changed that have planning issues. they're part and parcel. it's hard to separate one type of thing from the other. >> thank you. is there additional public comment on the continuance mat her >> i'm angela logan, i theme project sponsor, i would like to put one thing forward as far as the plans going through d.b.i. this prompt has been completely through the building department on its wave of getting a building permit. it was approved. it was subsequently suspended because harlan has a notification that was not properly notified. so the permit was suspended -- >> so you don't support the continuance? >> i do not support the continuance. this has been reviewed by building department. i would also like to add that the permit was initially sought

to address a notice of violation that was issued in response to a complaint filed by half lan hoffman. he filed a complaint, a violation was issued, plans were drawn up to correct the complaint, they were taken to the building department and approved. only subsequently was that suspended in order for this to be brought -- for him to be notified. >> is there any other public comment on the item as it relates to the continuance. >> mr. hoffman, you may not speak again. thank you. >> i'm former president of liberty hill neighborhood association and we -- this is the first time i have seen the project sponsor. i wish that they had come before us.

just wanted to mention that there hasn't been a lot of -- although this seems like a trivial problem, in the neighborhood it's very serious. i just waited a long time to testify to this. we are very beset by scavengers in the neighborhood and i was going to describe that. >> are you in favor or not of the continuance? >> i'm kind of neutral on that. that's what -- we're talking about the continuance. >> yes it is the continuance, you'll have to decide i'm wrust mentioning. >> thank you. is there any additional comment on the continuance matter? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: maybe i could ask staff -- in regards

to this issue that's being raised, i'm a little unfamiliar with the, you know, there's the question of whether or not d.b.i. has reviewed this adequately or not. is it properly before us? and i guess i wanted to know a little bit about the issue of the noteation that the requester is bringing up. >> thank you, commissioner. kimberly duronde, planning department staff. what has occurred is the permit to alter the ground room floors was approved by the planning department over the counter and subsequently issued by d.b.i. as a code complying permit and project. the staff neglected to notify the b.b.n. holder, who then contacted the zoning administrator, requesting that the issued building permit

application be suspended, which he did, and which was. subsequent to that, i issued a b.b.n. letter to mr. hoffman per the requirement and waited the 10-day period, during which he filed for this discretionary review on an issued code complying permit. >> so in your opinion the d.b.i. has reviewed all of -- there are a number of items brought up as being things that the continuance would allow d.b.i. to review. but you feel these have been reviewed? >> d.b.i. has already approved the permit that is under this particular hearing's discretion. as far as the issue -- as far as the issues that were raised, i read some of the concerns on his request for continuance and

they all seem to fall under strictly d.b.i.'s complaint line and for them to go out and investigate and isn't really under the sort of scope of what we're here to do today. >> one would expect that even if we didn't take d.r. and approve the project that they could still -- >> of course. >> of course check these things. >> yes. >> is there a motion to continue or not? we'll hear the item today. >> good evening commissioners, kimberly duronde, planning department staff. you have before you a request for discretionary review for a building permit for an interior remodel of ground room floors in an r.h. 3 zoning and liberty hill historic district. the subject building permit proposes an interior renovation

consistent with the planning department's rooms down matrix per the zoning ad mrtor bulletin and will be connected to the main dwelling area above the unopen stairway. the garbage can screening, which appears on the primary concern of the d.r. requestor is a temporary structure not aficted to the building or the ground, hence this structure does not require building permit and is considered via zoning administrator to be a permitted on instruction per planning code section 136. excuse me. the residential design team met and reviewed this project and finds the interior ground floor alterations are consistent with our policies and does not have any design related concerns with the temporary garbage can screening. furthermore, since the building permit is not required a certificate of appropriateness is not needed, nor is review by

the historic preservation commission. the department has received no correspondence or phone calls opposing the project in supporting the d.r., on the contrary, the project as proposed has received a total of 12 letters and one phone call in support of the property owners and the permit. and against the d.r. the project doesn't contain any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances -- i did receive a few extra after the commission packets were done and they are there. there's no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, under the planning commission's pending d.r. reform legislation, this project would not be referred to the commission. as such, this d.r. warranted an

preasted staff analysis which i did but i would like to note, that said, the staff time i've spent on this issue, just my own staff time and with processing the d.r. and the enforcement portion of this case, has resulted in over 50 hours of staff time. staff recommends that you do not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. thank you very much. >> thank you. d.r. "or. -- requestor. >> thank you again. harlan hoffman. i was going to present another letter in favor of the d.r. that i had shown you from mr. santos. there's also several items that support the issue of the d.r., maybe not directly the d.r., but there's a letter from mr. santos, also a letter that went, part of the package that went to the historic

preservation commission from mr. jerry goldberg, there's a letter also to mr. scott sanchez regarding a letter to uphold an initial notice of violation sent by the planning department signed by about 15 people and several of them made chents on it. i didn't go out and try to solicit a lot of letters. i thought what i had was fairly adequate and there was a lot of support many this direction as well. there's also comments by buck passmore taken into account by the neighborhood association of liberty hill and they passed a resolution saying that if at all possible, when someone is doing a project, of a certain magnitude on the ground floor or first floor of a building, that it's not a matter of convenience but it's also of what's good for the neighborhood and what's good for the neighborhood is not to have the trash enclosures out on the street because there's a

lot of issues that have come up about them. i don't know that i can speak any more to the continuance issue but the d.b.i. is investigating these issues and they do have -- they do have authority to look into them and a lot of them do have planning code issues. for instance, i drew this plan from the 1963 plan done by permit and a second means of egress was removed from the third floor of the building and a deck was extended. those had planning code consequences and they have consequence in terms of the path traveled. i also outlined if you were to be under the building at that stage where it overhangs, i wouldn't want to be the fireman trying to rescue someone under that structure because it's very unstable, that also has planning code issues. i think there's a lot of reasons for the continuance to let d.b.i. do their study. also, planning has made the

argument that this is a temporary structure when in fact the department of public works requires this structure to be fixed in place. not temporary. it's supposed to be a permanent structure and that's the purpose of the structure as well. i think it's kind of a -- it would be like driving an automobile without headlights at night and it doesn't meet the california motor code, and you're speeding and saying, it doesn't meet the motor code and i'm speeding and because it doesn't meet the motor code, that means the speeding is just forgotten about and the police officer just says, ok, no problem. i'm not trying to be punitive, i'm saying there are other alternatives to putting this trash enclosure right in the front yard setback and right adjacent to my property. it's p become a draining issue for me, i've had to deal with

litter issue others the last 10 years. i didn't bring this to d.b.i. until the tenants were asked to move and there was no one else there to clean up as much as i was. and it all fell on me and for about a year i just documented the issues with the trash problem and the way it looked and how it impacted my own property and certain other items regarding people breaking into them and when myself or any of my tenants are going to go out their door and someone is breaking into the trash enclosures, i don't want to go out there, i want to stay in because it's right next to me and also, i talked about the neighborhood guidelines and the neighborhood guidelines talk about integrating the block and respecting the block and i think that if at all possible, people should bring their trash cans in and set them out on the morning of the collection or the night before and then bring them back in, otherwise it's a

free for all and anyone can do it. i don't think there's anyone in this room that would want to live next door and have to clean up someone else's garbage. it's been an important issue to me and i've never been able to work it out with the project sponsor. i think there's a lot of reasons for continuance, i think there's also a lot of reasons for, perhaps, because the plans were not drawn with a lot of, with information that was left off like the electrical box wasn't shown, that's a new breaker panel, we also have what happened in san bruno and pg&e. >> are there speakers in support of the d.r. requestor? i believe i have one speaker card. mr. barbee. john barbee. >> good afternoon, i'm john barbee. we have no problem with the interior renovation.

the problem is with the trash containers and the design of these bin enclosures. we're very beset by scavengers in the neighborhood, they're very bold and resourceful. when i set my trash out, i get six competing parties who come by that night and raid the bins. some are responsible and kind of pathetic, others are visibly crazy or obviously substance abusers, they drink out of bottles that still have something in them, so that's unmistakable. the temporary enclosure these people have is still open at the top. the scavepjers can come in and raid. it's terrible for us because when they do this, they empty the general rubbish bin all other the sidewalk, things fly all other the place they don't clean them up, we are responsible for doing that. and it's an ongoing problem to have bins exposed seven days a week. that's awkward.

you know. it creates problems for the general neighborhood. also because we are an historic district, counterintuitively, we cannot make a bin enclosure that's victorian in design and post-modern and even simple, automatically create an eyesore when they're put in front of elaborate victorians. we have a little bit of a design concern right there. we do this dance of a the corp.ons every time we add anything new to our houses. it has to appear post-modern or generic with all the contradiction that implies so it becomes very serious. it's a serious -- it's serious from a general nuisance standpoint. i think you need to revisit the actual design of the bin enclosures. we were expressing concern, very few neighbors actually have their bins in the front and those that do have them completely sealed with a little cabinet that has a roof on the top. that sounds like a better way

of doing it. i know this is temporary but you must also know the problem of temporary structures that simply go on forever. isn't there a limit to how long a temporary structure may be there? and so that's why it addresses some other general concerns. i'm sorry if it doesn't seem very important but we were shocked when we saw how relaxed the d.p.w. standards were. they were able to put a frail little chicken wire screen in front of these bins and d.p.w. immediately dropped their oklahomas. the screen was torn apart in two weeks by the same familiar scavengers. it can't be that relaxed. you know. the trash bins are big, noticeable thing and it's got to be dealt with in a responsible way by the city of san francisco. thank you very much. >> thank you. are there additional speakers in support of the d.r. requestor? >> yes.

thank you. my name is jerry goldberg, i'm a retired a tech and urban designer, i live on 21st street, the street we're talking about. as has been noted, the liberty hill neighborhood association passed the recommendation that mr. passmore drafted for us. i think that's a very positive step. it's the first step, as far as i'm concerned in liberty hill getting together a fully compendious list of standards. this won't replace the city code. but there are items in the code about front setbacks. which are very clear and very explicit in that those are to be maintained and tearing those down or making them less attractive is a problem and it creates a problem in the historic district, it creates a problem for the neighborhood, it creates a problem for property values. i think that to say that these are temporary is rather strange

because there's -- around the corner on guerrero street there's a front setback where all the trash cans are simply placed in the yard, in the front setback and that to me is equally temporary. the point here really was if you're going to do a major renovation to the first floor of the building, there's an opportunity to do something which is permanent and which really meets the guidelines of the planning code about keeping the front setbacks clear and that's as far as i'm concerned, that's the bottom line. i think that should be done. i don't look upon this as a temporary structure. i look upon it as being a permanent structure because the opportunity now presents itself to do something because they're going to make a major renovation with the building, and it is not included in their proposal. thank you. >> thank you. are there additional speakers

in support of the d.r. requestor? seeing none, project sponsor. >> my name is angela logan, i'm the project upon sor. -- sponsor. the scope of the project is an interior remodel on the ground floor, the purpose of the project is to utilize the ground floor as part of the habitable living space for the unit above, where the homeowners currently live. the final configuration at the completion of the project will be two dwelling units on three floors of occupancy, there will be no work done in the top floor which is a different living unit. the work on the ground floor will include a new lowered

floor to achieve the legal ceiling height, new interior walls, there's a wet bar included there and new bathroom, relocated laundry, a new open guardrail will be added to the existing young to provide for an open spatial connection between the ground floor and there are no exceptional circumstances and the project is consistent with the planning department demrines. it has already been approved by the d.b.i. so their issues have been addressed in the plans as well. >> it's your five minutes, whatever you want to do with that. >> the question of the garbage

can enclosure has been addressed through other authorities and through d.p.w. in the zoning administrator already and everywhere that this issue has been raised, the current trash enclosure has been found to be compliant and consistent with the code. they declared it is compliant and after seeing photos he even asked nancy lynch to go into a physical inspection of the garbage can enclosure at the house, at the site and she declared it perfect and compliant. the issue has been addressed, which is why it's not included in our request. >> thank you.

are there speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> my name is kitty, i'm another owner of the subject property. i would like to say we are satisfied with what's been submitted in writing, what's been said by ms. durandet and i believe our project has been deemed exinet, we do not believe there's any reason to not proceed in fixing our basement. we are happy to answer questions you have or about the garbage, which is an unrelated issue, obviously mr. hoff map doesn't feel it's unrelated. i will reiterate we have addressed the garbage issue thoroughly, repeatedly, and our neighbor is still unhappy and

has pursued complaints against us that have never ened up in a citation. -- never ended up in a citation. the enclosure is compliant, it's sturdy, it matches the house, it's not affixed in place, which is part of the regulation, he is mistaken about that. we have a good deal of neighbor support, including many people on the block that's in your pact, since we put up the d.r. poster, i know you received further support, we're invested in our home, in our community, we raise a family there, we live a family of five in a two-bedroom flat in this victorian and we had always thought when we made the investment to buy the property and live there as a family that we could expand down when the time came that we could afford to do it. we think it is going to improve or property and there will be no adverse effect and again if you have any question -- thank you very much.

>> are there additional speakers in support of the project sponsor? seeing none, d.r. requestor. you have two minutes. >> the project sponsor has made certain remarks regarding it being approved by the department of building inspection but the thing is, is that the plans were not accurate and they were not complete. certain things that are very key to the project that were excluded and i think that they are excluded, at least in my opinion, i could be wrong, because they did not want the project to be crute niced any further than just simp -- to be scrutinized any further than just simply rushed through over the countier. the project is responding to a notice of violation. it is substantial to the building. it's a historic district an typically this type of project

would not be provided over the counter. certain things were excluded, windows were just called existing that were not built very likely with permit. the electrical was not built with permit, a number of things were not done with permits. i think that's why it was approved by d.b.i. and things were changed in order to make the project just kind of float right through. i'm an architect, i understand some of these issues and i've been in practice for other 20 years and i've done all kinds of projects all over the city, additions, renovations, restorations and typically, deform b.i. will scrutinize a project properly. i think in this case things were omitted. they were not able to do it. no pun intended, but garbage in, garbage out, to some extend. that's the main issue i have with it and the issue of the

trash enclosure. when d.b.i. does do its investigation i think there will be many ramifications as well that will have an impact on this project that could possibly change it such as the means of egress on the third floor and the item regarding the back of the building being unstable. >> thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes, rebuttal. >> the project plan submitted, i'm sorry, angelo logan, logan designs, the project plans submitted as existing plans and as built plans were taken from current existing measurements, whether the window that's currently there was permitted or not that window belongs on the as-built plans and the existing plans and all of that is there. >> public hearing is closed. commissioner borden?

commissioner borden: this is a classic case where someone needs a venue to vet an issue and this becomes the venue. what we're here to decide is whether there are exceptional, extraordinary circumstances relating to the legalization of the downstairs being used as part of the overall unit of the house. from the plans i've seen here, this is the direction we often encourage, there's a lot of issues with secondary or illegal units and so this goes to correct that possibility and that's the direction that we tend to want to go into. and that's what the scope of this permit is about. you know, i'm sympathetic to the neighbor's concern about the garr banal and if he was just here listening to another application, it's a problem in the neighborhood, i have the same problem in my neighborhood, people are rifling through garbage cans late at night, steeling the -- stealing the trash and it's an issue that far transcends

enclosed trash structures, so you know, i don't see any reason, first off, we don't have any jurisdiction over that. we can't require them to enclose it. if they were going to build it as part of the building permit, that would be a different conversation but they're in the required to do so. this is not a planning commission or planning department issue, it's a d.p.i. issue. it would be more a planning department issue if they were building it as part of the home. i don't see any reason to not take d.r. i would vote to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. >> commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i agree with commissioner borden, this is a good project, it does utilize an unused lower floor and of course on the rooms down mate rick connects the two so at no future date would there be a temptation for an illegal

unit down there if it was sold or anything happened to the owner occupancy. as far as the garbage situation, i sympathize with commissioner borden, i always have to run people who come onto private property, at my place, they're rifling through and leaving big messes. so if there's a way to put a lock on top of the garbage to make it impossible for scavepjers get in there, that might be the solution to the whole problem but it has nothing to do with the approval of this particular thing. but i certainly can understand that it's an issue. >> commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: yes, i guess what annoys me about this is there is no possible way this rises to an exceptional or extraordinary matter for planning. could be for d.p.w., could be