kenney, are you done? are you all done? just to be clear, exactly what relief is being sought? >> we are seeking damages for the property values, not just for ms. kenney. commissioner garcia: and that would be in a court of law. -- commissioner hwang: thank you. mr. patel? >> hi, my name is michael mcghee, in by a licensed contractor here in san francisco -- and i unlicensed contractor. i want everyone to know that all the construction projects that i

do always go through the planning and building department. sometimes at my chagrin, because i get a little bit in patients sometimes that the project is a lot longer than i anticipated. the certain project at 48 newton, i started to be involved in this project when i met mr. patel at the building department, there for another issue. he mentioned he had a violation. i ended up turning that totally around for him and got new architectural drawings done. it got submitted to the planning department and got approved, and then there was a 311 report, and something else got approved, and then i pulled the necessary permits. that is what i do on every single job here in the city. i am a little baffled in their position in that i am wondering if we are here for the same

reason. i thought we were here for the rear yard set up variance, and it is not 1.5 feet, just to clear things up. it is a mere couple of inches, and just to address that, that was done by the person who was hired to do the initial architectural drawings, and from that point on, it did follow the project all the way to today, and there are two reasons why i pulled permit. one was certainly to comply with all planning and building department policies, protocols, and compliance, and secondly, almost as important as that is once you get signed off and pull the necessary permits, it adds value not only to the project but also to the surrounding neighborhood and neighbors, so i am able baffled by them, just pointing out the 14 inches,

where if you were to look the other neighboring yards, they are well in, you know, 3 feet or more, and i guess i am a little baffled that they do not mention those rear yards as far as determining the value of their property. and the fence items, her response of september 1, i am baffled by that, as well, because all of those items have been addressed. all of the complaints she has launched against 48 newton and mr. patel, they have all been done and checked by senior building inspectors and signed off. there is information on all the weekend polls, all the necessary permits, inspections, everything -- all that we pulled.

in closing, i would just like to say that this was totally turned around. mr. patel did start this test an un-permitted private, but this got turned around, and i guess that ms. kenney's untimely actions, to me, they were in collusion, and they put it down in writing. to me, is totally a vicious, ludicrous, and in my opinion does not honor any kind of response. it comes across to me as colossally as a conspiracy here,

and i do not think it has anything to do with why we are here today. vice president goh: -- commissioner garcia: two things that i would like to have addressed. one of them has to do with the issue of whether it is one unit or two, and the other issue has to deal with that the other part of the appellant's problems, ms. kenney, she alleges that the notice and the plans were not right. would you address those two issues? >> as far as the two issues, as the whole thing started, i do not know if you are aware of the process of when you pull a burning -- building permit, but you go and fill up a pink form, which is the building a vacation, and you put down the proposed work, all of that information for the owner, the contractor, and then it goes to someone there at the city.

well, inadvertently, i guess in their haste or whatever, they put two units on it, and if you look at air permit history, i have already addressed that months ago and got that change -- if you look at our permit history. the building inspector came and looked at the building. downstairs. there is no kitchen. in fact, she mentions a family room. there is a bathroom and bedrooms, but all of those areas got approved, so long before any of this was happening today, and then -- commissioner garcia: before you leave that, and i do not mean to interrupt you, but it has been addressed by the attorney, the issue having to do with the manifestation of two units, such as two satellite dishes, two mailboxes, and it two addresses. could you address that, please?

>> yes, every step of the way, we have scheduled inspections by building inspectors, electrical inspectors, and plumbing inspectors, so early on, through planning, most plans get approved by planning, and they have their own criteria. far be it from me to tell them what it should be, and as far as i am concerned, having two satellite dishes is not a crime. i have seen many have more than that. as far as having two entrances, in a safe inhabitants, with two stories, you need to have at least two to comply with code -- in a safe inhabitantce. commissioner garcia: two mailboxes. >> i do not know what that is about. i have only seen one, but my concern was not about two mailboxes. commissioner garcia: i am just

asking you to address her concerns about it, and the other issue had to do with the 311 notice, and she or her attorney, her council stated that the 311 notice went out with what was claimed to be existing conditions, and there is a 10- foot, at least, i think, differential between what is existing in what is now there? >> once again, i do not set those. the requirements, all i do is comply with those. every step of the way, i give them information that they require. if any step of the way they needed something else other than what i had given them, i would have had to have given them that in order to continue. i certainly do not tell them how to do their job. they tell me what the requirements are, and i comply with that, and i did do that. vice president goh: -- commissioner garcia: so if i am to interpret what you our

saying, planning signed off on your 311 plans. ok. commissioner hwang: just to follow up on that, i am looking at attachment c, and commissioner garcia was discussing the existing condition box. do you have it? do you have the papers? >> i do not have it in front of me. commissioner hwang: could you grab it, or do you not have your fireproofed -- your file? >> i am sorry. which one is it? commissioner hwang: attachment c, as in "christine." commissioner garcia: [laughs] what else could "c" be?

it is a document like this. it looks like it is from planning. vice president goh: at the bottom, it says attachment c. commissioner hwang: all right, there is a box on this form, and there is some writing on the right hand side and a star on the left-hand side. do you have it? ok, so in that box, in the left column, where it says project features, set backs, and senator, and in the middle column says "existing condition," -- setbacks, whatever. it says "no change." then it said and added 8 inches. -- it added 8 inches. did your process and 8 inches to

the set back? >> actually, it is a violation of 14 inches. but -- commissioner hwang: i am asking you a very specific question. 8 inches. the sides said back of the property. it's as existing conditions, and there are none. -- besides setback. it says existing conditions. what about the rear yard? it says existing condition of 25 feet, and then the proposed conditions states no change. >> and once again, i have stated that it was a mistake made by the person who initially did the plan said, and in case any of you are not aware of what happens with the structural plans, it continues off the

construction project, right or wrong. commissioner hwang: what did you just say? >> there were no changes, so when there was a mistake, and it got submitted to planning, then it was approved that way, whether it is a mistake or not. commissioner hwang: so this is the product of a mistake? it is not accurate? >> no, we had a violation of the rear yard set back. commissioner hwang: i am talking about the printed form here, with the rear yard, 25 feet, existing condition, and then there is a proposed condition that says "no change." the actual proposed is 32 feet. is that true? >> no. commissioner hwang: ok, clarify for me. >> the structural drawings. the person who did all of the measurements, that was one

mistake no one caught. he put down their 25 feet. he, i guess, went to the city and asked what the rear yard setbacks would be. it is 25% of the total length, which in this case is 100 feet, so that is 25 feet, and that got submitted, and it got approved, right or wrong. ms. kenney brought it to our attention. no one knew that until she did that. then there was an application. that was a mistake. 14 inches. 3 feet or more. two feet, maybe. i understand that would be a circumstance. commissioner hwang: ok. vice president goh: so let me jump in. you are saying it was a measurement mistake, but the project description, the language that was written there says with the exception, it would be in the existing

footprint of the building. >> correct, and how that started is that that first construction project was illegal and got stopped. it was exactly where we started, so when a person is hired to do the architectural plans, i would guess he did not take that measurement. he just assumed it was 25 feet. no, certainly, it was two feet, 3 feet, and for you fort petes, -- or four feet, i do not think an inning when should think we're trying to get away with something. -- i do not think anyone should think that. vice president goh: thank you. commissioner hwang: thank you. we will hear from mazzone administrator's office. mr. fu? >> good evening, members of the

board. let me begin by saying that this is unfortunate that projects often come to was an retroactively philae permit to legalize construction without proper permits approval -- come to us retroactively to get a permit to legalize construction. we certainly do not condone that. each time a permit was issued, work was found to be done beyond the scope of the approval. however, the permit holder did follow the proper procedures to legalize the alteration. ultimately, the rear addition, which extends approximately 1.5 feet into the required 25-foot we're yard required a variance which was reviewed by eight a zoning administrator. -- by a zoning administrator.

this is not a case of rewarding an individual for work done without a permit. this is a case of once he realized the mistakes, that person followed the steps to seek correction. the proper procedure was found followed to make that correction, and if i may just to address a couple of questions that were raised, as well that member of the board's past, -- bored us, the unit. -- as well as those that the members of the board asked, about the unit. accessory rooms. that allows for an alteration with access to the street, directly to the street, to have a full bath and/or a wet bar, one or the other. it does not limit it to a full

bath. so the plans do me what is there, and we did not find was a possible second unit. in terms of the 311 notice, the understanding about the first time around an attachment c, the building was constructed already, so that was assumed to be an existing condition, and that perhaps clarify is further. that is a typical way of describing that work, so we are here if you have any questions. we are available. commissioner garcia: mr. fu, there would be no need for an nsr because is rh-1, it would

never be allowed? >> that is correct, and the plan does not show two units. vice president goh: when you talk us through the reanalysis again, because looking at this, it does look like two. maybe i am on the wrong page. just maybe talk us through that. >> ok, on the overhead, i put up the actual bulletin. on the bottom right, you see a little table. it is kind of small. but on the far right, it says alterations, and this is related to access to the street. in this particular case, the ground floor does have access to the street, so that falls under the direct column. we have determined that the

property project has limited visual connection, and that means there is a connection between the two floors, but the connection is not open. in other words, there are walls. therefore, is a limited visual connection, so ifañtm/?çóçó youe to follow over on the direct line of visual, you see a boat pulled up, it -- a full bus, which is shaded. a half bath -- in this case, they can choose between a full bus and a wet bar. -- a full bath and a wet bar. vice president goh: but they have a half baths and the wet bar. >> they can have as many have )çhékñyóbaathist -- half baths y want. you can have one in addition to

the half bath, vice president goh: we have had cases before us that looks similar to us, with the staircase was not open, fuzoñiae have required that -- i am sorry, the planninglv department has required that the staircase be open instead. instead of walled in. >> i am sorry. it depends in a particular case. the staircase opens directly into a living space. so it is highly unlikely that we would require that staircase to be entirely open. vice president goh: ok. thank you. commissioner garcia: mr. fu, you're going to have to help me out with this. it seems at times there is a tolerance does not require a

variance. with that ever apply? in other words, a 5% rule or something like that, if you go a certain distance beyond what is allowed, because it is a small difference, you do not need a permit? >> the edition is directly belowt -- he -- the addition is directly below, and they're talking about the deck. commissioner garcia: maybe i asked my question poorly. they need a variance. would there have been some tolerance where they would have been allowed six or 8 inches and would not have needed a very is? in other words, what would have been allowed? >> i was going to get to that. one way to avoid the situation is by one half, and the other is

that if you're within 10% of the variance, then you therefore do not need to go through the various hearing process, and that is very rarely utilized because of a 10% rule. it is rarely utilize. commissioner garcia: so in some technicality, i am looking at this that they may not even have been required it. -- been required. commissioner fung: the two separate entrances, when i look at the plants, thereu entrance of the stair, and then there is one entrance that goes into the garage. the planning department does not normally look at the as an independent -- >> that is correct.

so when i was speaking about rooms down, that is absolutely the worst case scenario. if you are determining that access through the garage. however, if allowed access to the unit, that would be the worst-case scenario. in direct access to the street. street. actually, i correct myself. you would have the same. commissioner garcia: on the variance itself, at some point,i it needs to be addressed, and i guess now is as good as any time. the issue was raised about being an exceptional, extraordinary, and the hardship issue. the point was raised by counsel that any hardship that exists by the project >> that is . i do not know that we would dispute that. the hardship was created because

of not having a permit, but as i said before, without having the knowledge to go through the process, or doing it on purpose, we do see people doing alterations without proper permits, and they come in retroactively, trying to get the permit process going. ytdepending on the death and the extent of that construction, this is only 1.5 feet. it was not found to be a significant impact. commissioner garcia: and i thought that the appellant's counsel had said that could not be used as a condition of hardship. >> i do not remember.

vice president goh: ?hcan you point me to wear the active zoning administrator points -- deals with the hardship -- to where it is? i thought the unnecessary hardship had to be an unnecessary one and not a created one. >> attached to the preliminary statement of appeal, i think, the variance? vice president goh: yes, that is what i am looking at, and let me just take one peak at that. and while i am doing that, it does seem that cases like this come before us, and it seems that sometimes the planning department does meet the individual do what is done. i am remembering a case that involved windows that someone replaced without a permit, at great expense, and the planning department did require that a homeowner to change it out, even though it was extremely expensive, so i am just

wondering about the allegations of who you know makes a difference. >> obviously, i cannot speak to the windows case that you were speaking about. i do not know that case, but in this particular case, it is my understanding that the impact of 1.5 feet is so insignificant that making them reduce it would not really benefit the public well -- realm, so, therefore, that would be the decision. vice president goh: is not discouraging people from doing work without a permit one of the goals, as well? -- it doing work without a permit one of the goals? >> to educate and help the permit holder to legalize. vice president goh: ok. thank you. commissioner fung: i was going

to wait for the building department, but let's bring up some of the issues in this case. mr. fu, part of it is related to planning, all right? the original planning summary that reflects your review and the contractor for the permit holder talked about errors, and then there was a second one that was done that supposedly correct the errors, but when i reviewed the document from planning, it does not match with the plans. >> that is correct. that is correct. commissioner fung: when you look

at the permits that is 66 feet, and supposedly, that was built within the envelope of the building. why is there a discrepancy? >> 2 staff oversight. it pretty much comes down to that. then there are the rear yard dimensions. that is what it reflects. the actual description and the purpose of the permit is for the rear yard, and i agree, i agree. that number should be corrected. that is not just a staff

oversight. commissioner garcia: but does that rice to the level of negating the quality of the 311, -- i guess what i am thinking right now, what is troubling is had the appellant in this case, the appellant is appealing the variance, but it seems that she is also trying to appeal the process itself, and she might have used that right and availed herself of that procedure had she gotten proper 311 notice, and i guess what i'm questioning is whether or not you feel that is right. >> the department does not feel that the notification is flawed. it describes accurately the type of work that is being done in the area that is actually affected. that is correct.