Properly. It was done by one engineer. They have a new engineer for the 11 inches. My plan is to follow up with the engineer. Theyre issued a permit we can still look into the concerns of the neighbor and use that permit to look at some of the issues regarding the retaining walls. And i probably would be confirmed the geotechnical report, or at least the report from the Structural Engineer as to why they needed to add the height of the wall. But the wall, its its not that six feet high, its pretty typical of what we see in that neighborhood. So it is something that they misjudged it, they needed another permit. Give an opportunity for another opinion and here we are. Vice president honda one last question. So is it your recommendation that we condition it to have a report or a geo tech report . I think we need the translator to president lazarus yes. Interpreter [speaking foreign language]. Okay. Thank you. You know, like i say, there is another issued permit. And my intention was, i need to go meet the contractor again. I left that open yesterday with him. I want to get up on the building, i want to look at the venting. I also want them to get a letter from an engineer. I can get all that on the issue permit. Those are to be addressed. It was my first time there yesterday. So im going to follow up with that. Interpreter [speaking foreign language]. Vice president honda one last question, mr. Duffy. Is that permit subject to appeal as well . Or is that appeal process expired . Interpreter [speaking foreign language] in answer to your question, the opinion period has ended. That permit was issued on the 6th of february. 2019. Interpreter [speaking foreign language] okay. Thank you. I dont see any more questions. President lazarus any other discussion . Is somebody prepared to make a motion . Ill make it if nobody else wants to. I would move that the on permit be upheld and the appeal dismissed on the basis that the permit was properly issued. So we have a motion from president lazarus to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that it is properly issued. Santacana . Aye. Vice president honda . Aye. Commissioner tanner . Aye. Commissioner swig . Aye. So that motion carries 50 and the appeal is denied. Thank you. Interpreter [speaking foreign language]. I would like to thank the interpreter. Great job. Thank you. Were moving on to item number 5. So item 5, appeal number 201025. Robert blazej versus department of building inspection with Planning Department approval. Subject properly is 44 bonview street. Appealing issuance to jian yu zhou of an alteration permit. Legalize existing storage to habitable space with new internal stairs, new retaining wall at rear yard and lower floor. Infill. Lower floor new bedroom, bathroom and media room. Replace front windows with wood clad and rear windows with aluminum. Rebuild second floor deck in kind. This is 2020 0221, 5146. Well hear from the appellant first. Thank you very much. Alek, can i share my screen to start my comment . Yeah, youre on spotlight and you can also share. Thank you. Honorable commissioners, my name is Robert Blazej, im the homeowner at 44 bonview street. My family and i have lived there since 2009. The subject property is an unpermitted rear expansion that would be improperly legalized under the current permit. I do not wish to Delay Development of the property, i simply ask that the plans be modified to meet planning codes for a rear bay. This request and offer to lift our appeal was made to the developers by phone and email on march 29th without affirmative response. I would like to present pictures that explain the Current Conditions and also point out inaccuracies to the plans that impeded proper view prior to approval. Id then like to ask my father to speak as my agent as he is familiar with the planning code. Commissioners, from the left is a submitted plan of the rear elevation. On the right an actual picture of the condition. I would like to walk you through the issues of the subject permit. By way of background, the homes at 3842 and 44, the subject property, were built in 1972, using a single set of identical plans. Id like to point out and please note the identical rear profile of the three homes as shown in red. This shows the rear of all three homes as they were originally built. This photo shows from the right the rear of the subject property as it stood on december 1, 2019. Please note the stairway shown in red descending from the spans on the right. It was built over the original deck shown on the left. There is no record of permanent expansion at the subject property. These pictures show the subject property as it stands today. Demolition of the original stair was conducted by the previous developers before that permit was revoked from misrepresentation of the plan. You can see the original stair that was embedded in the legal expansion has been removed. Prior to removal, the stairs imposed went blindly into the joist providing some minimal support. Because the expansion is of shoddy construction, the subject permit anticipates making external mod any indications to the structure modifications to the structure, replacing the weak post with new posts and new footings. Additionally ties will be added to secure the illegal expansion to the main building. Notably, although the subject permit includes these external modifications, these were not included in the plans provided to the commission for this hearing. Further, the submitted plans show the bays that the subject property on the left in 42 bonview, my home on the right, extending the same distance into the rear yard. My home has a permit that only extends three feet into the rear yard. The fivefoot bay of the subject property is not allowed because its extends too far into the required rear yard. These are actual pictures of the two bays shown on the submitted plans. The subject property on the left, and 42 bonview on the right. The developer claims that satellite images are ambiguous as to how far the bay protrudes, however, anyone standing at the property can see they do not extend the same distance. The plan is misleading and inaccurate. Similarly, the existing deck is misrepresented. The subject deck is shown extending to the end of the expansion and anticipates rebuilding a new deck inkind. The picture on the left shows the current condition today in which the deck has been demolished by the previous developers under a revoked permit. Despite this prior demolition, its clear that the deck did not extend. You can see the prior deck was of weak and shoddy construction and did not extend to the end of the legal expansion. Additionally, as indicated in red on the photo in the left, a nonfire rated Property Line window is not shown on the submitted plan on the right. Lastly, the rear yard elevation, much steeper than indicated on the submitted plans. These homes are built on the side of bernal hill. A 3foot wall is shown on the submitted plans cannot maintain this profile. I would like mr. Blazej to speak. If you could unmute him, that would be great . Okay. Alek, if you could stop the time. Well unmute his father. I paused the time. I got him. There you go. Unmute. And if you could spotlight his father, please. Thank you. He will not unmute. Dad, im sorry, we cant hear you. Can you manually unmute. He may have clicked the button. Okay, hes unmuted. Mr. Blazej . Thank you. Can you hear me . Yes, sir. Thank you, honorable commissioners, thank you for your time and attention. As Robert Blazej outlined in his documenting photographs, there is substantial evidence that an unpermitted addition intrudes into the required rear yard open space by approximately five feet. This addition was built over an existing deck and stair that provided access to the rear yard. A smaller illegal deck was also constructed over the illegal home addition. This deck sits about two feet above the roof. The rear elevation plan as filed showed the deck and the roof in the same plane. This is not true. As photographs show, back stairs and ceiling and the deck is haphazardly constructed. The floor plan as filed failed to show a legal Property Line window and existing supporting. None of these existing conditions are shown in the real elevation submitted for review by the city. Its clear intent is to mislead plan checkers. The drawings are a lie. Compounding the misleading drawings 30 seconds commissioners, all we ask that the plans be revised to meet the planning code, which means approximately a 32square foot reduction to the illegal projection. Basically a 4foot side setback and 3foot projection allowed by the planning code and not the five feet which is there. Thank you for your attention. Id be pleased to answer any further questions. Time. Thank you. Okay. So we are now moving on to the permit holder. I believe mr. Chan is here as a representative for the permit holder. Yes, i am. I have slides that i created. Do you mind if i share them . That would be fine. So once you get your presentation up, youll have seven minutes. And alek will give you a 30second warning. All right. Im ready. My name is art chan and this afternoon im representing mr. Zhau. Before i begin the slides, would you like to give a brief introduction, mr. Zhou . Yes, im here. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is jian yu zhou and im the permitholder at 44 bonview street. Knowingly they were two active notices of violation about the work done within the envelope. So it was really difficult to determine what was existing and what was not. And to our research, it appeared that the structure was there from google maps. The appellant claims that the rear structure or the third bedroom is not permitted. Moving it would cause a huge financial burden to me and my family. I would truly hope that i would not have to undergo another lengthy process to begin work as it took multiple months. We did a lot of Due Diligence and talked to the inspector just to comply with the notice of violations caused by the previous owner and contractor. Moving the rear structure would burden our family even more. I just want to say that. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, mr. Zhou. Thank you. As i mentioned in the brief, in 2002, the rear structure already exists and the stairs mentioned in the slide can you see the slides . Yes, we can. Perfect. So im sure you read and understand the situation. The appellant really has two main concerns which is the retaining wall in the rear which was already addressed and the existing rear structure. The existing rear structure existed in 2002. 18 years. This is the latest picture with a clear image as you see from the picture indicated there from the rear yard to the existing door mentioned in the brief. It is owners knowledge in buying the house in 2020. Again, since 2002, there have been zero complaints either from the Planning Department or even the Billing Department regarding the existing rear structure. Furthermore, there has been no planning active planning Code Enforcement cases regarding the appellant, until recently in 2020 when the appellant first time mentioned the possibility of the existing rear structure at the rear being unpermitted. This was shocking to me and the homeowner, mr. Zhou. As he did his diligent investigation. Besides having zero complaints prior to this appeal, San Francisco Planning Department and Building Department approved a similar scope of work, not once, but two times. But for the similar scope of work. To my knowledge, none of the senior planners or plan checkers mentioned anything about the rear structure as the proposed scope of work was in the building envelope. Also, the scope of work did not include any enclosing adding square footage, thus, it was approved two times. This said, if both senior planners approved this permit, why was this never brought up during the permitting process . [inaudible] Bernal Heights already. Keep in mind that the second time the permit was obtained, there was a complaint resulting in every department double checking the plan. Even joe duffy reviewed it three times before submitting the permit. These are the slides that are approved for Building Permit application. So before tonights meeting, the appellant claims to have rear elevation only and stated that the architect responsible designed and built all three homes exactly the same. Just one record, mr. Zhou was unable to verify the plans at d. B. I. Such that often that changes happened not in our control. As you can see, from the plans, clearly does not match the map such that possibly be used as a remps. Reference. The Current Conditions of bonview matches the original building plans, but does not reflect close to the sanborn maps. It doesnt even reflect 32, 42 and 44 bonview. The appellant submitted plans in 2012 such that he included the rear structure and elevation as well. You can see it highlighted. They mentioned that the four feet of the line of the existing rear wall of the neighbor to the south. [please stand by] [please stand by]
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.