along the property line shared with the subject property. that is protected by a fire rate wall that extends to the deck level. just interesting to note that these small green portions here is a screen that was mocked up by the project sponsors in the interest of the concerns voiced by the pell appellants to demonstrate not only the setback but allows us to build an open railing thus providing more light to the neighbors as opposed to the sidewall that you see on the left side of the image. thank you. >> thank you. i'm sorry, i think the time is up. is there anymore time, mr. pacheco. there is 17 seconds. do you

want to use it? no. okay. >> thank you good evening. scott sanchez with the planning department. i will be brief. i want to confirm again based upon the plan submitted to the board, the project does comply with the planning code. they can building a larger structure at the rear. they have voluntarily decided to reduce the size. they have properly set it back to 4 feet. it's also setback three 3 feet on the west side of the property. it extends into the rear yard the same extent as adjacent to the property to the west. but they are maintaining, what's not a required side yard setback but they are maintaining some preservation concerns regarding the spacing

and setting of the buildings. so with that, i'm available for any questions you may have. thank you. >> in i public comments on item? anyone wishing to speak? okay. no public comment. then commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioners, when i received the drawings and i was looking for what in essence would be extraordinary impact upon the neighbor and upon the mid-block open space or upon the integration of the fourth floor into a fairly old structure of a very well defined architectural style. i found that i did not find

significant impacts on either all three that the mid-block open space is not continuous and it varies there. the set backs on the fourth floor mitigated visual appearance and that impact from both the street and from the rear and that the fact that the pop out is setback on both sides, i think, mitigates portions of it. and the fact that the adjacent wall to the west already does something very similar. so on that basis, i will not support the appeal. >> i would agree. i don't have much more to add to that. we have a motion? >> sure.

>> i'm going to move to uphold the permit and deny the appeal on the basis of it's co-compliance and residential design context review by planning department. >> the motion is from commissioner fung to uphold the permit on its basis that it's compliant, >> the residential design was reviewed by the department? >> confirmed by the department. >> again on the basis of co-compliance and the residential design was confirmed by the planning department. on that motion to

uphold president haung, commissioner hurtado, lazarus, honda. the vote is 5-0. the permit is held on that basis thank you. >> the next item is item no. 8. item 8: 88 appeal no. 13-091 francis derosa & janice roudebush, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 333 el camino del mar. protesting the issuance on july 10, 2013, to michelle guest carter, alteration permit remodel and addition to existing single-family residence; project scope includes conversion of basement into habitable space, interior remodel, and horizontal addition at first and second floors; scope also includes new roof penthouse, 500sf roof deck, kitchen remodel and one new bathroomm. application no. 2013/02/19/0440s for hearing today.

>> my understanding is that the parties have reached an agreement and would like to board to adopt it tonight. can we have people from both sides approach. whoever wants to go first go ahead. >> i'm frances droes a. we have reached a settlement which we have submitted to you all and so we would ask that you approve the revised permit. the owners architect mark english is here and he can speak and address any questions that you have. >> mr. english? >> good afternoon. mark english, representing the carters. we have come to agreement. we have spent a lot of time working out adjustments to our previously approved

project to a neighborly way reduce the impact to views and light and air from our proposed improvements to the property. i think it was a very extensive outreach and i'm very pleased that we've been able to reach this agreement. >> and have you been working with the planning on this and everything is okay? >> okay. >> okay. you want us to grant the appeal and adopt these revised drawings is that correct? >> that's correct. >> okay. >> okay. mr. sanchez would you like to speak to the board on this? >> scott sanchez planning department. we appreciate the fact that they worked it out and gave us the plans well in advance to review and make that

determination. >> we should take public comment. anyone wish to speak on this item? >> there is none. >> i will move to grant the appeal. but uphold -- in condition on the plan submitted that were approved by planning. submitted with their submissions for today's hearing. >> is there a date on this plan? >> august 21st. >> okay. >> on the basis of the agreement of the parties? >> on the basis of the agreement on the parties and planning has received it and determined to be -- co-compliant . >> okay. we have a motion from the president to uphold this permit with adoption of revised

plans dated august 21, 2013, and this is on the basis of the agreement of the parties and the planning department's determination of code compliance. on that motion, commissioner fung, aye, hurtado, aye, lazarus aye, honda? aye. this permit is upheld with revised plans. thank you. >> can i just say, i want to thank mr. pacheco for his wisdom and guidance in the settlement discussions and also kristin for her assistance in this as well. thanks. >> he doesn't get a raise, you know. [ laughter ] . >> i will give him a hand. okay. we will now move and thank you for that, we'll now move to item 4 a. item

4a;jurisdiction request: subject property at 1521-1531 jones street. letter from stephen williams, attorney for lindbergh low & eva chan low, requestors, asking that the board take jurisdiction over bpa no. 2013/06/06/8900, which was issued on june 10, 2013; the appeal period ended on june 25, 2013 and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on aug. 26, 2013. permit holder: matthew wren. project: shoring plan and foundation replacement. for that, we'll now move to item 4 a. sf 41234 mr. williams, you have 3 minutes. >> thank you, steve williams representing the low family. the property is a 6-unit apartment building in residential mixed between pacific and jackson on a very steep hill. can i have the picture, please. going up towards jackson. here is the subject's property and the low's property. most of the buildings are more than a hundred years old in this

neighborhood. the project is to put a new floor on this building and to create a super unit by combining an existing unit with a new floor. they are also going to put in a new garage, there is very few garnls -- garage for this block and the top floor only. surrounding neighbors, 400 of them and appealed the project and the project was substantially reduced pulled in at 11 feet at the rear of the new addition. neighbors still uphold certain aspects of the property and we are waiting for the approval of the project when on july 18th we discovered that a portion of this project, a new permit had been pulled over the counter. i thought it had to be a mistake. i have done this for a long time. i

have never seen this before where a portion of a project is segmented out and issued to the counter without any notice to the neighbors and without any approval of the project itself and without an appeal right and an opportunity to come before this board. i did not get any responses and you saw the letters to the dbi officials. i went to mr. chiu and got a response in 10 minutes. could not get a logical explanation as to why rules are applied an how this permit was pulled. this is a huge loophole which under minds the integrity of the appeals process and the site permit process. if you

read the rules, this violates the plans. that's what i'm asking the board to enforce the plain language of the codes we put before you of exhibit 4 and 5. permit has been issued to allow work to begin on this project before all approvals have been received and an addendum has been issued for this project. we ask the board the grant the permission so this appeal can be heard when the project appeal finally shows us because it's not been approved yet. >> counselor, are you sure that the permit entitlement at building department is a site permit? >> yes, sir, it's a site permit that's pending is what we've been told and this is a separate over the counter permit. that's why we didn't

file. >> i understand your argument. but we didn't receive any information on the other permit. are you sure it's a site permit versus a building permit. >> it could be either. they come out the same way. we've been told by dbi that they are still able to permit this process even if they hold an addendum without a site permit. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. my name is matthew raymond. the holder of the permit in question. i don't have an attorney. i'm representing myself. i do have

my engineer here. despite the inflammatory and grossly statements of the appellants, i'm going to -- some background to this permit, this permit is to perform necessary improvements. most necessarily it's to replace the failing brick foundation and r e move the soft story. independent engineer's evidence of the attached building is provided. the construction to mobilize people and equipment and we will incur significant delays in cost if late jurisdiction is granted and not to mention the railing foundation will remain. this seismic upgrade is required regardless of other potential upgrades to the building and this building

falls been the mandatory ordinance. our understanding is that the board not only grant, there is no evidence of this. here are the facts. the permit was issued june 10th, the appeal closed, the appeal was made august 26th, more than 2 months after the window closed. the appellant claims not to have known about the permit hence the late appeal. there is no obligation to notify on a permit by the permit bureau. furthermore the appellant acknowledged the permit existence on july 18th. it still appealed more than 1 month later. it failed to

appeal. this appeal is actually about trying to protect the private views from the appellant's own unpermitted penthouse. for almost two years the2 -- the appellant defaced the public hearing noticed attached to our building and is threatening to appeal all permits. the private view the pell sanity trying to protect cans -- is from a boating. this penthouse stands 50 feet tall, the same height as we propose building. they have never pulled an electrical permit, never pulled a plumbing permit and they have not

completed a building permit since 1988. their billion is a fully rented 6 building unit that has not any permit 25 years. appendix 2 in my submissions, in written accuracy. >> your time is up. you said the appellant acknowledged the existence of the permit on july 18th, what do you mean by that. >> he said they learned of it july 18th, they went searching for answers. >> you understand there is no right to appeal that type of permit. that's the point. just wondering. okay. i think you answered my question. >> do you have another permit application there? >> correct. >> what type of permit application is that? >> i'm not sure to tell you the

truth. the other permit is to build a vertical addition. >> we'll find out from the building department. thank you. >> department. who wants to start, mr. duffy? yeah. great. >> good evening commissioners, joe duffy, dbi. i don't have plans with me and a lot of times when you get these packages you kind of need plans to decide what's going on. i have questions for the project sponsor. if the work that we are talking about that is under the jurisdiction request is duplicated on the site permit. if they are not on the site permit and coming and getting over a permit for a duplicate work to get started. there is not in our code that says that

you can't do that. if it's on the permit, why do you need another permit. no one has said that. i have a question about that. the notification process and certainly, i did dig up one sheet of plan with me and it looks like something is going to happen on the property line. there are code issues that would need to be addressed. as i said the permit is probably reviewed and approved, but again, the question is, is the work on the permit on the jurisdiction request shown on the main permit and why do you need to do that. so is there some reason for that. apart from that, i'm available for questions. >> so if it were on the principal permit, if the work

on the permit, the jurisdiction request on the site permit then you would say this is an improper over the counter permit. >> it's not as improper for doing this. if you have it on one permit, why are you putting it on the other. >> i think you are confusing it a little bit. a site permit does not necessarily have the details yet. the site permit then goes along with a set of what they call addendum. the first one is usually the foundation and superstructure modifications. a full permit would probable -- >> you weren't referring to it site permit then? >> i don't see it's even a site permit. that's what's confusing. the permit for the

addition alteration for the 1 unit is showing up here as a building unit. it doesn't reflect as a site permit. there is no addendum on the schedule. it's filed. it's been through quite a review. but the project sponsor needs to answer the question. is some of the work shown on that. if it's not, then that's fine. >> if it is? >> it's not against the code, but i don't know what their purpose. >> yeah, why are you doing this? >> got it. >> if you can section off a piece of it as long as it has it's own permit. >> yes, the site permit process, i don't think there is anything wrong with that in this case. it's not -- this is not an addendum to a site permit that we are talking about. this is a separate standard permit. i definitely

want to know why they are doing this. i didn't hear from the other side. >> i have a question. as the permit holder expressed, is this property, would this property be subject to soft story retrofit? >> it appears from the pictures that i saw that it could be, yes. i'm not sure. i know that's only, that program has been introduced. it could be. >> is there any way to find it. if it is a soft story retrofit it's going to have to be addressed no matter what . >> they are putting in a new garage as well. so again, it probably is part of the seismic retrofit. you don't want them starting the garage until main permit is obtained. if that

permit is attempted to get started, you want to ask questions about that. that's a concern. >> mr. duffy do you have anyantly -- knowledge of this building of the penthouse and the dbi? >> i can look it up. >> mr. sanchez? up to you. >> scott sanchez, planning department. the subject before you for the request is the shoring permit and foundation permit whiches not reviewed by the planning department. it's been alluded to the larger department. i denied a rear yard variance that they saw the for the vertical addition. the project was subsequently

revised and that project is under review. the foundation replacement if that's what's being done, we would have no issue with that in the planning department reviews and guidelines. >> i have a question, mr. sanchez, if the permits are not connected and they are doing an up grade up existing foundation. there is one slot for a garage. >> by the jurisdiction request, i have not seen plans. if there are plans for the foundation replacement and the question would be does it include you that garage which we don't have an issue with because we've already approved it. however that owner has not appealed it. i don't know what the plans associated with this. if they

include that garage addition we are 15 with that because we have approved that through the other permit. that's the outstanding question. >> mr. sanchez, in actuality, the risk is on the permit holder at this point because whatever it appears that the main building permit will probably get an appealed and there is already an adjustment there in terms of it's envelope. if there is further adjustment then a revision has to occur in foundation and seismic upgrade. okay. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioners, you know the disagreement on the project and in this particular permit is really lies with the other

permit. if the permit holder wants to run the risk and potentially have redundant cost and redoing it, the scope of the foundation and how the seismic system upgrade works, i have not heard anything yet that indicated that the department erered either in notice of their issuance of that permit. >> i think, can we boil it down to what we are trying to decide in granting the jurisdiction request. i think given the city issued an an over the counter request. on that basis i would

grant. >> otc permits cannot be appealed. >> on the agreement with commissioner fung i believe i will uphold the permit and deny the appeal on the basis that the department did not ---er in their decision. >> we are here for a description request that it did not cause the late filing. in this instance the sentiment here is the way i'm leaning which there was no evidence of such. i would move to deny this jurisdiction request on for those reasons. >> okay. mr. pacheco? >> we have a motion from the

president to deny this jurisdiction request. on that motion, commissioner fung, aye, commissioner hurtado? no. lazarus aye, honda aye. >> thank you, the vote is 4-1, the jurisdiction is denied and no permit is filed. >> we'll move on to item no. 5. appeal no. 13-085 shasha lewis dba "ola's exotic coffee & tea & oak & bbq", appellanttss vs. dept. of public works bureau of street-use & mapping, respondent 2801 leavenworth street. appealing the denial on june 27, 2013, of a mobile food facility permit sale of coffee, tea, and sweetss. application no. 13mff-0082 for hearing today.>> we'll move

on to item no. 5. sf 51234 we'll start with the appellant. >> good evening. this appeal is about miss lewis full proprietor who wants to make a living selling coffee and tea. she asked that it be revoked. the order should be reversed for three main reasons. first the fisherman's wharf argument is an attack against this full proprietor. second, miss lewis is in full compliance. finally it