they've built it at 42 inches. >> good evening, commissioners chief speaker patrick r&r done and ma'am, can you please sit down it's distracting no our time is up. >> good evening chief building inspector patrick i see the recommendation of the two sets of documents put before you open the overhead they may not be exactly the same but they're very close to what they had before we understand the issue is the roof-deck and just the roof-deck and i believe that roof-deck is compliant and it probably wouldn't have received

the amount of security new it it had of been replaced{n back in 2010. we have put a lot of staff hours into complaints back and forth between the neighbors here and this is a representation of some of the time we've been dealing with the complaints i believe somewhere in the order of 2 hundred hours in staff time in dealing with the complaints. the building was signed off in 1987 or the work was signed off based on a 1986 pirate it was signed off by the chief building inspector excuse me. this if you could zoom in a finally completion of the work

done on the building in 1987 it was signed off by an individual who of you is a building official in the city of berkley and she was very thorough in what she did i don't assume there's much wrong with that. additionally this is some database paperwork that i generated to indicate the deck was signed off in 1988 the existing deck the demolition for the preroofing work we're here because it's being put back in place tonight. due to the staff time we've been putting in i decided in november of last year to write a letter to all the tenants in both

buildings i have that in your brief imexploring them to work together >> thank you for your time. >> anything for mr. sanchez commissioners the matter is submitted. >> oh, i'll start i have plenty to say is about this case i am very convinced that multiple city agencies have looked at this permit and have spent numerous amazes of reservoirs as beginning and planning department, attorneys so i commend them for their declines

and patience the permit has been thoroughly served vested i found no merit to this appeal i've admonished the appellants and anybody that appears about the board not to file frivolous appeals for the purpose of obstructing permits i'll do that tonight because it's a waste of city resources to hear those appeals any regulations for the purpose of delays and i don't want this forum to be used as a tool for people to do that instead of working with their neighbors and there's been plenty of time to happen and it is really very troubling to me

it hadn't happened. that's what i wanted to say about that so i would vote to deny this appeal and is that a motion >> yes. >> so moved. >> one short statement if i might the reason i asked the question about the c s c is because there was so many things brought up in the briefs as what was legal and not legal the fact is the cf c confers a legal status to the existing building then the question of the specific permit as to whether it was in kind it looks like exactly to what their previous i support that the department has correctly read it the in kind replacement. >> so with our motion vice president do you want to state the one the basis of the permit

was vested by all city departments that are replacement to this appeal? >> i would like to second all the points that commissioner hurtado made. >> thank you. >> with respect to the use of this board. >> so we have a motion then from the vice president to deny this appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued and thoroughly vested by all relevant city departments on that monomotion to uphold. >> commissioner fung. commissioner president lazarus. commissioner honda >> thank you. the vote is 4 to zero it permit is upheld open that basis. >> thank you. the last item is item 8 appeal joseph fostering vs. the zoning administrative on

corbett avenue of a veterinarians to construct the second variance the rear yard of the property we'll start with the appellant you have 7 minutes. >> do i need to do that without a presentation and why not do it. >> okay. let's do that. >> mr. foster would like to request a rescheduling of his matter an amended piece. >> a continuance we need to hear the basis for this. >> should i go through my preempted comments or cut to the chase. >> you want to give him a minute to explain why he wants to thank you for the opportunity continue it. >> if you review my brief there are a lot of persistence and technical issues involved basically, we're talking about here is the cart before the

horse a variance before the process that's the essential problem the merits of my arguments are it through 5 are really did not on the building that the dr process results in. taken to the scream that the building next door to me becomes a one story cottage then my arguments it through 4 really kind of metal >> so what are you proposing we continue that to what. >> that's the problem commissioner a building permit has not been filed so we don't have a dr date i don't know if you would be comfortable passing a motions to continue within a reasonable period of time of the dr date. >> i'd like to hear from the. >> department. >> and also from the variance. >> the dr does not require a

building permit. >> that's why i'd like to hear. >> thank you scott sanchez planning staff to the variance application donate not uncommon to submit before the building application base someone wants a level of certainty at that the variance has been granted once that envelope has on approved through the variance process then they, basically submit the building application for greater filing fees and application fees so they submit that and undergo the neighborhood process during that time a discretionary review can be filed given the scope of the project no may or may not discretionary review that having will have to come from a neighbor filing the dr and correct slightly the patent a

variance has to come before a dr hearing because the planning commission it didn't have the ability to approve a building envelope that exceeds what the code allows sometimes, we have the hearing together so those hearings jointly but certainly the commission can't approve something that latter requires arrest variance so i think some issues were raised from the brief about the notification the notice for variance is 3 hundred foot owners but, however, the board hearing at board does the informs it that's typical for the 311 and see you know, i certainly think it's appropriate for the board to go over brief the roles and discretions that everyone has certainly the board can deny or modify the

veterinarians or add conditions that change the variance. that the under the dr the planning commission will have to modify the project so even if the broad support the variance today, if and when it went to a dr the commission can make changes to reduce the envelope of the building they couldn't approve something bigger but something smaller so i wanted to provide that information this is ready to go for hearing tonight each if the board finds this is an appropriate variance they can filing file with the board >> commissioners, if you're interested in entertaining this we should hear from the predicament holders just slow on the issue of continuing. >> you need to come to the

microphone. >> do you understand what's being said so far. >> the permit holder. >> i'm the owner i'm representing the owner i do i would i support what mr. sanchez said i'd like the opportunity 40 in support of my client to answer the questions as to whether the envelope as proposed on building on the opposite side of the lot is approvalable and she'll move forward to spend money. we simply and we covered this when the process came up 89 in a chang suggested we have a full permit site and the election was - and let me stop you a little bit the issue is whether you support or be against a continuance >> i'm against the continuance.

>> then let's wait for a decision. >> based on that i think we should hear it and have some resolutions for the property owner. >> i'll second. >> yep. >> i'm joe foster. my name is joe foster the owner others 17th the property next door to 32 corbett avenue i purchased my property in 2000 and was active in my neighborhood as a leadership leader in the open space on the pink corner i served open the n pa i live temporarily in santa fe i take care of my mother i

consider 17th to be my home and plan to live there after my family issues are done i ask the rear yard - i'm not used to public speaking i want to say i'm not opposed to the construction of a new building on the 17th side of one 32 co-sponsor bit avenue instead my opposition arising from the little by the plan sent to me and the neighbor in early june of this year. the plans i've received from those parties plaza burden of the proposed development at one 32 co-sponsor bit off avenue on me you'll find the arguments in

the brief i've provided ems my objection to this specific this will be heard by the planning commission in the discretionary review process and is offered to you as background. the matter i ask you to consider today whether the decision to grant the new variance was born of a flood process. as discussed in my brief i've asked you to deny the brief that was grant on the merit of arguments it through 5 of my brief in the interest of time i would just ask you to give me any questions i might have or do that on rebuttal >> rebuttal is fine.

>> we'll hear from the other gentleman. >> studio architecture we never as architects we diligently work to chief some sort of you think it's by i'd like to walk you through the process and decision tree we arrived e at the plan on this ocean side this is the existing situation in the cottage this is the building itself itself the chambering about 14 hundred and 50 square feet the planning code requires or suspects from an rh2 zone you may build a 50 percent radish we landmarked that it becomes an edition to a charming and older

this where in the 21st century we felt it was inappropriate to cut off the mid blackwell block and it didn't dovetail with the lot in the mid of this lot the results because of the up flow and because the way the code was written the masking would look like this we'll set back 15 feet because of the residential guideline and build on top of that structure that isn't a building we'll propose by in conference with our planner we choose to go another route with the planning code. and this is to split as you've heard let's see and put the 2 unit on 17th street it fills angle existing opening and

request a variance because if we did a 45 separation between the new buildings that will be 17 feet deep we're asking to do this because effective two, that maintains the open space on the mid block as mandated by the code and leaving loan the 1915 structure essential letting it break out on its own and create a few been in the bake and we're only doing a 2 hundred plus building so our proposal was simply for mapping and he wanted up designing a building in order to make that easier to understand. if our preapplication was 9 dash

december 2013 we met the tenants on the upper floor that was a mistake early on but we mirrored their light well in question and stopping our building and allowing our building to the full 25 separation at this point here we're not using the full section of the wall this is the 25 percent. the massing on 17 street will look this is the existing situation and the masking would look similar we plan open submitting a site plan have if we were approved. 0 the variance and develop the building fallout and builds on the details but this side of the 17th street has a varied set of buildings but we did feel like

it was just not we didn't want to be the architects that suggested this was appropriate in terms of the shadowing we specifically if you see that light well in this shot those windows can now see eureka valley to the south self-we were to go with the straight letter of the code we would be blocking that view but for all at the top units. so the shadow effect by the feel last week it is mitigated for the residential guidelines we've mirrored their light well in terms of the certification this is not an edition the front windows were not able to be

opposed my reading the design guidelines confirms that is how we should respond to the conditions how not to eat away more at the owner's building the fourth agreement a you went the building go is too large other buildings are as one this is an opportunity to do something to the community that benefits the block as a whole by separating the two and not building a lump that i building for eureka valley the 45 percent space will result in a 42 space we mentioned we had a meeting with the eureka valley association on february and we've not had negative response to our requests

>> okay mr. sanchez. >> i have a couple of questions give me the total size of our lot roadway. >> one hundred 22 by three. >> so roughly 4 thousand square feet. >> yep. >> but it looks like like a lot split. there are a number of lots that have been split >> do you know the lot requirement for a split. >> 8 thousand square feet. >> okay. thank you. >> that's it thank you. i'll wait on the other hand, and talk to the department. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning staff. >> i kind of picking up on some of the remarks that the

commissioner had 4 thousand square feet i just lost my notes sorry sorry. bear with me for one minute. sorry i hate to be up here chivalry papers >> that's the first time. >> only one time mr. sanchez. >> i thought it only happened at my age. >> yeah. (laughte (laughter). >> can you bring it. >> okay. so the subject property is 3 thousand 57 square

feet also within a rh2 two the minimum lots of the planning code is specific 25 hundred square feet further reduced to seven hundred and 50 within the feet of a intersection given the mid block is three hundred square feet so a subdivision contemplated with the splitting with the co-sponsor bit will require a variance what they're proposing to meet the density provisions of the code that allows for the second dwelling unit by building a new unit at the end of the property this is noting not only a through lots a series of through lots but through lots of varying depths it is difficult to find a clear pattern but the project sponsors

architect has described there's a pattern in the mid block which is the center of the mid plain clothes in the proposal they have it's the opinion of the department and the more incentive applications nevertheless of the compliance with the remain guidelines the the president has reviewed this and felt the project meets the residential guidelines so this in the prediction that the sponsor gave today is was similar to the variance hearing in june and at the time i felt the argument were per successful that was testify about the impacts of the light well, this is an up slowing down lot so it's higher in the co-sponsor

bit the buildings set higher are south francis scott key to in terms of sunlight that maybe available through the window that's been pointed out out and well perceived by the notch that the sponsor has provided oftentimes the light windshields are mirrored and the building come back together so it's open to the south so that light well, is perceived. i was happy to hear that the appellant actually does in the have opposition to anything here there's some potential proportions i saw they can articulate that but something in a irresponsibility they may want to consider additionally the board fltdz the merit those are arrangements that could be made at a dr hearing and there's

still time for additional discussions even if the board takes action because there's the ability to file the gsr dr and the ability to bring the little permit bag back to the board on appeal there were a couple of things i presenter the through brief but first being in regards to the sequa determination that the board knows the sedetermination is not appealable here but to the board of supervisors. the pointing out in addition to the west side set back also the depth of the building if exceed the depth of the adjacent properties and finally reprehensive to another variance for a property on 17th street a

couple of doors down wanted to clarify there's no action taken on the application i have it here in decision letter was orientated this was my predecessor heard this item he had concerns about the proposal but from what i tell from the notes and speaking with staff not to out right deny the project a decision would have been render if the zoning administrator felt it was inappropriated to are is a building at the rear they were proposing a 4 story this but a two or three story this given the context that is a 3 story building from the elevations it mrendz in nicely and fits in the gap between the two adjacent properties the other building was not comparable it the

adjacent to a shorter structure the zoning administrator only had suggestions to lower the height and even consider further encroachment open the lot to reduce the lot and have it stepped but no decision issued i wanted to highlight those i apologize for my shufrlt in the beginning >> so essentially this is a two unit building. >> yes. and it's important to address how we can the policies and when the appellant raise the issues about the variance what was going through the mind of the zoning administrator in 2008, they were not set to deny the application it had a merger of two units but now how the code has changed we're doing whatever we can to encourage new

housing there's been code changes if you have an illegal unit in the rear yard that has to fit the rear yard requirements unfortunately, this situation is not addressed. >> its unique. >> if there was dwellings at the front and police vehicle back it wouldn't require permits so that's one of the issues it doesn't it needs a variance. >> thank you. thanks. >> there any public comment. >> are you the variance holder. >> okay. >> so i can't speak under public comment but under rebuttal we'll get to you in 3 minutes. >> mr. faifrt 3 minutes of