Joined by joe duffy representing Electronic Devices are prohibited. Out in the hallway. Permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. 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. Please note any of the members may speak without taking do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do okay. Thank you very much. Item number one is general Public Comment this is an opportunity for anyone that wanted to speak within jurisdiction but not on tonight calendar any general Public Comment . Seeing none, then well monarch to item 2 comments from the commissioners anything commissioners no item 3 the boards consideration of the approval of the minutes of the 16. Item 4 believe there was a second component to that action. Ill ask that the two representatives of the urban forestry mr. Buck and ms. Short provide their recommendations for the 3 palates. Okay. Im make a note and change that. With that correction move to adopt. Okay. Is there any Public Comment on little minutes on that motion to adopt the minutes as amended commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda and commissioner swig and with commissioner wilson absences that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero and we will move on to item number 4 the jurisdiction request the subject property on 39 after the board received a letter requester that the board take jurisdiction over the Building Application which was issued on december 2016 by the department of building inspection it end 2015 and the jurisdiction request was filed in 2016 their robert chiu and naps lee one newly bathroom and laundry and storage at ground floor and construct new deck at the rear of the building 9 feet by 17 feet well start with the requester. Please approach the microphone. Youre here on behalf of ms. Wong. Good evening commissioner my name is stanley he will ones husband and the owner on this avenue im here to appeal to the permits issues to my neighbors on 9 avenue for the construction of the back of the house im here to ask the board to reconsider the size of the proposed up to 19 by 7 that covers the entire back of the house two Major Concerns the privacy with the proposed extension of the deck my neighbor will look into any bedroom we live very dense city and privacy is something we need second on the sunlight the deck is 7 feet we used to have sunlight into my bedroom im not here to deny but compromise for the neighbor to scale back the 19 any 4 feet he i believe will still provide them with the right assess to the backyard i want to be a Good Neighbor im willing to work with the permit holder please consider my scale the back thank you. Okay. Thank you. Well hear from the permit holder now. Okay good evening board and thank you for your time this evening my name is robert chiu we are the owners at 39 after the permit holders there are two arguments so forth i by the appellant both arguments are incorrect the plan didnt carry the proper neighborhood notification and the deck is larger than what is found the neighborhood on the first point the subject permit was revealed by the building inspection and approved overthecounter last december the neighborhood notification is not needed and on the second point we carefully planned the size of our deck our deck is 7 feet deep 1 3rd permitted by zoning it is small compared to the neighboring structure that is 14 feet another point is samson lee and ms. Winning dont live on the property it is used a rent this is our home where we plan to raise the family and retire we respectfully ask the board to not grant the jurisdiction since our rules and regulations were followed in this permit do you want to see a picture . If you like you can put it that the overhead overhead please. Its upside down. Put on as youre looking at it. On the top view is looking north towards ms. Waning and same son lees property there a deck the back a red deck and theres an extended structure that structure so yeah, so thats how to a looks like. Are you finished. A thats it. So did you reach stout neighbor at all. I did i talked to linda who lives south of us and after explaining our plans she was had no further concerns with us and i reached out to the tenants living north of us their main concern because they lived there during construction if he were invented with the Construction Activity but this was not part of complaint our contractors were you very sensitive and make sure they followed the rules and kept everything tight. Thank you yep. Excuse me but your im looking our twofold. Yeah. The one that looks at the rear of our house i dont see any red deck in the photo. Their west looking views the deck is on the top pain. Right . But which house is yours on the bottom photo which house is yours. None of this this is west looking. So it is. A view from the deck the view from the deck. Yeah. Okay. Thank you thank you. Anything mr. Sanchez. Good afternoon Scott Sanchez Planning Department ill be brief this property is located the rh1 Zoning District as section 311 exempts them from the neighborhood notification the deck is whether he thinks the height required and is it meets the requirement and a 25 percent rear yard requirement it date of birth up to one and 20 feet and theyve got up to thirty feet it is a modest addition before you as well but just confirming no notification for this permit it was reviewed and approved by planning at the end of november. Mr. Sanchez is there a the pop out there; right . On the photo shows a pop out on the adjacent property but, yes next to the pop out on the property based on the photograph it didnt appear on the site it was appropriated by the permit holder i dont know why they didnt correcting depict the adjacent property but a pop out on the adjacent property. With the extension of the deck didnt effect the light and air. No inspector duffy can speak to that requirement but it is largely code compliant. Thank you inspector duffy. Good evening commissioner joe duffy dbi the wriement under the jurisdiction request with was an overthecounter approval youve heard the planning approved overthecounter and building did as well that is properly approved and issued the deck is set 2, 3, 4 no need for firewalls Something Like that that causes problems with the ghabz but the deck is set back far enough didnt require a firewall shown on the plans i saw so it is that appears to meet the Building Code requirements any questions. Thank you. Any Public Comment on this seeing none, the jurisdiction request is submitted. The question is whether the city erred i dont think so any error and unfortunately, they couldnt reach their own compromise but as far as the appeal i dont see that Going Forward excuse me the jurisdiction request i dont see a basis. Comments commissioner make a motion Vice President. Move to deny the jurisdiction request on the basis the city dependent error. On the motion commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda and commissioner swig that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero and item 5 another jurisdiction request the subject property on 6 after the board received a letter from the query r requester are that the board take jurisdiction over this case which of the issued on december 2015 by the department of building inspection the appeal period end no january and request was filed on february 29th the permit holder are here and the complaint numbers to remove correspondent with wet sink and toilet and garage on the ground floor remove the illegal ground floor units. Maam, director has this been before us before. Good evening commissioner im representing appellant the jurisdictional request under lee moved probation officer 6 avenue with his wife and daughter in 2005 and made it their home when we moved they have no idea their units was nursed theyre to be evict and unbeknownst i dont know their landlord applied for a permit to representative their unit and in 2015 dbi approved that permit application however, as exhibit from would parties the presidio if notify mr. Lee until 2016 after the permit was approved they intend or applied for the permit no more the notice it said that was approved despite the presidios were aware of the approval as a cantonese speaker he didnt know how to investigate or his responsibility to do so it was not until february 2054 days after the approval the permit holders notified did appellant mayor application was approved they ifd for the jurisdictional request he was notified the fact that appellant as respond to the presidios 60 day eviction by the amount should he be evicted in no way to oppose the permit but a common practice and doing so didnt help them to fight the eviction clearly here did permit holders intentionally caused the appellant to be late in filing his appeal not the city that caused it the same day rational the appellant ask respectfully to grant the jurisdiction request. Maam. Did you do the brief. Im sorry. Do did i write the brief. I wrote it is jurisdictional statement. You indicate that there was no nov the permit holder brief indicated an nov notice of violation the particular where it states that and its okay. I cant recall saying an nova. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Well hear from the permit holder now. Good morning. Im daniel or good evening my name is dan im representing the permit holders i want to mention a couple of things my clients are trying to comply with a notice of violation and they did up until permit and at the time there was no there is now notification requirements, however, what we did do was pursuant to California Law issue a thirty day notice of intent to demolish we specifically indicated to the tenants that we have applied for permits to demolish this was done january 5th after the new year so they were put on notice ive attached the actual notifications as well as the proof of service put on notice that was happening and did nothing for over almost 7 or 8 weeks since that time we have, in fact, served a proper termination of tenancy notice for them providing the relocation payment for the San Francisco rent ordinance and in fact, as you were notified the tenants asked for additional relocation so we would strongly recommend this is no appropriated forum to contest this because of the additional issue has lapsed and most importantly this is more properly before the San Francisco rent board as that jurisdiction has no time issue they can file a claim of wrong full eviction and not given up their right to contest the termination notice and this type of tip metrological we think because theyve rest for over 7 or 8 weeks while repreviously give them the right to pursue this before the board thank you. This property is h rh 2. Thats correct. Has our client thought about the second issue. It will become on reduce if not impossible task. The reason that the height. Please identify yourself. Im going to explain and start of problem when one day the upstairs tenant called me it is down by someone so they called me cant turn the back to the light and called the police they called me i had to hurry and you know make the light for the upstairs and then he was heard a lot of arguments the two policeman with the out gear i didnt make sure that the tenants that the light was i turned off the light and go back to sleep i dont want any sourness on the street and the two policeman was there and why the people shot down the light i dont know what argument i dont care what argument. Sir, is the time still running. And because the light that was people complain and the housing instead of go there that day that notice of violation and tell them because the height is you have to dig down maybe a foot or two feet and then you have to increase pine it. Youve answered the question thank you. All right. Okay. Thank you thank you. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department ill be brief this the rh3 Zoning District without the process they can have the dwelling unit in this location provide. Say that again. An rh3 so they can have two dwelling units provided the other requirements are meat met that was reviewed at the end of december, the notification requirements that that youre not familiar not part of Building Code became effective on january 8th of this year so during the 15 day appeal period but after the addition of the permit not subject to the permit when it was issued our report listed it as two units and no notice required by the department at the time of the permit was used. What was the height issue. Thank you very much. Inspector duffy. Joe duffy dbi that was issued as the permit comply with the complaint and other to remove the counterpart with wet sink and have a toilet in the garage on the ground floor and remove illegal unit ground floor the permit was issued and filed in 2015 and issued on confess 282015 housing inspection received a complaint the complaint number which i referenced received by the housing inspection in 2015 the complaints said go possibly illegal unit in garage the timeline of the complainant investigation was the complaint that opened on the 15 of december opened on the 16 of december and inspector left think chart to call on the garage door then on the 18 of december the same inspector investigated the complaint of the unit at at subject property and observed the violations of the housing code ground floor unit ceiling height didnt meet the minimum requirements below 75 on the 18 of december on january, 2016 during further investigation of the permit research that the noted Building Permit was filed to comply to remove the current sink and to remove the ground floor units that was filed on, on december 21st and issued on december 28th i explained there is no notice of violations, however, i couldnt find one the building inspector probably went to office to do some research i. In between getting it we had christmas week it is not unusual for the Housing Services to take a couple of weeks before they issue like the nova but in between that then someone obviously came down to comply with the complaint of the notice of violation i want to mention that there was some discussion about a complaint versus like the nova. Complaint was anonymous. Oh, sorry complaint was up anonymous. So since the permit was issued is there a notice of violation issued still that came prior to the issuance of the permit . The complaint is open ill doubt their issue on nova after the fact wont serve anyone it happens kind of people know there is something wrong and theyll take out a permit thats fine at the end of the day ill say in relation notice of violation this gives them the opportunity to illegal legalize so can this unit with the current ceiling height be legalized. There will have to be a designer involved maybe an engineer maybe the foundation will be modified to create the additional height this is norman meaning excavation without the excavation in the Current Conditions can that unity ever be utilized. It will need excavation im not sure but 7 foot 5 you need 76 is not a lot but go down and get a slab beget e district 3 in my experience in those types of building there is usually a theyre older buildings the foundation maybe about ground level maybe a couple of inches of slab but certainly some excavation. It could be without Major Foundation work. I think your experience is well commissioner that could be if there motivated to do that. You see it a lot for a garage heights all the time from the garages and the units for rooms are done once again they have to your ceiling floor choice cant be you have 3 options. Thank you. Any Public Comment on this item seeing the jurisdiction request is submitted. I have a question for the da. Mr. Sanchez since there was no notice of violation that was issued how does that effect some type of ordinance if they remove a united not able to put it back in because r3 didnt apply. Under the unit legalization the zoning didnt allow it you, you want to put that back later thats innovate allowed but this is an rh3 is i dont see they cant remove the illegal unit and come back. Thank you for clarifying. I guess inspecting duffey said it to correctly the question is motivation if the Property Owner didnt feel motivated to you know that gets into the merits of case but the question is whether the city erred i dont find theyve erred. Okay. I also concur commissioner swig would you care to make a motion. Move to deny the jurisdiction request on the basis the city didnt error. Thank you commissioner Vice President fung on that motion to deny the request commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda commissioner swig okay. That that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero next item please is item 6 versus the building inspection appealing the to carol of on altercation permit with the roof garden and replace the windows and provide sprinklers not visual from the student well start with the appellant 7 minutes. Im merriam commissioner president honda that is about the impact on our privacy and safety of the proposed roof deck on the avenue were not trying to prevent carol and her family from building a roof deck we want to quietly and safely until march we reached a compromise, in fact, they email address us the revised plans we confused under the the exhibit we were surprised to receive a call from ms. Circling the schools attorney insisting that 9 implements of the compromise first will have to withdraw our appeal the board has no compromised plan from the carlos choose our only recourse is illegal action agreed for the costs and sign the agreement between 3 working days we couldnt get legal advice within that time so we asked them to have both the permits at the hearing a lot of this anger and intraments is of the city process we cant withdraw the appeals and not sure by now the time to register has passed the staff explained if into parties show up we could choice the earlier plan we conveyed this information to the Property Owners tea their lawyers by im were not really sure how it got to this stage and arguing on the compromise but since that is where we are we ask the board bearing in mind the permit holders have alleged to the compromise and indeed had the architect revised the plan. Id like to take you to the key issues and stress the statements in the responsibility brief the Biggest Issue the reasonable profess both work from home and mary has the proposed deck the office room as a washing machine rooms dont double duty and this is merriams office and has a medical condition not it is misleading to say this is a laundry room our kitchen window looks at directly into the neighbors roof deck and it is a private room the 5 years weve seen people on the roof maybe 20 times and once with a 70 feet from other flats in the building and most of them are connected to the planned work over the past year and disingenuous to say that is continuing uses from opted out space an extension of the living space and understand that living in the city needs compromises of privacy the revisions of 5 and 6 is mitigating our privacy on the roof deck as they agreed to ask their architect to revised the plan and make the changes despite the claims were not eavesdropers we live within 6 feet of roof it is impossible to not hear the conversations the premise application the applicants with the barbecue grills on the roof or the husband has a built in kitchen and refrigerator and discussed many of the contract that any of this was disclosed the application the review didnt address the review on the roof but the rule of our building abuts van ness it is 10 feet on behalf of above the social area with the barbecue grill our building is on ms. Carol is fully entitled to submit an application for the approvals but absent that synonyms we ask the current plan be modified for any points we accept this Panel Location was no objection to the promoted location as the issue of neighbor notification we understand that having the efficient planning process for the discretion and not sending out roofdeck projects but from exhibit 1 to 4 this impacts us and the neighbors as the building next door a reasonable person will not expect this to be approved in a zero application to use discretion a quick read on the points were trying to keep our discussions not confronttional it is great to see that mr. Cooper is friendly, however, those people carol reviewed the roof deck from the apartment theyre not impacted in the same way wear on good terms with the landlord and for that reason we didnt ask him to get involved in the appeal i think it is wrong for mr. Carlos objection we met with her over a year ago and in reality they got a permit without tlums and only agreed to meet with us after the appeal were simply pointing out federal and state this is a good faith opportunity and reached a compromise but never undertook the appeal it was not reasonablr rights nevertheless, we feel this is a good compromise are allows both to jay enjoy their peace we ask the board to consider that thou. Thank you. Well hear from the permit holder now. Good afternoon. Im kevin the same as kevin financing representing of the permit holder first, id like to make a general example there are all kinds of he said she said the promises they made didnt take place and what is very disturbing to my client the fundamental realty before we applied for the permit we were talking with the owner of the adjacent property and getting input about their concerns about the application once we got the concept the permit we talked with them afterward we never got any, no, sir, they tried to talk with us 2, 3, 4 december contrary we tried to reach a resolution and tell them up front the resolution well spend extra money with the architect and review the plans and let you look at them and in return well not go through the process of appeal as well as make the changes that was made clear to them before we starred the process we thought we had an understanding they told us no. Were going to the appeal and their concern theyre afraid that if they drop the appealed that we would not go through would the plagues a lack of trust especially the backlog needs to be paid in making the revisions we offered to come down and simultaneous with them drop the appeal and have the amended plan in an effort to spare the expense so at this point we have tried were not interested in negotiating a settlement i have many carol and simon the architect who drafted the plans and objected the permit if you have any questions of them i will try to be brief with respect to the ordinance we have briefed this but a couple of quick points they were overthecounter and didnt require the communication of the neighbors and didnt contain any of the elements of the codes for the triggered plans the plan went through the preapplication permit and have have been reviewed by planning and building and the Fire Department and on multiple occasions those reviews were not cautious or individual the roof is assessable and regular used by ms. Carol and her neighbors for the 8 and a half years the carlos lived there and the representation my client as regularly used this deck youll see chairs in their own pictures the roof is used no a situation the roof is not historically been used if anything by going though the plan the use of roof is limited not extend because currently all 3 of the people in that unit of that building have access to the roof two of the 3 people are no longer going to have access only one union unit will have access we ask for 200 and 75 feet but right now we can use more than 200 and 75 feet its coming down and safety glass the carlos have children so from our prospective the permitted plans reduce the access and make the roof for aesthetically more attractive no new plans to look into their windows it is already xhoiftd they knew the neighbors next door were using that roof a okay. And so is not a great surprise an invasion of their privacy the deck is implied and downsized from the allowable 5 hundred square feet in positioned far away from their new space weve tried to be conservative and address the issues in time plan their frustrated by rejected and having we have occurred costs theyve made the recommendations well build a refrigerator and kitchen were not doing that that is not the plan there recent a gas line currently in place were not seeing a gas line there before that gas line p will be used for a fire put that was approved by the city i would like to open up for questions and make mr. Quan available if you want to ask the architect any quests. How is the access currently to the roof . The access curiosity 0 stairwell if all 3 neighbors can come up to and based on the modification of the building this is a small part of overhead thing youve seen an external moving of walls, etc. Theyre not objecting to theyre cutting off the access for the other two neighbors no longer having assess to the roof. Your plans show a spare a new walls for stairs up to the roof . The stairs are up to the roof. They go up okay. That answers my question sorry you said the other units will not have access at that point it. Im sorry. It will be deed to that unit only. Its approved the access for our unit but weve openly allowed the other units to go up and down weve prepared the plan both ways what is required by code the code decision said this is a interior stairwell 80 up you walk straight up on the roof. The last question is actually no, im fine thank you. Thank you. Well hear from the department now. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department the subject property is the rh3 Zoning District that proposal for the roof deck didnt require the neighborhood notification roof deck with exempt from neighborhood there are cases where the neighborhood notice is require first a 10 day notice for the abut of the portion of the building that is encroaches into the required backyard of the height limit, etc. This appears within the buildable area it can be approved without notification other times the additional penthouse there is one the photos that didnt require the neighborhood notification the parapet up to 12 feet tall require notification no neighborhood notice is required i understand the appellant has concerns not notification triggers the work it will be a happy hazard process if different planning staff i think noted that didnt need to be noticed we have to have standards everyone is apprised of the process our staff reviewed this i believe at the end of august the permit was issued in december and before you now and all the powers need to take whatever action it will be requirement that is setback 3 feet area in question the windows are within the lightwell seems theyve tried the mask those could there is changes that make things better for the neighbors that is something that is possible but i think in the current form it would not have an impact well find exceptional or extraordinary circumstances but im available for any questions you may have i understand kind of what was passed around possibly the revised plan the 14r5i7 would have in some cases the shaping really has one of the board wants to pursue that in terms of enforceability of the shaping provisions somewhat difficult to implement about the liability of the trees and the planned that are there live or not live so that would be our recommendation that if the board didnt feel inclined to a to make those changes im available to answer any questions thank you. Thank you inspector duffy. Commissioners joe duffy dbi the subject permit is a overthecounter approval and for providing a private roof deck and remodel the kitchen and bath replace the windows and have sprinklers no work visible from the street the plans there is a roof theyre calling part of it a deck a planter area so but it does meet the Building Code from what we saw im available for any questions i dont think more the condominium conversion it was completed in 2014. Thank you. Thank you any Public Comment on this item. Seeing none, then well have the rebuttal from the appellant 3 minutes. Thank you both i just wanted to address a few points there is a lot of implication there was one im from us from our landlord to date the applicant was an email saying theyve all day long agreed we have the complaints by, of course, the plans seen before it was finalized we discovered that the permit was to that point the idea a meeting of communication is simply not true we love that to have happened we never it was never some formal agreement that the appeal would be dropped frankly i dont think that were interested in the option for resolving this we found out n. W. When the architect went to the Building Inspection Department there was not a mechanism after us dropping the appeal thats why were here and the idea that was an offer that was remarkably it is made two days to accept or not you know were not lawyers and definitely had recommendations but a lot of agreement were taken with us but we were not comfortable with we felt that we needed to come here and preserve over rights this plan didnt reduce the access to the roof really the only people that are up there i dont understand why their children are not there but the safety features that roof will be used as assess so not trip merriam. All im asking for to move the walkway to the odds of the roof we have beneficial impacts for us theyre treating us as eavesdropping we cant avoid it is not a quiet man and if you live youll know his mother works in construction he talks about Mental Illness and talks about the cops all im asking for for them to move the walkway to the other side of the deck the architect shows it is a thing they can do as a compromise and make all of us a lot happier thank you very much. Excuse me that was one of the things you asked for as a compromise. Right. What was the other item. That if we were going to have fire using and flame there is a fire section it was the permit they asked to move the fire alarm because they had talks about u talked about having an outdoor kitchen. Thank you thank you. Okay rebuttal from the permit holder. As a lawyer it is interesting to see the implication of what was said and not said ive been representing the carlos for sometime the whole idea of us making concessions was a reason not to go through that for them to indicate you know not a condition of the process im beside myself to hear that theyre saying so moved somehow were the heavys we feel our plans have been detailed and the costs are up dramatically weve reached out with them and the question the suggestion that carlos dont use the deck often is well, mr. Bradley says he goes up there ever night and asks so it is substantially different with a redwood deck with the chairs is not incredible it is unfortunate were here today but in going to tried to moved in a constructive manner and we felt feel this is frustrating. I have a question counselor. So the plans the brief we have is that was that a plan that was the compromise plan. Im pretty sure probably mr. Quan to clarify but i dont think that is part of our brief maybe part of their brief and okay. So maybe the architect can come up. Hi simon architect active i dont have the plan 9 compromise plan has a lot of pots on the righthand side as you can see thats little compromise plan and the door to the planting area on the right hand side of the house. Yeah if i may jump can you say the changes been between what is permitted and what youve precedent as the permanent plan. Where you were going okay. Exactly thank you. Overhead please you can swing the mike over. This has already been approved i didnt bring the compromise plan but it we have landscaping along this area and this is the existing stair penthouse that was under and the deck size remains the same were not going to have those under 9 compromise plan that will be gone just the opening here. Thank you. Here we go so, yeah as you can see there area is much more open if we go that route. So the appellants made a desire to have the walkway removed from one side to the other. Currently it is right here so move it a few feet over. Is that rescued the revised plan. Youre looking it. I am asking the difference. We moved it. Okay. Thats what i wanted to know thank you. Thank you. I would point out that the walkway is currently used as how it is always been not a new application. Any rebuttal into the department mr. Sanchez or mr. Duffy commissioners no questions otherwise commissioners, the matter is submitted. Commissioner Vice President fung. And well, i think we always understand the desire in a dense area in the city that roof decks added enjoyment but value the past ive indicated on a number of those types of cases that the utilization of the entire roof is going overboard i feel that in this case that the extent of the walkway decades other things on this roof exceeds what the normal rights of the Property Owner the sense that it offers potential irritations and to the adjacent neighbors ill im not fully supportive of the permit as currently passed how much of the roop radio roof is usable now through. We only have two drawings ambassador may i director that question to the permit holder. It is probably 12 hundred square feet to the rooftop and the deck is 75 a overthecounter authorized 12 hundred. The question is the roof currently is it just roofing materials you have any improvements on the roof currently. Back at the south side of deck has reinforced surface but largely only fits on the deck area the walking path and the planter boxed are not deck area not designed for a social area those are planter boxes. The question is your existing roof currently what is it composed of roofing materials. Roofing materials. Only roofing materials. But you have access. It with the old roof we could be up there. Mr. Sanchez is indicating healed to join our conversation. Thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department so im putting on the octavia boulevard the aerial photo can have the overhead please to this is the subject property right here and it is showing up as backwards but not developed with railing or second surface maybe used as open door space not clear that is permitted under the situation. I mean people climb to the roof all the times. The permit holder has said the amountable space is far less than that. They donna could develop the entire rooftop as open space and have a roof deck that is something that the code allows and theyre not building to the maximum. For your information if someone has a roof deck could they use a banish. Thats nothing the planning code to prohibit barbecue. I think i wanted that presentation then ill understand the argument about extending the use of roof. It makes it sophomore attractive, safe. I think there as different the city sitting on the rooftop using the interpret t material versus using the usable deck. What the the harm i think the potential is that noise, odors, weve glutton that issue before on multiple cases im still of the opinion that maximum missing the roof usage is not conducive to the reduction of the potential problem. I agree but at the same time the department error. No no permits well, i think that the simple skew questioning if i could address to the permit holder is would you able willing to compromise and utilizes the revised plan well innovate talk about that it will cease. We agreed to the plans we went adopt and tried to get those plans approval we are that told to drop the permit we reached out to the appellant and said heres the paperwork well do it in person they said well do a fast one and they declined and wanted to hear that i guess my concern and some of the hearing that plies impropriety through the progressing code i felt compelled to go introduce the appropriate process i have no issue neighbor to neighbor coming to a compromise i guess it was an issue of precedent and process and is that a condition of the permit to do something not done appropriately. I think plus a trust issue. My question how do we create a motion. We can accept the appeal on the condition. The condition they utilize the revised plans. I dont think that does. Not totally no. Do we need a 4 votes aha votes. Were in deliberation right now. Im to go ahead and. Make a motion. I think go ahead and give it a shot. Ill do that. Okay. I move to grant the appeal and condition the permit on the simulation of the revised plans as shown i guess the briefs. Can we specify i believe exhibit 5 and 6 to get the appellants id like the earth need his head to indicate im correct those are the pages mr. Sanchez showed us a moment ago. It has to be it i. I need to make sure that the ones were going to make a motions are the same ones as done i can show the pages right here and. Those are the pages should say on the left hand corner page 5 and 6 except 5 yes. So is that the motion then and thank you and what is the basis for your motion commissioner. That will be more acceptable to the neighbors and not deny any use of the roof deck. Okay. So the motion then by commissioner president lazarus 0 grant the appeal and condition the permit to reflect the revisions and exhibits 4 and 6 of the appellants brief that will be more acceptable to the neighbors and not deny the roof deck to the permit holders. May i have for a quick clarification. Yes. Go ahead. That would be in the step up to the plate theyll not appeal again. Thats we cant stipulate that. Okay. I imagine if they come to the agreement and before us again. They have a right to rehearing by this adds to the permit so they dont have the go through other synonyms submission. Im not hearing that we didnt comply with the law and not properly grant. Were not saying that were saying were kinking the permit revised on the plan submit by our architect. I understand. Thats my motion. On that motion by commissioner lazarus commissioner Vice President fung commissioner president honda commissioner swig go okay. The vote of 4 to zero that motion carries the permit is uphold as revised thank you, commissioner. Well move on to item 7 bernard versus the Zoning Administrator protesting the ownerships on january 21st, 2016, to a restricted evaporates the right arm of American People existing storage shed with the the rear yard of the subject property and commissioners well begin with the appellant who has 7 minutes to present. Yes. Im bernard live there down the block that is really an old shed built in 1940 i was on the property two weeks ago and 130e78 e supposedly that was damaged by a windstorm they took it down without the proper approvals and rebuilt the shed with the permit that is was begin in error the new shed is much bigger than a 10 by 10 and allows did shed i perching do think that is appropriated to have any shed burn 10 by the 10 in the rear yards of properties because that is the code and i think that is too big for the backyard so at any rate since the Property Owner didnt document the old shed and down the road the one that created an delipidated shed with a variance with one that was required if they followed the proper persuades and said there are other structures the area and the leg illicit of melrose is proven and ive filed containment about a couple of other rear yard structures the neighborhood that ive the Building Department has remedy the them at the variance when they first started to build this i filed a complaint with the Building Department and it is my first exhibit there and the inspector came out and told them to reduce the size to 10 by 10 on 3. 6 work in the long run it changed a couple of times when the windstorm was whether january or february and they have permits for this new this drawn up in february and so they didnt get a permit actually until july so the combrishg came out and said reduce it by 10 by 10 and get to reinspected that didnt happen at the variance hearing which i have a little recording this is a recording of variance hearing the contractor and the homeowner saying theyve not done any work without having permit so versus the contractor thats the homeowner. That is not doing nothing until we have the preliminary permit and okay. Thats the contractor. The permit was initialed on the 3rd of july and there was a first inspection on the tenth of july. Im sorry but youre saying it didnt. Start construction. Question didnt Start Construction it was a that building structure with 3 structures it was changed. Ive got the case thats after that first complaint it didnt stop and kept on building we filed another complaint which is also in my exhibit one and the Building Department came out a couple of times and tried to left notices and no entry schedule inspection no response and no note to schedule the inspection in may and then finally at the end and beginning of july they finally issued a nonnotice of violations first and second and by like i said, i was living 3 doors down i saw the construction at the end of the year they had pretty much completed the outside of the structure removed the side feelings claiming that was bad and their supposed to leave with an existing wall of the old structure i dont believe they wanted that i tried to get confirmation from the Building Department and no forms ive tried to get confirmation from the Building Department where y that didnt happen when we got the permit the permit was approved overthecounter supposedly and an error from the Planning Department and he i called him and back and forth there is a lot of emails as your looked them my examples the Building Department and the Planning Department i called chris he said that the plans were approved in error and someone theyve notified someone from the Building Department but i said who was that he said that is below any pay raise can you have your supervisor call me and i can see why this got through at any rate my time is almost up there is during the course but i want the variance revoked and the building taken down and build a 10 by 10 shed thats it good many discrepancies. Thats it. Thank you. Uhhuh. Okay. Well hear from the variance holders. Id like to use the projectors overhead please. Thank you. Commissioners good evening. Im andy my husband and i live in our home with two small children and eric is at home with our kids i submitted a brief if youre prospective and ill briefing summarize that here now as explained by the gentleman the appeal is of 0 size reduction of a backyard structure this is the 1938 aerial photo of our block our property on the rear structure our home fronting in 1938 has not been built there this is part of 1934 Building Code in effect in 1938 that exert exert is the e recreation of recommendations not caused more the exception by in lui of the application i understand that the statements are not kept by the Building Department we believe the permit was not required back in 1938 from the aerial photo we know that is dating to 1938 as explained under brief the windstorm blew down one of the structures it whether or not you into the yard we didnt know needed a permit another neighbor helped us with the repair we found dry rot the walls and told and decided this couldnt be saved at this point we should have thought to ask with we needed a permit we didnt were sorry and intraishg stopped in early march of 2013 left a note to reduce the size of the shed to 10 by temple we didnt think that was right the shed was there for a long time we made other calls to the Building Departments and the inspector agreed we didnt need to reduce the size to the 10 by 10 but said we needed a permit on july 1st, we received a Ethics Commission and the next day we filed a Building Code and an electrical permit these are the plans we decided to make the shed small but the east side from the Property Lines and lower the roof feet down in height if 2 it feet and by 17 feet to 18 feet by 14 feet 9 inch the plans and applications were approved by both the planning and the Building Department and the Building Permit and Electrical Permits was issued we finished the work having inspectors and the Building Department finalized it on july 5, 2013. Heres the picture of on the left what the shed looked like after the storm and today on the right now smaller, lower and in Good Condition all the immediate neighbors and new neighbors support this the letters of support are attachment 9 the brief the gentleman lives four houses away that didnt support the building of structure in late 2014 one year after that the Building Department said they made a mistake and now needed a permit we didnt think that was right or fair and still dont there is a legal term saying we acted in good faith and provide the information the city asked for and we spent the money based on that and that approval should be honored the planner said theyll not honor the approval we needed a variance in good faith we applied for and were granted a variance during the 2 1 2 years the gentleman filed a complaint with the city and had no idea he was unhappy until he testified at the variance hearing he spend a apology he thought we didnt talk with him or tried to workout something and we wish he contacted us three years ago and talked about how unhappy he was with the permit process we worry about wish the city would have listened to mr. Brad show you shaw not wait long ever the permit was issued and in this brief we added to the reasons we believe the variance is justified and thank you, commissioners. Thank you okay mr. Sanchez. Thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department so you have the chronology of the events here in january and february of trifling e 2013 there was a windstorm that caused damage and based on the records we indicate that a structure within the required rear yard based on the plans partnership provided that the dimensions of that stwrur about 22 feet wide and 17 feet 9 inch deep in march a complaint that was filed they were rekrushg with the noncompliance shed and the brishg stated the shed must be reduced license one hundred square feet by 2013, the structure it less than one square feet the area it is my understanding it is not required a permit under the Building Code at the substantially applied for the Building Permit to rebuild it with a smaller footprint that permit was approved in error by the Planning Department staff that there is a provision the planning code that whyd the act of god that structure can be replaced, however, our staff didnt ask for evidence and documented there was damage to the structure or damp that was so severe the work had been done but in the event the staff should have asked for when we get those requests thankfully their uncommon but the provision of the noncompliment structures we ask for documents for the engineer to state because of the condition or even the department of building inspection they can come out and say it is an nov and documenting the extent of dame to the building and to see that to quality for the replacement provision staff didnt document that unfortunately, the permit was approved and orientated there were no appeals on the issuance of the permit and substantially that was bringing this to our attention that the permit should have been issued but was issued no error not soon enough we didnt follow the process and certain the case was persistent we said to apology and make sure the process was followed we didnt see before the variance they have the hearing on that i took all the facts i could from the parties and certainly the appellant has afghan the Property Owners have other facts i made the best decision allowing the replacement of the structure at a smaller size and thats the item that is on appeal before you with the invested rights argument it is im not an attorney by in terms of the rights they are to be for a valid issue and in this case we found the permit was not badly orientated and i want to raise that on the record if you have any questions, ill be happy to answer them. The planning code should go back to this size the size presented by the permit holder. It was wonderful we had had 6 or 7 Zoning District but, yes back before this. Would the process have allowed the variance holder to have submitted documentation to you related to the make sure t nature and the size of the nonconforming structure rather than going through a variance. I mean, it was difficult bus at that point the structure had been built when it was bringing this to our attention is in terms of documenting that we didnt think that was possible i dont know what communication staff had with with the permit holder but asking whether or not they had the information that could have been that would be helpful but at this point the final inspection was at the time that was bringing this to our attention. Follow think question had not the Building Department or the Planning Department erred and at the time at the erred they might have seen able to provide that information because by the time that you recognized that the error had been made the water was far down the river speaks for itself and the ambulance was long gone but i have a hard time faulting the original prrltdz are the variance holder now because they were told it is okay and no questions were asked at a time. No, i certainly accept the Planning Department accepting this is absolutely correct. So thats from the Planning Department would have asked did question at the time give us the info and shows us the damage and the fact that there was a windstorm and it was then this would have all been would have been had believed at that time. Definitely a possibility notice guaranteed what we heard the day. They tried to repair it. Found out dry rot caused by the act of god that was an existing condition even though the fact was not one side of the aisle and being two caution we felt we should have the complete process here and everyone can have their day in court. Thats fair and two questions mr. Sanchez on the Department Support of the current. Yes. And. And this is interesting that the building laws of 1934 ive never seen that anything that was erected alternated or built at that time, is legal under one thousand dollars. Im have to defer to the department of building inspection but the building records may not be perfect with that have you ever given but the sanborn maps we dont question the legality of the structure regardless of the kind of whether or not they needed a permit at the time. Thank you. Commissioners well not normally hear in the Building Department on a variance appeal i wonder if i have any particular desire. Is mr. Duffey motioning in this direction. The Building Department was mentioned in the statement addressed briefs and even the old code just on the code from the code says 1938 thats what we did ill say we did that and as mr. Sanchez said we do deal of the Historical Structures the rear yard i often think people are lucky to have one you interesting have to be cafeteria doing work and the Planning Department and Building Department working closely and their difficult because you know a lot of them are really in bad condition and theyve been there so long your warning peep if you remove that stud youll have to walk on the tightrope in this case the appellant mr. Bradshaw has been in Constant Contact with the dbi and i notice 6 complaints if 2013 all filed im sure and all investigated and all abated mr. Bradshaw was camp mather our inspector not being contacted with the board of supervisors and the mayor thats great but as far as i am concerned there may be some issue where the 6 inch wall that didnt get the inspection unto looks like as far as from dbi records all work has been done coauthored to the plans weve signed off on the permit and heard the planning and found out later a mistake which everyone has a right to look at but i think were dealing with the structure the rear yard a single story structure there are a lot of them in the city and they got ahead of themselves with the work but catch up with the permit because of the variance i wanted to starter if but no issues with the dbi possibly only that we have to look at the 6 inch wall and inspection bull have good inspection on this work one of the unfortunate things the inspecting told them i dont know what it is 20 about definitely not something we should have done an exception the Building Code for a structure and a two storage shed told you dont need a Building Permit this is abused but it is clear the structure was there nor many, many years. Thank you. Thank you. Any Public Comment on this item okay we have two people coming up to the podium. Okay. If you havent already give our card oh, mr. Canter thank you. Good evening. Im leslie a neighbor and like to off my support regarding eric and andy i know them a character witness to be willing to do do the right thing and do through that to try to improve their house and improve the neighborhood weve done a lot of neighborhood cleans up and organized muni meetings and thats just in general id like to offer that thank you. Thank you. Next speaker hello my name is Patrick Michael gwendolyn and tomorrow is salesforce st. Patricks i live two doors to the east since 1993 my home was built in 1907 a victorian i wanted to support the homeowner and their rear shed. When i stand in the backyard of my home with my color greens i can see the Pacific Ocean and done photos for the first time as far as i, see im a general contractor if viewing the construction that is taking place there they changed the siding i saw plumbing pipes go up and the roof being repaired and lowered but not see anything groeng on this shrinking and becoming for stable and id like to thank them for any view the Pacific Ocean. Did you know were underlying the irish flag in front of town hall. If you want to think b of that. Sir, do you want to fill out a speaker card. Im mark you live across the street and echo what the two previous people said there is a nice new shed that is great we support if 100 percent. Thank you. Is there any additional Public Comment okay. Seeing none weeping well start the rebuttal and mr. Bradshaw you have 3 minutes. This permit for the house saying the buildings on property not before they started with the house in 1940 and also i mean it definitely is on improvement to the property but dont believe if you allow this variance the variance shouldnt be allowed for all properties on the block beyond the scope that is appropriate to have this size of a structure the backyards of all the properties on the in this area thats in my opinion everyone thinks this as an improvement to the neighborhood and the Building Code 10 by 10 by 89 structure in the backyard and i know that is appropriate for a garden shed too big for the backyard and the Building Department says should be 10 by 10. Did you discuss this with the permit holders. I again reach out to the permit holder i thought the Building Department was a proper way to handle it. Okay. Thank you. Take rebuttal from the other folks. Thank you so in my summary the structure is in appearance since 1938 the 1934 Building Code didnt require a permit and although we started the rair work without a permit once we knew we filed for one the city finished the work and filed the permit and a year and a half later they made the mistake and we needed a variance we filed the variance all immediately adjacent neighbors both sides behind as well as the neighbors the area bend from the smaller structure and my husband and i ask you to uphold the variance thank you. Mr. Sanchez. Mr. Duffy anything further . Okay commissioners, the matter is submitted. Ill start i guess im supportive of that i believe theyve probably didnt need do variance from the pressure was there dealer e the brief was well prepared ill be supportive and deny the appeal. I agree. So do i. No comment. Okay. Make a motion to deny the appeal on the basis it was issued proposal. Okay. So the motion is by the president to deny the appeal and uphold the variance and commissioner president honda may significant is it complies with the planning code section on that basis and that motion commissioner Vice President fung commissioner lazarus and commissioner swig okay. That that motion carries and the variance is uphold thank you next item is item number 8 this is appeal lisa versus the Zoning Administrator on webster street protest the granting think 2016 to kathy properties, llc of a rear yard to legalize the construction of a first story with partial deck at the rear of a two singlefamily dwelling well start with the. Madam director. Oh, well take a quick construction of a first stor construction of a first stor moment. Returning to the comment meeting of board of appeals wife called item 8 and we can hear the palate. Thank you commissioner Vice President hondas and Board Members for hearing our appeal of that variance im lisa i live with any husband and 4 angled children adjacent to the property you have the brief and exhibits i want to senior our appeal the permit holders building this is what a right but please be clear orientated in 2006 was first violate by the project sponsor and again by the project sponsor to attempt to modify the addition the project sponsor illegally started a new addition youre going on improper permit this photo taken during the new conduct is the extent to which it was down the road a was redtagged and the variance rescinded under the planning code that prohibits that noncomplying structure they repaired the dry rot around the windows and repair it but instead tore down the structure absolutely no desperately dispute the old variance is newly and avoid and not a fork of that evaporates that as stand alone decision and must be genocide on its own merit and assure that today in 2016 this project fulfills the 5 requirements necessary for the Zoning Administrator to circumvent the code and planning code section i will summarize and back up our 4 key points first, the property enjoys all substantial protein rights the retired couple has 2 hundred thousand square feet of living says that a condominium conversion allows for the conversion and the rooms is an interior staircase and a spatial 4 foot marketrate and access to the backyard two additional bedrooms either can serve as a spaushs lightwell it is the master suit the pvrpz have the option to build a deck assessable of the second level without spend into the rear yard this reverses the condition up to 2006 second the project did not meet any of the 5 requirements so forth mostly the 3 requirements must be meet to the project sponsors will encroach 7 nature feet sweet spots required rear yard resulting the building ohio it is a straightforward rear yard requirement of 25 percent of deck to briefing address each the 5 crepe inform exceptional or extraordinary circumstances the block pattern and lot shape are standard for that number two absolutely no hardship the property is development and spashs and the property enjoys all Property Rights in the district and the property is detrimental to the neighbors it executives guess so fetishes light and air and it not the code or master plan the project sponsor requested why we didnt opposite inform 2006 id like to dribble dick to talk about the censures with the Planning Department knowledge that the city faces great importance on the required rear yard and our inability to identify the exceptional or extraordinary we again imagine the city will grant the variance the 2340g9s best selling author so you get this we asked for that and moved after the addition was complete those are permanent structures not at all personal we are expediting the city to prevent the neighbors to encroach both the mid block place i quote one persons desire is another perches dislike the city erred without caution to the code and the impact on the neighbors our third and perhaps for brilliant point the granting of the variance is unprecedented the letter were not find out it marina as indicated and innovations comparable the project sponsors have not yielded tried to provide a k345sh8 process with the information city to find a evaporates that was compatible and not one exists there is 15 thousand units in the marina approximately, six thousand are singlefamily homes this list of 23 rear yard variance grounded since 2005 demonstrates the teaches feature that constitute an exceptional or extraordinary circumstances almost all of the variances were granted to substandard lets 60 to feet those are smaller wear scratching our head how it passed especially consider our fourth and final point this is material detrimental to the and i budget structures for the light and air needs tobacco considered with building into the rear yard a nature extension of a greater weight should be on the extension of the rear yard both of neighbors expressed option as of september 2013 the discretionary review the abutting property is a reduction on a light by the experiences this after the addition was built that didnt expend into the rear yard at the end of the day, we care about this wear a family that is dedicated ours to the city and the marina for almost 20 years and helped about the marina playground and library we choose the schools for our children and worked tirelessly to make that a liveable place for tour family all im asking for the Zoning Administrator enforce the planning code we believe too much weight is think the prior decision and the variance is not evaluated on its own merits and should challenge the planning code tshs and thoughtful consideration. Thank you. We can hear in the variance holder now. Good evening commissioner president honda for mary tell on behalf of the variance holder obviously we couldnt disagree more i feel this is important to put this go context you have overhead please. This is what the rear yard addition looked go when they bought the property in needing they came to you in 2014 or before you in 2014 documented the brief based on the complaint by the lady wards to the work to dry rot it is not physical to the eye you have to open the structure and this is what we found overhead again. So to somehow claim this precedent to the variance was a deliberate dedication to do the repairs theyve exceeded the repair and pulled another permit to address the notice of violation as a result of the complaint and again, in this because of the configuration change that that or was done by mr. Patterson it the rear yard addition it braid denied didnt uphold the permit ensue said and documented the transcript provided go ahead with the Planning Department and get a variance thats what weve duplicate i want to show the last picture of the Current Situation of the structure again, no larger time the foot is maintained and no factors active acts taken to try to deliberately undermine the structure all the hard work and have done pursuant to the variance were able about build it and with that said, i want to give you the dimension queer talking about this is high and extend 7 and a half feet emigrate rear yard weve heard it is this a applicant are of structures that comes if different shapes and forms that was grand and that years later later who guessed that the industry itself would be internally eaten up by dry rot and needed tobacco replaced lining told by this braid and Zoning Administrator we applied for a evaporates and the Zoning Administrator healed held the hear it was subject to discretionary review the Zoning Administrator orchard the variance on the condition that the 3 foot expectation of the deck would be pulled back in part to the allegations of privacy was to replace the parapet on the ned with the railing system and repair the firewall that im sorry firewall on the north side with the 42 inches and reduce the will provide the 42 inch rail open rail system as well as open is properties that is transparent they have career a 6 and a half foot lightwell what concerns about the privacy interested is without merit overhead please inform sightlines youll have to crane our neck in an inhuman way they can peer into the deck so their on a privacy impacts on the stack being rebuilt. With that said, id like to go directly to the heart of the appeal that somehow the Zoning Administrator didnt make the required signing we disagree we disagree in 2007 by the way, for the 2006 variance those are accurate and a expansion of the firewall the Property Line conditions have not yielded changed more the rear yard changed so going introduce the understanding there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances who could have predicted in 2006 would have suffered is from dry rot seven years later this is an exceptional or extraordinary and an sxkz exceptional or extraordinary circumstances there was an existing structure encroached 7 and a half faceted on a encroachment and the city administrative correctly found loss of sunlight as a result of their property that took place a week after the folks moved into 3636 the hardship was clear clearly was not the few weeks fault under the hardship finding the Zoning Administrator has to determine whether or not if so variance is denied whether or not there is a hardship and done by the owners that was clearly the dry rot and the same footprint and no expansion in fact we took out the small deck to reference the 28 square feet deck and we thought that was a remarkably concession to address the concerns and the rebuilding again that criteria is based on what happens the city and not just the population that happened in the marina and i highly doubt with the simplest read that those are individualized finding your structures rear structures or connected to the buildings in residential Zoning District and the other one is the ability to maintain the property the city cant deny a variance and the structure have cost so to speak and other elements without the ability to try to build it back and light and privacy impacts there are none the Police Commission didnt this that they denied the discretionary review and how little there are no privacy impacts rather thank you and were here to answer any questions. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department so the subject property within the rh2 zions has been noted the 25 by one foot lot it is due to rear yard average the rear yard of the subject property is 25 feet the proposed reconstructed room at the rear encroaches 7 nature feet therefore it is the vaurnsz that was a previous variance in 2006 that allowed the structure to have the room at the rear due to that design it was caused dry rot and a permitting process a couple years ago they exceeded the scope of the permit we supported the permit holders is steady what is allowed the Building Permit is the permit holders went to the process and a discretionary review on the application so a joint hearing with the Planning Commission and the discretionary review with the variance and looking this while certainly it is a new variance application and maybe justify the 5 feels i going i dont think we can say the 2006 were authorized were invalid and it was a legal structure not in a poor state allergy seeking to expand it and enlarge the deck in conversation with the mrablgs Planning Commission at the joint hearing didnt feel that was appropriate and conditioned the deck be before you get into the rear and also certainly theyve pesticide the project and exceeded that by having balcony that was mentions and that was something that was removed it avoid what was approved and has been removed as part of this project you know, i think that is fact of the adjacent property is a deeper lot exceeds into a southern property and had impacts on the subject property the condition that been in place. Almost a decade is justified and didnt cause impact on the neighbors so we respectfully ask you uphold the variance and in regards with the surveillance that are projects listed in there may not fall within the real estate terminology for the marina we have planning district we group in and those properties are within the Marina District and feinstein ron goes to Northern California but map for the property for our purposes with that, im available to answer any questions again, i think that somewhat similar to the last cases opinions think i offered and something that existed that is reconstructed notifying it is causing no negative impacts im available for questions mr. Sanchez to the best of your knowledge or experience have you seen many reabilities of the structure that was built under a variance. Thats a good question i will say is less cannon it because if it had a variance and not an Zoning Administrator that granted permit until 1960 but then after having variance we find we dont have a lot of them coming back for rebuilds but most predate did planning requirements. Okay thanks. I have a question so the parapets property it is deeper than the permit holders proposed. The lot is deeper and the building is deeper yes and okay any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, then well is there Public Comment . And thank you, commissioners. Nominees a david perry im probably the neighbors most effects by the extension he live in the unit above i was bought the building with a partner in 1988 completed the condominium conversion and the few weeks are the 6 coowners the previous owner richard correct the record he already had a studio on the main level but his wife was also an author built the extension to have to a studio ill caution about the numbers in the brief the numbers dont make sense they quote 6200 and 50 units the marina which is singlefamily homes or duplexes or trio triplucks there are 17 marina blocks the number of parcels is only 2 thousand 59 how you get 6 hundred plus units i dont know of the 2 thousand 59, 6 hundred and 39 are singlefamily homes and the duplex and the triperplexes are 8 hundred and 9 buildings the only contention this lot is standard for the marina, in fact, in users the blocks they use used as examples youll see the standard deck are a much common deck is 25 by 37 nature 25 by one hundred is short block and only lot so 25 hundred square feet or less theyre only 6 hundred and 72 of the seven hundred 59 parcels less than a third so this is a substandard lot in the marina and this extension being the mid block enjoys the deep lots that come in from east west streets north beach so im in full support this revised variance b b be approved and the appellants motion be rejected thank you. Is there any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, well have our rebuttals. No neighbor no city official more member of the board would think that is preference to have a renal structure extend to the rear yard it is a negative for everyone except the homeowner and their right retired for exceptional or extraordinary circumstances those properties dont meet the standards the project sponsors their argument is on the vaurnsz or most of it again, we think that is wrongly issues maybe irrelevant it didnt meet the standard the dry rot was the windows ive not seen the pictures of the dry rot i dont see that is extend to the full building and i also want to you know, i have the numbers for that the marina theyre published numbers so i think this is how many units there are and how singlefamily homes i didnt make it up or anything i want to say that david perry opposes he opposed this addition here is his email owe said dually noted i was unhappy of the extension by north patterson he revealed to you he negotiated with Richard Patterson and had him pay for a the retrofitted of the property in return for his 1340r9 of the zashs and were most effects at the abutting structure. What else he predicted the domino effect of the inrespectable properties to the north of 3636 webster street tare identical i know there is a member of the board a Real Estate Agency thats the standard lot size for the marina and the majority of lots are that size ill show the block and the two properties the subject property those two properties are identical in every way no reason if it evaporates was not granted they shouldnt expected it variance grant as well as this structure will be across the Property Line and talked about the wall that wall was requested by previous owner of 3636 webster heres the email of todd requesting we build a wall to protect his wall it is not under the original plans and doing it to appease another owner this property is High Maintenance and needing more were skemz that the code be followed. Thank you. Thank you. Well take rebuttal if the variance holder. Commissioner president honda and members on behalf of the variance holder warped to the dry rot in the summer of 2014 that dry rot was tolerated and assessed by the pest control no choice but to clean it out and in order to waterproof is that had to be rebuilt not the dry rot was not in one area and the variance was sought and the Building Permit was sought it rebuild and water behavior it dry and regardless of the interior space of the house this is not a career with the Zoning Administrator to determine the appropriate that is space that was added to part of habitable space it is setback a substantial amount and a 6 feet fence and part of property again privacy is protected and the bottom line is were here because we have to be able to well, we grant the right by the variance based on the findings were all support by facts the record including the 2006 evaporates he situation has innovate changed mr. Sanchez was correct and all the findings were meet from hardship from the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and the fact there are no impacts to any adjacent maybe so the firefighter wall was there because of the Building Code and still required and again wife opted to not put the firewall with the loyalty and privacy from the properties so all im asking for is review the could have if i look at the chart that was helpful and where the appellant was was not based on facts but a hyperbole and look at the examples that mr. Sanchez used and our argument you have to find that the evaporates is support by the facts all the finding are correctly justified and the variance should be issues we appreciate that if youll deny the appeal and uphold the variance ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you Scott Sanchez i dont have much to add has been stated open appeals not precedent savings account we look at this thing case by case basis and want to make that clear just because with only are variance is grand for one provided or property not all property and adjacent tattoos appellant property this came up at the joint pr hearing the property we built is setback 6 inches from the appellants property abutting the property to the north it would not have an impact on the appellant but the properties on the north which is the condition to have the deck shortened that was the arbitrary i said to address that the adjacent Property Owner they did speak if option at the bayshore hearing im available to answer any questions you may have thank you. Thank you. Xhmdz commissioners, the matter is submitted. I with start off by affirming what i think the da said in the sense the 2006 variance i think still is in place whether you agree with the that in terms of the what was done over the scope is a different issue and i think this variance cleans up the process we heard it before and im not prepared to overturn the variance. I agree. I agree. Commission. Mr. Vice president. Move to deny the appeal and to grants the variance to uphold the variance on the basis the 5 criteria have been upheld. Thank you on that motion by the Vice President to deny the appeal and uphold the variance commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda and commissioner swig thank you that motion carries with a vote have had to zero and the last item 9 absent which will be heard together are for appeal number 16 plus all filed by nancy against the department of building inspection all dealing with the property on ninth avenue and all of them are protesting issues to the removal of sheetrock and kitchen and bathroom and no fixed apple is location and the second an electrical permit to rewire the unit and new lights and plugs and within Garbage Disposal and the third a plumbing permit remodel the kitchen and bathroom ms. Norton you have 23 minutes to appeal if you need that. Okay. Hello my name is nancy norton i live on ninth avenue which is a flat the building the front of the subject property that is 630 a a units in the backward of the property ive lived here since 40 years as i wrote to you in my appeal i believe that ill address all 3 permits at the same time those 3 permits were issued hatesly overthecounter without due review of the situation mr. Sullivan said in his applications theyll do a small remodel and therefore there is no necessity for a review of plans and one of the things that i noticed the application was that it was state that there were two stories of applications of occupations the existing next speaker. In law unit ive also there to long it is not legal stories of occupies the past landlord you dont an died a year ago and never let the occupants the thought motherinlaw units we believe use the basement of that structure because it does not up to code section 12 a 8 point it requires the height be 11 feet two inches i measured it says that recently and it is actually 6 foot one and quarter inches at the imposed rafter height thats the shortest height of the ceiling. Was stated in the application that there are just planning an removing and replacing sheetrock those walls with actually not made of sheetrock it is plastic like in my apartment i also checked that out recently to make sure it doesnt change over the 40 years hadnt been the structure for some time. I meet be surprised that mr. Osullivan with falsely file out the Building Permit application if i had not been informed of the sorts of techniques by another former tenant of mr. Osullivan who i included a letter if her as my exhibit no. 3 her building mr. Osullivan applied for a Building Permit and asked that the tenants there move out so he could do the construction and applying for the permit he filed a plan that didnt belong was applying for the permit those preliminaries were rescind also the reason believe that he did a quick and dirty application for there i have a black book notice from the plans were filed for this work it would have triggered that block and so the Building Permit would have been up for review discretionary review by the Planning Commission which we are in process of having another permit that mr. Osullivan applied for go through the discretionary review process so instead of having to deal with that and doing this construction it was kind of like glossed over with the situation is with this building in order to kind of slip there the cracks with this application. So, now that the correct facts are in front of the the Building Department i believe that the electrical and plumbing permit theyre associated with this should be rescinded and that no Building Permit should be released from suspension or issued for any of the units 626 through 638 ninth avenue without complete review of the detailed plans by the Building Department which by due process will allow all the concerns building residents and neighbors with an one and 50 feet of the property to apply for and retain a discretionary review im here with other residents of the building and to also represent the concern of the neighbors on either side of the folks that couldnt be here tonight. I have a picture of the building question which i included those in your briefs and if you want to have a look at that. So as you can see have an idea of where the building sits and then get a shot of the door this is the door to the downstairs to the basement and also within our packets there is a picture of that space downstairs the basement so you can see not up to code thanks for your consideration. Thank you. Eject okay. Well hear the permit holders now. Thank you commissioner honda and commissioners im patterson for the permit holder this is an interesting that straightforward appeal that is a copy of the permit in question and this is a picture of the cottage in question. Im not going to take the full 21 minutes ill try to be much briefer i want to show you why it is necessary this is a permit as stated earlier for work in the european level only if a kitchen and bathroom remodel a straightforward not required planning review issued correctly this is the old kingdom currently in place those festivities i took on monday of this week. In need of renovations this is the bathroom not in good shape this is a vacant united no tenant is going to be displaced in this work that or this is the wiring should be upgraded and the appellant has stated that is an inlaw unit it is not this is a lawful single units the rear yard built in 1911 according to the city records a half hour units the upper floor is and i went out this with a tape measure to verify as you can see from the overhead at all four corners it is 6 feet at least well over 6 feet at each corner to the floor of upper units and 78 nature inches and 75 and 93 and one hundred on down sloping lots higher the back and youll see the keyed is very clearly second story. The appellant raise two concerns the permit says twostory and suspect shes probably confused with or not understanding the current code the 1978 cf d is one story the code changed in the mid 80s the Building Code changed and in definition a copy of the 1975 code that is part of rap report in 1978 here the 75 code but at the time it was common the lower floor was here under current code the 2013 Building Code lower floors are calls a floor a story this is a here ill reader the brief palm in the 192013 code definition of a story from the finished floor level above the basement is 6 feet below grade or more than 12 feet more than 6 feet well over that clearly a second Story Building the permit was filed anti correctly the second southern is that theres going to be additional work done in the scope of that permit the appellant seems concerned the owner will dont care work on the second story to turn it into the other space and that will disruptive the tenants the front of the building this is not the case this work is not beyond the scope of the permit another permit is required and shell have an opportunity to file a request. A discretionary review that requires a 311 notice if you were significantly those two buildings are quite far apart approximately thirty feet so the idea heres the site plan on the overhead the ideas work within this rear cottage is going to be so terrible and constructively eject tenants from a building thirty feet away is farfetched and it also since the Building Department miss the fact that doing a kitchen and berm ups theyre doing a remodel to turn it into a liveable space impractical enforceable so if this happens the appellant, of course, can file a complaint with the Building Department but the fantastic of the matter not the permit the appellant says she simple want the change to file a discretionary review shes filed under her broke block of notice her daughter filed a dr request i think the within shes concerned with shell have their chance to express whatever concerns and the Planning Commission will address those she raised the issue of theyre being sheetrock instead of plastic in this building sheetrock is the brand name of that priority and lots of plastic the building what is under the permit removal and sheetrock are drywall this is certainly no inincorrect here shes not drubbed by the work of the building and the permit was issued credible the story was designed properly the application was filed out it begs the question why the concern and the answer a interesting percentage it is actually, i think for a collateral purpose a outstanding lawsuit against the appellant for freud u fraud filed by the Property Owner she sent a letter saying that she is a protected tenant living at this address and sunlight the e eviction has to be recess sent the appellant didnt live the unit not in San Francisco she lives in aot another town she owns a bunch of property someone can own property in another city except she took an homeowners tax exception 1081924 that vine street light and Owner Occupied so for collateral purpose lee a back story with the appellants went to the retirement board for a rer8dz i think she has issues many are unrelated to this permit this is in the correct forum for that the collateral attack ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. I the president to show the board very briefly photos of the measurement you, you can verify those measurements are accurate it is the front of the property, the corner, other corner, third corner, and Fourth Corner on a down sleeping e sloping lot for scale not to show you my own photo but a photo of me standing underneath the bay the top underscore that is the lower floor here the upper in charge as you can see it is well over 6 feet above. Unless any questions im happy to scombreeld did remainder of my time and yields to questions. Thank you mr. Duffy. Commissioners the Building Permit on appeal was issued offended if with plans not normally require plans rechl the sheetrock for cottage the kitchen and bathroom no remolding and fix of that election as i said no plans required for that and the b b m that is referenced a block notification as you may know that on applies to work with requires the Planning Department to review so that those dont apply inform 90 no Planning Department for the scope of work the lower level is a story, however, not considered a habitable storage but ill agree with mr. Patterson on his analysis that changed years ago we used to call them basement now a better depiction definition for basements versus a story in todays code as far as the dbi is concerned the permit was issued correctly ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you mr. Duffy. I said thank you. All right. So then well take Public Comment any Public Comment on this item . Commissioners joe don how as commissioner Vice President fung ive been here in 10 or 15 years i have my instant the case one of the reasons the cost of housing in San Francisco is so great from the person that filed that had really built it obviouslyly shell recognize this is a nonconforming building not nonconforming because it is at the end of the lot and clearly 26rz and clearly i understood it you cant come into to a court of exhibit equity and again, live in the building here daughter does she rented it out illegally and the tenant sued her for over charging a motivate other than outburst activity it is this kind of an appeal that makes the Property Values getting more and more expense and the commission needed to forward some kind of regulars recommendations to the board of supervisors that when there are frivolous appeals should be punitive aspects brought into the law a hearing to punish people that file frivolous appeals this clear is frivolous done in language that appears if we didnt know the facts it is that is improper and the reason ive appeared after 10 or 15 years this will happen and years ago we cleaned up this process we had appeals ive been tiff for the last 10 or 15 years but this case brought me out of retirement this is what is happening that will be addressed by us in another organization will create with the supervisors believe me youll be seeing more of us believe it or not deny the appeal. Any other Public Comment. Seeing none, then we have rebuttal from the appellant first. Well im not sure if you all are familiar with mr. Osullivan because i didnt hear any laughter coming from the board when the last person said that i am trying to raise the costs im part of problem of raising the cost of living in San Francisco mr. Osullivan the building that i cited before that the former tenant wrote a letter in support of my appeal with the Building Permit harassed the by the bed making 6,000 per room as a tech born so to try and paint that he with broadbrush that anybody was part of the problem of residence going up in San Francisco has really a lotable and just further indication of mr. Osullivan trying to hide behind the smoke screen in his action i have lived and do live in the apartment at 626 mr. Osullivan brought a lawsuit against me and my daughter scam this thing apartment i didnt want to go into this but now the open a can of worms he bought the building and told any daughter planning to get rid of of us and he has step by the step gone after me and the tenants on the bottom floor to get us out of the apartment he bought blow marketrate because it had sitting tenants protected tenants when he wrote about the two stories issue with his back building it is states on the application that those are two stories of occupancy and i think it is very contrary to mr. Osullivan only one story of occupancy in that motherinlaw units the only reason i think to put two stories hes planning on making that so during construction it also says in the application that no walls will be removed the rooms the downstairs basement part of building are well below the required seven hundred square feet theyre very small rooms and so if their good evening to make useful space out of that hard for me to building theyll not remove any walls during the construction. I know this is isnt the correct forum to go through all this stuff landlord harassment with the sitting tenants ill leave any remarks on that subject at what has been stated thank you. Thank you. Mr. Patterson rebuttal. Thank you Ryan Patterson for the permit holder first say that this allegation about the rental complaint is untrue mines that planning respond to that complaint went out and confirmed that is not true the suggestion that the owner has gone after the appellants and the lower tenants this is very interesting thing to say because the only reason why the lower units received an owner movein eviction the appellate defrauded the landlord to not complete the owner movein eviction in that unit as a direct result of that fraud the lower tenant has unfortunately been on the receiving end of the fraud i do want to speak briefly on the issue again with the story count this is the Planning Department definition of a story and ill note at the very bottom definition the space below first story when sufficient floor to ceiling height for the occupancy the appellant noted in here brief and confirmed that is not the case to this property not sufficient floor ceiling height so you know again, im not seeing any noncompliant and cause for equitable belief sheelt not be affected if hillsborough im available for the background here. Thank you. Oh, and one last thing ill offer the board living rooms licks read into the record the measurements are the site plan of this property my understanding under the boards rules take photos but give that to the boards. Anything further from the departments no okay commissioners, the matter is submitted. Whats before us is relatively simple permit i think the parties in this room understand the process quite well ambassador should it change from what is a relatively cosmetic improvement im sure all the parties know where to go ive not heard anything that takes this permit beyond the what either would be approvalable by the department or is an error by the departm t department. Im in agreement. It is a much marry 25i7b8d somewhere that board is no the forum but what is in front of us the permit they appear to be simple ill agree that the departments not error in issuing them and ill eagle the use of the all 3 commissioners but especially sxupg theres a little bit of sophistications with the appellant so if she seems malphase one or a delineation from the preempts i am sure youll be that shell calling your attention of the appropriate city departments. Move to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit is properly issued. Okay. Thats. For all 3. Okay. Great. So a motion the Vice President to deny the 3 appeals and uphold the permit their properly issued. On that motion commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda and commissioner swig thank you that motion carries 4 to zero and theres no further business. Thank you, everyone parks and places of communicated and thanks to the mayor and the department of technology and supervisor farrell and google. We had a very very unique partnership that was able to bring wifi to our most heavily used parks and squares. Parks in particular are really important way of life and quality of life and so is connectivity. Bringing those two things together in a project like this is right on target with what San Francisco is and wants to be. Its all about breaking apart the divide. The people with expensive data plan can have access to information and economy. This is really breaking down the Digital Divide and giving people across the spectrum the opportunity to information and giving them mobility and freedom. Particularly by investing in connectivity in park spaces we are also ensuring the connection to Digital Inclusion opportunities and parks are designed for all neighborhoods. People are on the move. They are no longer chained to their desk tops at home. People can accomplish a lot and we prefer them being here an enjoying the outdoors and nature. Given all the mobile community and mobile information thats available. We thought it was important to make it for our parks acceptable for everyone and give everyone the opportunity to live and to work and be at the parks at the same time. Our full mission in life is to give them access to the internet, give them access to information. In San Francisco you dont have to be bottled up in an office. You can be around and enjoy your work anywhere. Its great for the local community here and it means a lot to me. In the park, you are people that can teach you about the trees in the park and you can go to parks and recreation. Org and having wifi in our parks makes it more accessible. If you want more information about how to enjoy wifi in San Francisco parks, go to chair good afternoon good afternoon it is 1 13 pm. This is the meeting of the