Commission. Joseph duffy is here, representing the department of building inspection and also joined from the environmental section of the department of public health. If you could go over the guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. The board requests that all turn off all cell phones and proceedings. Please carry on conversations in the hallway. The board holds the presentation are as follows. Appellants and permit holders and Department Representatives have 7 minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals people affiliated with these parties must include the comments in the three or seven minute periods. The members who are not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals. To assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, the members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not prior to present a card. Speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. The board welcomes your comments and suggestions, there are Customer Satisfaction survey forms on the left side. If you have questions requesting a rehearing, please speak to the board staff during the break after the meeting or all the board office term morning 1650 mission street. And this meeting is broadcast live on San Francisco government television, cable channel 78 and dvds are available for purchase from sfgtv. It. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you abouter to give should be the truth, the whole truth is nothing but the truth . I do. Thank you. President , and commissioners we have one housekeeping item this has to do with item number eight this is an appeal of the sidewalk landscaping permit. And they have canceled the permit at the permit holding request and this has been dismissed and will not be heard this morning, so we will move to item number one, this is for members of the public wishing to speak. No comment there, lets move to item number two. Which is commissioners comments and questions, is there any comments . Only that i just received notice that commissioner hurtado will be late in a work emergency and will try to be here in the next 15 minutes. Any Public Comment on this item . Seeing, none, we will move on to item number three which is the consideration and possibility adoption of the boards Meeting Minutes of its meeting of november 7, 2012. Madam director on item ten, could the vote be changed to show it is 301 . Thank you, for that correction. If there is any Public Comment . If you could could please call the roll . We have a motion to adopt the november 7, 2012 minutes as amended. On that, commission hwang . Aye. We will move to 4 a, i understand that the attorney and we could move forward it okay, this is 4 a and two rehearing requests, at 2750 larkin street and the board received a letter from ellman and huangfu requesting rehearing of appeals 12090 and 091 decided on october 17th, at that time the board voted 41 with one vacancy to up hold the subject permit on the basis that it is code compliant. Permit holder is peter fento, and the project to demolish the rear wall building new ad dish to the rear while conforming to the residential Design Guidelines by stepping back in the two directions. Good evening, commissioners, and the attorney on behalf of the appellants, seligmam and i am here here today to ask for a rehearing and that the subject permit be set aside until all of the refractions related to the property have been cured. This request is based on a flurry of lastminute applications that were filed after our october 17th hearing. Therefore, if under the new materials, not previously in evidence, of the rehearing request. So on november 9th, the permit applicant filed filed, to change a flat roof to roof deck increasing the railing height and the construction of the wall. And the next slide just is confirmation that the november 9th permit was filed. This board must take this and remove and correct. Failure to grant the rehearing will. The roof deck issue which if those 2010 permit is approved, as is, it would essentially legalize the roof deck permit even though the sponsor has filed a separate permit ap. And again, if approved as is, the permit holder will have no reason to proceed with 29012 permit and could withdraw the permit without going through the proper review channels. Pat will go through the discreptcies between the two site plans. So the basis of a rehearing are justice and new evidence not in fact. The manifest in justice, he saw nothing wrong with exsaouming through the garage. That sin correct. The code separation does not allow exiting from a garage into a private dead room or back. A studio apartment is the bedroom. California Building Code section 1004 exit does not allowing exiting through the garage. Residential code 12311. 1 also does not allow for exiting a garage. If you look at the 2002 permit, it clearly shows that it had an exit corridor, after the testimony they looked at the 2002 drawings and said where is the exit corridor and i believe that the representative were in a process of issuing it until the sponsor said that we took it out or someone took it out and filed for a permit yesterday and we are putting it back. Secondly we brought up the issue of the roof deck. The roof deck goes around and the roof deck is here. The Building Permit initiated a review and yesterday, the project sponsor fesed up that nowhere on the 2002 drawings was a roof deck, they are now filing for a permit. So that is the permit that they pulled yesterday. The last issue, which is a more important issue is the exiting requirement. The client did not plain explain it very well. But you need in 2002 to have two exits from the third floor, if you want to go to the current code which is the 2007 for the project. You can delete that second exit but you have to comply with all of the requirements of the 2007 code. And in 2007 there was a major change in the Safety Standards where the sprinkler fitters put in an emergency order changing that instead of a second exit you could sprinkle the building. Where is the second exit from the third floor, they were questioning how that happened. Now the problem is, when you compare the current set of drawings that have been submitted, and the 2002 drawings i forgot to show the second egress, i think that the Building Department is going to be looking at these draws more carefully, now there are three things that are problematic with these drawings, where is the exit and where is the roof deck and what is the second egress from the third floor. And so we are asking for a request for a hearing on manifest and justice, the testimony two weeks ago, you were grossly misled about the accuracy of these drawings, if you dont approve this, then effectively you are legalizing the roof deck that is currently there, because the current permit has been in front of you. And you guys taking an action, which we dont have action tonight. All that we can do is ask for a rehearing. The drawings dont match, they dont match the exiting on the kur he want condition of the drawings, and this drawing is the last cfc. So if you want to remove the second egress you would to sprinkle the building that is what we asked for last time. The way that these things can be addressed is that you take the rehearing and you fix it. We cant do that now. All that we are asking for you to do is fix the manifest and justice of the last hearing. We good evening, i am here with high colleague who we represent the permit holders and respond ans the fentins. I am going to address and then miss kid will take over to discuss the things in the brief. If you recall when we were here last time two days before the prior hearing, the counsel it filed two complaints about things that have been done in 2010. Tonight they are here to tell you that the permit applications that were filed to address the complaints that were separate from the issues that were before you here. What is before you tonight and what was before you at the original hearing was the site permit that this 2012 site permit. The permit holders have filed the permit applications which are separate issues and those are new evidence with respect to what is properly before you here tonight. And i submit that i do not believe that they will demonstrate to you that they have any new evidence and certainly no manifest in justice has been done, they are simply here tonight because they do not like the results. There is no new evidence and that is the standard and there is month manifest in justice and i would like to turn it over to miss kid from my office to go over the things that were mentioned in their brief tonight. Thank you. Thank you. As you know we are here again today in connection with the Building Permit which was denied on the permits. Appellant is seeking to relitigate. They have not offered any new evidence to support this rehearing request. As you know article five section 6 states that motion hearings should not be made by the board except that it is shown that new or different circumstances have arisen. They are required to submit new information. They raised four arguments in the brief, these do not contain new facts. The information that appellants site was not only available at the time of the hearing but also presented to and evaluated by the board. And in some instances their own experts weighed in. The fact that they have filed this rehearing request not because new or different material facts have arisen but dissatisfied with the out come. The fact is that they are dissatisfied with the out come, excuse me. We respectfully submit that the fact that the hearing is not resolved in ones favor the fact that you are not satisfied is not grounds for a rehearing. The first is that it is warranted that the permit was submitted to the board at the hearing. However the board rules are clear on this point, article five section 1 s states, photographs, maps and plans and drawings may be used in presentation and submitted at the hearing. More over, under article 5 section 6, where a hearing is not appropriate where the information was not available at the time of the hearing. It has been part of the record since 2003 and was readily available had they engaged in due diligence, the permit was not new evidence. In the second argument they content that the subbasement level did not meet the requirement of the Building Code this was discussed at length on october 17th as well as the experts on both sides. Here they have presented in new facts or evidence. They are simply trying to reengage the board on an issue that has already been decided. Third they contend that it should not have been issued because of the discovery by ddi made after the hearing. Now since we submitted our written response last thursday, it has come to our attention that there was no site inspection after the hearing and our project managers who are here today, and if you like to hear from them they can testify that there was no inspection after the hearing. We do apologize for not bringing this to your attention sooner, but needless to say we did not expect an inaccuracy in the appellants brief. There was an inspection prior to the hearing. As you may recall mr. Duffy discussed the results of this at the hearing and the board had the question to question him. Again, this site inspection is not new evidence because of it occurred before the hearing and was discussed at the hearing. As you heard from apell ents counsel permits were accepted yesterday to correct the discreptcies. And i understand that these applications are under consideration by the planning department. Again, these are applications made in response to complaints, not in response to the site permit or to this appeal. Appellants final argument is a reiteration of an argument made by the board on october 17th. They contend that the house of the nonconforming section, section 181 deals with nonconforming uses it is a residential use in a res dental district. Appellant offered no information that was unavailable at the time of the hearing to support this argument. In closing, it is abundantly clear that they have not offered a shred of information that was discussed at the hearing or not readily available to them prior to the hearing. We request that you deny this rehearing request for failing to make the required showing. Our team is here to answer any questions that you might have, thank you. Thank you. Anything from the departments . Mr. Duffy . It looks like you are standing up first . Good evening commissioners, nothing apart from what you have heard, the roof deck issue and the wall that is separating the garage are from the hallway and a new hallway that has been filed, thankfully and that will make it a legal exit, which is better than what they were. I think that they were going to sprinkle the garage or Something Like that. We did find that there should have been a wall there whether it was taken out by the previous owners or the new owners it is going to be put back and i think that they are quite willing to do it. I didnt have to fight them to get it done they signed the permit themselves and if any of the commissioners have any questions on the case . Mr. Duffy. I think that it is appropriate that we review the procedures upon which further review by your department with respect to either the agenda that is submitted and issued, following the approval of the site permit. Specifically, in respect to whether the roof deck was originally granted or not granted. The addition of a corridor wall, additional lights, i presume that you can could then discuss what types of reviews the Department Still has to do. You are right about that commissioner, i actually have that written down here. Addendum need to be reviewed. And it has not reached there but the drawings have not been submitted for that, we have only approved the site permit. We should be looking at all of the exiting issues and i am sure that if he is going anywhere soon, he is going to keep us on our toes on that and so we are expecting that, i already had that discussion with him this morning, prior to the hearing, he brought up something there, but a second means of egress from a third level that is the first that i heard that have and the discreptcy on the plans. I think that all of those issues will be sorted out at the addendum stage, process. Thank you. Thank you, good evening, president hwang. The project remains compliance and we see no reason to grant the rehearing request. I am available for any questions. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. Just a point of clarification, i believe that i made a more general statement at the hearing with respect to this project that i felt it was in general cocompliant, i dont think that i have made a specific statement, if i did i try not to. With respect to exiting from the garage. The issues is the over all entitlement that we upheld with the site permit verses the individual items that are predominantly of a technical nature, which i believe that the Department Needs to resolve and has the duty to resolve. At this point i do not see any new information with respect to the over all entitlements that we upheld last time. I would just guess ask a question, the fact that there were new permit applications in the last few days would not be germane, it is a hearing on a permit as opposed to additional permits. Those are appealable also. Separate. Thank you. I have nothing to add. Do i have a motion . I will move to deny the rehearing request. Okay. We have a motion from the Vice President , to deny the rehearing request. Both rehearing request. On that motion, president hwang . Aye. Commissioner hurtado is absent. Commissioner lazarus . Aye. The vote is 30. The hearing is denied and the notices shall be released. Thank you. All right so we are going to call the next item which is appeal 12128. We are not going to start the hearing on that until commissioner hurtado is here. She should be here shortly. We will take a twominute break. Okay. Thank you. We are back to the november 14th, board of the appeals. We are calling item number 5, appeal number 1 2128. Glikshtern verses the department of building inspection, at 70th elk street. Protesting the issue ans on september 28, 2012 to recreation and Park Department to alter a building to make ada accessible. Path of travel, rest rooms doors, drinking fountain and mechanical work to the site and rest rooms and drinking fountain including the concrete slab in the rest rooms this is on site for tonight and we will start with the appellant who has 7 minutes to present her case. My name is glikshtern and i am not objecting to the work to the building, what i am objecting on is the trees and the work on the hill and i filed this appeal because so many people that are against this part of the project. Was actually is doing is it is killing glen park and destroying while life habitat. The permit says that they have the exemption because the work will not be done in the areas but on the. And it is totally untrue. The removal of the trees which are under the construction must not be attached to the Center Project at all. This project will be wasting tax payer money on building a new entrance, and the hills and trees and planting native gardens instead of using this money to work on the Recreation Center filled with the play grounds and playing hills. It was a half a million, ad promotes. The process did not actually consume the neighbors information was withheld from the community. In