good evening, commissioners, anthony (inaudible) department of building inspection and this certify mitt was a submitted permit on a form three. and it went through the standard review and the proper sequence of reviews. and through going the plan check under the building, one of the civil engineers reviewed the pro-yekt and had it on hold for comments that were responded to and found acceptable and then it was approved. as indication with any permit that we issue for anyone to construct the owner of the property is required to maintain safe and san tarry condition and the responsibility is with the builder and the owner of the property if the condition that resulted from the excavation or any of the work our department will respond and issue a proper notice of violation to either both a property owners if it was a shared retaining wall. and at this point, again, looking at this permit it was

reviewed and issued. and according to our code. >> and properly. >> and i believe that the code requires that new structure cannot surcharge against an adjacent neighbor's structure, isn't that correct? >> the foundation analysis in many cases there is shared foundations throughout the city and each property has an adjoining property providing the lateral support. and the foundation plan and the calculation and design will need to comply with the code and those issues with the property rights. and so, there is a consideration of whether the foundation is but the analysis would be to support their own building. within their own property. and not be able to surcharge against it. >> no surcharges could occur. and they do. generally speaking there is a 45 degree bearing area for the

foundation that is going to spread out and so you will get the support from the adjacent building and property. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, i will start our rebuttal. you have three additional minutes. >> i heard they come through him say that they had some engineering reports that we have not seen them that is what we have been asking, we have been asking for the reports as engineering reports, and we have just wanted to know, what the status is. i mean, how have these studies have been done and if they have provided this to us, then we will and then mr. peters requested them, i guess over the last year and a half.

and so, the reason that the appeal was filed and those list of 20 questions was presented to the points was because they were being so selective in what they wanted to share. and mr. peters was only doing what he would do as a good property own and her that is the most expensive that he owns and he knows that it is a 98 year old wall and he knows that it has problems and there is we heard the dbi say that there is a 45 degree angle where the load was disbursed and when you have appeared that within 3 inches of the property line. and i guess that the angle is safety. so we, it would make an impact on our, or on the north retaining wall and the second issue is that by law, and they

are entitled for the lateral support from mr. peter's property but that is only for the unimproved property but not for any load on the property. and from the improved structure and here they are adding to the improvement. and which is going to add at dishal load to his wall. >> vice president lazarus, and the commissioners bob pelty. the work is at the front of the property and they are going to do it and a beautiful landscaping plan with 1,000 and planters and so on and so forth, but there is quite a bit that there is a good amount of

earth that is going to be moved around and there is going to be equipment up there and there is going to be a lot of movement and that is why we simply wanted to discuss this with the owners and pretty much that too. >> mr. nolty? what specifically do you still need technically? >> we would like to talk to the engineer. i have not talked to the engineer on this. i have talked to mr. santos, but that was over a different matter. we would like to talk to these people and ask the engineer the questions. and get them resolved. >> dealing with the vibration and the impacting and the types of soil being used and what are the things that are going to happen here and exactly how much earth is going to be moved and moved where? and that is all that we want is just the answer to the questions. >> okay, thank you.

>> mr. shanaher in three minutes. >> what i said was that we did not have any engineer telling us that there was any lateral load that would be added. all of the work that is being done at grade. and there is no excavation, other than to create the room for the ground for addition to be moved out. we have offered for months and years, before this appeal was filed, to have meetings between the engineers. and the architect has met him. and we have had communications and writing with the appellant. and we have meetings with him to discuss the project and all of our meetings he has been supportive of the project as he has mentioned here tonight. and i think that we are dealing with phantoms here in terms of speculation about what might happen with respect to this project. we have agreed to monitor the project and the retaining wall

to see if in fact there is impact which we don't believe that there will be we will address it through the monitoring and equals that we are undertaking with respect to the project and address them at that time and i don't know how else to respond. because it is a never ending series of questions which they are only speculating on what might happen with the project. >> you indicated that there were... >> two by three feet piers. >> how deep? >> to the bottom of the appellant's foundation? >> how deep? >> roughly? >> i don't know, how deep do

they want? >> the stairs that are being put into the side of the property and it is not going to increase the load in any shape or load to the existing property and the existing soil and the pressure on the wall stays the same. >> i mean, the engineer could address, our engineer is happy to address. >> okay, shortly. >> the microphone, thank you. >> the whole point is to aoe leave ant the grade of the stairs and you put it on top of the soil and you add the weight and the 45 degree angle and it surcharges the angle and now in eliminate that surcharge we are doing to add the piers and there are columns that go all the way down and meet the

footing and 12 inches to the neighbor's footing they are spaced far apparent and it also eliminates the surcharge. >> and any done here? >> the borrings were done by the engineer. >> and so they have the report. >> yeah. okay. >> and if you understand, now, they are going to create the columns and supporting of it and all the way out and there is no surcharge. on the foundation. >> any other questions for the permit holder? >> no. >> anything from the department? >> we require it to go to

sacramento, and it was not required unless the engineer evaluated and did the plan check would have required it based on the submital. >> thank you. >> commissioners the matter is subpoena mitted. >> i have not seen anything in the papers to convince me that there is a (inaudible) to the wall and it seems speculative to me. i would be willing to consider to petition the permit on the ongoing monitoring of some sort

in order to prevent any kind of impact in the future and i don't see any impact at this point in time. >> i also agree. and unfortunately having been a part of a dr situation, or personally i understand, how this is effecting both parties. but, we at this time can't rule on something that is speculative. and i believe that the permit holders have responsibly done what they need to do, to add this improvement to the property. and so i would, you know, i agree with my fellow commissioner. >> yeah, i would concur with that position. i think that the structure that their attitude is considered or relatively light or considered in relationship to the structure and therefore, it is not likely to create the issues

that are the problems that have been described. >> does anybody care to make a motion? >> i am going to move to deny the appeal and up hold the permit as issued. >> i mean if you want to state a basis? that you know, >> that it is code compliant for the department of building inspection? >> okay. >> thank you. >> when you are ready. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung, to deny the appeal and up hold this permit on the basis that it is cold compliant. on that motion, president hwang is absent, commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you. >> the vote is 4-0, and the

permit is upheld on that basis, thank you. >> thank you. >> so, we will now call item 8, appeal 13.089 jeff & tracey schlarb, appellant(s) vs. zoning administrator, respondent 2823-2827 greenwich street. appealing a revocation request dated july 15, 2013, requesting that alteration permit nos. 2012/01/24/2796, 2012/04/18/8561, and 2013/06/18/9812 at the subject property be revoked because they were improperly issued and resulted in the removal of one dwelling unit without proper review under the planning code. for hearing today. >> good evening, members of the board and thank you for your time tonight, i am here representing the appellants in this appeal. i know that you have seen our

brief and it contains very concise chronology of the events. and so i want to emphasize a few quick points and i think that it is best that you hear from the appellant directly and then we can answer any questions that you might have and the things that i wanted to stress are that the appellants in this case have not engaged in an active to circumvent the procedures, when they bought the property it was marketed as a two unit building with an legal third unit and it was characterized as a two unit building. so they bought it relying on the information. and the tenants that had a lease for that unit, filed the jurisdiction request and so the board did hear the underlying merit to the desired appeal and ultimately the board rejected the request.

and what is important, though, is at that hearing, it was established and determined that this building was in a 2 rh zoned space and so that it is significant and significant with that zoning that this is a two unit only building, pursuant to the permit they removed the illegal unit. and ub consequently more than a year later after all worse being compared and the recommendation to revoke the permits which we understand why it came out and i want to emphasize that it will be unjust to act on that suggestion. they have to be able to rely on the information that the city gives out just like all of the residents of the city have to rely on that i know that you have received a number of support letters, and from people in the community and emphasizing that point that i will not belabor it. >> no one was actually life ng this unit that was removed and there were no beds there and the tenants who i believe who

is here tonight was utesing it as a man cave and an extension of his office and at his request hearing, the members of the planning department set up and explained that that would be an inconist ent use of the zoning of the building and so there has not been a loss of someone's tenantcy and so we believe that this gentleman rents a residential house in the procidio where he lives with his wife and family so this was not being used as a living unit in any event. the important point is that the documents upon which this change in the characterization of the building are relied upon are not conclusive, making the changes an abuse of discretion, both the change to the 3 r report by the department of building inspection which is based on the certificate of the final completing from 1970, and the subsequent request for revocation, is based on that characteristic and that change in the characterization from the 3 r department.

and this is not conclusive. and no one has seen the permits that this work was based upon and no one has provided an explanation of why this cfc did not result in a change to the 3 r report or the characterization back in the 70s. and it is over 40 years and it is very hard to speculate and to get any conclusion on that today. and in light of all of these circumstances, there is no other aoe quitable solution than to grant this appeal. as a practical matter all of the work has been done and we will have to redo all of the configuration and reconstruct the unit in order to go through a 317 discretionary review hearing and we are talking about hundreds of thousands and potentially one million dollars and under the facts and circumstance its would be unfair and unjust for the appellant to have to shoulder that expense. and i now am going to turn it over to jeff (inaudible) the spokesman for the four appellant to address you more directly about the

circumstances they find themselves in and the effect that it has had on them. >> good evening commissioners, jeff shlarb and i want to personally thank you for your time and energy thank you. >> and i know that you have been provided with a number of reports in addition to the brief from our attorney. and they don't have a chance to address the board and so you know a little bit about me and the other owners in the situation that we find ourselves in. and we have brought, i brought this two-family dwelling along with my wife and a couple of others and we bought the building 18 months ago and it was marketed as a two family residence with an unwarranted third unit, we are concerned before we purchased it through through the court and records that it was a two unit building and since the time, we purchased it, with that

intention to return the family dwelling back by removing the unit and updating the building substantially and had had not been touched since 1938 and so it economic sense to do it all at once and to bring it up to current code and what they said. and i would like to just say that my wife and i run an interior design team we are not big real estate developers. we this is not our first property, we, this is part of how we make a living in san francisco, we renovate and move in, or we renovate and then sell and in this case, once the costs are adding up, because it was a big project, we saw the favorable market and decided that it was time to sell. and it is important to also say that not living in the removed unit and it was used as like we understand it a man cave or an

office. i saw the unit personally and there was no bed in the unit. and also, elected briefly ignores the notice of violation, and that this was not related to the removal of the third unit. and the violation which was issued took us two weeks to complete all of the necessary inspections and the work on the property and to... and i guess, last i would just say that the work is complete and we have finished everything on our permits and this is not too months later that we were just permit and this 14 months after we acquired a lot and done all of the work. and so, you know, just the fact of it was effecting a lot of people and my wife and myself, and two other gentleman. and we just want to be able to move on and we can't afford to

not continue and see through to this completing. and i do respectfully ask that the board remove this on the permits and allow our final inspection to take place, thank you very much. >> question, do you happen to know what the cost of the demolition was, i mean i don't know if you can separate that out from the renovation work that you did for an amount that is associated with getting rid of the illegal unit? >> i think that it was five or 6,000 dollars that took three hours. >> when did you get the report indicating three units? >> i seen this three weeks ago but now it is it was a month ago, and the property in the contract, and the and the issue of the three hour report that can now become a three family

dwelling. >> there is a buy out of the tenant? >> there wasn't. he was paid his $5,000 for relocation fees. and exactly what the (inaudible) require. >> i just wanted to know what happened there. >> yeah. >> okay. >> there were a lot of asks for a lot of buy outs. >> >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you, good evening scott sanchez planning department first, i like to recognize and this is obviously a bit of an unusual type of paper to bring before the board, however, i have full confidence that the board can

help us to resolve this matter, exercising that it is a appropriate wisdom. so, first, reviewing the facts of the case and how this matter has come to... and this dates back to january of 2012. when there was a building permit applications thought to remove a third unit from the subject property. and the property is located within the rh 2 dingt district that allows two units. and the report did not say that was a two unit building. this matter has been before the board at least one on the jurisdiction request and i did testify that this is a two unit building and that was based on the records that we had at that time. subsequent in april of 2012, they sought a building permit application to reconfigure the units and so this was a three unit building initially and there was a unit out and the ground floor behind the garage and one unit and one above that and so thought to reconfigure

the units and take the two full floor lead and combine that into one larger unit and have a second unit the second legal unit relocated to the require of the garage basement. and it was occupied and deemed to be the illegal unit. and that was following the requirements and we amoved that and there was an appeal that was filed on that permit. and however, it was subsequently withdrawn a few days after the appeal had been filed. and i think that was the same as the jurisdiction requestor. >> and so that was last year in 2012, and in june of this year, the department and the planning and building received complaints that the building had illegally been converted into a single family dwelling and they had a permit to remove the third unit and to reconfigure the units but not to merge it down to a single family. and the dbi investigated and found out that there was a valid complaint and the permit

holder sought a permit to correct that and comply with the plans that were for last year. and subsequent to that, i received a call from the person who had the party before who had been in the requestor and the appellant and wrote that e-mail and stated that he had evidence that it was effect a legal three unit building. and so we received from this party on july second, a final completing. that it illegally contains three units i took this information and went to the department of the building inspection and asked for verification and confirmation of the illegal unit count here would be for the building. and subsequent to that a new, three hour port was issued and that was issued on the july 9th. and with that information,

included in the copy of that with our revocation request and sent that to the permit holder and knowing that there were a lot of different arguments here and we had concerns that were raised by the previous tenant of the property. and we had obviously concerns that were raised about equity and fairness on the part of the permit holder and it was the most appropriate fashion for dealing with this is a public hearing before the board of appeals. and as learning this i don't have the ability to conduct the public hearings whenever i see fit this matter use my discretion to take an action here and revoke the permits based on the report. and that resulted in this hearing before this board. and our suggestion here is for the permitting is in the

request.

>> and i appreciate you bringing this before us, and i think that was a wise call. and i am going to ask you something and it is not to place blame at all. but just as a means of getting all of the facts to make a determination and so why was this 1970 document not found? initially? >> i do not know. but, what the reports that were prepared by the department of building inspection and it is my understanding that they review the past records and documents and i think that i am speculating on this that perhaps it is an address issue because i think that the address is listed at 23 to 27

on the cfc whereas currently the building goes by 2825 and i don't think that it has gone by any other address. and when it appeared before this board and the jurisdiction request, and that we do look at materials that are available to us to see if we have any evidence that may, you know, that conflict through our report. and based upon it. >> but, the question is who is there a burden of that error, right? >> that is why we are here before the board of appeals. i mean, that it is difficult to graple with and i think that that is a matter that is properly before the board for your guidance. >> okay, thank you. >> and is the 3 r system trackable in terms of wh