set the page limits. vice president goh: 3 pages. vice president goh: why 3? -- commissioner garcia: why 3? vice president goh: i made it up. you can change it. commissioner hwang: unlimited exhibits. i am sorry. i interrupted you, commissioner garcia. vice president goh: -- commissioner garcia: i move that we continue this for all of the reasons previously stated. commissioner hwang: and i would add that it be delivered to the board the thursday prior to the hearing. secretary pacheco: the motion is from commissioner garcia to continue this until october 20, to allow time for the dpw and the appellant to produce

additional information. additional briefing is allowed at five pages per party, all due on the same day. on that motion, commissioner fung, vice president goh:, commissioner hwang. it passes. commissioner hwang: commissioner hwang: welcome back to the board of appeals meeting on september 8, 2010. mr. pacheco, could you please call item eight, our last item?

secretary pacheco: item number eight, appeal number v10-075, anne kenney vs. the zoning and illustrator dealing with 48 newton street, protesting the granted on july 1, 2010, of pravin patel, rear yard vari ance. >> good evening. it should only be in extraordinary circumstances or when it would cause difficulties or unnecessary hardship. basically, this is a case where mr. patel created hardship for

himself after blatant disregard of the building permit process. mr. patel began addition on his house without seeking a permit in his first place, and when he did file for a permit, he requested a building permit for a two-unit permit, and under the code, the section that nms. kenney is in, you are only allowed a one-unit permit. there is still remarkable evidence to show that there is a two-unit plan proceeding. there are two mail slots. there are two dresses, two --

two addresses, two satellite hookups. the building passed the setback requirements, and then she issued another complaint. despite receiving in order to cease and desist with construction, mr. patel continued, and this application for the zoning was after he violated the setback requirement. it is just a pattern of acting first and in complying with requirements later. the purpose of zoning requirements is to maintain the enjoyment of property, and although the setback has only been violated by 1.5 feet, it is a violation nonetheless. this has caused a huge eyesore

in the backyard of ms. kenney, creating a large shadow over her yard. plants have started to die, and there is a concern about the property value in relation to this violation. and i would like to turn it over to ms. kenney so she can make a statement. >> i wanted to point out, too, the 311 that was submitted falsified information. what he basically did was for the existing conditions, he put down the proposed conditions. and he said no change for the proposed, so when we first saw it, we did not think there are going to be any changes, and when we first realized there were going to be changes, we went to the dbi and told them about it. mr. rafael came out and measured

it. there was an instance where they had a truck outside his house for one month, using it as a dumpster, so it was not even 25 feet it was supposed to be, so i went out and measured it myself with a yardstick, and i felt that he did not meet the 25 feet your requirement. also, we had asked inspector rafael to measure the building, and with the proposed conditions, for the existing conditions, he said there'd be no change and that was 66 feet, when, in fact, the building is now over 76 feet and two inches. basically, the dbi let us down.

i guess that mr. rafael decided on his own to grant the variance, because if i did not go back, it it would not have been notice. he was giving new applications, and he split the back bedroom and the family room in order to make it into an independent unit downstairs. he has got separate entrances. he has got two satellite dishes. he has got to spaces and identical for a kitchen. at one time, he had a separate refrigerator down there, but he moved that out. he is continuously breaking the law, and that he is scrambling later to resolve the issues. thank you. that is all i have to say.

commissioner hwang: ms. 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.