Transcripts For SFGTV Board Of Appeals 4517 20170417

Scott sanchez will be here the Zoning Administrator and hell be representing the Planning Department and Planning Commission and we also expect senior builder inspector joe duffy dbi 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. People affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated 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 after youve been sworn in or affirmed please stand now 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 commissioner president honda one housekeeping has to do with with 6 appeal item no. 6 Jennifer Creelman vs dept of bldg inspection. The property is located at 143 corbett avenue. 143 corbett avenue has been withdrawn and not heard this evening move to item one general Public Comment Public Comment at this time, members of the public may address the commission address the commission on matters that are within the commissions jurisdiction and are not on todays agenda. Anyone would like to speak under general Public Comment please step forward now seeing none, commissioner comments and questions. Commissioners . Nothing thank you and item 3 commissioners approval of minutes march 29, 2017. Do we have any additions, deletions, or changes and if not have a motion to accept those minutes so moved. Okay any Public Comment on the minutes . Seeing none, then a motion from the Vice President to adopt the minutes on that motion commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda commissioner wilson commissioner swig thank you that motion carries next item is jurisdiction request item four item no. 4 jurisdiction request subject property at 1139 Market Street. Was filed by joseph asking the board take jurisdiction over the Building Permit application which was issued on march 2 by the department of building inspection the period end and the jurisdiction request was filed on march 27 the permit holder is dee dee and patching walls for laundry and a bath tub and shoulders on twostory and threestory to comply with the violations all work complete under the Building Permit application and we can start with the requester below thomas when youre reaready thank you gary. Good evening and welcome. Good evening. Im here to call attention to the deplorable places in one hundred sros my opinion the National Hotel was beyond rehabilitation but the first one should happen the permanent residents should have been relocated and look at the work should have about this approved by someone the crew taking a year to perform would have been could done by professional craftsman i have pictures of ceiling of the first floor water dripping from it and i believe this is coming from the two showers in the southeast corner of building which were suggestion of my original complaint over sometime last year and which yet to be remodels the let us begin were not for my complaints the tenderloin vermin would be a firetrap and change the t h c were cosmetic the rats the boiler and the leaking and inoperable showers have been addressed by my complaint most people railroad not aware that randy shaw is responsible for the builder inspector and thats why dbi looks the other way i talked with tenants and visited t H C Properties the same with bedbugs and other vermin unworking elevators and wiring and cigarettes and or hot water and lack of fire exits those gentlemen have been sued under the substandard remodeling i took a lawsuit i promised not to challenge if the work was done properly in a timely matter free rent ive spent a lot of time due to the constant noise and interruptions of water the building is in a state of occasion for the past two years and recently got working showers it as far as im concerned, they should get free rent while the work was ongoing so thats the story the situation still exists. Thank you. Thank you okay. Okay well hear from the appellant now. Good evening and welcome. Richard from hanson for the permit holder this jurisdiction request is without merit should be denied if the board worries about to go into the merits we have the gentleman present. Im sorry can you, you speak into the mike, sir. I shall thank you. Should the board wish to explore the merits bill the permit holder who posted the permit and job card right after it was issued on april or march second is present his son is present tobacco elizabeth from the little housing clinic took over their housing says that a weeks ago and ready to go next week with the full operation once the permit in question is signed off tomorrow subject to being final sign off tomorrow the work is done we put in photos from before we can go into it in great detail but no merit to this jurisdiction request should be denied. Are you done, sir our i have a question so is there you stated still active leaking is it correct. Im sorry. The person stated that there is active leaking on the property if the showers above. A leak it is in the hotel but down in the store below in of the commercial space that is being worked on that is a separate motivator i think there is a separate nov that was issued because of that. No leaks inside the hotel, sir. Thank you thank you thank you. Inspector duffy. Good evening, commissioners joe duffy dbi the Building Permit on request is a former 8 overthecounter permit that was presented to dbi on the second of march 2017 approved on the second of march as well and then going and patching walls for laundry that is on the twostory and threestory to comply with the nov all work is complete a references on the earlier permit t the only issue i see with the permit is something the district inspector wants when you take out a bathtub we like a set of drawings it is something well ask for during inspection and for the construction of a wall we would like to see that there is a wall i see there is a wall constructed i spoke to the plan check staff and thats the only reason we should be asking for a drawing that can be done under a provision request i thought ill mention that im available to answer any questions. You keep the date of the permit. The permit was issued on march the 22017. The 22 im sorry the 22 of march. My question that would be what the g c is on the project. The permit was under the billiard i didnt see anyone apart from the owner. Thank you inspector. So inspector duffy where is the line drawn between work what which is approved by the builder inspector that turn out to be just bad work. Because you can higher a contractor does the work according to the statutes get the sign off and then short time later that work is shown by a leak or whatever to be not so good work so where are we on this spectrum of something in fact, it approved and should be approved by builder inspector but the work is not good and how does the public deal with that. I dont know if we are dealing with that here. Thats a good question all work this is done under our permits is done to the electrical and plumbing codes well expect that under the the code is standard you shouldnt have leaks so it should, inspected and certainly tests to check for leaks and the pressure i mean the pressure of the lines to be sure no leaks this should happen and on the bad workmanship sometimes, it didnt come into code didnt kick into the type of workmanship should be under the construction of that nature has to do with with the contractor and the clinic. Many of the walks in here the work was shoddy and builder inspector shouldnt have approved it the work is done to a minimum standard by the code inspectors but didnt mean the work is. Thats correct yeah. As long as it meets code for us i mean, if you go into someones kitchen it is finished and the door is crocked i mean it is not going to have a flag i see that all the time it is unfortunate but as long as it meets code thats what we check for the workmanship should be good, of course, it should be and not a minimum standards thats the standard; right . The Building Code is minimum standard thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you any Public Comment on this item . Are you the permit holder no your time to speak was under the time allotted under our team so seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. He never heard the requester explain why there was an issue. So. In his brief. In his brief im talking about his testimony all i heard was complaints about the workmanship and refer to the brief than the permit holders i believe submitted evidence they had posted the permit. Which is what i was going to say. Im inclined to deny the question. I concur the standard is high and the threshold has not been met without future dialogue would someone like to make a motion. Deny the request that the city didnt contribute to the lack of time limits on the appeal. Okay. Thank you on that motion from commissioner lazarus to deny this request formulate jurisdiction. Commissioner Vice President fung commissioner president honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig that motion carries the request is denied move on to item items 5a, 5b, and 5c shall be heard together. Item 5c 1049 Market Street vs. Zoning administrator. The property is located at 10491051 Market Street. Against the Zoning Administrator or the department of building inspection with the Planning Department 1049 Market Street vs. Zoning administrator. The property is located at 10491051 Market Street. Of a Building Permit application asking the department of building inspection revoke the Building Permit application because of Planning Department buildings the permit violates the planning code and the revocation on may 27, 2016, at the request of the Planning Department on the basis that the permit violates the planning code the planning code meets the notice of violation demolition of office walls and approving the tentative agreements for successor memoranda of understand between sfmta and transport of a notice of violation and penalty by the planning code for efforts to convert the residential unit and unauthorized units without a conditional use authorization and we will start with the appellant and ill ask that folks standing in the aisle to take a seat we need to keep that clear because of the fire code requirements. Good evening, counsel. Bryan pta patterson that is subject to extensive briefly that is the luxury we often have with long page limits for a brief between the 3 briefs youve received something along the lines of 80 pages of argument and hundreds and hundreds of pages of exhibit ill keep my oral remarks brief. Hold on sf has the Police Commission on one second stop the clock please. This is more interesting i wanted to go to the Police Commission meetings. Thank you thank you, mr. Patterson. Thank you ill restart thank you for your time this evening Bryan Patterson on behalf of the appellant, llc appreciate our time tonight and your attention to other unusually long brief with 3 consolidated brief filers in those actions i think the over arching point id like to convey in addition to everything that is detailed out in the brief for you tonight there is a process that should have been followed regarding this property and the city didnt properly follow the city tried to come back in targeted actions against that Property Owner has broken with the basics of zoning law and existing city law and state and principle to fairness and more importantly for the tenants safety living in a building in rooms and spaces without rescue windows which is a great concern if youre a landlord were familiar with the ghost ship incident if we are in the position of a owner of that property or similar property i think well having all have similar concerns and want actions that Property Owner spent years trying to address those problems in a way that complies with the code and legalize the residential use no viable pack to do that and faced with that unavoidable conclusions that Property Owner made the decision it had to abate notice of violations in the unlawful residential uses of the property weve gone through a process before this board and before state and federal courts including overturning a previous decision of the board in a decision from the judge which was remanded back to the board unfortunately, the city departments jumbled the gun and this board had an opportunity to decide the issues that are the failing issues in this case, the departments took their own actions and those actions are what were here challenging their preempted by a about depend on future Court Decision the board, of course, has the authority over things and lacks authoritative other ceqa and in this case, the undermining permit with that said, i think that a lot of the details is very well spelled out i want to add a couple of things to the record for the boards consideration starting with a recent declaration from qualified real estate prior and if i can i have the overhead, please . The overhead is showing this is stuck not showing the bottom but for the record this is a declaration of in support of appeal and im going to read it into the record States I Lawrence declare as follows im an independent real estate consultant and president of the firm of associates inc. Over thirty years in the profession i make this declaration based on facts known to me except the facts on beliefs that i believe to be true i submit this declaration in support of above captioned field and 10491051 Market Street the property in or about 2016 i completed this appraisal users a Comparable Properties on Market Street and the income approach users the zero zero 5 percent which are industry methodology my analysis take into account an anticipated renovation of one hundred dollars plus and tenant improvements totally 750 for the city and county of San Francisco regulatory actions including the enenhancement the resolution ordinance number 3, 3 dash 16 and the revocation number 201307262890 the permit the renovated value of the property approximately 37 million plus to 40 million attachment is a true and correct copy of my curriculum i declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct dated april 5th signed by lawrence and turn the page to exhibit a the boards videorecord this is the qualifications of cb of lan lange and lastly for the record page two ill offer a copy for the boards file as well as copies for the members of the board if the board would like to choose to accept that. And i think that commissioner president honda is indicated the board is not interested in receiving that thank you for the opportunity to present that and we have one other piece of evidence id like to introduce from mr. Gall. Mr. Gal be sworn please. Commissioner president honda. Can you pause his time as we do that thank you gary. If you request raise your hand do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. My name is john a representative of the owner 10491051 Market Street after researching the issue speaking with several Real Estate Professionals 10491051 Market Street is not capable of a salsa as a result of the party in my declaration in support of this appeal thank you. Mr. Patterson well not be accepting that copy either. Thank you. So clearly commissioners the actions of the city have deprived the permit holder of a tremendous amount of value in the property obviously taken the arguments. Thank you for your time. A question you made a comment in our remarks the citys actions will be preempted by this board the boards decision then wouldnt our decision here fall under that same category. On a different appeal commissioner there is attorney for the permit holder in response to your question commissioner lazarus a pending lawsuit challenging the owners under which todays actions occur that lawsuit is in submission before judge wong in the superior court is a question of whether or not the Zoning Ordinance is an issue in those appeals is preempted by state law judge wong will be having a decision if we prevail this citys action as occurred is one hundred improper and illegal. Ill need the City Attorney to talk about that but thank you. Faces the challenges with respect to the under which the city acted thank you thank you. Okay. Well, hear if mr. Sanch sanchez. Good evening Scott Sanchez Planning Department. 3 appeals related to two subject matters the first that the revolution of Building Permit application the second being a notice of violation in penalty of our department issued for the the subject property the the subject property is in the 3 g that allows commercial uses the building was built in 1907 as a Furniture Store and the appellant purposed this in 2012 but prior to that time owned by the associates of the Associates Since 1994 in 1991 with the 6 floor of the subject building the appellant purchased the property in the 4 and permits it sub divide office space into is smaller units at some point thereafter those were rent out for residential units for residential use there is a notice of violation issued by the department of building inspection since 2007 that notice of violation required that they file a Building Permit in the conversion of office to residential use for a permit to legalize those to the residential use and in 2012, 2013 a second nov was issued for the nov there has been a permit in some way to legalize the residential units going back to the permit in 2011 that was withdrawn i didnt see any routinely review in regards to that permit in 2013 the department received a complaint about unwill permitted dwelling units conversions on the the subject property this is the time they obtained this subject Building Application i referred with the following scope of work to comply with the notice of violation 2007 a demo of office walls on the first through 5 floor referencing the San Francisco department of building inspection bullet that was issued overthecounter without the Planning Department review after that was issued this which was in the summer of 2013, the Planning Department suspected the subject permit on october 28th that was by the appellant they subsidizing withdraw that so the permit was suspended after that the board of supervisors adapted the interim controls and resolution which would have required a conditional use authorization for conversion of the unauthorized units to back to an office use those controls expired on february 2nd, 2015, and we issued a suspension of release that was appealed by the representatives of the tenants from the building and it was heard before this board on april 8th of 2015 prior to that on march 8 the board of supervisors adopted interim controls 61 dash 15 that requires the conditional use authorization for the scope that was discussed for the removal of residential unit thank you board of appeals the Planning Department will be your duty the interim controls applied and the permits should be suspected and the board voted to grant the appeal and keep the permit as suspected the board found the permit was defective and substantial to those we received the complaints that the units were converted in vision of the interim controls from retail use to office use as in a variety of unit including the permit working on the 6 floor be initiated enforcement in 2014 through notice of enforcement then also is through the impact throughout the city and what the requirements are planning code section for the removal of unauthorized units that term is defined if planning code 317 the applicant filed a conditional use authorization under that code requirement and did so in protest and had to file that last summer, however, weve not received the materials to proceed with that application so but at least filed it for initial review but i think that is clear from the planning code requirement that the permit in control applies to the permits that are here before you at the same time, we issued the notice of violation decision what was appealed we issued a republic concussions to the department of building inspection because of our findings that the permit that has been suspected and subject to what then the interim controls now the permanent controls in 317 will require a constructive for the work property by the appellant we have a summary in our brief and doesnt what can answer questions about the litigation to the issues that were raised from the appellants brief we thoroughly addressed the issues and the response brief ill be happy to go into future detail two points i want to highlight we building that the notice of violation is support by sunnydale evidence on the record submitted that he Zoning Administrator hearing prior to the initial complaint as materials that were submitted by the tenant in response to the appeal it is clear documented records of efforts and actions of the appellant to convert the under the circumstances to the nixon planning code section 317 in regards to the permanent controls planning code 317 is clear states that applies to any roam of unauthorized units prior to march first 2006 that was suspect by the city or the applicants rights are not invested and you permit is not vested this permit is remains suspected and when the permit was suspended on appeal filed by the appellant and substantially withdrawn so that matter is we believe remains suspended i think those are most of points we want to address joe duffy has comments for the review of the subject Building Permit application and im available to answer any questions that the board may have thank you. Commissioner swig. So nevertheless, to say that probably a convoluted situation as started as a Furniture Store in an office space and more for a variety of reasons and residents popped up and now it is gotten more complex due to the stress of housing in the city and which the reaction was the new permanent controls and so you know we can make anything happen except watch pigs fly if you work on something hard enough you can justify it i have a sense there is a lot of that going on nicole but in my heart of hearts there was a reference made to the got off of ship tragedy in my heart of hearts i realize those people that live there and not like what ill say their comfortable with theyre living where do you draw the line between paying attention to the mandates that have come from the board of supervisors or from the conditions that you can manipulate to make something okay. And unsafe Living Condition that can result in deaths of many, many people if something tragic happens like what happened at the got off of ship i read i really did read all of this not all of it but the important stuff and there have been deviations you wouldnt have exhausted the lack of windows and fire safety and egress and a lot of risk to perfect Safety Health and safety conditions in our heart of hearts how far are you willing to by a preponderance or where you bend so youre not im sorry even though you, bend where could you stop before your up to date peoples lives at the risk thats in my heart of hearts it bothers me regardless of legal stouts. I very much appreciate that concern i mean that is a forefront concern for the city i think there is a couple of facts that distinguish this from the ghost ship and perhaps parallel to draw this is a building that is a no way like the building in the ghost ship for this building has been improved and maintained my understanding is fully sprinklers that was designed to safely occupy tenants that felt my understanding that the appellants or members of the Ownership Group have stated on record the building is safe that the history of the building goes back moindz of the timeline is maybe not exactly the appellant but there were affiliates associates of the appellants purchased the building in the 4 and shortly thereafter a permit to sub divide the Office Spaces into smaller units i dont know the dates where the residential occupancy happened but maybe Public Comment can better address when that happened but the parties involved have been residential use for decades i mean certainly more than 10 years. Is that legal conforming and nonconforming. It is unauthorized units under the planning code the retail use on the lower floors doesnt have a permit to occupy that but moindz that the department of building inspection has identified a path to legalize inspector duffy what come that on that task force construction of the property within the last couple of years has identified where they have been issues of concern but you know this is it is something that has been on the radar that is concerned to be addressed but i dont think that is an appropriate or fair analog to draw this to the ghost ship fire but certainly i think the office will offer come to authorize and the building is not will maintained and it will have Public Comment from people that reside in the building but our understanding the appellant has been on record and testified the building is safe. Thank you. Thank you, thank you mr. Sanchez. Inspector duffy. Supervisors commissioners joe duffy dbi i want to give you an overview the permits comply with the notice of violations i brought 12 sets of drawings and the copy of the Building Permit if you want to accept those for your review awhile i speak. Inspector duffy does okay. Sorry. Oh, no, that answers my question council. It up youre verthank you. On the front sheet the copy of Building Permit the front and back of it and some documents that go with the permit when we issued that the Property Owners signatures and other documents i just put in the code section on the revocation of a Building Permit on the San Francisco Building Code and then i put in the ab 17 that addresses some of the Building Permits that is a ab Building Code and have the set of drawings ive highlighted some things on the drawings ill speak about this was filed around the july 2007 and the Office Spaces as residential in the commercial building through august 7th of 2007 a complaint from the housing inspection to the Building Inspection Division and one note on here investigation reviewed all spaces work units are 60 plus permit and research showed 6 conversions were condominium with inspector, next line item. Referred to the Building Department and it end up a notice of violation was issued on the waiting to of october 2007 a complaint was with the illegal conversion said inspection has reviewed the office unit converted to the office space and no permit for this conversion and then various sections of the Building Code the corrective action to file a Building Permit within thirty days and complete all work within 90 days for a sign off and stated to obtain a Building Permit with the Planning Department for the conversion of office unit to living unit in 2007 and 2013 we had a Building Permit filed that was on the 26 of july 2013 it was issued on the second of august 2013 and the heard from mr. Sanchez that was through suspension and revocation and another suspension work stated on the permit to comply with the notice of violation demo of office walls through the first floor sp 0 one 7 that the reviewed by the permit section at the dbi and building plan check and Fire Department and dpw and Central Permit Bureau it was not reviewed by the Planning Department of the notice of violation stated the description on the work on the permit is stated in box 16 to comply with the nov 2007 one 850 on the office walls sf ab 97 nov did require a part of corrective action to obtain a Building Permit for the conversion of office unit the permit was approved was demo the office walls not consistent with the corrective action on is nov the permit was also not relevant to the core review of approval that was part of corrective action by the nov and that was a letter should have about think reviewed on the approval of the permit by dbi staff and the description of the work on the Building Permit in box 16 it referred ab 707 and reviewed it of the 2010 Building Code and the ab is a process that is used for requirements for the stable access to have a doubt space the inspector, next line item. Issued the nov were being opted out by tenant and residing in the building the use of ab 17 would not appear to be relevant for this Building Permit the examination of this language was missed by the dbi staff of the permit the Building Permit stated that there would be no electrical or plumbing work would be performed but appear this is an error there was tram work to be done the plans also appeared to show the removal of a sink that requires a plumbing permit the approved plans dont have separate existing for fronts personally when i reviewed it is hard to tell what is kept and removed the property plan shows the layer of the floors after the decisions each floor in my opinion should be shown separating a sheet for each floor instead of floors it through 5 there is also a note on the top right corner that says no physical construction or altercation to be done a lot is indirect contradiction to the work and that was an error as well that was missed by the dbi staff during the review and the number of errors on the permit and plans will probably warranty a revocation of the planning code for this i also given you that in the package of the code section a 20,000 evaluation for the work for 20,000 so i want to give you an overview of my review and also involved the chief builder inspector who is here as well im available for any questions. Oh, ive got a question who was the prepareer. We assume it is from the owner possibly or be whoever presented the permit to dbi and looking at plans if before the plans could have been used from previous drawings i dont have all the drawings but look spectacular similar to drawings in other permits im not sure maybe the the attorney for the Property Owner might be able to answer that question. Inspector duffy what have you physically seen the property what years have you visited the property. Me personally ive not been to the pro want the dbi staff have been there. Maybe you can ask staff on the as built is that a current i mean accurate reflective as to as built as it was in 2007 or 2009 and 2010 or looks to be rooms in the common bath. I assume that is but i can check. Check it yeah. Thats my question thank you. Okay Public Comment can we can see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak. Under Public Comment okay. So i would like you to line up on the far side of the room when you come up to speak give a speaker card if youre willing to do that if you havent filled without out that would be helpful for a person that wants to speak if you wouldnt mind lining up on the far side of the room that will help the process faster. Youll hand them, no the clerk when you come up to speak. Is there a way to show something. Yeah. If you want to take a minute to do that. The line should be on that side of room we need to keep this 0 clear because of the fire code. Speaker cards on the podium if you need them. Thank you members of the board steve for the tenderloin housing clinic i want to address the issue raised by commissioner swig stated in our brief the california Building Code actually deals with the fire safety issues youve rays the issue about Natural Light is in the San Francisco Building Code i thought that was the fire code has to do with with the if it has light in habitual spaces didnt say require Natural Light but fire requirements that is throughout the state and the same throughout the state and the california Building Code 102921 and requires exit windows unless a secondary means of e egress so the exit window requirement is not required for this building and furthermore 38 units that have windows so you know there is no reason to demolish every unit because they dont have windows if this is the concern and switching gears to the overhead as you can see that the property does cumber this was taken picture taken in a live last year the center of the building a number of commercial units that have signs on the front door about how to reach them if you have a delivery from ups or fedex so thats a typical produce all occupants were in formally residential units a few more pictures slides to show you have theyre offerings so this is an offering for rent by their agent charley the agent. Overhead please. Overhead im sorry. On 10491051 Market Street let me get you a better one. Theres Craigslist Liz creating offices with downtown views and a picture and the contract charlie the Real Estate Broker dated on craigslist and again removed Market Street offices and again listed by their broker charlie and other tenants will testify about the commercial rentals thank you. Thank you. Counselor and. Next speaker, please. Welcome. Thank you carl im a tenant on 49 market eight or ten years i think what steve was trying to say the landlords have been kicking people out in violation of the rent control so they sell the building vacant when they were stopped at the rescind out the spaces to cover the cost now a mix of long term will residential tenant and the new new commercial tenants i dont know how that effects what youre looking at but i do know that mr. Patterson ive wondered. Please direct to the board. The opportunistic of the ghost ship my daughter was there and using that as a way to hear his arguments demeans the argument the space is looking at by the Fire Department and the Planning Department it is a commercial space that is built to code and has two means of egress and walls made of double thick wall ward it is fire prove and has fire prove windows it didnt have windows makes it no different than anything above the 7 floor that ladders cant get to in my other highrise residential building that is 1e6r78 didnt have lights it is to the safety issue okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. And welcome. Hello my name is shannon ive been living on Market Street for 13 years ive lived in San Francisco for thirty years and worked at rainbow coop and electronics selling electronics on Market Street from the articles that ive read in the press about the ghost ship the horrible ghost ship photographer i was totally amazed to hear my connections in the building i read about the ghost ship for a wooden structure with no clear exit signs people have propane tanks that shouldnt have been there and not farther from the building the concrete and brick and steal the quarter reinforced and a sturdy structure that is laughable to carry on here the reason that even though the mid market neighborhood is my favorite ive the go in San Francisco over the thirty years and 6 different diverse neighborhoods in the city the mid market neighborhood is my home including my unit in my building but the reason i am living there is due to digestion i cant afford to live millionaire in the bay area so the microphone and my tenants have been ideal tenants and been willing to negotiate and compromise with the landlord that treated us unfairly and unwilling to dialogue and eventually bought the building to sell that on my floor 3 businesses are moved in on my floor were coexisting greatly i have no complaints about that so basically i encourage you to make a judge and fair decision regarding our roll call. Space one of the few spaces left in the city thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Welcome. Brad im a long term resident on 1049 live on the tenth floor briefly is there are 3 commercial tenants on my floor as she said people get along these i rarely see in i dont have any problem, however, one is staying overnight not only on one across i have proof of that i guess thats it. Thank you. Next speaker, please. And welcome. Thank you good afternoon. I wanted to say im a working artist on to 49 next speaker. Market street i signed a lease in 2006 and stated for a couple of years and left and contact in 2012 and both times it was under the understanding i could work and use my profession and stay there i had no complaints about the building the only thing that made it unenjoyable and hospitalityal in 2013 services and maintenance of the building dramatically deteriorated it is a complicated issue the main thing i have a complaint about the way myself and other tenants are treated and never been an open easy discourse or dialogue and as my fellow tenant and friends have been sort of i dont know wanted to say forced but encouraged to leave ive seen the replacement of new businesses and didnt seem fair to me thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Welcome as well. Hi, im chris a tenant others ton 49 market when i signed a lease with anywhere woodwork artist it was an 80 plus unit building entirely People Living there and struggling artist and Diverse Community and elder and young people now so many have been pushed out and not just out of the windowsless mess but the top floor that had windows and skylights and leg light was never in question a space that used to be Affordable Housing with woodwork housing for an artist another unit used that be a space for on artist now the office for a chain of highend bars these were legal units i see the customers coming and going and renting excuse me the common garbage area he xhavnl can tell there is a flow of new commercial tenants i see the boxes of things and recycling areas and the number of delivery notices on the door is about four or five more constant influx of new tenants and shown two tenants clarified adds in craigslist adds marketing vehicles so, yeah this is ongoing and happening in the like every unit in the building is safe but happening prosecuted to the full extent of the law usually units on the 6 floor. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Welcome. Im naomi from loft at the 1049 Market Street ive been there since 1998 and on my floor 3 businesses have moved in one a computer business and shipping company with whores and other items the third business he go im not sure exactly what we dont the owner introduced himself to me and said hes on floor 2 i also know there are various businesses on the 6th floor including a lighting business that takes up two units the 10349 residents want to stay in our rentcontrolled apartment and many will have to leave the bay area yo go into the structural details im a retired School Teacher and done the research to assure might have there is adequate light and air doesnt be parallel the ghost ship so in conclusion the tenants are community of artists and Service Workers we feel we have much to contribute to San Francisco and want to support much needed Affordable Housing in our city thank you for hearing us out. One question is there commonly bathrooms. Common bathrooms. Welcome. Hello my name is a laurie work with the global womens strike based in San Francisco since the 70s and we felt what was important to send you all a letter about the tenants at 1049 Market Street our organization is multi racial of mothers and grandmothers and teachers and nurses and renters and we really respect the effort that the tenants at 1049 have made to insure the Affordable Housing in the city in listening to what people are saying a moral issue here you know there is legal existence but the city needs low Income Housing for people our Organization Says the caring for the needs of people that the priority over a profit driven Economic System and market and the people of the building have the record will show a lifetime of effort to this city like many of us they are artists and musicians as they said theyre the workers of this city who sweat blood and tears to keep this city alive and to attractive people attract people to it but our history is not written were not part of upper folks i want to say the contributions of the people who are at 1049 need acknowledgement by the city should have the right to stay in rentcontrolled units apartments that are so many people homeless in the streets now it is unbearable we hope you take the position and support the 1049 tenants thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Welcome, sir. Hi from the Human Rights Committee i submitted a letter some should be in our packets opposing this appeal also the senior disability action and the tenants have submitted letters opposing this appeal and supporting the tenants at the 1049 market we oppose my demolition of residential unit especially rentcontrolled units one were in the might as you may know of the worst housing crisis weve ever had in the city the last thing we need to side is diminish residential units especially under rentcontrolled those that for at least the last two decades have provided Affordable Housing to artists in this city we know were losing our artist there are articles how were losing our Arts Community we cant afford to lose the units and people those are the folks that make our city the heart and soul of our city and 1049 market has over 80 united 80 units of housing are we going to allow someone to tear those down for profit will we allow that as a city secondly, i understand units are rent as commercial ive been in the building and have friends in the building i know this is happening are we going to award this landlord for doing this in defiance of our permitting controls a very good law there are a lot of illegal units that landlords have been trying to take off the unit and should be preserved the heart and soul of that legislation what that legislation is doing finally i was on one of the inspections that the city did the tests have been talked about i saw how thorough the flept e from the point in time and gi and all the folks that came how thoroughly in going through this building and making sure that building was safe for people to live in i formally building this building is a safer building believe me in the years of the Human Rights Committee ive seen horrible conditions people are forced to live in the city i can tell you about stories it will make our hair turn gray that needs to be preserved and cant allow the tenants to be evicted and the units demolished thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Welcome. Thank you. My name is rachel west and im here because i also work at the right now grocery and one of my coworkers lives in the building i want to applaud the tenants for 3 years struggling to save their rentcontrolled units and as youve heard you know such a variety of people that live there black and wloit and lgbt and elderly people live there you know the real recommendation of the diversity of this city yes, this constant landlord is insisting and refusing to budge and Environmental Impact people from their homes it is a fine example of the housing crisis in San Francisco we all know no way to go once again our evicted from our low Income Housing we know that San Francisco losing the diversity and workingclass people that would be a tragic if this is allowed to happen and the landlord is allowed to evacuate people you know were seeing how landlord and developers are taking over properties in San Francisco and just displacing the long term residents from the housing and brutally Environmental Impact residents this landlord weve heard has dried every trick in the book and resort of to the ellis act it is unthinkable to evacuate the residents from their rentcontrolled units we urge you to keep them there thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Welcome, sir. Good evening thank you my name is disciplinarian brown ive been a tenant at the 1049 for roughly close to over 17 years when i moved in a live and work understanding that my agreement was a live and work premises and since ive been there i felt relatively safe have a sprinkle system inside of the building and a fire extinguisher right outside my door easy access to and since ive been there over the last ill say three or four years ive seen a lot of the tenants both neighbors on my floor on the fourth floor have moved out and no tenants moving in but i saw commercial tents moving in and urge that you will consider you know the Affordable Housing in this area and in our communities and listen and you know the comments and remarks theyre making and take into consideration to preserve the Affordable Housing in the community and for the city of San Francisco thank you. Thank you next speaker, please. Welcome the best for last. Thank you most nervous for last i wrote it do you think im one the over 80 people that live on 1049 market when i landlord applied for the permanent in 2014 im fighting to stay as many of the people youve seen since the summer of 2021 we witnessed the neighbors selling their homes i witnessed closets ripped out and with the noise to so many units day to day clearly up the fifth and the stench the the paint to hide evidence of what they did and read their stupid adds claiming the ads without offices and witnessed the homes of people that used to live are occupied at least onestory and twostory and threestory floors and surrounded by commercial offices where people used to live until 2013 i heard discussions you read about this but just to be clear that is a plan to rip out walls of about one hundred and 40 adjacent walls all of which surface i know contain electrical boxes Power Service boxes, plumbing for the sinks it is on every wall the idea that somehow this was a slam dunks easy take out a bunch of apply wasnt is not simple on a twostory a company renting out one the windowless unit you know claiming it is two unsafe and not legal so lets be clear last year their adds were showcasing 412 on unwindowed unit as a Conference Room were talking about items dozens of people to use this unit their evicted someone from because supposedly none can be there and likewise a units on the twostory for a commercial space has from windows yet they were fine moving in commercial tenants from spaces they used to be occupied this is the phoneyness of their argument and a weight lifting studio 8 people can be using this to lift way and on the fourth floor and on the west side they add advertise it as a store and a pot Distribution Company that floor one and one hundred foot long is bad. Any Public Comment on this item . Well have rub8g starting with the appellant. Welcome back mr. Patterson. Thank you, commissioners Bryan Patterson on behalf of the appellant on 1049 Market Street. Just as a housekeeping to start with can i have the overhead . On the overhead is a copy of the board special inspection instructions for parties i have to obtain to the Building Department introducing new written evidence at the hearing aside from the plan allowed by the boards rules without voting to allow the mix admission should only photos the drawings maybe submitted at the time the evidence which the prshldz so you get to introduce the written reservation of that was, of course not allowed in despite that newly obtained evidence the Building Department submitted evidence is old and very old could have been submitted in a brief i dont believe that is our brief i also have to obtain the long list of items that raised by the Building Department very difficult if not impossible for us to respond to and research on the fly i think i caught most of items listed but im sure a few others and for that to be raised after the close of our Opening Statement time it is prejudicial to the appellant so with that, out of the way i wanted to note the commissioners comments that somehow this Housing Needs got approved residential use was approved with the prelims therefore it mob you know safe enough actually is not at all correct this was never approved the city couldnt find a way to make that approvable the owner tried to find that path forward and gave up because it couldnt moot code was not safe yes certainly a case from ghost ship and in making that comparison we dont mean to in any way light of what happened this is a serious matter that deserves serious actions and consideration the Building Code issues are not at issue that touches on the revocation the request for revocation the notice of violation penalty decision none of those include Building Code issues or any of the things that the department of building inspection raised this is both in the courts order mr. Zach touched on and is revocation and on the overhead the subject it specifically says quote dated may 26th the department of building inspection wrote Building Permit application number 2013 plus the letter states that the permit voiltsz the planning code accordingly the Building Permit application is habeas corpus revoked and the one attachment to that revocation is the Planning Department request for revocation none of the items has to do with with the permit or the Building Permit application are before the board at this time i will try to address a couple of those items noting the objections is no the at issue today one of them again on the overhead was this highlighted note under general notes typewritten no alteration being done in the original plan payroll spur seated by a clouded note that was stamped substantially says scope of work demo to comply with the nov so thats simply not an issue here there is a variety of other inaccurate information it is contradicted by the evidence we submitted in writing putting about the ownership of the building affiliation i think this is ground has been president ial covered the safety concerns i think mr. Zach has a few comments about this as well thank you. Thank you, commissioners andy zach attorney for 1049 Market Street, llc were surprised to see inspector duffy to address the Building Code judge jackson on june 16, 2016, ruled that the board of appeals exceeded its jurisdiction by looking dbis order per verbatim as those matters expired in august of 2013 and no party has late jurisdiction and so forth in the board of appeals the board of appeals according to judge jackson exceeded his jurisdiction finding the Zoning Administrator abused its discretionary related to the permits issuance when the Zoning Administrator denied selfhave the authority to consider the Building Code provisions this is again continuing on the order the tax article 1 section 8 an appeal to the board of appeals quote shall be taken with thirty days end quote and a citation the rules of the board of appeals expressly states quote after it is expired the board lacks the jurisdictions over the matter the board didnt have jurisdiction we are respectfully ask you not do that as part of this appeal California Law government code is very clear that no Public Entity shall by ordinance or regulation are i administrative action the owner of my residential Real Property to offer or continue to offer the xhumgsz commotion for rent or lease this is California Law each the actions before you the revocation the request for revocation and the notice of violation is a administrative action to compel my client to be a landlord such heard that from the Zoning Administrator you heard that from the witnesses and from the courage for the tenants this is a body of laws you folks will make the decisions i suspect youll rule against my client as in the past i ask you consider that after this hearing is over folks will go home to a building not safe notwithstanding the and pose a life safety hazard pursuant to the information and ask you consider that that you take responsibility like my office and my client take that seriously were making every effort to recommend that situation we hope you look at this by the city and county of San Francisco in our efforts to do that thank you very much. The how many residentials or residential units are currently there now. None under recent residential or resident. How many are those. Approximately 15 left currently that are holding out in violation of their notices that have expired. That are unlawful detaining under state law and a rent ordinance. So counselor. I was also on the where had when this case came before us two years ago and you stand before me and say your client has consistently tried to do right and so that there are concerned about the fire and safety issue for the occupant that are using that as residential; correct . And thats absolutely correct the question. From the date that was given by the depended your client has continued to rent this as a residential property. Absolutely false no evidence my client has consistently rented this the evidence was this was commercial so. Under planning code section 317 theyre considered the component of our notice of violation because maybe like to choose they dont exist but have been converting those legal units to commercial uses in violation of the planning code and in relation to the plans and applications that is what the appellant read into the record can be submitted at the hearing as it is actually, the plans and applications of their own i mean theyve filed in 2013 so i dont think that is any new information unlike the freezing they want to submit when they wanted to approach their case it is distinct from what ive attempted to do and the jurisdiction of the board i know the legal arguments to the City Attorney but note that this is appeal of the revocation request not only of at the previous appeal but the appeal that the planning issued this is 3 appeals one of a notice of violation one of our revocation requests and one of the department of building inspection is completely appropriate for the Building Department inspection to approach the argument to make determination about this Building Permit that is before you for revocation even beyond that the argument is that San Francisco permit should be revoked didnt comply that the planning code the applicability of 317 has a conditional use authorization for removal of an unauthorized unit meets the definition of unauthorized unit we have information theyve been illegally converting legal units on the 6th floor without conditional use authorization so beyond the effective nature whatever you determine to be of the permit the permit this be revoked because it didnt go with the kruvengs that requires the krufbs second not to say they cant be remove the unit a path to legalize and the path to remove is the conditional use authorization they submitted last summer theyve not diligently move forward they want to go through the Court Process but there is a path of Planning Commission will be able to make a decision and present their appraisal to justify the removal of unit and the Planning Commission can make a decision and can be appealed to the board of supervisors those are most of points that i wanted to address also i nodded deputy City Attorney is here with legal questions some of you may im available to answer any questions. I have a legal question one actually. Want the City Attorney. Before scott leafs. Is it safe to say watt over simplifying that the entire basis for your decision and the rochgs revocation is the revised planning code to this building. Yes. Mr. Sanchez the question i had asked the appellants on how many units still have residential occupant do you concur with that number 15. I dont have perfect information on that i think that the best information may come from the tenants themselves and perhaps the gentleman working with the tenants. So the numbers changed substantially weve heard this it has decreased dramatically. So has as a Planning Department have an enforcement on the illegal conversion of the residential units. Thats on appeal so a notice of violation will have a decision. Thank you. Good evening deputy City Attorney christine i understand a legal question. I do. An argument or at least a statement about illness im getting that argument. Thats a broad question. So where is the civil case right now. There are currently 4 lawsuits pending against the city by this Property Owner each one has a preempt cause of action theyve challenged the city legislation that includes the 2013 and 2015 interim controls and the permanent controls all on that grounds most recently filed lawsuit is the one that addresses the 20 the permanent colonels on ceqa and other grounds were waiting for the courts determination. It has indicated which way it is leaning. In the court asked for orders from both sides so their prompts but have 90 days to issue theyre after the case is submitted the court didnt consider that until they get the orders that occurs a week or so ago monday well april 3rd, 90 days the court has 90 days from april 3rd. Thank you. So go ahead. Please. Then i guess my question goes back to where we fit in the subsequence of events i asked mraubz to come to the basis for our decision and if the applicability of the controls is deemed not appropriate then this is me oute is this a timely action. There was argument in the brief about the sequencing and the tenants pointed out in the brief that notice of violation that were issued by the Zoning Administrator and at issue here were relating to conduct that occurred before the ellis act notices this preceding before the board today, we call an out of supply preceding in terms of the Property Owner is addressing the application to property the lawsuit were waiting for an order from a factual challenge in terms of theyve argued on its face without applying to specific circumstances of this case the ellis act preempts the adoption of that ordinance were saying here what their arguing here is that by then applying the permit controls to the fact at issue another argument as argued in the brief im sure theyll be happy to expand on that most of factual issues in terms of the basis of the Zoning Administrators nov all precat the issuance the local issues. So the for the purpose on question maybe redundant if we were to wait until there was resolution of the court case god knows which e when then we would let me restate that if we made a decision today and the court case occurred that would reverse our decision on a couple of the items, however, on the issue of notice of violation which is all about actions predated then by kick the can down the road on that one we will causing some harm or not resolving something that needed to be resolved and having no bearing on the lawsuit. Im not sure i follow the second half of our set up but answer the question and might be useful to hear if the City Attorney i dont think any way for the board kick the can down the road weve not have final resolution before the track for a long were likely to go to the court of appeals and their take another two years before a resolution whatever the trial court decided in the next 90 days not go resolution for quite a while the board didnt have the pour power to make a determination. The preying issue or a pressing issue will stop us from the nov issue that has to do with with the conversion of approved residential live work units. The nov extends the lefthand side and illegal units the amendments to section 317 addresses the legally and illegally on the 6th floor 6 units were legally converted on one through 5 the Property Owner never obtained permits to convert those to residential uses a mix of both what are titled and the Zoning Administrator will correct me lawful and unlawful residential unit is that the right terminology i should know but residential unit and unauthorized units has extended. You stated before thank you. Thank you. I knew that didnt sound right so unauthorized units and authorized units at issue is somewhat unusual i think. Thank you thank you i think if it is helpful to the board i believe that the Building Department we have one representative who was a paternity in one of the task force inspections of the building there were quite a few questions if you wanted more factual response i believe that that can be provided to you. Thank you counselor. I on to the lawyers offering evidence. Your time is up. Im making my objection. Do you want to hear the rebuttal. Joe duffy dbi judge on a couple of points that mr. Patterson made no my understanding meetings at dbi that make a preapplication meeting the dbi were willing to allow Code Provisions comparable to live work there is a little bit of relaxing of the code i remember that being brought up i dont have that letter you know there were discussions hes correct originally no reason from the dbi but in the latter stages got to the discussions jeff who is one of the dbis engineers was in a meeting with me yesterday and discussed a preopenly letter that was giving them a path to illegal listing this for residential use on the documents i brought with me sometimes when i come here and theres a brief i think that plans are mandate having them to discuss it makes everyones job easier thats why i brought them and provided copies for as i say i wish it was mandatory that all building plans were part of brief id like to introduce the chief builder inspector that has information on the building thank you. Thank you thank you, joe good evening, commissioners pta reardon chief builder inspector i was present at an inspection at the building performed in october of 2013 and what i remember of that inspection was i remember a concrete building that was rendered that was really didnt give me my great concerns or show me any evidence of imminent hazards even though that had been converted to residential potentially locally residential use scott said those are unauthorized units and the concrete buildings and sprinklers two exits, exit signs when you think about things like ventilation even if it were the commercial building it will be required to have ventilation so ventilation is a requirement anyway, i did see some maintenance issues some exit signs need to be repositioned and some of the lights were out and the housing of some of those exit signs the doors to the accelerator lobby noted work to be selfclosing and on some of the floors that was an issue so those are not how this items really in respect to giving a inspecting engrave concerns about the use of building so on unauthorized use of concrete buildings and from what i heard about got off of ship this is it is a ghost ship scenario this noticed some maintenance im available to answer any questions. One the tenants indicated that building was seismically uk9d. I dont remember seeing evidence of that but may have been steel frames in the building at the time i dont recall from 3 and a half years ago my recognition of sowing a solid building with structurally sound. So one last question the courage did a comparison between ghost ship and this particular property what are the difference my understanding from reading articles. My understanding from reading the articles large part of ghost ship was unlegal. It was an event space hundreds of people there i dont believe from what i read they had sprinklers and a lack of exiting from the space there was wood framing i mean, thats all opposite of what im you know describing i saw when i was out there so thank you sxolt for providing me the evidence here of a schematic upgrade permit that was signed off in regards to the building. What year. That was 1998. September 1998. Okay. Thank you chief inspector. Okay. Does that i wanted to say if youre inclined to accept all the objection of the petitioner didnt have the opportunity to respond to the evidence towards the end perhaps give them 3 minutes to respond. Thats a good suggestion and at the same time i accepted the material from the department ill allow counselor to come forward were taking that 4 minutes. Although i dont think the departments time ran out either. Just do make that fair i mean. Thank you commissioner president honda bryan e Ryan Patterson for the permit holder the objection was not so much. Would you like to distribute our material before thanks. 12 copies. Just give a copy to the department. These are Building Code issues that require an amount of research and listening to argument so my objection on that point as it stands. I think that a lot of it is simply irrelevant theyre not at issue in those only one issue in the Building Department the planning code issues the use of 6th floor live and work unit that the status is not purely residential designation an odd easy use no longer authorized in San Francisco and while that may be subject to a subject of the notice of violation penalty decisions that decision didnt call to my memory not call for revocation of the permit that is a financial penalty if there are a violation there so thats again, i think kind of a nonissue do you have nonresidential you want to add thank you for the opportunity to respond. Yep thank you. Okay commissioners, the matter is submitted. I have a question for our City Attorney our City Attorney the Planning Department brief talks about one condition that calm off the judge jackson decided related to the band time of use their decision at issue it, it is mute no longer carried forward in the permit controls and thats my understanding the permit controls dont have this condition. You heard it is mute. I do okay. I concur that the permit controls dont have that condition. All right. I guess the question i thought we were going to ask are you comfortable with the process that were following in the sequencing of events. Ive not heard from the city whether i believe the permit holder contends that it was improper for the city to revoke the permit awhile that was pending i dont know. Ive heard on argument from the city to in the effect while the permit is pending in those decision perhaps ask them. That is pertinent. Like to hear from the City Attorney in the Planning Department. Welcome back. Thank you addressing the question from my colleague City Attorneys office the issue was addressed in the Planning Department brief i have a page slide but the nov was issued by the Zoning Administrator added conduct that occurred board judge jackson issued the order they violated the 2015 controls before judge jackson issued an order reprimanding for the reconsideration under the boards previous determination so the process that has brought us here today had already commenced the Zoning Administrator began an enforcement decision before judge jackson by the time judge jackson order my recognition before the order was issued the Zoning Administrator had issued his finding and penalty decision and shortly after that the appeal was filed by the time judge jackson issued her order not only no longer the statute on the book that had the language but the permit was revoked thats the base for the argument. Im not sure we want to weigh that okay. Has anyone. Let me finish i sat in on to cases for counsel that counsel was involved in or in that went to the Supreme Court im not going to be here that much longer i prefer to make my decision today. I assume thats not a question. Thank you City Attorney. Put yourself out there. Ill start ill in agreement that the law changed and therefore the one issue that came out of the previous decision at the state in terms of remaining to make a decision whether there was banned time of use that issue is mute if any fellow commissioners need to respond to that. I dont. There are 3 cases but everyone as indicated they really resolve around do we accept the permanent controls and the timing that occurred was the e communitybased basis for the Zoning Administrator to make those decisions and if we feel that it was a legal basis at the time he made overseeing decisions i dont think we can find he erred it is bad to me it is revenues representative so contaminating the appellant got to right im not prepared to change in terms of how i feel about the little basis for the Zoning Administrators decision in terms of 317 the permanent controls were in effect and therefore didnt abuse his reference. To clarify on each of those or all 3 a couple of different finding we need to make. I believe so. Thats fine. Just clarifying. Im in concurrence i think that is a tough case before us before although a different matter i think what was before it was about timing and comfortable in understanding the timing was correct in the decision that was made by the department. I will support that if that is a motion. A motion. Any further comments. Okay i mean, ill move that the deny the appeal on the basis that the Zoning Administrator did not error or abuse his discretionary or on all 3. The department of building inspection didnt error used the discretion relying on the Zoning Administrators discretion. Ill add the department of building inspection didnt abuse its discretion in following the request from the Planning Department as it has commonly done throughout the history ive been involved in the city. Madam director. Did he make pies decision clear. Im trying to clarify i know to deny the 3 appeals and uphold on the basis there was no error or abuse of discretion do you want me to make that more specific on the dbi relying. Make that more specific. Okay. Thanks so on the basis the Zoning Administrator didnt abuse his discretionary and the department of building inspection didnt error on the recommendation is that right. On that motion for those 3 appeals commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig okay that motion carries with a vote of 3 to zero. 5 to zero. Madam director well take a 5 minute recess. Okay welcome back to the wednesday, april 5, 2017, meeting of the San Francisco board of appeals item number 6 is what you think well call item 7324 mississippi street protesting the denial on 2017 avenue rear yard variance to local lists an twostory wlaj into the required rear yard and apologize for the delay. Not a problem thank you. Good evening commissioners my name is cuttingedge technology wisdom request the architectural and here speaking on behalf of the appellant youre aware the appellant built a modest deck without permit and his intention for building this deck were open space assess to the ups unit and a second egress this was lost that will substantially made the stairs to the backyard unsafe and unused full ill flip through pictures most were if the appeal as you can see the deck was built ill be referring to throughout on the side of the house this is the appellants home the retaining wall is located here and the neighbors house uphill 324 mississippi street is there on one side Planning Department has said the stairs are usedable on the ods the appellant is showing the stairs are not usable this is it is a temporary issue due to unsuccessful negotiations dating to 2006 with his neighbor that owns the retaining wall ill flip through a couple of additional pictures . The current state of deck that is barricade due to a notice of violation this is from a couple of days ago the bidder is more developed this is a barricade and the additional pictures of the barricade and the stair the attempts included offers to pay for half of the cost of fixing the wall and the neighbor will be unwillingly and unable to fix the retaining wall the construction of unpermitted deck is an attempt to take action to mitigate the access issues with the immediate safety issues for the tenants each day that passes without assess to the stair or the current deck built perpetuates an unsafe condition that access to required open space a outlined in the planning code our client is to undertake this was miss ignite he has continued to provide alternative splugz for egress and strongly buildings that any spares we built in their location will drag on for a long time and perpetuate a condition that is unsafe to say supported by a notice of violation by the dbi which required him to barricade the wall and stairs as shown in the previous images that to be projector here this is the notice of violation that was recently filed beyond the notice of violations the client reached out at his own expensed and hired a consultant that stated the current condition without access to the stair creates a less safe condition for his upstairs tenants they had to have two egress now, one important to the actual variance denial one of the main things to focus on the assumption in the denial that the stairs were in fact, usable and therefore access to open space the appellant made an attempt to convey the steps were urban usable to due to inexperience with the Building Code and planning code this didnt come across in the initial variance and due so that the Planning Department felt that the stairs were, in fact, usable thats what they referred in the number 1, 2, 3 in the variance denial the notice of violation that was recently issued from the dbi requiring the barricades on the stairs proves the stair now unusable this nov was done after the appellant attempted multiple times to deal with the safety issues of the wall all right. And so finding for in the variance essentially what this slide is saying what will happen when they did findings was not met the Zoning Administrator felt my profoundly into the rear yard with the deck was cause for denial the appellants ultimately tried to work with the participating to minimize the size of the deck with the goal of providing open space with the need of negatively egress and one of the things was potentially having a juliette railing and potentially a fire escape ladder off of the deck and finding number 5 which essentially you know stating that the project is in harmony with the intent of the code in this area here finding number 5 those indicates the letters of support from neighbors a lot of support favorable support from the neighbors the Yellow Properties indicated here are favorable letters of support in the appeal also in terms of neighborhood character we did a survey looking at buildings in the neighborhood i think that the first picture here is the best example this is lieutenant of the back of the Property Owners home as you can see there are decks everywhere and stairs everywhere you look at and a series of site plans sit in the usable open space behind the homes those are 3 directly adjacent and 315 across the backyard and 321st directly in the backyard and 319 across from the yard whoops. Dont worry about youll have time in rebuttal. Sir. Yes. One of your early comments you were talking about the egress youre not saying that the deck is your area of rustling. No the backyard is the area of refuge and 25 feet the backyard. Thank you yes, thank you. Mr. Sanchez thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department. So the matter before you say an appeal of a variance that was denied to legalize the deck of the the subject property as noted the deck was constructed without benefit of permit appears last summer a notice of violation by the department of building inspection and the Property Owner promoting submitted the variance application this item was scheduled in december acting corey teague heard the item and the testimony that was presented and felt that the 5 finding were not justified to granted the variance that is an existing local noncompliant at the time of the hearing that has stairs that provide open space in the remainder that was said by the appellant that was not safe there were ongoing issues before you nothing in the department of building inspection stating that was unsafe means of access we understand new information from the department of building inspection has issued an nova the correct response for that retaining wall to be fixed that allows for the stairs to be reconstructed in that area maintained in that area and provide open space to the rear yard i concur with the finding of mr. Teague and denying the application noted the building is extends 19 feet into the required rear yard the appellant constructed and a deck one story in height and steendz 5 more feet and not characteristic of the neighborhood was stated by the appellant that was somehow addresses the required means ever egress commissioner Vice President fung noted 0 this is no a stair it is not going to have so inspector duffy is not required for the second unit but can address that further i dont know what led to the upcoming permitted construction of the balcony i mean it does he said the benefits that provides usable open space for the upper unit our department has cased with the upper unit is rented without any shortterm rental license my understanding the matter was resolved but that evident early last summer or early last year i dont know if the plan and construction were that to facilitate this operating separately but have filed for a shortterm rental certificate the owner lived in the lower unit and taken out an shortterm rental licensee on the penalty is 31,000 for the unpermitted they were doing the shortterm rental illegally in both units but legalized in the lower unit that appears to be resolved then this is a matter of variance we dont believe that all 5 finding have justified the variance their can be quiet adequate open space in the rear yard they can have only one there is one it is has been that way for quest and we on the retaining wall can be fixed there if theres an issue they can look at other options where something more simple the deck as it is now but actually a stair theyre located a bit where it is now you know we can work with the applicant but in terms of the proximately as that is constructed were not part of that application im available to answer any questions. So mr. Sanchez sorry. Go ahead. Commissioner swig. A simple question an nov on the retaining wall falls on the responsibility of the appellant or it is the uncooperative neighbors. The department of building inspection what answer this is what the retaining wall lines up exactly ill let inspector duffy answer that. My question was more along the shortterm rental so can you explain to me what youre able to do with a permit for a shortterm rental. Yes. With the permit for a shortterm rental allows you within the limits and so forth if the code the number of days you can rent your own unit thats our permanent unit. Yes. The issue we know they lived in the lower unit but no evidence of someone living in the upper unit. Youre not allowed to rent the vacant rentcontrolled units. Right only the unit you occupy. Weve had that gentleman in front of us but didnt ask the question. Well not normally hear from the builder inspector sounds like you have questions. Thank you inspector duffy. Commissioners, i actually joe duffy dbi i remember speaking to corey teague from the Planning Department a few months ago and when i saw that case oh, thats the case i give advise he noted on the photos the retaining wall looked like it was pelosi so concerned about that and what should be done he called me and i advised that we open a complaint send out a builder inspector and they got a notice of violation for the retaining wall well issue a second notice of violation and go to the abatement perez so if there is a field retaining wall we want to fixed shows adamant shes not fixing that but will end up enforcement from dbi. The question to the Zoning Administrator is there a shared responsibility on is built retaining wall notice of violation or who is shoulders does that fall on. It falls on the shoulders of whoever property the retaining wall is on or the foundation for that retaining wall i mean that can be a local thing but i believe on the neighbors were talking about tonight on the neighbors side but tilted it is leaning into that property to but i mean a lot of those things go to litigation we leave that up to the Court Reporters but in my opinion whosoever retaining wall on the property. So if there is the finding that the stairway a fixed stairway that is a well maintained stairway is a suitable method of egress compromised by a retaining wall is that the responsibility of the homeowners the appellant in this case to fix the stairway and that means fixing the retaining wall as well even though is not his responsibility thats a civil suit against his next door neighbor. Hes using the argument that the retaining wall was never going to get fixed thats not were used to seeing. Sorts of noifths and getting the work fixed simply making a statement the retaining wall will not be fixed it will fall it is in everyones interest who pays for that it could go to civil litigation but i think from what i saw in the photos mostly on the retaining wall is on the neighbors side and what is leaning i think he offered to pay for some of it but that person is not here. If hes forced my point it is realistic to if fixing the stairs becomes the solution of an egress and the necessity to fix the retaining wall and the burden of fixing that retaining wall inadvertently falls on the appellant and he feels that he shouldnt be paying for the whole thing that is really not our issue that becomes a civil issue. Correct. Question mr. Duffy do you know how the existence of deck came to our attention in the first place and let me see. We got a complaint around the 13 the june an ammonias complaints singles nonpermitted work in rear to erect the decks and around june 2016 got a complaint it is who it is from. And one more question evolving you lets see leaning of the foundation or the retaining wall it didnt rookie if the pictures there is cracking we see a lot of budging when did it become a violation. What that is leaning i think i saw cracks but certainly when it starts to lean youll see the stress they keep on going. It causes an action by the department. People drag their feet a lot of money we know that. Thank you thank you any Public Comment on this item . Please step forward. Speak first and then if you havent filled out a speaker card we ask you do that, please. Welcome. Thank you. I heard before about the speaker card im carolina i own 228 mississippi street i dont have the resources to pay on the Ethics Commission it stated in march refers to the retaining wall and not the stair as a violation i also didnt see that appeal itself until in morning in addition to the privacy concerns i am concerned he put things in his application that are untrue that he insists the wall is mine we havent had a survey so the ownership of the wall is not determined ive not received a inspector in exhibit 1 a retaining wall is there and then a fence theyll have to climb 10 feet up to see over the retaining wall cant be seen from my property not receiving the permit an inspector came to my house i asked to be notified when the inspection was done i was not notified i didnt tell the inspector oil not repair the wall he says i said and also awhile i appreciate tim, i think hes a great person an letter says he lives there he didnt say live next door ive not seen him a week in the last year and a half and someones letter stated he didnt live there so im concerned about some of the recommendations rechlgsz in the report. Thank you. Next speaker, please. And welcome. Im jeffrey and doctor natalie on 18 street out of town for work and authorized me to speak on her behalf sent a letter to the board of appeals for in favor of that and wants to reiterate the last paragraph that says i hope that matter can be resolved it is a hamburger for the neighborhood to block the Southern Side of their yard also i permanent am looking forward to the completion of their construction and escaping for their sake and mine ill appreciate the nice view in theyre well maintained backyard did owners are Good Community owners i hope they get to proceed with the project on their property and highly support this. Thank you any other Public Comment. Good evening and welcome. Thanks i like to speak in support of variance i think the. Can you state your name for the record. Ive never done this dean im a resident of San Francisco ive seen the property and feel that is well maintained and theyve tried to comply and can do whatever that workable for the people i think that is like a really unnecessary problem i mean theyve willing to work with us and accomplish whatever needs to be done. Any other Public Comment. Welcome. Hi and rick salazar mississippi street im opposed for this 324 mississippi street to legalize the decks built without permits this is not supported by the necessary requirement no exceptional or extraordinary apply and no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances there is no resulting practical difficulty or urban necessary harding park that a roof deck will be necessary for the constitutional property right is not defensible the granting of a variance is no in harmony with the code and form of detrimental to the materially injuries to other properties and concerns over the loss of property to 1219, 18 street with the upper deck longing both the bedrooms before and into the kitchen on 18 street since that was constructed that as obstructed views from mississippi street adversely effecting the Property Values although the neighborhood concerns about the shortterm rentals are not directly relevant the two units at the 324 and 6 have been used as shortterm rentals accommodating up to 8 people and such rentals are the norm neither the decks may encourage the outside parties and quote enjoyment to other neighbors and finally the mid block open space with inadequate open space is detrimental to the Public Welfare i urge you to deny the appeal. Thank you. Any other Public Comment. Okay. Seeing none have rebuttal starting with the appellant mr. Carli. Thank you. Keith with currentlyly on behalf of the appellant one of the statement in terms of planning evaporates ways there was no evidence those stairs were failing they are two engineering reports that are submitted with the variances was was originally by the Building Department they look strong in the report for them to accept the stairs were failing the appellant went back for a second report from the engineer which stated it was part of origin variance the final variance did they didnt accept that information as i discussed the stairs with always maintained as useable and 100 percent number one, usually at this point and questions about cracks in the walls there were pictures that were in if engineering report theyre actually in the appeal documentation that show cracks if the retaining wall there was a comment about where the retaining wall actually exists who is property it is on the appellant has a survey that indicates and shows that the retaining wall is fully within the property of the 324 mississippi street in terms of the the airbnb discussion came up a number of times a legal license for airbnb downstairs and the appellant confirmed his tenants mentioned does live ups in the unit a fulltime resident we understand this is a difficult situation none wants to have to fix this wall that would be great in if the issue would go away but creating an you unsafe condition it would be great to fix the stair and the tenant has access to get out of the building if this is a fire or have a right to open space that unfortunately is not the situation any means to fix that existing stair causes problems down the road that would be better to move that stair from that location we dont know what will happen with the rebuilding of this wall if it happens the appellant is unwillingly to rebuild that exact wall within his property and take up more space from the open space and potentially have conflicts with that existing stairs and mr. Sanchez about working with the Planning Department to find another solution you know the appellant is totally unwillingly to do that so im a little bit confused. Sorry. If you have a great run from the upper unit. Yeah. It would be landing somewhere near usual new retaining wall. It will go beyond that no the design for the new retaining wall at this point. Im talking about. The wall you have on your prophet. Theres a lower retaining wall the appellant built you see in some of the images that is stepped in from the neighborhood property about 3 feet from the neighbors property and again, the rebuilding of wall didnt determine where that will be you ultimately we on the stair take it off a better longterm solutions. Commissioner. Are you a licensed architect. I am not yes, but not the architect of record for the project. That was the. Yes. What was there an architect. No permit substantially been drawings put together by a engineer and designer i believe. Yeah. But those drawings were not completed by me. So no conscious effort on behalf of the appellant to do a legal action to build. Oh, no, no sorry to interrupt he has engineering drawings. They were done inaudible . So they have engineered drawings that are ready to go. It seems there is a choice whether to go to the city or not to legalize and to go through proper legal channels and the choice of the appellant not to do so. Overflow room since then he understands a misguided effort. Answer my question. Thats okay, sir if you want to come up ill give a second to answer that, sir. Im sorry please come to the mike and identify yourself. Im the owner of the property prior to putting up a deck i had a dbi person came out to inspect the garage and the storage area i showed him the lower part of wall and didnt advise me i didnt know how bad the wall was this is not about the wall. The issue about the deck and the choice to build an illegal deck or the choice to build a legal deck thats where my im sorry, i didnt understand i was trying to explain. Since youre up there, sir so are you willing to share not in the briefs that we received but are you willing to share the survey report with the adjoining neighbor. Sure. Whats the current status of units as far as tenancies. For all the units. This is the tenant. Overhead please. Okay. Face it like youre facing yourself. Like this okay. As you can see his legal address is 324 mississippi street. You reside in the secondary units. Thats fine no, no thats fine thank you very much. Their mistaken. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions. Thank you mr. Sanchez. Thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department. Theres no appreciate that this is an attempt to provide usable open space that is dribble from the living united ill note it from 0 comply with the planning code for usable open space that requires 6 by 6 and nicole an rh2 one and 25 square feet so if it is attempt of the appellant to have this be the sole open space for the upper unit didnt comply with the planning code theyre willing to maintain the stairs in any event to provide the open space that meets the requirements for the property so you know, i will note moindz the Property Owners since 2005 had permit in 2015 but the two permits were for the building and since an understanding of permitting immediately for doing this they were the subject from the Planning Department for the shortterm rentals there was an understanding the city agency has the responsibility dont know why it was not done by permit but unfortunately was done with permit and were in this situation now. Let me make sure ive heard you correctly are you saying if in its current state this deck the applied for a permit using the diechltsz of this current deck theyll most likely be denied that was a breach. If the intent was to remove the existing deck and the stairs for the open space for the upper unit 245u8 need the variance from the rear yard but for usable open space the usable open space theyll provide will need code requirements and a goodsized remainder or rear yard they can maintain the required usedable open space by having the stairs to the rear yard. So at that point theyll your point theyll not have this deck legally. Theyll have the point to make the argument but it will be difficult to august what theyre doing is a positive thing. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners nothing future for the inspector mr. Duffy so commissioners, the matter is submitted. I think commissioner swig was right it is a deflexion the issue it is a deck and the variance is extended to the required rear yard understand issues related to neighbor to neighbor negative to the retaining wall and what they want the stair but the question is whether or not the va erred or abused its discretion in denying. This is the not able. laughter . So what i was going to say was that in looking at the 5 criteria for a variance i find that the appellant only satisfies one of them i concur. As do i. Youre the motion king tonight. Move to deny the appeal on the basis that the 5 criteria for variance were not met. On that motion from the Vice President to deny the appeal and uphold it on the basis the 5 finding under planning code have not been met commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig that motion carries with a vote of 5 to zero. Move on to item 810331037 washington street protesting the granting on february 8th, reminded to 10331037 washington street to construct a onestory vertical addition to the 3 story over garage for one dwelling unit within the rear yard setback and thank you for being so patient. Good evening and thank you for serving the entire community of San Francisco after hours i truly appreciate your efforts and as i said nickel and dimed a ms. Woytak one of the owners of 1041 Washington Property this is property we purchased in 1998 it is one of the buildings on washington street and i have its in a cluster of a neighborhood of ed warn buildings. Face it as if youre looking at it yourself maam. Thank you, thank you gary. So as you can see this is a whole block of about 4 ed warn so on the basis we can say that those buildings are 100 percent years old theyre not 50 years or 60 their one hundred jeralds and plus or plus or minus a few years so theyre perfect example of edwardian looting be those buildings are handcrafted inside and out i we create paint from the staircase on the walls that is a gorgeous work of art that you cant see today and look at those bay windows the proof is in the pudding they were stained glass their rounded they are frames are handcrafted look at the architectural it is all made it is a piece of art this whole section is in the historical the cable cars stops in front of the building up one block is the cable gym so San Francisco preservation places an Important Role in San Francisco and very important that we honor the tradition now this building is sits on an nonlegal parcel it just covers the entire parcel theres no open space and also the only open space is the streets the rest of the building it is surrounded by buildings on all 3 sides so heres our building and we share the walls for the first 20 feet approximately and then the applicants building goes right separate straight on the Property Line and our building makes provides a setback of about 4 to 5 feet im going to show you this is the suspect this is the area between the two buildings it is very narrow you have windows from our staircase coming out into the narrow space and windows in the back from the apartments so this situation is already a big hardship people that walk up the stairs use are imposed to the windows and frequently open those windows to get fresh air and light so this situation is already very difficult very unsafe just a couple of years ago a woman fell off the top of the building of the applicants property right into the space and what happened next . An Urgency Service came they buffed to our walls to get to the woman to take here to the hospital this is no open space this is totally built up and so in this situation the applicant is asking for an additional unit on top of that building is just hard to understand first of all, Zoning Administrator is saying well, we have ceqa exemption, however, please note there are exceptions to ceqa exceptions number one, exception is cumulative impact number one, two is exception is Significant Impact and number 3, historical aspects so all of these exceptions prevent completion of ceqa exemptions Zoning Administrator says well, we have class a and c that we can class one and 3 exemptions class one i already described to you one 1, 2, 3 and class and the next one so Zoning Administrator listed 5 points first one he said extraordinary circumstances but didnt list one his second piece of 10 feet in front of im sorry maam, your time is up. But youll have time. No youll have time in rebuttal. Okay. Thank you. Lawns lets hear from the variance holder first. No Public Comment yet well have it in a little while hear from the variance holder first. Good evening and welcome. And again, thank you for being patient. Good evening. Im Abraham Jason the architect for the property and representing the Property Owners commissioners thank you for your time so the applicant has kind of raised 5 primary concerns ill briefly summarize and address kind of what were talking about here first is the scale for the compliance for the planning code Historic Preservation ceqa and light and air and building safety and views id like to put someone on the overhead to frame our discussion so this is the color coded kind of diagram of the site and what you see at the front in the blue thats a 10 foot setback for the preservation we work closely with the Preservation Department and agree with the gentleman a beautiful property glass windows and views are articulated were preserving that carefully and thoughtfully in the green as you can see that is the compliant buildable area with the planning code and the yellow area it is setback which was you know carefully coordinated with the Planning Department and required two preapplication with the Building Department to make sure we are meeting the egress and fire and life safety issues this is directly to address the concerns of 10331037 washington street and access to air quality in that location and as you can see another small area of yellow were rebuilding the entire egress will be code compliant that is an existing stair but able to rebuilding that set that back two feet from the Property Line adjacent to 10331037 washington street so really all were talking about is the area in red at the rear of the property so you know i think that is relevant to note that although i understand the concerns of the applicant because in if the disruption adjacent to our property didnt affect the concerns of the applicant the Historic Preservation is at the front of the property that is driven by the facade and like i said, we worked carefully with the presently go department in terms of the scale in compliance with the planning code within the height limit it is, you know, been carefully discussions with rdt relations in terms of light and air you know primarily the area that the applicant has concerned are at the front of the property in terms of views that will be in consideration from the roof of the applicants property a roof deck there im not clear if it was permitted maybe before the applicant bought the property but fundamentally the views are to the north theyll be maintained and to the east regardless of whether we built into the rear yard will be cut off and then in terms of building safety going through measures this is true for the Building Occupant and the adjacent neighborhood and you currently an nonspiritual building well be adding sprinkles and well be completely rebuilding the rear stair and providing a compliant path of egress through the garage to the street so so i get benefits not only for the Building Occupant but a fire in the neighborhood will be better im going to show a couple of images here sorry about that i think that still works this is the neighborhood im sure youve familiar with the neighborhood it is sort of a dense area of nob hill there is visually not a rear yard in sight in fact, the applicants 0 property is a now and then compliant that is a condition throughout the neighborhood and it is one that combined with the substandard lot size places an undue burden to build a liveable unit and show a couple of quick photos so as you can see the im sorry appellant i apologize my pronunciation the appellant their property and the adjacent roof deck and the lightwell she spoke of were working to create a lightwell and setback on the property to aid here as you can see the view to the back of the property and then here as you can see a view looking southeast and as you can see in that direction in the direction of the variance it is dense backs of buildings no really primary wonderful view in that direction so with that, ill let the Zoning Administrator speak ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. This building is a Historic Resource. Im sorry is this is in Historic Resource. I dont believe that it is age inevitable not a a resource building. Thank you mr. Sanchez. Now youre turn, sir. No laundry. Thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department. So the the subject property is located within an r m3 Zoning District as the Property Owner a potential historic not in a identified Historic District with the addition of one dwelling unit from three or four to the density bans the lot size and on the path permitting for this the application was submitted beginning of last year the Environmental Review was community quite thoroughly was issued in november of last year and find class one and 3 with the Environmental Review this is hardly appropriate theyre used within San Francisco there were some exerts include in the appellants brief that trumpeted what is allowed in a class one allowed for large cities like that is appropriate and class 3 the, is not illegal the appellant claimed that is an existing north poncomplying standard is under it extend into the existing rear yard the addition was reviewed by the presently staff it complies with the secretary of interior and not have an adversely impact on the Historic Resource and the Environmental Review was granted with that in part the setback the greater required setback contributed to the granting of the variance that does in the Housing Stock bringing it up to the Zoning District the appellant has referenced violations on the property about doors in the brief i nodded that was abated im aware of active or pending violations on the property i think that would be helpful to so show on the overall the impacts to the adjacent Property Owner and the Residential Design Team looked this thoroughly four velocities to the Residential Design Team to come up with a proposal that complies with the residential Design Guidelines and the section 311 notification occurred between december and january of this year and no discretionary review filed the variance hearing was held at the end of january we heard the concerns from the appellant can i have the overhead, please . Sodium zoom in ive tried to highlight this was required by the residential Design Guidelines this on the dash line here is the existing parapet height the rdt required a lightwell to address the windows below on the appellants property ill note the rear yard variance tried to hatch no windows in the direction of the the subject property there are inform windows the impacted by the portion of building that requires the variance you know that code compliant alternative will have the same impact on the appellants property as proposed here so you know we think that all steps have been taken to address those concerns i think thats most of points i wanted to raise but happy to be available for any questions. I have one not for that particular property but add an additional property to the Housing Stock does the new unit subject to rent control or not apply. That has a question i cant answer up to the rent board and this is one of the most this project aside. Thats the reason someone i assume since it is from existing Housing Stock and the youre creating a new unit out of an existing building built to whatever year someone told me may not be subject to rent control and i. But up to the rent board to make that determination and it is. Just a separate question. It is complicated. The vertical blue line is the 25 line. Approximately, i draw this in that was based on looking at the site plan about halfway between lightwell and the rear of the building drafted here certainly the last little over 15 feet of the last quarter of 24 percent rear yard so thats why i believe that you know the windows are here shown with the hatched lines are affected by more about the code compliant portion of building rather than anything else the roof deck that maybe impacted because that roof deck is setback far i dont know if yeah. I think as far as the project will have an impact on that roof deck. One last thing generally, the setback to accommodate for the appellants property. Yes. So there was a 10 foot set back to address the preservation and a let that was required by rdt to respect the windows that are on the appellants property and. And is that a common since their property is going the distance is that a common for the department to make that. It is what we look to do every case is different but this is unique the bulk of the walls is setback usually we see lightwells matched. Thats what i was wondering would any time the department recommend a matched one. You know we do get cases the adjacent lightwell is to large or long or maybe long capriciously to the Property Line or deep and in those cases those are not our decision we wouldnt typically have them match the entire setback yeah that is rdt their consistent in their application. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Okay Public Comment on this item then. Sorry Public Comment. Public comment on this item. Hi, im laura tenant advocate and here to say i want to want the overhead. Yeah. This is mr. Shackelford a proposal and move on from the article the last chap starts at home no more fake democratic clubs and asphalt people over profits im still hell, yeah to receive a policy that makes we wonder what else the staff discussed when they think no one else is lineups im here to say people were doing into undergo the same thing in oakland with the hotels and im he ambassador and tomorrow at the 1 30 were going to johnstown and all over the city peoples property is taken like jim barker that died Martin Luther king spoke at the center black should be significant he said this right here at building ground known knows if were at the point where housing is a human rights like an attorney and everyone in San Francisco going to the same thing as oakland people landlords needs investors come in and try to take were going to john towns on market we need someone to come between without objection and 2 30 all over the city like it was said this money are we against trump if dark and democratic money is letting hours being taken from people trump has a lot of people in San Francisco and i want to remember our last chance to start at home to help People Living at home thats what we address at the tndc and all over the city and oakland people are homes being taken jonestown all over again, we need to stop that i hope something what happen to us in this world today. Okay rebuttal from the appellant. First of all, id like to say that 10 feet setback is a false statement the building starts right at the street hes trying the Zoning Administrator is trying to trade a noncommunity setback for violating section 134 is very important and it provides for human liveable conditions it says that 24 percent of the property needs to be open at least 15 feet this property has no open space and on top they want to add a luxury consisting of 5 floor deck on top it so this will put us in a situation is where our are disabled and all the residents has to have difficulty breathing dont have air, why to create this situation the starting point was wrong ceqa requires for properties on nonlegal parcels there is angle Environmental Review has to take place they never did an adequate Environmental Review and Environmental Review would tell you what the aircondition our residents are going to get all of the bad air that will stop at the walls 5 hundred and 50 square feet walls it stop and will go down directly between the two buildings into our staircase why do we have to impose our residents to nonliveable conditions thats why section one 34 was created and thats why 2. 5 was created to create open space so every one of us can live and human conditions the Zoning Administrator could have ill asked the applicant why not create an additional unit with existing space he didnt do that so thats why im asking that you seriously consider because this creates a very bad precedence their many men in every town including San Francisco who want to build on their rooftops and this is the guardian to Building Code and hes. Im sorry maam, your time is up. Thank you. I appreciate your attention. I have a question for you maam. Okay. So i appreciate your good presentation. Evans if you wouldnt mind sitting down down. We can take rebuttal if the variance holder. The variance holder first. laughter . I want to reiterate we went through the preapplication meeting and ms. Woytak didnt attend we had a 311 notifications the period passed without a discretionary review and a variance hearing no people that attended the hearing to obtain so with that said we take into consideration the rdt to modify it and to address the light and air concerns were aware and i wanted to put this one image on the overhead as you can see weve made a quite a few modifications from the original spill at the front of the property and setback and removed the guardrails we carved out in the Property Line for light and air and really did do our best to take into consideration the concerns of the 10331037 washington street and you know even with that you know one of the fundamental points a compliant project that didnt require a variance may have the same concerns for the 10331037 washington street. Im sorry sir, in the front row it is distracting to the people that have cases before us so on i noticed there are quite a few of the changes for those from you or from the direction of Planning Department. The Planning Department we had you know initially that was the intent not to have a full stair closed stair in the penthouse and built out more of the lot the Zoning Administrator noted in their finding with the 62 foot lot the existing lightwells carved into the building not that much buildable envelope and the preservation requirements reduced the area absolutely those were made for the rdt and preservation. Thank you mr. Sanchez. Okay mr. Sanchez. Youre up, sir. Thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department. I forgot what i was going to say ms. Woytak owe attempted to be at the hearing and i apologize after the item was called and Public Comment closed and the permit holder had left the section 311 has precluded in discretionary reviews filed the board granted the variance would be for the Building Permit to be issued and back to this board this is the what is to happen yeah. I believe the findings are justified granting the variance the property o project will have one dwelling unit bringing up to four and having a roof deck not unlike the appellants property with 6 dwelling units and the roof deck above the are numerous reviews by the rdt are the and changes to the project have really tried to address the concerns that were raised i understand not to the satisfaction of the appellant so with the residential Design Guidelines have been complied with and a portion of this not subject to the variance theres been a historic review the Building Permit application the ceqa determination was properly issued not an appeal of the environmental determination but the variance. Okay im available to answer any questions. Actually mr. Sanchez what is before us is on the variance. Yeah. And on that piece of the building that extends from the 25 percent line percent line that you had pulled back correct. A little bit over 15 feet. That is properly before us. A question how much of the decision is influenced by the fact that project is to add Housing Stock. That is is an important factor i mean in this case their saying e seeking to allow what the zoning allows for density and about the proper identification for San Francisco and svrl we have the downtown in the neighborhood their meeting their density or like the appellants property studying the density to allow but the idea the citywide were building up to the density thanks. Thank you commissioners, the matter is submitted. Want to go broke tonight frank. Poor frank. Im sorry can you, sir mr. Evans please other people here who have cases we should be respectful of them please. Well. The issue before us is the variance and whether that is satisfy the 5 criteria or not in their opinion it didnt satisfy the criteria i think that satisfies one to two of them but not satisfy all 5 and im not supportive of this varian variance. I feel the same way. Can you elaborate. If you want me to. Quibble. So is, which. Item i believe that it confirms and satisfies number 3. Possibly satisfies number one i dont think that satisfies any of the others. Being on the board seeing variances i personally dont feel that a lot of the stuff that came before us satisfies all 5 tonight the zero lot line i can go either way at this point but without further discussion i mean a decision if respond wants to make a motion we can go that route and unless further discussion. No further comments i can make a motion. Commissioner Vice President fung. Im going to move to grant the appeal on the basis that the 5 criteria for the variance were not met. I wonder if you might be able to be more specific just i think for findings purposes that would be helpful. Number 2, 4 and 5 are not met. On the motion from Vice President to grant the appeal and deny the variance on the basis that finding number 2, 4 and 5 have mother been met on that motion commissioner lazarus no commissioner president honda no. Commissioner wilson the motion to grants the appeal and deny the variance on the basis that 2, 4, and 5 as required from the planning code is not met. I. And commissioner swig. I. Okay. That motion fails we needed 4 votes to pass and 3 votes in favor and two opposed. So. I see no other motion so baring any other motion the variance will be upheld by default. Is there any other motion commissioners than it is upheld by default and commissioner president honda theres no further business before the board hi left right halt i had a burning doorway to do the right thing and join the department such this we my brother applied and fortunately well here and this means a lot im home everyone night to study and we workout together and it is a blessing i have a brother to go home and fed off of one another were the twins but pretty much were not treated and individuals sometimes treated as a item if he did something wrong they use the word instead of you the it heroism were going our our separate ways and good morning our own individuals middle of steadfastly a twin all the it but inside of the district ive seen negative and positive things and with that made me want to be a Police Officer i want to give back and do public serve always a class president i dealt with everyone and served my class not only be humble enough to serve my class and pierce being a squad leader is a responsibility of maintaining my squad and being that voraciously person i need to step up to the challenge i believe during the 8 months i fulfilled any dude and after graduation just be a good officer to learn the skill and profession and give to the community to give the best to them and be a helpful hand thats the main thing and the new people coming into the did not know why youre doing it join the department for the right reason and do it to help the community and it is sharing youre time when you get into the department do is commented to the craft and enjoy it along the way enjoy it along the way i encourage you to talk about over with our families and talk 2 over with yourselves ultimately youll do the job and find a senseably reason for doing it after the hard work everyday for 8 months straight and finally it pays off and you know as honey honor and privilege not anyone can do this job i look forward to getting often the street and learning and hit the ground running it will be a surreal moment day one i thought months here but sat down me and my brother talked about it and were on the right track and stay focused and walking tloo across the stage is a huge honor ladies and gentlemen the chairman has called the meeting to order. Please, turn off your