line window and we explained over noon he'll get plenty of light the front of the building face south he's west of our building there will be a minimal impact of light in the morning but. >> that the part you've done the light no such. >> would you like for me to show you. >> yes. i don't understand all the light implementations. >> this is an exhibit in our brief; right? and so i can see it. >> i can use the overhead.

>> my vision isn't perfect. >> okay. i'll use the screen. >> tell me which document. >> sheet one point zero the site plan and the next is 8 point zero and the lower plan is the garage and the upper that's mr. chang's at 8 flood. >> are you referencing. >> i'm sorry 8.2 zero i apologize. >> so the bottom what does that reflect. >> on the bottom it's the adjacent ms. chang's building there's a door we've notched that portion of the building up to the sky and the notch on the

second floor too. >> could you point to it open the overhead. >> sure. >> okay. >> this is mr. chang's house this is our no such in our building here it continued up to the building on this floor the back of the building this is the back of our second floor and here's the back of ms. occurring religious house and mr. chang's house. >> so on mr. chang's side is the 8 flood avenue there are windows in the light well. >> there are no windows here. >> so why would you no such it. >> it was a gesture to take a .

medical cannabis of the san francisco board of appeals i'm calling the next item 10 is neighbors of the green street garage the property as 1776 green street protesting the ownerships to larry of an alternative process for the heat detergent we should wait for the fifth commissioner to return to the seat. >> mr. patterson ask i consultation the second swearing in. >> you can do that. anyone else >> do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you.

>> good to see you. >> so with the communicating in the room we'll begin with the appellant. you have 7 minutes >> thank you commissioner president lazarus and commissioners ryan patterson for the neighbors of the green street garage. this is one of most interesting appeals but i represent a group of 25 neighbors that live around the green street garbage that's an automobile body garage only for parking. it's for a new water system and

heat detect our we suspect something is being done the plans for example, don't show the spray boothd that's been heat by neighborhood we actually decided to withdraw the appeal no since fighting over nothing about the appellant attorney said this permit is used to entitle the spraying. i was national fy naturally

shocked the permit holder cancelled the meeting. on a related note i'm told the dbi inspectors can't getting get into the garage. this appeal is simply this permit is for a fire sprinkler monitoring system that has two restrictions the first is a fire permitted sprinkler and if the system is going to monitor the spray green booth neither have a permit the sprinkle system had a permit but the permit was cancelled. this permit depended on on the integration but those

prerequisite systems don't exist. i directing your attention e direct your attention to the permit holders h. a letter if the san francisco fire department from 1994 and he quote therefore the spraying operation must be permitted or removed the spray booth was never installed or permitted. you may be wondering why the neighborhood cares and the answer a this. the garage is spray exhaust is in the middle of the neighborhood and the paints comes into the neighbors homes so the permitting fire systems is very, very important.

i respect what they say by she is incorrect. i'm going to turn it over to mario the fire captain who was in charge of the fire planning review and ask him to talk about the details >> commissioner president lazarus and members mario balanced arrested as mr. patterson states that's a simple matter a permit was put in but the system was permit process was never completed and not reported as being complete the permit expired my so again in essence any additional work to a system that was not signed off

is illegal. unfortunately, the permit process the fire department that approved to permit the permit hadn't expired they'll ask the building department will tell them to reinstitute the permit. and lastly in rectifying the fire department records there is no permit but the process was never completed and to date there is no legal permit for the spray booth at that address. >> i'm sorry, i think i miss our authority what's our background all i'm what i'm retired from

the san francisco fire department for 14 years and managed the planning definition. >> so your statement there's no legal permit from the fire department did you do a review. >> that was part of the scope of my work i managed. >> you recall from 1994 there was non-existent. >> we looked at he history. >> i - >> i wasn't directly involved only through the history. >> okay. thanks. >> i'm pat i'll be quick i went through every permit all the way back to the permit to build this building no permit was had and there's no permit from the 20s and the building department said they issued a notice of

violation telling them to get a permit which will require a mechanism review so putting in the proper filters. >> raining an paertd son there are two appropriate course of action to revoke the permit that's appropriate if the board didn't want to do that the appropriate could you say would be to continual this permit open the permit holder obtaining a permit holder first to legalize the superstitiously and the spraying booth. >> i'm yield the remainder of my time. >> doug how do you correlate

the permit with the spray booth booth. >> commissioner i'm sure how they plan to do that. >> your fighting this permit how did this permit - >> right public school. the sprinkler system has begun 20 years without being permitted or to date they've not been goes to obtain a permit the spray booth dates to the 90s and never a permit from dbi for that. it is easily con essentially once those questions are asked they can come with the permit on appeal today, this fire monitoring permit ties into the spray booth therefore the spray

bloo booth must be legal >> is there a reason you didn't brief the case. >> we decided to withdraw this but after the appeal the attorney told us. >> it's a highly technical point you bring up it's hard to analyze without the documentation. >> understood. >> we can hear if the permit holder now. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and members ilene on behalf of the many - the permit holder. i'll respond to the statement when i spoke to mr. patterson the day after the appeal was

done he didn't tell me he was withdrawing and i was psychiatric i'd be living in paris but it's comments were focus on the spray booth i don't believe it's in use that's the reason any client is appealing that with regard i want many macy's to talk about his experience prosecute the fire department and jurists appeal was filed >> i'm here because the san francisco fire department wants me here by the way, they called me open the phone officer jack and said the automobile business has to be spishd and the building was closed because i close it up to clean it up the

tenant had been there are no 15 years and when mr. jack said it's time for the inspection of your sprinkle system i took the building over the tenant had it for 40 years i want it in my name the tenant want a consul use permit they said you have to install the superstitiously system and officer jack said because it's been a while since the 5ier test you need a 5 year test i said okay. i called up the company to the 5 year test part of the requirement is to make sure that the outside works and the alarm company is out of

business and the alarm didn't work so the test failed. the officer said why not put in a new staiks system i'm all for safety god for bid having an fire in the building and not have to invite the neighborhood the permit is implied for that's why we're here. the sprifrnl system was installed i'm here e the fire department instructed me to get the tests done and all the stuff will the permits i've never received any letter and the

prior system been tested every year since 1994. >> so 0 with that, mr. patterson brought up the past action it's mr. macy's only building in my brief only one complaint and with loud construction noise. this came to be and again, i find it hard to believe that mr. patterson was going to withdraw the appeal because of the olympic threat earlier this year by ms. ledbetter and suddenly we got the word that they received complaints and itself dbi received complaints and it's

been closed as a car ambulance he has contracts with triple a and so forth. with that said i'm at a loss to understand what the neighborhood p are concerned about no complaints to the city or many macy's or made to the tenant that there was somehow hard effects from the spray booth additional now the spray booth is unknown operational and complaints when no activity going on only basically for parker that's for tow damaged cars arrest then the fire sprinkler permit is appealed. it's hard to imagine that if, in

fact, the concern the repair the operation you'll royal one of the key permits to assure the safety the sprinkler had been operational the strishlg was operational and the inspections was done so again, i'm at a loss if i had known all this i might have prepared defendant's guilt differently they've thumped their nose at the process i appreciate what under patterson's son said it noticing was not concentrated to me in no way, shape, or form how often do

you plan on using the spray booth this was about the operation of the spray booth this was to speculate what the brief was and again, i know the focus is on the lack of - i would you have taken another route and how absolutely shoddy this is we have gone over the permits didn't mean one didn't exist it's inaccurate permits get lost and documents get loss so it doesn't mean the permit for the booth was noting never applied for >> >> thank you scott sanchez is the appeal wish or for a

permit for the sprinkler whether land tissues is an rh2 zoning process and a non-conforming use we don't see any issues even if the spray booth has been add it's clear their rod noting they could, in fact, have a spray useful under the discretionary review authorization so other than the spray booth is whether or not there's a city agency that will require a permit and the planning department didn't require a permit but if there's another city agency that needs a permit we'll not be opposed to that if you have any questions,

i'll be happy to answer them. >> mr. duffey. >> commissioners on the building permit that's under appeal is a typical sprinkler type of work it's a with the fire department plan check. there isn't building approval apart from our staff that processes the payments it's a process over 4 years and it's the fire department like a fire bring out but under a building permit application. on the face of it the permit look fines properly reviewed and issued. then we have the issue of the 94 permit for the installation of 0 false sprinkle system that permit got issued in 18994 and

extraordinary in 19995 the planning department would have been the ones to sign off and the building department to sign off. the pollutant part working for the department of building inspection i'm surprised the fire department didn't catch the sprinkle system was never signed off so on the way to index this is to are you new the sprinkle system and go back and get the permit final also and probably move ahead and do the modifications. so that would take care of that. i think that's a 3 part thing and the issue of the spray bloating a complaint on january

22nd 02014 of this year we issued a notice of violation by building inspection a complaint was filed regarding the installation of an automobile spray booth and they failed at that catheter a building permit on the required inspections to close the complaint we issued that in january 2014 and a second notice of violation on march in 2014 and notice of vision that is with code enforcement we've not had a permit filed to legalize the spray booth so i'm not sure with the owner or attorney wants to do about that i didn't have discussions with them but

there's a lot of the things under appeal i don't see anything but the issues are connected. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> point of clarification on one of your last points you said the permit would have the nine hundred 4 permit would have authorized the spray booth or sprinkler heads. >> the sprinkle system. >> if they want that system to be finalized they'll have to go through the process. >> what we have thousands of expired predicament in city and county of san francisco they come in and we go back to the plans of the permit and we expect the fire department to do

an inspection is that will legalized the sprinkler system it was probably put in but never got a final inspection then move when we had your monitoring inspectors should have been kault caught by fire department the owner said he's gotten contacts from the fire department. >> did you see any documentation any drawings or scrip active language. >> i took the detail report i don't have the documents but it's a typical documentation it will have required plans showing the sprinkler system i saw the plans and there's no mention of a spray booth on the plans.

so i think the spray is the spray booth is did objection but it's to do with the spraying cars and stuff like this near the paint that's not been addressed maybe come up with a permit and show us there was a permit but the photography saw that was presented to me but the gentleman showed a self-contained unit like the spray booth requires a permit not 40 or 50 years could you have been there 20 years my professional opinion >> i'm still having a hard time making a connection to the spray booth it's seems like the spray

booth is going through the process so it's not ripe for our review i don't see the connection. >> i don't know whether the sprinklers were ♪ 94 it could be a spray booth maybe the owner will tell us why the 94 strirjs >> we know we have is another permit for the sprinklers but the permit. >> - so the complaints we've i've heard and read there's been the spray to the extent in it

has accessed operations yet recently complaints of fumes. does your office get called for the types of complaint >> we do get calls does the spray emanate. >> we do get complaints and not on this i believe i looked at the old complaint and didn't see any. the bay area quality air management i won't have that but no one on the spray booth and fumes >> okay. thanks. is there any public comment we'll start our rebuttal. mr. patterson >> i'll try to address the points briefly.

i think the most important issue is this present sprinkling monitoring system you can't install a system to monitor something that's not been installed the other two systems are prerequisite >> in terms of my conversation with the opposing counselor i didn't say we're going immediately where are you going the appeal she said this was being used to permit the spray booth that's shocking at that time, we ranged a meeting and they cancelled the meeting the day before. the litigation issues there's issues associated with this we don't meet to bring up but