>> welcome to the november 5, 2014, meeting of san francisco board of appeals the pooerd officer is commissioner president lazarus and she's joined by commissioner fung and commissioner honda our vice president r and commissioner bobbie wilson are here with absence if the rotate is if the commissioners vote make a difference in the outcome the board can carry the case over to my right is an attorney and at

the controls ask victor the boards legal assistant and boards that have cases scott sanchez represents the planning department and planning commission and senior building inspector joseph is here mr. pacheco if you would please go over the board guidelines and conduct the swearing in board requests you turn off outline electronic and boards rules appellants and permit hollers and representatives have 7 minutes to present their cases and 3 minutes for rebuttals people affiliated must include their minutes within the time and parties not affiliated with the parties have up to 3 minutes and to assist the board in the

preparation of minutes members of the public are asked to the required to submit a speaker cards e.r. business card when you come up to the podium shakespeare's and pens are available it on the left-hand side of the podium the board windshield wipers our comments there are customer satisfaction forms ton the left side of the podium if you have question, please speak is to the board staff or wall the cod office it's located at 1650 mission street between debuts and van ness this is abbreviate live on sfgovtv cable channel 78 and cds are available for purchase thank you for your attention at this point we'll conduct our swearing in process if i tend to

testimony please stand and returned and say i do after affirmed or swearing in members of the public may testify without giving this you 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 mr. pacheco commissioner president lazarus commissioners there's one houses keeping item appeal 14 dash 514 regarding a letter of demonstration on montgomery street would like the board to consider his request to have the matter rescheduled we can give each party to present tare feelings and the board can decide so from the appellant

first mr. scott. >> one or two minutes. >> thank you, commissioners i'm paul scott the owner of julius castle attempting to bring that back to life of many years of being closed i won't get into the substance of the appeal the neighborhood has concerned relative to our getting the rankle i restaurant opened and in an effort to address the concerns in an ample way and find solutions it makes sense to ask this hearing to be continued let's ask for it to be continued and if that will give us a chance to talk with the neighborhoods and work stuff out. >> thank you. we'll hear from mr. sanchez. >> thank you explicit good

evening commissioner president lazarus scott sanchez planning department i've decided this the department didn't oppose the request, however, we'll note it's been largely based on his desire to discuss the matter further with the neighborhood don't believe it will help with the facts of the letter of determination that decision i don't see it changing in the future and the question he has about earning neighborhood support is helpful for him through the conditional use process that is outlined in the letters of determination how the restaurant use could be restored and obviously e obviously the full discussion of the board to continue this matter we know there are members of the public that expressed concerns and have

different opinion on whether or not this matter should be continued. >> we need to take public comment is there anyone who wishes t speak on whether or not this matter should be continued please step forward. >> one minute. >> good afternoon. i'm patricia the tiff above the castle i'm not opposed to mr. scott opening a restaurant per say i completely endorse the administration use of the process as the administrators suggested. >> don't you have concerns about that matter not being

before the board tonight and i beg our partner i miss harder. >> anyone else want to speak on whether or not this matter should be rescheduled please step forward. >> yes. i'm jordan a resident on montgomery approximate to julius castle i'll echo by mr. sanchez the opinions of the neighborhood should be gathered in the proceeding rather than ad hoc while this proceeding is undergoing i don't understand what you seek to get done in process. >> any other public comment okay. seeing none commissioners it's up to you to make a motion to reschedule this or not.

>> i think we're two commissioners light those two commissioners will have input regarding this case to be heard i don't have a problem having it continued. >> i'm prepared to hear it tonight. >> well, i think i'm going to concur with commissioner honda i'll tend to agree the reason for the continuance ultimately may not have a bearing i have no objection but i'll say it's landlord/tenant. >> do we have a date in mind. >> it will have to be in january, the 14th is feasible or the 21st. >> either of those data problem with the appellant or - >> the 14th or 21st of january

are the dates you must speak into the microphone. >> january 14th will be fine thank you and thank you commissioners. >> you want to move. >> it's not decided yet we need to have a vote and revote in order for that to happen and i'll make the motion to continue it to january 14th and okay mr. pacheco. >> we have a motion then from commissioner honda to reschedule this matters until january 14, 2015, on that motion to reschedule 3 votes needed commissioner fung vice president is absent commissioner president lazarus. >> and commissioner wilson is absent the vote is 3 to zero the matter is rescheduled until

january 14th r68 and commissioner honda's there's no scheduling of a briefing that's closed. >> we have enough material. >> so the matter is rescheduled returning to our regular calendar anyone wishing to speak on items not on tonight calendar general public comment. >> item 2 is commissioners questions or comments. >> anything we have to congratulate the san francisco giants and to the (clapping.) also like to congratulate some friends of mine david chiu and supervisor kim on their election relatives yesterday's he evening as well. >> any other commissioners questions or comments any public comment on this item seeing none, the next item is the

boards consideration of the meeting minutes for october 15, 2014. >> ask there a motion to adapt the minutes as submitted. >> so moved. >> any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, mr. pacheco if you could call the roll please. on that motion to adapt the october 1b, 2014 minutes >> commissioner fung vice president is absent commissioner president lazarus and scompllz is absent thank you the vote is 3 to zero those minutes are adapted. >> item 4 is a jurisdiction request for the subject property on randell street we received a letter from two requesters asking the board taking jurisdiction over the case which was issued by the department of building inspection on april 1st

had 20th century and it ended this jurisdiction request was filed on december 14th for the project for a raising the roof and a remold of miscellaneous improvements for the rear deck the permit holder we'll hear from the requesters first you have 3 minutes to present our case. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and board members i'm john, i live on randell street which is the project adjacent to the property sites at the west in a night shell those are the reasons to grant a jurisdiction request i'm

sorry, i can't find my glasses oh, here they are i do that all the time it's okay. >> in a nutshell those are the reasons to please grant a jurisdiction request and new information about a recent survey the blockage of light didn't become sensitive and past the deadline to file for dr this wall is to our west a negative effect on average lights on the house and deck number 2 the meetings with the architect an o on august 2013 and 2014 that was misrepresented the architect assured us the wall would be 3 feet lower and 3 the notification drawings which doesn't go accurately depict the scope the wall and had the

planner mr. smith in 2009 and the project on 157 randell was not able to describe the set backs in the two properties with while the code has not changed because of the departments failure to hold both projects to the same standards we missed our opportunity to file for discretionary review we reasonably building both projects would be subject to the same planning rolls along with the fact the neighbor mpdz want facts with the drawings that also, we missed our opportunity for discretionary review other compelling reason it did not stop the encroachment within tour properties we've ask asked the neighbor to provide a wait progressively plan it didn't

encroach the project manager is trying to back us into the corner and please see exhibit 3 unfortunately, the wall is erected this encroachment is against the law if we were notified of the pending encroachment we won't have agreed it's points out i my understanding that the law supercedes the permit this should be corrected and finally, there's number 6 the wall itself encroaches into the property see exhibit 6 in october 2014 the survey shows the wall waslogically built into our property we didn't agree with a encroachment agreement this

can't be left unaddressed the new encroachment is against the law thank you for your consideration. >> your time is up. >> thank you sir question. >> yes. >> you referenced be exhibit 6 that was not included in the package that's what upper showing there. >> that's all right. i read it. >> so it's the summary by the state saying the property encroaches approximately 2 inches. >> thank you. >> okay. we'll hear from the permit holder now.

>> good evening commissioner president lazarus and commissioners my name is nadia mr. gladstone with with us my hooing obtained a permit to build on our property we were starting our family and it's the only place our kids cail home this is the second jurisdiction that was filed they requested twenty-four hours before the hearing and after we filled the brief according to the boards rules the jurisdiction was shown by the requester that the city intentionally or inadvertently caused us to be late in filing the appeal and they claim the city mislead them because it was the same set backs and our set backs should be as large as

them, however, they're based on circumstances of the property as explained no our brief further the neighbors were very involved in the process and were well aware of the scope it was attached to the notification clearly showed the set backs there's no changes to the set backs since the time of notification we along with the architect and the planning department had many conversations explaining the project we also made changes to the project addressing their concerns they choose not to file a discretionary review we are now 6 months into the construction and have complete the exterior work the planning department has looked at the work and the height is according to the plan and the height lines up with the walling wall now to grant a new hearing more

recently our neighborhood obtained a survey not saying the building cross over the lot line which is a typical condition the encroachment is between homeowners and not the city the weather progressively is not justifying the request the project can be constructed to meet all the building code requirement from our property alone between the two buildings is above and beyond the requirement we've proposed different designs and offered to pay for the work the neighbor rejected our offices we request the board deny the request. >> that is 7 seconds left mr. flad stone our surveyor wrote a letter saying their survey is

not measured correctly that's not the issue it is not a battle of surveys we don't want it to be if you hear this at another time and surveys your time is up mr. gladstone. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you. good evening scott sanchez planning department so the question before you is a jurisdiction request in whether or not the city record in doing anything related to the permit that precluded the appellant or jurisdiction requester to file during the project that underwent the notification under section 311 there were no discretionary review requests 9 and it was not filed during the day and after construction of

the building that the neighborhood resulted in the request before you i reviewed the plans and spoke with the folks that handled the error and it was not - i'm understanding the project is being built according to the plans for the neighborhood notification i discussed that with the staff planner and he said there were no issues with the project as proposed currently i'm available for any questions the board has. >> mr. sanchez was this a site or building permit. >> looks like it was maybe a building permit it was a site permit. >> so our planner reviewed the final permits set against the 311 notice. >> the plans under the site permit and even though

architecture addenda would have been reviewed which reflects the 311 plan we approved the side drawings they should be the same and reviewing the architecture awe depend. >> that which is reviewed too and it didn't indicate anything otherwise. >> okay. thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> good evening joe duffey beginning so the subject of the leading permit for randell street was approved on march it 122014 based on april 12th the permit went through the dpw and planning as you've heard the

site permit was issued in 20182014 there was addendum issues issued on june it doesn't say it was structural or mechanical but the one was an addendum and there's a his activity complaints one active complaints i've spoken to the senior building inspector the neighbors have submitted a survey to addicting we give the other side an opinion to get their survey and sometimes those end up with with a monitor we're not sure where that is going to go but we're talking about a

half an inch it's a civil dispute we stop work at a certain area if it's egresses if it's a problem we've had that in the past and several actually in the zero lot lines and with the buildings when someone gets an additional project permit they could end up a half-inch over we encourage the neighbors to get together and try to resolve that on the water printing issue that hadn't got a lot to do with dbi each side is responsible, however, in san francisco with the lot lines you see flashing between building whether it's copper flashing it's not a bad thing to do we stay out of it we let the neighbors get together from a roofing contractor or architect and it stops the water

councilmember going down between the buildings if there's an encroachment i would be surprised in tars a water daily on the plan the project started and the district inspector has been there no august which tells me the foundation he's been there for shear wall i don't think we've talked about the roof frame and a complaint filed in abe ugly to hide that was received on august 13th and abide that on august 19th and the building was according to the senior building inspector so i don't think i've missed anything if you have questions

i'll be happy to answer them. >> so when the building comes out to a half an inch when it does the city is there a point the city gets 0 involved with the dbi. >> it goes through a civil progress i've dealt with those they're not nice we've probably to stop a project for that is cruel in my opinion i've also thought it but their existing building was in a position and they built up with the plumbing matter and half an inch over the property line that's unintentional it's a good thing to get a scar but what i'm haermg i say a letter woman into the e-mail on randell their

disputing those other people so we let i mean we're not surveys we take what we licenses and the information if the other survey comes in and it is disputed their go in front of a judge in the meantime we could stop of the fork for one wall i remember 1 on elizabeth street we didn't let them cover the wall by they were able to get the rest of the project done not on that wall but - >> thank you is there public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioner the matter is submitted >> commissioners i'm not prepared to take jurisdiction on this particular case. >> i would concur. >> move to deny the

jurisdiction request on the basis that i do not see the city having participated or encouraged anything that was incorrect. >> thank you mr. pacheco. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to deny this jurisdiction request on that motion to deny vice president is absent commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson a absent the vote is 3 to zero the jurisdiction is denied and no appeal shall be filed against this permit. >> thank you next item is item 57 for the appeal vs. the department of building inspection properties at 246 kingsley street for a penalty on august 25th for construction without a permit we'll hear from

the permittee mrs. lynn in a. >> good afternoon, commissioners i purposed this property in 2007 on august 8, 2014, i received a notice of a violation on the property i went to the planning department to find out what did violation was they said there was concrete in the front done without a permit again it was prior to my owning the property you have a copy of that violation so i went to get a permit on august 27th and they told me there was another violation a shed in the back a little cottage a room so i said what did he do they said remove them and get a permit i got the permit the lady told me i had to pay 9 times the fee

because the work was without a permit i didn't own the property at that time, she said do the work and go appeal this is why i'm here all that work was done prior to my owning the property i have the notice sent out in 2003 and i have a copy of 2347 when the notice came in i got it signed off and take care of it i'm asking for the credit for the 9 times fee i had to pay thank you thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners on the permit applic