projects moving forward. >> as an example if we were to amend i know the personnel policy to go from two to one year, as i mentioned, that would be applicable to going guard, so it would be -- i presume -- i mean, you don't need to answer the question, but i'm thinking out loud that that would be a potential beneficial change that could have a beneficial impact on former commissioner ellington, i think. >> yes, i think so. >> okay. >> but that's the state of your policyings that exist at the time then, you know, moving forward that's what we'd implement under. so if you decide to change that policy it certainly would be applicable, but we want to look at that -- >> yeah, yeah. >> because i'm also curious about why we have a two year policy versus one year, which is with the city so would just

be interested to finds out why that was, why that happened, since we're going to approve it, what the reasoning was of the previous commission or whoever proposed that. i also have a question about -- since we're talking about personnel, how are you on hiring? are we fully staffed? i know last time you said your trying to ramp up your staffing. >> we have a good deal of recruitment still underway for project manager positions, compliance positions, really any position that was vacant in the budget we're almost in the process of actively recruiting for all of them. there's a tipping point to stagger them a bit so we are underway to fill all vacant positions.

>> commissioner singh, we are on commissioner questions and matters. do you have any? >> no. i don't have any question or matter. >> next item. >> item 10, closed session. there is no closed session. the next item is 11, adjournment. >> adjournment. 2:43. [laughter] >> welcome to the wednesday, august 20, 2014, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals thank you for your patience we're preceded over by

commissioner president lazarus joined but is commissioner fung and sxhold is absent and your fifth seat is vacant to my left to attorney bryant he'll provide the board with advise i'm cynthia goldstein we're joined by representatives from the departments that have matters before the board and scott sanchez a representing the planning commission and next is the representative for the department of building inspection mr. pacheco consultation the swearing in process. >> the board requests you turn off you'll cell phones. platelets and departments representatives each has 7 mentioned to present their cases

and 3 minutes important rebuttal people affiliated with those parties must conclude their comments in the 7 minutes per to assist the board in the accurate association of minutes the people are not required to submit a card when you come up to the podium. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium there are customer survey forms on the left side of the board if you have questions speak to the staff or call the board office tomorrow morning on mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast go on sfgovtv incapable channel 78 and

dvds are available for purchase. at this point in time we'll conduct our swearing in process if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give our testimony weight please stand and raise your right hand please note that any member of the public may speak without taking the oath. >> do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. >> thank you mr. pacheco. for item one is general public comment this is for anyone who wants to speak is to the board for an item that is not on tonight calendar.

seeing none, item 2 commissioners comments >> i apologize for being late it was a work-related reason. >> any public comment item 3 is the adaptation of minutes are the meeting for the july meeting 2014 and any corrections or deletions. a motion to approve the minutes it submitted >> any public comment on the minutes. seeing none, mr. pacheco call the roll >> on that motion to adapt the july 23rd minutes. >> commissioner fung. commissioner president lazarus. commissioner honda is absent so the vote to 3 to zero >> item 4 is the jurisdiction request that the significant property at 29th street we received a letter that the board

take jurisdiction over the application which was issued by the department of building inspection 2014 the appeal period ended and this jurisdiction request was filed in july the project is is an existing two-story residence for 2 off-street parking parking spaces and we will start with the reflector you have 3 minutes. >> good afternoon. i'm robert i'm representing the two folks a few basically facts they've lived directly west from the project for 10 years at 234

castro street i've placed a map on the orderverhead the home is located less than one hundred and 50 feet from the proposed project they were not given notice because in their not in the same block as the project yet their closer to the project and will be effected by many of the addresses in the neighborhood that received the nose. just to be clear the folks understand their views are not protected that's not something they are seeking tonight it didn't maple they should have not received notice their quality of life will be effected on the open space and which serves as sort of a greenway for the neighborhood so your standards tonight is to

grant a jurisdictional request that the city caused them to be late there an appeal they didn't file an appeal because they self-receive notice. one of the most important thing is that the city's general rule is to give notice to folks that are impacted by a project in order to accomplish the goal the city has established a general rule which is addresses which are in the same accessory accessory those block they did come in cookie cutterer blocks so the rules don't all apply in this case, the city she could have realized the folks residence would be impacted by the project as much or more than

others neighbors that did, in fact, receive notice but balls the folks didn't receive the nose at the didn't weigh in on the nose before the site permit was issued >> you have thirty more seconds. >> therefore they would like an opportunity to do so, now. the project will occupy more of the space that is currently occupied and here's a current photograph of what it looks like from castro street. i have one more second? your time is up >> okay and i have a question. you stated i oils this is jurisdictional request >> yes. and but you mentioned in our comments that our client

is not concerned about the view yet our first line has to do with the view a can you illustrate what is the concern. >> the reason line of sight was mentioned to give a line of site in the neighborhood and the proximity i don't have the proximity to the mid block open space. >> they've seen the project so do you know wasn't their objections might be. >> the set back they believe the set back of the project may not have been done in the fashion they have been set in the mid block open space. >> okay. >> and the gentleman is here if you have questions. >> thank you. yeah. >> it's in my bag i'll get it

for you. >> thank you. thank you >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> good afternoon. members of the board i'm mr. shuman >> speak into the microphone. >> i'm sorry. >> lift it up. >> thanks. >> my first time we're the owns on 29 street we appreciate the opportunity to speak it is your understanding is that the city inadvertently caused us to be late in filing the appeal we've opening engaged with the requester by multiple phone calls and e-mails and meeting at their home take the opportunity

at the end of june my wife and i live in a small condo and this project will provide space for our family we've spent the last year taking care of what the department asked us. one the first one is direct impact if the site of living room this was over the phone as well as in perch that or person they don't want thaib their baby to be impacted and their view is not protected. i feel like prior to this jurisdictional request all the views were not mentioned. i'm putting up two things priority to the board that

shows those views are distant. this shows the view that the requester had a living room window and as you can see all project is between 529 and you can see it here >> i'm sorry can you speak closer to the microphone. >> the doted line shows where our project is approximately the sold red line shows the height at 40 feet if you're looking at this there's hardly any impact to the requesters view the second is we're not in - we believe that the concept applies

to ones own project he it didn't effect the open space if anything it's between castro street and the other street that blocks the open space we believe that it did not meet the standard and were not able to show the city didn't allow them to request the correct time. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you good afternoon scott sanchez planning staff i'll be fairly brief the application underwent the neighborhood notification between march 12 and april 11th of this year this shall be ail

prompts within one hundred and 50 feet from the subject lot f when the subject lot is a corner lot it will not be effected did i angle so the additional requires requirements don't employ this highlights the map of the required notice boundaries i can't confirm that the jurisdiction requester should not have received notification under the section 311. under the properties up to one hundred feet we mailed and placed a poster an 11 by 17

bright orange poster so people could see the poster for thirty days those requirements have a been in effect and relating unchanged since 1996 and this is how we've been applying that additional that's it i'm available for questions. thank you >> any public comment on that item? okay. seeing none commissioners the matter is submitted. >> well mime opinion is that they're not entitled to notice any other question to memo fellow commissioners, if you see other equalities leaning towards granting the hearing request and i don't. i don't. i don't either although i'm sympathetic to a building that is directly across the street

not getting notice didn't seem quite reasonable for our process how it is intend that work >> i agree with mr. sanchez the bright orange notices should be efficient to attract aforementioned. >> move to deny the jurisdiction request. >> okay. if you could cail roll. please mr. pacheco >> we have o another motion from the vice president to deny the jurisdiction request. commissioner fung. commissioner president lazarus. commissioner honda is absent the vote is 3 to zero no appeal should be filed against this permit >> next 5 the property at

broderick street we got a letter requesters asking the board take jurisdiction over the application which is issued by the department of building inspection on april 29, 2014, the appeal ended and this was filed on august 4, 2014, it is a new roof-deck replacing the new wood railings and a collapsing deck. we can hear from the requesters first. you have 3 minutes. >> hello good afternoon. i'm josh representing myself and the other requesters. we're asking for the opportunity for this jurisdiction request be granted an opportunity to appeal this building permit an opportunity we never had.

during the time the appeal was possible the two points we were never notifyed by the developer and the construction started 15 days after the construction we had no way of finding out about this. we never had an opportunity to have our concerns heard. at all. and i'm not exactly sure how but the developer managed to get an over the counter permitting permit with no opportunity to get our concerns heard. our home both of our homes are 50 feet away from the roof-deck there's a clear view into our homes and it is a big concern

for us an eye soar it is right we should have received notification and it would have been appropriate and neighborly thing to do the developers doesn't act in good faith he said he spoke to one of our neighbors and they said they never received any spoken request until construction started. in summary, it is not fair to have an appeal period for a building permit when no one can know about it the developers response he saigd suggested we don't have a right to have our opinions and concerns heard. so for the opportunity to speak

>> okay. we can hear from the permit holder. >> good afternoon. i'm dave i'm the permit holder and the owner of the property. and we the actual have a building permit issued on the project. we also worked with the neighbors including the gentleman to address some of his concerns. let me address the code and second what we did to try to be a good neighbor. first, the code we don't have to give neighbor notification to the entire neighborhood if you look at claefrl on the roof-deck we have to notify the adjacent neighbors and mr. kruger is not an adjacent property. if you can see our property is

14 2w50i broadway restrict and he and the altering complainants are not property owners and the 311 notification process didn't require notification for this type of permit mr. kruger said he had a concern and that was in june 5th i was aware of what was going on so this was a complaint i filed with the department of building inspection r building department we wanted to be a good neighbor i met with mr. kruger's wife walked to her apartment and said, yes we're blocking some of your views. the original building permit has

42 inch radials at the adjacent properties. and those are what mr. kruger was complaining about we spent a lot of time and money redesigning it we had the framed up there were solid walls we took those out and put up glass rails we're going to get a revised building permit. so we spent quite a bit of time and money and addressed mr. kruger's concerns. there's a section of wall that we didn't replace it was a $20,000 wall. we filed permits we worked with the building department and the codes are clear about what notification we have to provide so thank you very much and - yeah. thank you very much

>> thank you. >> anything from the departments yes mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning staff. just briefly that notification pursuant to section 311 is not for the decks in general they don't require notification has this board knows we have many roof detentions brought before this board if they were adding agree staircase to provide a deck that would say an expansion that requires neighborhood notification or the portion of the roof-deck was above the rear yard or set back and this deck is not within a set back so didn't require notification and would confirm that the open

railing or glass railing would be allowable under the code and this would be appeal able to the board but confirming no neighborhood notice is required and there was a deck and non-non-compliance portion of the building in this event is it is only for the adjacent building it would be been the jurisdiction requester that would have gotten a notice for request >> mr. duffy. good afternoon joe duffey. the permit seems to have been applied for adequately and it was applied for the building it says on here to comply with

collapsing deck i didn't see a notice of violation there was a complaint and language about a deck collapsing but our building inspection inspector says that the building was 18 inches brown above grid so it was in march and everything is in order there are 3 other building permits for pouring concrete and rough framing on the other building permits i'm available for questions >> thank you any public comment on that item? seeing none, commissioners the matters yours. >> i think in is similar to our last case commissioner fung has

opinions about roof-decks. >> the zoning administrator was looking at me when he made that comment. but in terms of what need to be brought forth in terms of for jurisdiction purposes, you know, i don't think that threshold has been met. and it does look even though the permit holder was trying to arrive at a compromise by putting windows he may find his permit he appealed >> is there a motion? >> sure i move to deny the jurisdiction request. >> thank you mr. pacheco. >> on that motion from the vice president to deny this jurisdiction request. commissioner fung.

commissioner president lazarus. commissioner honda is absent the vote is 3 to zero this jurisdiction request is denied and no appeal shall be filed against this permit >> we'll move on to item 6 cause vs. the department of building inspection and planning department approval. the property is on alison street protesting the alteration permit for the set back approximately 16 and a half feet from the wall. we'll started with the appellant >> good afternoon board members i'm nick and i representing my mother and also my father who is unable to attend today's proceedings and also is my

brother. basically, we are obtaining to the issuance of the permit for various reasons but one of our main concern is that the permit holder has a propensity to try to circumvent the city's building code. he purchased this property in june of 2012 at the time he purchased the property it was a rental property. the renters moved out of the property on december 2012. when we purchased the property the property what as two bedroom one bathroom property on january 31st of 2014 he submitted plans to the city and on the plans he indicated the property was