That was why we specifically requested to be removed. To my surprise, they actually agree. The subsequent agreement that did not have that clause, which extended the agreement past 20 2011, ive got all email evidence for this. This was our request. Subsequently, their lawyer disputed the amended contract three times, to all parties. They have three times to review the amended contract. I dont understand why, when it is code compliant, and you know, the agreement doesnt extend in validity, why that is being used to deny a code compliant application . Thank you. My wife actually owns the house. What prompted this, because the solarium is actually an existing structure from when we bought the house. Its probably 4050 years old. What i have been told by the contractors, because of the sun and the marine environment, that you have materials intersecting with each other, you got the glass, the metal and the seal. That is failing. What prompted the entire project was, lets try to fix this leak. Every time it rains, have to walk down with buckets. We are trying to find a soluti solution. We thought the solution was code compliant. Before we made the application, i sought legal advice, and legal advice told me this would not hold in court, right . The agreement does not extend past 2011. You have a legal advisor, on your board, you can tell me otherwise. If you can point to a clause, in the agreement, which says it applies to this current permit application. I would take that. But, is there a clause . There isnt. She asked you a question in regard to the leaks, sir . Are there alternatives to what you propose . There are always alternativ alternatives. I mean, there will always be alternatives. I think the bottom line is, i think the glass in the solarium has to go at least password is leaking. We probably have two remove all of the glass seal and metal parts, and come up with a solution to replace that roof. Essentially, it is a new roof. How we designed the new roof, it is open, honestly, this is not the only way to do it. It is code compliant. When we made the application, we thought we made a code compliant replacement of the roof. Thank you. We will now hear from mr. Scheidegger. I think the challenge we all have now, what was happening in 2011 and the commission sent the parties back to negotiate and work out an agreement . Had the benefit of hindsight, a n. S. R. Would have been the way to go. I think the expectation of the commission was, you will reach an agreement and you will reach an agreement that is acceptable to us, so that we dont have to address the project and the concerns we have with the project. From the standpoint of here we are later, without an n. S. R. , but implied in the direction of the parties to go back and negotiate is the understanding that that is going to be the agreement with respect to the scope of the deck. We never got the benefit of the commissions views in 2011. I think it is fair to say that we did get the benefit of the views of the commission now, in 2019 with respect to what they thought of the project, whether they expressed it explicitly, with respect does it or does it not meet Design Guidelines as it has been noted, there asked asked that arguably do not meet the Design Guidelines. We certainly made those arguments. The importance there, not explicit understanding that that was going to be with the Planning Commission expected the project to be. That was the project they effectively approved when it was approved part of that agreement in 2,011. When you come back again and say we want to move the project out, the response from the commission is, no you have an agreement with respect with what this object is going to be. We did not exercise, at that time discretionary review based on the fact that you reach an agreement. Regardless of the language in the agreement, whether certain clauses are in or out, or whether someone is going to win in court or that is not the issue, what the Planning Commission, the department of what the parties expect when you enter into an understanding and withdrawal a d. R. Is on the understanding. I have a question. You signed this brief . Can you tell me what the factual basis was for the claim on page five . I heard that from the client. That was the basis of the ledg ledger. Okay. I hear what you are about the Planning Commission process, the argument, i dont think the agreement has been breached. I cant imagine how it could have been breached based on my reading of it. Is it your position that this agreement precludes the owner from changing the depth of the terrace forever . I dont believe that the agreement, specifically, as drafted, is an agreement that if you go to court with it, youre going to be able to argue that it includes work on the house, clearly. I think the point that we made was with respect to the exact same project, decisions were made relative to that agreement to withdraw the d. R. And not have the hearing based on concerns of the project, because the parties had reached a compromise. The point being, the parties will never reach a compromise, if the exact same project, will come back and can come back years later. Why would anyone enter an agreement. You could have written that into an agreement. This agreement was negotiated by an extremes lawyer. All i am saying, is were not here to argue the specifics of whether the agreement is enforceable or not. Weird of the agreement, the spirit of the decision to withdraw their d. R. , at the request of the commission who asked the parties to get together and review it, and make an agreement, which they did. Whether it enforceable or not, thats another issue. Im talking about policy here. My question though is still, is that your client position, your position that the owner cannot ever extend the terrace as long as he or she owns a ho home . That would be our position. Of seven he wants to come back with other circumstances, based on the agreement to withdraw the dr that would be our position. Would you concede not in court,. I cant conceive it, because i havent been in court yet. Im not arguing the agreement right now. Im arguing what what is the basis of the withdrawal from the dr. Can you tell me what the legal basis is the Planning Commission to take d. R. And grant the dr based on private agreement as opposed to what is actually written in the coat which relate to the actual project . The commission has a discretion, with respect to projects, whether they do or do not fit in a variety of criteria, including the residential Design Guidelines, and their own criteria, whatever that may be, with respect to the propriety or impropriety of the project. Including, whether the project fits within the policies that they are adopting with respect to the neighborhoods, or how they run the commission. Is what you just said, as i provided for . Yeah, i think if you read the description, i think i put it in our brief here. When the commissions charter, excuse me, let me find a location if i can find it here. Ive addressed this in the bri brief, lets see here, where we got it. I apologize. We did address it. We cited on page five, the discussion is delegated to the Planning Department and the commission to approve applications that meet the minimum standards of the planning code, including the general plan policies to get the commission does have the right as a client on their website to review an application, and require or deny, or require permit applications to make changes to these projects. It is a special power of the Planning Commission, outside of the normal Building Permit application process. When extra ordinary circumstances are not defined. They have the ability, where there are exceptional extraordinary circumstances as undefined that may be, to come to a conclusion to deny requests. Thank you. So, i am still hung up on whether this is a civil matter, or not . What i would like to hear from you, plain english, every time we have a hearing, what is wrong with this project . Why is it doing harm to your client . And, this is a did noble heari hearing, what is wrong, what is the harm here . Is that the reduction of the open space, is it light and air, i dont know, because you get where im going . It is the extension into the open space of an additional area of a debt. At which location now, there is a solarium. Youre adding a couple of feet to the project. Now youre adding, you know a deck that is two or 3 feet higher, plus on the sides youre adding screens to look through, and so it is a further intrusion looking down into my clients property. Anything else you would like to add to that . No. Perfect. I want to let you know that is the hard part. I think your dispute is a civil hearing. I want to get to the building dispute on the building issue. We have addressed it in our brief. I want you to and tell me. Thank you very much. We will now hear from the Planning Department. Thank you, Scott Sanchez, Planning Department. In terms of the d. R. Authority in the city minutes will code, section 26, article one of the business tax code. The Discretionary Authority of the Planning Commission. Interesting note, the authority of the Planning Commission to exercise d. R. Was once a right that only the board of appeals had, but City Attorney memos in the 1950s, the commission was advised we have this authority as well. It comes from the same place. That power comes from the same place as this board and fines. The ability to take into consideration a variety of facts, to render whether or not it is appropriate to exercise a fair discretion whether it is appropriate to approve deny, or vote for a modified permit. It is the same ability you have, near the last one to make a decision. When the Planning Commission reviewed this, they found it didnt comply. They took discretionary view, and their opinion was not appropriate to grant this. The d. R. Memo does reference the previous agreement that had been raised, but it is not the cities position that was legally binding whether the city will enforce that, which was raised, you know they said, several of the commissioner said it was perfect to honor that commission. The commission did express concerns of the project itself. Again, phyllis, moore, and found concerned about the encroachme encroachment. I think that led to their denial of the permit as well. Again, to some extent none of that matters, because it is before this board. What does matter, the implication of their decision is that it takes four votes now for the board to approve this permit because they had denied it and it takes four votes for this order to overturn that denial. Again, the board uphold the Planning Commissions decision on the permit, and to hold the denial and the application. Thank you. Thank you. Any comments . A suggestion. Im not comfortable with the basis of the agreement. I think youre in a similar situation. It feels to be like the commission acted like a legal body, however, there was a compromise that was reached in 2011, i wonder if there isnt an opportunity for another one now . My suggestion would be to potentially continue this matter and ask about the parties continue to discuss this, and see if there is a project in between . I wouldnt be horribly opposed to it. I think we can resolve this tonight. I would rather resolve it tonight. I am not opposed to your direction. I could find for the appellant on the basis of the encroachme encroachment, into the rear yard space, i could also support that further changes the character of the neighborhood, if i were making a motion, that would be my motion to support the appeal. Just for clarity the appellant is a person who got the permit denied. You are supporting the section 14 part party . Supporting the notion that the permit should not be issued. Okay, on the basis of the encroachment that it changed the neighborhood. I think, if we dont want to go in that direction, we want to gu know, that is where the two parties should take advantage of if we go in that direction, i want to hear from the other two commissioners of putting this off. This is a roof fix. Everything about this, really is driven by the fact that a roof is leaking and causing harm to somebodys floor. It is a roof fix, so fix the roof. Dont expand it, dont make a new deck area dont expand your space, fix the roof, because that is what the testimony has been tonight that there is a roof leak and there is water down, and that is a reason why we are expanding the deck and changing the configuration of the area. The change of configuration, is a change to the character of the neighborhood. The expansion of the area is a further encroachment into the open space, which is why i would support the denial of this permit. Anybody else have any comments . I think either we have a lets go back and talk some more, or we finish this tonight. I am the polar opposite of you. I would grant the appeal. I think we all agree this is not about enforcing the agreement. I think there is a good point to be made in the Planning Commissions process should be respected. They wanted an agreement to be made, and an agreement was made. They were offended that that agreement did not remain in perpetuity, but, you know, 78 years as a long time. It is not a credible position to say this agreement lasts for the rest of eternity. Its not recorded with the land, its signed an agreement that says that it does, it not special restriction, a talented and experienced lawyer could have done any of those things, as part of a compromise. Mr. Heng part of his bargain in tran11, he bargained for the freedom to continue to work on his home, or his wife, i guess is the owner. They bargain for the ability to do that in the future, and they are entitled to do work in the future, yeah, it is a roof fix where they want to build a compliant deck. The Planning Department recommended no d. R. , because theres nothing wrong with that deck. I kind of have a hard time understanding, you know, why the extra 8 feet is something we would deny in any other situation . First i can go well, its the first time its been like this for a while. Usually we are altogether. I can agree with my Vice President , and continuing this, and allowing the parties a fairly short lease to try to hash this out. At which. If they did not hash that out, i am in the same mode, or same position as my fellow commissioner, in the fact that, you know, what someone decides to do whether it is a roof leak, or not a roof leak. This belongs in a court of law. I am not an attorney. Although, we do have one on the board, that is not my capacity this evening. After only a month and half, hes going to validate the thing is, i do have a problem, this is a did noble. So much energy was sent in regards to what was done, what was said, the Planning Commission. It has absolutely zero bearing to what happens here this evening. They could have all sentence letters, does it make a difference. As my president said, so much energy was based on stuff that just doesnt matter to us. I would like to continue this, and support my Vice President and that motion and hopefully the two parties will come together. And figure something out. If they dont, you know, i dont see that this is an perpetuity, i think when the Planning Commission made their statement, there was nothing that was recorded that was the terms of the settlement, as my City Attorney has mentioned, the terms of the settlement were not incorporated to any city approval, or recorded, as restrictions to the property. To me, this is not something that is before our body. Unfortunately, we have two unhappy neighbors that live in really nice houses in a really nice outoftown, going out it, have at it. I would suggest that we hear the motion by the vice resident and build on that motion. The next available date would be september 25. Are the parties available on that day . Or do you want to give them an opportunity thats the day i have to leave early. I suppose we could hear it at the beginning. We could. We could also put it next week. We want to try to do it in a week. Thats probably not likely. Were going to need 51 way or another. On the 18th all commissioners will be present. Because i am sorry, can you come to the podium if youre going to speak . Thank you. Lets make something really clear, okay, when we ask you to negotiate in good faith. Please negotiate in good faith. I am not accusing you guys, im just advising you of past activities. We are the successors. Please, please, we would like to hear a record of you all having a meeting together, having a congenial conversation, regardless of how it turns out. The 18th is too soon for you guys . The problem is we need all five commissioners on this. October 23 . We could do october 16, we could put it at the beginning. September 18 . The rainy season is quickly approaching, this has been pushed off and often off. We understand counselor, were giving you date. The sooner the better. The 16th . The 16th would work. Is that okay with you mr. Armstrong . Is october 16th, does that work for you . That does not work for us. Is there hearing on the ninth . No area no. We are going further than october 16th. We have the 16th, the 23rd,. If we did my way i would do september. October 16th or later, counselor . September 18 is not enough time . Okay. We can do the 16th or the 23rd. Whatever works for you. We can do the 23rd of october. Great. So we have a motion to continue this matter to october 23 do we want a summation of some kind . Im hearing the 23rd may not work. Are going to be november 6 area november 6th. That is just a hearing date. You guys can work it out. If you guys settle this before, we are all good. I would certainly hope so. I have strong doubts. We will do october 23. Thank you, counselor. We will have a motion to continue this to october 23. On that motion, that the parties can try to work out a settleme settlement, on that motion. Im sorry, once again, want to ask the zoning and minister to play a role, i want to make sure if theres a compromised proposed it would be reviewed by planning prior to bringing about here. That is a good idea. Motion to continue to october 23 so that the parties can try to enter a Settlement Agreement that would be approved by the Planning Department. [roll call] that motion carries. Are we going to allow any further briefing . Did you want the agreement . A joint report. Yes. I think we should have, if theres a settlement, we should have a report on the settlement. If not, we find ourselves back where we are now and we will take a vote. Lazarus page maximum, per party. Okay, three page maximum, per party, on the progress. Hopefully. Thank you. Can we take a break please . About ten minutes. Thank you for your patience. We are going to take a ten minute break thank you. Welcome back to the sit number 11, 2019 meeting of the board of appeals. We are back on item number seven, this is appeal no. 190 19077, amy lee versus Department Planning inspection. The property is 2901 taraval street, peeling the issuance on june 26, 2019 as an alteration impairment, overthecounter addition of a new dwelling unit, commercial condominium and two commercial units to include living room, kitchen, four bedrooms, and radiant heat and slab replacing. This is permit. We will hear from the appellant first. Can i plug in a memories de deck . Shirt memory stick . Sure. Do you need some help . Can you give her some assistan assistance . Good evening, and welcome. Thank you for having me here today. Quick introduction, i am amy, i reside in the building next to travertine. I have living in san francisco, since 1984. Since i was 2 feet tall, now i am ex a number of old. That is an intro to me. I would like to apologize for not submitting the brief sorry, not submitting the hard copy. I asked whether or not i can submit a copy of the brief. The permit holder did not want you to fail, he submitted your brief with his package actually. As an appendix, it has been submitted. We have all read your brief. Thank you. I read the permit holders brief, as well. There is a lot of metaphors. He more or less ignored a lot of the facts and circumstances i brought up in my brief. With that said, i would like to discuss my brief again with the board. I was sent here okay. Again, the building in question is 2901 taraval street. The two addresses are collectively in one single building under the same roof. The timeline of events is basically on june 5, a permit was issued to the owner of the building for renovations to the unit under 39th avenue, i would just to refer to that Going Forward. Right after he got to the permit, construction began, not just only at 39th avenue but also 2901 taraval street. Like i said, he started construction of both unit. What im going to do, just take you through some of the violations that i have observed, that he has committed since starting construction. The first one being parking, unpermitted debris box on the street. A permit attached to the debris box, that is being the first item. Ive also listed the violation of the public works code that was being violated. Second, a dumpster tru was parked on the sidewalk overnig overnight. Obviously blocking access to the public. This was parked overnight. The next morning, the construction crew taped it up with caution tape. I cannot take my kids through the sidewalk, to get to my car, i had to cross the street. Taraval is a busy street. Other sightings that he is taking up sidewalk space, is demonstrate it by these pictures here. He would often corridor off part of the sidewalk, permitting access to it. On this next page here, no pictures, lot of words. I want to point out, during the renovation process, like i said, he was issued a pert
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.