Point zero and the lower plan is the garage and the upper thats mr. Changs at 8 flood. Are you referencing. Im sorry 8. 2 zero i apologize. So the bottom what does that reflect. On the bottom its the adjacent ms. Changs building theres a door weve notched that portion of the building up to the sky and the notch on the second floor too. Could you point to it open the overhead. Sure. Okay. This is mr. Changs house this is our no such in our building here it continued up to the building on this floor the back of the building this is the back of our second floor and heres the back of ms. Occurring religious house and mr. Changs house. So on mr. Changs side is the 8 flood avenue there are windows in the light well. There are no windows here. So why would you no such it. It was a gesture to mr. Changs house. On the other side is the appellants property. Correct. And where are the windows impacted here let me see if i can have a photograph the white trim those are the windows. Okay. All right. And when you take a look at the site plan theres a space between the building heres that feet and the building is not at 90 degrees to the Property Line it gets bigger as it moves out to the street this is the set back at ms. Occurringries house. So whatever the yard are they impacted at all by the structure. I see the deck this is a deck correct. So is the structure of the proposed project going to impact the light on the deck. Ill show you a drawing thats a good question. As you see here in the east elevation of our building this is the online in ms. Occurringries building the heavy doted line this is her deck right there thats her deck the top railing our survey surveyed that point our deck is maybe 6 inches show me your deck again. Our deck is actually that Property Line wall that you see the heavy doted line is ms. Occurringries deck. What about what further extends. Thats a fence on the property. We didnt label it we apologize. Okay. Thats helpful any other questions . Anything else mr. Sanchez. Thank you Scott Sanchez much discussion about the residential guideline and so if i can have the overhead if this is successful. So theres a several examples nicole they show a 4 Story Buildings next to a row of 2 Story Building this is not an appropriate design it doesnt it is not capable with the neighborhood but the sets back the 4 story in this location there is an existing 3 and twoStory Building and an immediatelyy building not to transition from the 3 to the 2 Story Building and whats a textbook example we have a row of 2 Story Building with a 3 thats set back from the proposed line i see a dashed outlining u outline of the fourth story with the 2 Story Buildings thats possible to set back the third floor, however, for the fourth floor it must be eliminated so the guidelines have expressing considered such examples youve considered here today, this is a textbook example when the guidelines so additional in regards to the setbacks thats been 0 made one of the issues and we can see it on sheet a. 2. 1 that shows the third story. But we have the setback of the third story set back to line up with the appellants property and also a notch at the corner youll see the sun again, this front Property Line is facing the south so as it streaks across the line in the afternoon hours it will get light and the setback on the third story is to help with the light with that, im available for questions okay commissioners the matter is submitted. I guess ill start i seemed like this preliminary concern is the light issue and based on the fact there is no analysis of impact on light by either side i would defer to the Planning Department determination a minimal impact on the adjacent Property Lines its not out of scale based on the residential guidelines so ill be prepared to uphold the permit at this point. I would concur with that. I think its probably different than a light issue more of a vision issue in how those neighbors see their own neighborhood. As mr. Sanchez knows weve gone through the neighborhood fights subsequentially and theres been a couple of height limit changes to address some of the issues in rh2 zoning. And so in looking at those things and im trying toy determine how objectionable this third story is over the balance of the other buildings. I understand and im hearing with the neighbors that saying im not i agree with them its obviouslyable i think whether you want to do the Little Things that the rtc has or whether you want to bite the bullet and say is a third story inappropriate with this neighborhood i agree it can be appropriate and therefore ill vote that way make a motion. All right. Ill make a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it is code compliant. Thank you. Mr. Peck check we have a motion then from the Vice President to uphold it is code compliant. On that motion communicating commissioner fung. Commissioner hwang. Commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda. Thank you. This vote is 5 to zero this permit is upheld take. Medical cannabis of the San Francisco board of appeals im calling the next item 10 is neighbors of the green Street Garage the property as 1776 green street protesting the ownerships to larry of an alternative process for the heat detergent we should wait for the fifth commissioner to return to the seat. Mr. Patterson ask i consultation the second swearing in. You can do that. Anyone else do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. Thank you. Good to see you. So with the communicating in the room well begin with the appellant. You have 7 minutes thank you commissioner president lazarus and commissioners Ryan Patterson for the neighbors of the green Street Garage. This is one of most interesting appeals but i represent a group of 25 neighbors that live around the green street garbage thats an automobile body garage only for parking. Its for a new water system and heat detect our we suspect something is being done the plans for example, dont show the spray boothd thats been heat by neighborhood we actually decided to withdraw the appeal no since fighting over nothing about the appellant attorney said this permit is used to entitle the spraying. I was national fy naturally shocked the permit holder cancelled the meeting. On a related note im told the dbi inspectors cant getting get into the garage. This appeal is simply this permit is for a fire sprinkler Monitoring System that has two restrictions the first is a fire permitted sprinkler and if the system is going to monitor the spray green booth neither have a permit the sprinkle system had a permit but the permit was cancelled. This permit depended on on the integration but those prerequisite systems dont exist. I directing your attention e direct your attention to the permit holders h. A letter if the San Francisco Fire Department from 1994 and he quote therefore the spraying operation must be permitted or removed the spray booth was never installed or permitted. You may be wondering why the neighborhood cares and the answer a this. The garage is spray exhaust is in the middle of the neighborhood and the paints comes into the neighbors homes so the permitting fire systems is very, very important. I respect what they say by she is incorrect. Im going to turn it over to mario the fire captain who was in charge of the fire planning review and ask him to talk about the details commissioner president lazarus and members mario balanced arrested as mr. Patterson states thats a simple matter a permit was put in but the system was permit process was never completed and not reported as being complete the permit expired my so again in essence any additional work to a system that was not signed off is illegal. Unfortunately, the permit process the Fire Department that approved to permit the permit hadnt expired theyll ask the Building Department will tell them to reinstitute the permit. And lastly in rectifying the Fire Department records there is no permit but the process was never completed and to date there is no legal permit for the spray booth at that address. Im sorry, i think i miss our authority whats our background all im what im retired from the San Francisco Fire Department for 14 years and managed the planning definition. So your statement theres no legal permit from the Fire Department did you do a review. That was part of the scope of my work i managed. You recall from 1994 there was nonexistent. We looked at he history. I i wasnt directly involved only through the history. Okay. Thanks. Im pat ill be quick i went through every permit all the way back to the permit to build this building no permit was had and theres no permit from the 20s and the Building Department said they issued a notice of violation telling them to get a permit which will require a mechanism review so putting in the proper filters. Raining an paertd son there are two appropriate course of action to revoke the permit thats appropriate if the board didnt want to do that the appropriate could you say would be to continual this permit open the permit holder obtaining a permit holder first to legalize the superstitiously and the spraying booth. Im yield the remainder of my time. Doug how do you correlate the permit with the spray booth booth. Commissioner im sure how they plan to do that. Your fighting this permit how did this permit right public school. The Sprinkler System has begun 20 years without being permitted or to date theyve not been goes to obtain a permit the spray booth dates to the 90s and never a permit from dbi for that. It is easily con essentially once those questions are asked they can come with the permit on appeal today, this fire monitoring permit ties into the spray booth therefore the spray bloo booth must be legal is there a reason you didnt brief the case. We decided to withdraw this but after the appeal the attorney told us. Its a highly technical point you bring up its hard to analyze without the documentation. Understood. We can hear if the permit holder now. Good evening commissioner president lazarus and members ilene on behalf of the many the permit holder. Ill respond to the statement when i spoke to mr. Patterson the day after the appeal was done he didnt tell me he was withdrawing and i was psychiatric id be living in paris but its comments were focus on the spray booth i dont believe its in use thats the reason any client is appealing that with regard i want many macys to talk about his experience prosecute the Fire Department and jurists appeal was filed im here because the San Francisco Fire Department wants me here by the way, they called me open the phone officer jack and said the automobile business has to be spishd and the building was closed because i close it up to clean it up the tenant had been there are no 15 years and when mr. Jack said its time for the inspection of your sprinkle system i took the building over the tenant had it for 40 years i want it in my name the tenant want a consul use permit they said you have to install the superstitiously system and officer jack said because its been a while since the 5ier test you need a 5 year test i said okay. I called up the company to the 5 year test part of the requirement is to make sure that the outside works and the Alarm Company is out of business and the alarm didnt work so the test failed. The officer said why not put in a new staiks system im all for safety god for bid having an fire in the building and not have to invite the neighborhood the permit is implied for thats why were here. The sprifrnl system was installed im here e the Fire Department instructed me to get the tests done and all the stuff will the permits ive never received any letter and the prior system been tested every year since 1994. So 0 with that, mr. Patterson brought up the past action its mr. Macys only building in my brief only one complaint and with loud construction noise. This came to be and again, i find it hard to believe that mr. Patterson was going to withdraw the appeal because of the olympic threat earlier this year by ms. Ledbetter and suddenly we got the word that they received complaints and itself dbi received complaints and its been closed as a car ambulance he has contracts with triple a and so forth. With that said im at a loss to understand what the neighborhood p are concerned about no complaints to the city or many macys or made to the tenant that there was somehow hard effects from the spray booth additional now the spray booth is unknown operational and complaints when no activity going on only basically for parker thats for tow damaged cars arrest then the fire sprinkler permit is appealed. Its hard to imagine that if, in fact, the concern the repair the operation youll royal one of the key permits to assure the safety the sprinkler had been operational the strishlg was operational and the inspections was done so again, im at a loss if i had known all this i might have prepared defendants guilt differently theyve thumped their nose at the process i appreciate what under pattersons son said it noticing was not concentrated to me in no way, shape, or form how often do you plan on using the spray booth this was about the operation of the spray booth this was to speculate what the brief was and again, i know the focus is on the lack of i would you have taken another route and how absolutely shoddy this is we have gone over the permits didnt mean one didnt exist its inaccurate permits get lost and documents get loss so it doesnt mean the permit for the booth was noting never applied for thank you Scott Sanchez is the appeal wish or for a permit for the sprinkler whether land tissues is an rh2 zoning process and a nonconforming use we dont see any issues even if the spray booth has been add its clear their rod noting they could, in fact, have a spray useful under the discretionary review authorization so other than the spray booth is whether or not theres a city agency that will require a permit and the Planning Department didnt require a permit but if theres another city agency that needs a permit well not be opposed to that if you have any questions, ill be happy to answer them. Mr. Duffey. Commissioners on the Building Permit thats under appeal is a typical sprinkler type of work its a with the Fire Department plan check. There isnt building approval apart from