Presenting before the board. Corey the Zoning Administrator and tina tam representatives planning. Matthew green with department of building inspection. Arc leah gauge from Mayors Office of housing and kate connor planner with planning. The Board Meeting guide lines are the board request you silence electronic device. No eating or drinking in the room. Rules of presentation will appellates, permit hold and respondents upon given 7 minutes to present and 3 for rebuttal. People must include comments with the periods. Members who are not arc fitiated with up to 3 minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. Time may be limited to 2 minutes from there are a large number of speakers. Our Legal Assistance will give 30 seconds before your time is up. 4 votes to grant an appeal or rehearing if you have a question the board schedules, mail the board staff at sfgov. Org. Public access is important. Sfgovtv is broadcasting and live and receive Public Comment for each item on the upon agenda of sfgovtv is providing closed captioning. To watch the hearing go to sfgovtv cable channel 28. A link to the live stroll on the home page at sfgov. Org boa. Upon comment provide by in personful, via zoom. Click on the zoom link or by phone. Call 6699006833 and enter webinar code 881 2773 1840 sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and instructions on the b. Stroll if you are watching the broadcast. To block your number dial star 67 then the initial listen for the Public Comment to be called and dial star 9 equals to raising your hand so we know you want to speak. You will be brought in when it is your turn. You may have to dial star 6 to unmute yourself. Our assistant will provide you with 30 seconds different your time is up there it is a delay with the proceedings than what is broadcast. People call nothing reduce the volume on tv or computer otherwise well is interference. In you need Technical Assistance make a request in the chat function or sends an e mail to the sfgov. Org the chat function cannot be used for Public Comments or pregnancy. We will take comment first from those present in the room. Now we will swear in our affirm all those who intends to testify. Any member may speak without an oath under the sunshine ordinance if you testify tonight and wish to have the board give your testimony weight raise your right hand and say, i do after. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth . I do. I do. Thank you. If you are participates and not speaking put your zoom speaker on mute. Were moving on to item 1. This is a special item. Consideration and possible adoption. Resolution makes findings to allow teleconferenced meetings under california code 5493 subsection e. Is there Public Comment on this item. Raise your hand. We need a motion to adopt. And upon Vice President lopez present . I am. Okay. Great. Welcome. We need a motion. A motion. I move to adopt the resolution. We have a motion from commissioner lemberg to adopt resolution on that motion Vice President lopez . Aye. Commissioner trasvina. Aye. Commissioner chang. Aye. President swig. Aye that carries 50 the resolution is adopted. We are moving on to item 2. General Public Comment. An opportunity for anyone who wants to speak not on tonights calendar is there a member who wishes to speak on an item not on tonights calendar. Raise your hand. I dont see general Public Comment. Item 3. Commissioner comments and questions. Commissioners. Any comments or questions after i make mine . Commissioner chang is leaving us after this hearing her term was up june 30th. She was kinds to stick around for a couple months. We thank you for your service. And for helping the public move through as we come to discover sometimes difficult issues. And we wish the best luck and you can try it again some time thank you. Any further comments. Mr. Tras vino. Thank you. I want to add my own personal expression of appreciation to commissioner chang we worked well together but briefly and want to say that from my perspective her dedication and professionalism and expertise served San Francisco and everyone before this board served them well. Thank you and i look forward to your future contributions to the city of San Francisco. I want to thank you for your Service Commissioner chang and a pleasure to know you in the brief time. I hope to continue to get to know you and thank you for your service Vice President lopez would like to speak. Yea. Like to echo the comments made by my fellow commissioners and you knowment to add we will really miss commissioner chang experience with in planning which has been key to her Excellence Service on the board and personally someone who often finds myself sharing commissioner changs views, you know on the matters that come before us i will miss working with you commissioner, and thank you for your service. Any Public Comment . I dont see Public Comment. Commissioner chang would like to speak. I wanted thank everyone for the kinds words and it is really has been my privilege and honor to serve along sud. I learned so much from each you. And look forward to continuing developing a relationship outside the chambers and commissioner trasvina will serve the city and county of San Francisco in the ways i cants. Thank you for that. Thank you. I will cull out is there Public Comment . Raise your hand. We will move on to item 4 the adoption of the minutes before you for discussion other minutes of august 17, 2022 meeting. And commissioner lemberg reached out to make a correction on item 5 on page 2 of the minutes for that item the board voted 50 to deny not 4where are we need a motion to adopt as amended by commissioner lemberg. Commissioner tras vino. I would like to move the adoption of the minutes. So we are now moving on to item number 5. This is a rehearing request for appeal 22045 property at 706 vermont street. Angela king requesting a rehearing of 2445 decideod july 27 of twoochl at that time upon a motion bypass commissioner chang the board voted 3 to 2. Lopez and lemberg absent to deny the appeal andup hold the permit. Description is replace roof deck and repair sky lighted. Expand third floor to cover the roof deck and add 3 feet to third floor. Move stair case and remove wall in the dining room. And as a preliminary matter Vice President lopez and commissioner lemberg did you have the opportunity to watch the video and review the video for the hearing on july 27 of 22 . Yes, i did. Thank you. Yes, i reviewd and ready to proceed. We will hear from the requestor. And mrs. Kim you have 3 minutes. I understand you have a presentation. So joo im angela kim we are requesting a rehearing to prevent manifest injustice based on new facts and s the evidence shows the roof decks are 2 different structures with different notice requirements and design. Exhibit a. Living manual and planning residential. Living roofs are unoccupied roof tops include plants as a part of the officer where as the roof deck is occupiable at the highest roof surface for planning to review. Plans shown a living roof at the roof top level. See exhibits b issueed permit holder. New permit or revision will be required if the living roof was changed to a roof deck and must comply with guide lines and new notice requirements. Planning stated that living roof and roof decks interchangeable and the same. See exhibit c. Transcript of the july 27th hearing. Mrs. Tammy answerediel to president swigs question that per hit holders replace any time when commissioner chang asked if there are procedural differences with a living roof and roof deck respondeds no. This material in this information tainted the boards judgment at the hearing and affects the the out exactly evidenced by president swigs statement a green deck and officer deck other same and not necessary to change 2 words. Planning provides misinformation contradicting the guideline. As a result. There will be a manifest injustice if the board does not guarantee a rehearing request to correct the defective perimism living roofs and rook decks are different. Physical permit states roof deck. You see in exhibit d and on the screen the planner confirmed living roof was approved at planning and dr and corrupted the data base but unable to corrupt the permit. Planning and permit have [inaudible] the bhlding permit is legal document and must not list unapproved work. Planning approved a living roof permit holdsers are per hitted a roof deck without Design Review and notice that all other residents must follow. A manifest injustice to allow a permit. An official record. Acting [inaudible] Michael Green upon tuesday is easy to correct permit but require the boards 4 votes. The board is seth a president of allowing unapproved work to occur due to error. To prevent a manifest injustice we request the board grants the rehearing request. Thank you. Thank you. We will hear from the attorney for the permit holder. Steve williams on behalf of the per hit horde. I put up context. That is the subject site in the middle and the will appellate [inaudible] up the hill and to the side. There is no mule facts and no new evidence and certainly no injustice. What was presented in rehearing is that misinformation, incorrect facts and the same arguments real harshed and the same requests. The state of premise for the rehear suggest wrong. The question makes the claim on page one planning and the department of building inspection have different guidelines and procedures for roof decks as for the green roofs is evidenced by the documents and they attach the living roof manual unmarked exhibits. And they attach the residential deck hand out from planning. The problem is, that these are not different publications by different departments causing a conflict for guidelines and procedures. Both publications are published by planning and have the same procedure. Look at page 12 and 13 and pages 11 and 13, out line the exact same procedure for application and approval of a living roof or residential deck and that is what mrs. Tammy tried convey to the board at the first hearing did not provide material misinformation. The application and the procedures for approval are the same. And some instantlies either time deck may be approved over the counter and sometimes approved without installed without a Building Permit. Look at page 12 the living officer maniel. Either deck may require a 10 day notice or a 30day notice under section 311. Which is what happened with this permit. This alteration permit includes one compoenlts a living roof or green roof was held to the highest possible scrutiny for either type of deck. A 30day notice. Dr review at planning and review and alteration made as follow be an occupied residential deck. So, material misinformation. A roof deck and separate green roof approved at Planning Commission. No make by planning look at exhibit 1 and 2 to our submissionful further, this again this deck was reviewed, modifyd and approved as if it will be occupied. And then the modification was to move the railing back and thats on exhibit 4, which i attached the last page of the dr from Planning Commission. Deny this question. Time thank you. We will now hear from the Planning Department good evening am president swig and Vice President lopez im tina tammy deputy Zoning Administrator. This is a request for 607 vermont heard on july 27 and the board voted 30 to deny the appeal. Despite the belief the Planning Department did not provide misinformation to the board. Department was clear this in addition to a new vertical addition a new green roof and spill roll stairs permit include replace am of a roof deck at the back of the property. The appellate said the Planning Department provide incorrect references to the board simple low because this roof deck is not the highest level of the building and should not be referred to as a roof deck. Based upon this the appellate believes a new appeal hear suggest warranted. This deck the appellate is talking about has always been referred to as a roof deck in all of planning records and documents. The deck was referenced in the Building Permit application. In the architectal plan and dr Staff Support and planning dr action memo. Roof deshgs at the highest surface level. They can be found in mid story portions of a building as in the case of 706 vermont street. There is a roof deck at the back and green roof at the front the plans are a company bodiesing permit applications have been clear about this. Gi understands the green roof was labeled unoccupied. Should the applicant wish to convert the unoccupied green roof to occupied in the further a Building Permit application would be required. Mentioned at july 27th hearing both the Planning Department and the Planning Commission understood green roofs can be converted to occupied space in the future and can potentially impact privacy of a neighbor inform sponse the Planning Commission asked the recommend agsz of Planning Department asked for a 5 foot setback adjacent to the appellates property. Planning commission did in the place a condition to limit the green officer from converted to occupied space in the future. The department asked that the board deny the rehearing request on the base there is no manifest injustice there is in new information or different facts if suft facts and s known at the time could affect the out economist original hearing that concludes my report. Happy to answer questions president swig has a question. So, the appellate raised on the screen my technology is not working for me again. There was a question i asked you related to the difference between one and another. And i think i said, are they both the same and im paraphrasing like to quote. And you simply. Said, yea. Can you say, yea again not asking for new information i dont believe there is new information i node you to elaborate on why they are both one in the same. Or that there is no manifest injustice because they are one in the same ownership indicate there is manifest injustice but i dont think you will do that. Thank you. What i believe i did say was from a planning code perspective and Planning Department review stand point we review third degree feature on this property. Property labeled the feature labeled green roof as a feature that can be convert in the a roof deck in the future and can be occupied. From that stand point, we did not see them to be different it was placed the same condition on the green roof as on a roof deck. And placing a 5 foot setback is a common requirement that the Planning Department does for most roof decks throughout the city. I believe that there are more similarities with the green officer and a roof deck in this situation. They are located on roof top surface. They are both at the highest or mid portion of a building. They both accessible and occupied. And they would both be reviewed over the counter without neighborhood notification if in the buildable area of the lot. This green roof is locate the in the buildable area of the lot. Thank you. We will hear from department of bodiesing inspection. Good evening. Im Matthew Green representing the department of building inspection tonight. Permit is a site permit the green roof in question is labeled unoccupied. Bobble on the site plan and roof plan. There will be further plan check review of the construction. The engineer will assume the roof deck will be occupied for engineering purposes. We will assume a 60 pounds per square not for live load. And the upon designer was need to provide the componentses of the green roof whether turf or ask slaubary or stone that will be required give approval for construction n. Future the ordinancement to change the green roof to occupied this would require a revision Building Permit which is appealable. Dbi does nottee manifest injustice or new information and rmdzed the rehearing be denied. And im available for questions you might have. Is there Public Comments on this item. Raise your hand. I have a question. This was my first meeting the original hearing. And i admitted not knowing the different with green roof and roof deck and the impoccasion of the distinctions. The material provide in the this hearing for the request was helpful. If you could clear areas of confusion. The there is prove for a deck in the rear of the building. Correct . Correct. And there is an approval will of a green roof and thats in the front of the building . Toward the front at the top. Toward the front and the concern seems the concern of mrs. Kim that the green roof may turn to a roof deck . I believe that is her concern. You are stating and ensuring us tonight that the if the green roof turn in a has the characterics of a roof deck and used as a roof deck that would retire owner to come back for a permit . I if any they decide they want to change it that would require a new Building Permit. Right. It is always awkward when somebody guess occupy a roof and neighbor complaining it used improperly. We will get a complaint but go out there and how can we we dont have the ability to enforce peoples activities. We governor the bodiesing itself