>> i am delighted to have the opportunity to work with ms. short and take her advice on what we should do. that would be fine with me. president garcia: i would move that we overturn the department and allow these trees to be removed, with the proviso that either three 24's, if there is enough room, replace these trees, or two 26's -- 36's. the final determination of what is best in terms of species and size rests with the department of public works and the bureau of urban forestry. >> a thank you said two 36 -- i think you said two 36's, but it was not certain that would be practical. president garcia: i know. i wanted to give ms. short the opportunity to agree or disagree with that.

>> with the department of public works' discretion. could we leave open all three of those options? there could be two 24's? president garcia: yes. and i have to justify why the trees could be removed? is that the glare from the city attorney? the reason is they provide a hazard to the safety of one of the residence in terms of nuts dropped from the tree that make it difficult to work on the street. the present a hazard in terms of the fact that there are trucks that travel on that street and have on occasion made contact with the branches, and possibly with the trunk. therefore, because of those safety reasons, we are overturning the department. >> the motion is to grant this

appeal, overruled the denial, and issue the permit, on condition the replacement be either two 36 inch box trees, three 24 inch box trees, or two 24 inch box trees. the size and the species are up to the department of urban forestry. commissioner fung: aye. vice president hwang: aye. -- commissioner hillis: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. >> the denial is overruled. with all those conditions. president garcia: even though i have a >> welcome back to the march 21, 2012 meeting of the san

francisco board of appeals. we are now calling item #7. beth weesner vs the department of building inspection with planning department approval. it is on seven -- it is on at 1753 beach street. protesting the issuance on november 10, 2011 to a permit to alter a building, remodeling a kitchen, bath, and laundry, adding a bath, removing a portion of the wall at the hallway, removing partition at a kitchen to dining, reconfiguring bedroom closets new furnace and water heater, new gas fireplace, new exterior stair to the new roof deck. we will start with the appellant. >> i am representing the appellant in this case. first off, we think the board

for continuing this matter at the last minute. we were in negotiations to settle this matter globally with the permit holder but never got a response. here we are, one week later, again going to the merits of this appeal. for the board members who were not here in january, the board granted a jurisdiction request in the mid-january based on improper notice to our client. this permit was originally called back in march of 2011. the permit holder waited eight months to have the permit finally issued and it was at that point that our client failed to get notice of the act will permit. we came to the board and now we are here for the mayor to be appealed. i and the appellant is believed -- i believe and the appellant believe it is a simple issue

before us. it is invalid. the permit holder has admitted this in a prior testimony because, basically, the roof portion of this permit is going to be revoked and remove from the permit. the permit holder attempted to do this after the jurisdiction request and now this matter is before the board again because this roof deck is still a part of the permit. the permit holder, during the jurisdiction request, his attorney and contractor admitted that this exterior roof deck with the stairs are not part of the permit that was issued in november of 2011. the second matter of notice that i want to talk about goes directly to notice to my client, who is the co-owner in this building, a two-unit condominium unit.

it did not have her lot number on the actual permit. as you can see, from this parcel map that was provided in the brief, there are two lot numbers, 34 and 33, that cover 1753, the permit property, and 1751, the appellant property. unfortunately, the condominiums do not have a lot number for the roof. that is a problem because that roof is common area. our client must approve anything that happens on the roof. again, she was not provided notice that this permit was going to be pulled back in march. and then finally issued in november of 2011. the current quarter has argued that the roof is not common area. we believe that is incorrect.

the roof can he turned into exclusive use common area if there is construction on the roof. we do not know if they are actually going to continue with the roof material or the work on the roof, in what it is our argument that the permit is invalid for not including our clients lot number. the one final item that i wanted to talk about is the last item of hoa approval. i submit that to the board knowing that what has to happen here is the roof deck, if it is removed as the permit holder says it's going to happen, the parties have to negotiate any sort of common area roof. in order to get back to ground zero for the parties, what needs

to happen is this permit needs to be revoked, any common area worked including the removal of the roof permit must go to the hoa because that is common area. the other item that has come up recently is an issuance of a nov for the work was intended to take place after the interest is a request. i would like to show the board that very quickly. >> you need to turn it. >> which way? one item that is on here in we believe might be a part of the permit that the applicant is going to request is a water heater was part of the original

plans that would go on the roof. it is not clear, in this revision permit, that the permit holder attempted to pull, if that water heater is going to be removed along with the steps were proposed in the original permit. if the permit holder is going to attend any sort of revision, this needs to go back to approval from our client. again, we are the co owner in this two-unit building. the final point i would like to address is the nuisance problem that has gone on since this permit was issued in november of 2011. our client owns the bottom unit in the building and this is an extensive remodeling of the second floor unit. there has been extensive work to the floor as well as work in the

garage, construction equipment has been in there so there has been blockage of both the garage as well as some of the egress to the actual condominium unit. i have pictures of that as well. this is one item that has taken place -- there is a port-a-potty on the right hand side that still remains even know the permit was put on hold. there are construction vehicles that have been blocking the ingress-egress, the brown rot on the left-hand side. -- the brown garage on the left- hand side. the final picture shows the usage pri is a little bit burglary. i am sorry for that. this is the outline of a car and the entire garage area is being used for construction.

we would ask that this permit be revoked. thank you. president garcia: when you come back for your three minutes, would you be prepared to talk about something aside from -- most of these are technical issues having to do with lot numbers and problems that you think exist with this particular permit. i do not know that you presented anything as to why your client would prefer this project not go forward aside from these technical issues and what affect it is having on her life. i would ask you to prepare to do that when you come back up. >> i will be prepared for that. thank you. >> can we hear from the permit holder questioning to for hearing this this evening.

i think the failure to establish any legitimate basis for revocation -- president garcia: could you please give your name. >> i am ryan soriano on behalf of the permit holder of. we addressed in the brief that this appeal has not, as the president suggested, focus on any issues of a practical matter that affect this project's impact on the neighbor. this is an urban setting. people have the right to do construction projects and the city has a procedure for making sure that things are done in a reasonable manner in and protect the rights of the german border as well as others who neighbor of the permit holders project a. everybody in san francisco deals with the noise and annoyance of a nearby construction projects. it is a temporary thing and there are procedures to make sure it is not unduly burdensome. this appeal does not focus on that. it focuses mostly on a roof

deck, which is not going to happen. and then it focuses on the lot numbers. he had just to be clear, any concerns on the roof deck are moved. -- are moot. he attempted to put a sinister spin on our attention to get a revised permit. there was no trickery involved in that. we said that we were abandoning that job. the board indicated a revised permit would be needed for that. after that, we got the revised permit. we spend four hours with the department of building inspection to make sure the permit would be appropriate. and that the procedures had the least amount of intrusion as possible. there is nothing sinister and i hope to the board is satisfied with that. that accusation is a very offensive to mr. specter. he and his wife are here and there is a representative from

dbi who probably has insight into the procedure. " we have is this lot issue. we are not asking you to overlook a technical infraction -- a technical imperfections. this permit established it is an imperfect way. the evidence is justice that the city has more than one manner in noticing a lot numbers on these permits. i spoke with pat, who offered an article in addressing this issue, suggesting there has to be some uniformity in the city's process and he identifies a number of reasons why uniformity is required to. you cannot do this ipso facto. you cannot make that decision now and start looking back at permits that have been previously issued as say they have to follow the new regime. as i understand it, no new rule has been adopted yet. from the declarations we submitted, we checked with the central permit bureau.

they said, we do not have a specific manner for how this is done. sometimes, we use the lot number were the primary work is done. a lot of times, we use all of the numbers. in this case, it was on a single lot. the roof deck is contractually exclusive to mr. specter. as they have not conceded, it can be changed if he does ever pursue the roof deck. right now, no roof deck, no common area, no requirement for a different lot numbers. even if it was a rule, it would not apply anymore because we are not pursuing the roof is the he technical violations and that her council is highlighting for you? there is no harm. they suggest that you set mr. specter back to square one. it is going to be the exact same permit, the exact same scope of work that has been approved

twice. it is not going to have the respect. it will have a single lot number. she is going to get notice in the exact same manner with the exact same amount of detail as the notice that she currently has. despite the detail and not permit application, she has not identified one aspect of this project that is not fair to hurt or in trees in her work -- intrude on her right. this extension is going too far and is not going to go in -- get in the way of my exercising my rights. this proposed assets -- the proposed asset goes too far and violates the code section. there is none of that. she says it technically was not issued right so they should start all over to satisfy me. that is not a proper use of the sports time or the procedures for this appeal. there has not been any justification to exercise -- to force an exercise in futility for the permit holder. he has cooperated with the city

and has done a lot o permit goes forward in the least intrusive way possible. it has been improved -- it has been approved multiple times. the problems that the appellant is complaining about provide no practical benefit to her whatsoever. for those reasons, i ask that you denied his appeal and reinstate the permits so that this project, which has been delayed for over one month, can continue. thank you for your time. president garcia: if you would address the issues having to do with blockage of ingress and egress and the garage. i am assuming the port-a-potty is there because the project has been suspended a. >> it has -- it is required to be there based on the permanent. it has been extended by

stipulation and logistics of the board itself. normally, an appeal would have been heard weeks ago. to take down the port-a-potty and pay to have it back out, he does not seem like a practical thing to do. there is nothing being done to block reasonable ingraham and egress. they are completely cooperative. there is a line of communication. ms. weesner has changed her attitude but they are still open to work with her and limit the intrusion to her in any way. president garcia: the other question i have is a comment. this exhibit d, i guess that is yours, page 17, it just seems strange -- it seems like there is a logical inconsistency that someone would have exclusive use

of a common area. >> you are looking at exhibits b? that must be from the appellant. >> and i am not criticizing you, but you used the same language. how can it be a common area and someone could have exclusive use? >> under the city's zoning, it is a common area. under the ccnr's that govern the use of the property, it is exclusive use to mr. specter. that is in the ccnr's that have been provided to the appellants. they provided you with the evidence that he has the right to construct a roof deck without her approval. she is here to say the notice was not appropriate when she does not have that right carried we digress because there is no roof deck. we have been transparent about that and followed through to get the revised permit. it takes away any issues about

common space or lot numbers. we hope we can get back to work on this project and move forward with the permit. president garcia: thank you. >> with any department like to comment? mr. duffy. >> i just -- any questions that people have for the department. i do see the roof deck and i think that would leave that all interior work. it would be correct on the original permit, in my opinion. it has taken place within that actual unit. if the roof deck had to remain, we would have had to do something with that. both lots would have to be on if there was a roof deck on the top

of the building. commissioner fung: the revision permits has, in its entirety, this permit with the exception of the roof deck? >> could you say that again. commissioner fung: they filed it for a revision permits and it has been granted. the scope of work within that permit, is everything in this appeal permit with the exception of the roof? >> that is correct. >> and that revision permits is under suspension at the moment, is that right? >> i.t. -- it is an issue permit. >> it is on appeal to the board. >> i am not sure. i know there is no work taking place. the notice of violation that was shown is standard procedure for dbi when we get a request from

the board of appeals to suspend a permit. it is standard that we do that just to notify the permit holder. there was not any work taking place that i am aware of despite the suspension. president garcia: if we were to uphold permit, then the revision correct? >> correct. >> i was under the impression that the revision permit was suspended because of the proceedings on this permit. i might be mistaken, but that is what my understanding is. >> they should have been suspended and it just never showed up in the system. it is more important that there is no work taking place. you are right. i think that the work could continue if you of all the permit. and the revision kermit then takes effect. there will not be any roof deck,

obviously. it is gone. >> another option is for the sport to strike that scope of work from the permit before it. president garcia: to avoid the extra process. thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. i am sorry. i did not see you. >> is this public comment? i am not paid by anyone, although i did talk to one of the parties out there. i also talked to a number of engineers. my name is pat buscovich. i spend about three hours per day at the building department. why i do is hard to say, but i do. i have learned over the last 30 years to embrace the system. arguing with a building

inspector is like wrestling with a pig. i have learned to embrace it. the way i have done it is writing administrative bulletins. i currently has -- i currently have seven and one of them has been adopted. one is in front of the board right now, which is on cfc's, very important to you because of how you deal with the certificate of completion. i have five more in line. the very next one is kondo land projects, which is this case. that is why i am here. in terms of the lot condo issue, for some reason when bruce stores, when we condo an existing building, i am working

on one that has a couple of issues, when the condo did, it became law 45, 46, 47 and lot two ceased to exist. anything like msc's, when lot two ceased to resist, everything disappeared. the building department only has legal lots 44, 45, 46, and 47. they want to work a common area. the bureau has no lot number to assign to that. it is decided that we are going to create a super lot. we will call out all the lot numbers and that is the lot number for the common area. it is an interim solution and it is terrible but that is all there is. if you are doing work in a

common area, it is all of their areas. if you're doing work in separate units, you should list only that unit. you should have to separate permits, one for the super lot and one for the lot within the unit. the trick that i am pushing for is to go back to the legal lot that existed. in this particular case, lot two. i do not know what number is here. you have to separate permits, the law permits for the common area and for the aerospace of the condo. by commingling this, you are creating a nice 5-10 years that you are never going to figure it out. >> is there any other public comment? seeing none, we will start rebuttals. you have three minutes.

let's thank you gary president garcia, i will address your questions but i wanted to clarify to items. one is that in the permit issue, it says a skylight. it is on our -- it is our understanding that that was suspended. i will show that now and show the violation. i want to be clear on those issues moving forward, as well as for my client, to ensure that that permit, we do not lose a due process on that. here is the current complaint history with a circle to add skylights. president garcia: this is not in our package? >> it is not in the packet. it was printed off today. we did not receive the new permit. we only found out for looking at the website that there was a new

permit issued. we requested be suspended until the board took up this appeal. commissioner hillis: the new permit gets rid of the roof deck and adds the skylight? >> that is correct. i think that is a problem. it also does not remove a water heater and furnace that are supposed to be put on the roof. again, that is common area. it is not exclusive use common area. to further that point, i would like to correct mr. soria on no -- soriano. if you look at paragraph 7.14, the last sentence, after the roof deck is constructed, then the owner of 1753 can apply to amend the map to add it as an exclusive use common area. finally, i know president garcia

wanted me to touch on that the nuisance issue. i have one final photo that i will put up here. suffice it to say that my client is in the lower unit. since this term was issued, she has had banging constantly. she telecommutes and works from her unit. this has been a constant nuisance with e-mails from the contractor, the permit holder about day-to-day operations. the process was not properly gone through to issue the permit in the first place. the one item i will show now is outside of the kitchen area. there was some pain that had shipped off and fell onto the lower portion of my clients unit.