on that it would have been required i did is definitely a requirement for the deck that goes to the property line not required at the 36 next to the 26 thirty webster it's more than thirty feet away from the property line but the other questions how this deck cot connected from been a being a balcony done by the previous owner certainly but it certainly would if we were dealing with this as a complaint in dbi we would write something if someone made a complaint at last plans showed a balcony and deck we'll have to write it you will uh-huh up we would say it got approved

in error that's no plans approved that i itself city or dbi or planning i'll let mr. t talk about the requirements the history of the structure is changing they're doing away with the angle glass skylight and their squaring that over so the deck as well but i'll available for any questions. >> mr. duffy the 2006 drawings that you referenced does it show the depth of the balcony. >> can i put them on the overhead?

>> let's see there we go. >> so it doesn't show the depth of the blatantly such as a it shows their coming out from a door and see the separation between the balcony and the new deck on the other side. >> the variance. >> the variance give us the size of it but not on the plans. >> the photo didn't look like the slide. >> we see a lot of that people change things people decides some saturday do a project and we don't get a complaint we don't know but if we got a complaint we'd looked at that i have a exterior elevation you

see the balcony of this is definitely a separation that to my knowledge is the last legal set of drawings you don't know you don't know i don't think there's anything else if you're coming in that that, yes you've got a existing condition but dbi will recognize that as the last configuration off the rear yard. >> were there two novas. >> that's a good question so there was an earlier permit issued in august that was only for a limited scope of work so someone complaints and said hey they're going outside the scope of the permit that's a complaint

dry rot is hard you hope it's not bad obviously you should come down and get app an architect you're not doing a little bit of dry rot but demolishing our doing a lot of demolition i don't know if the structure gets completely demolished i'm not sure i wasn't able to contact the permit holder but i saw the photographs it was definitely demolished down to the - i believe planning will have the requirement for that hopefully api i've explained that. >> thank you

commissioners corey t from staffer i think you did a good job of describing one of the issues p which is as mentioned 2006 variance grant for this pop out this rear extension is projects into the rear yard that is the requirement for the variance those plans as mr. duffy showed matched what was approved in the variance one story pop out and the do everything we can above and separate small balcony to the south that's one issue that is clearly was not the case when at the filled the permit but some point the balcony merged with the deck and made into one deck and therefore increased in size and out of the scope it was the

stand structure the other was the replacement versus the repair just to be clear on that there's lots of buildings and decks and stairs in the city it actually falls into the rear yard they wear out they need to be maintained and sometime replaced and generally if you're doing repaired there's 50 persons calculation more than 50 percent of the material is being replaced if your repairing a structure if it's to the conforming it is allowed to sty if you it rove a structure to replace it in kind in a

non-conforming manner within the rear yard we so to review it as if it's brand new you have to go through the process again based on the information it's clear at some point mr. duffy said we don't know if it was simply done after the fact clearly the rear deck and plague was expanded to be one larger technical at some point that requires a new variance and a new building permit and additionally slightly more minor but the pop out was approved at american people angle of part of the professional to move the deck over that portion of pop out is an enlargement after a inner

conforming structure needs a variance there is a surveillance of technically needs a new building permit and variance if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> mr. ti thought i read somewhere the extent it went into the rear yard was 2 feet something or is that incorrect. >> i have the variance. >> you thought it wasn't a variance. >> the variance could explain i can get it. >> why don't you take a look at that. >> i have a question too but i'll wait

in response to your question as to how far the required rear yard the variance decision would have noted a hundred foot lot you can't go into the last 25 feet you need a minimum of 25 foot rear yard and the proposed addition went into the balcony was to extend basically 6 inches into the rear yard. >> okay and she made reference to an e-mail about an e-mail or letter i didn't catch the drift. >> it's not uncommon before an pillow case comes before the hearing there's back and forth communication brown the parties i think that e-mail is based on the information he received at

that time what i said would be true which is it is an combaeshth and replacement and those are issues combined which trigger a new permit and variance. >> okay. we'll took public comment how many people are prepared to speak about this okay step forward thank you can you speak into the microphone. >> thank you. good evening commissioner president lazarus and commissioners my name is david perry i'm a real estate broker with the maguire releasing and been acquainted with the building since 1988 when i bought it with a partner

it is two condominiums i live below so i'll be brief it could be said i'm for effected i prepared a few package brief in this appeal and i'll give you a copy of that i'm going to display that is a photograph from the last system that shows the existing deck when the prior owner bought that and so as you can see the deck at that time, expands across both bedrooms and both bedrooms had a door you could walk out into two rooms and come out into the float roof this is prior to the house being built a gap next door this next shows the condominium

map from 1989 when we had before the conversion you see the dimensions of prior deck and i can read those off if you wish this is a photograph from the last listing when the harden beggars bought the property i didn't represent them on that purchase i have to vesting interest but you can see what is important this post here is the same post i've looked it from top down is a four 4 post it is clear when this extension the pop out was built they used the same deck as the same post to

support the exterior of the deck this is a current condominium that change was done after the extension was built so i've highlighted the old deck so you you can see the new extension didn't go out further but i think this is a - this appeal should be rejected and it should be able to repair analytical what they've discovered thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment seeing none we'll take rebuttal starting with the lady 3 minutes. >> so we from our very first

e-mail to the permit holders we intended to be good neighbors and not cause them harm or trouble, in fact that's why we contacted them the side balcony was ripped out we want to share our living of the experience and the deck being built illegal we did that at that time it was nothing for them to lose we only wanted them to do research and get the building back into code just a brief note about their condo owner i've been in touch with him and have an e-mail he said he was unhappy with the extension that radish extension but worked it out with the prior owner to get like a benefit from that the prior owner did a bunch

of earth retrofitting kind of work to convince the gentleman i want to say that i think that the planning department has spoken and the building inspection has spoken a lot of things wrong with the permit particularly it's outside the envelope it is two ways it is not the expanded deck at roofline is out into the planted part permit holders were not transparent and after step of the way we tried to tell them we were concerned about their permits were exceeding scope and we very repoint out they've

never fully disclosed the work and if the permit holders tried to understand their terms of variance they would have seen it violates the permit we want a new permit issued when the plans conform with the code thank you. >> mr. cripple. >> how does that firewall effect our view. >> the one on the opposite side. >> from the other property line and well, they showed us the wall between our property actually, it's not a firewall and required by 3 owners they built that wall at that height but to answer our question we sat on the deck we see out over the cut out part of the wall and

see their wall instead of green trees up on our master bedroom we say a tiny view of the bay a view the bay a green and giant wall if it is up to code we're entirely okay with that. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> thank you frank again hopefully, the record is now clear from mr. perez comments there never was a separate deck small deck as they entire certainly when we purchased the

property the 3 r report from the building inspection indicated the patterson edition was properly built we had inform reason to think audits what we are repairing and rebuilding was approved if 23407 as the patterson son addition as we know that now the she - mrs. cripple said this small deck was demolished it has not been demolished we tried to point out part of the decking was removed from the die rot. >> and that exists and it is the shape and size it was in the drawing and please a perry

showed it before the cripples bought their property nothing has changed and i don't see how it can be considered a variance issue if it was never built that way it was in the plans it if exist before the plans and not built no longer or in accordance with the plans the balcony was never there i guess a couple of other comments they argue our proposed work is not fully permitted that was approved by the building inspection and the planning department also certainly the dbi inspectors will assure that both to us and he cripples the work is in compliance with the building code a comment they

made previously now there never was an existing stairway to the ground never anything we panned pa planned to do i'm not sure where that came from yes, we were issued an n o v and in behind site clearly the work was getting ahead was it was dry rot investigation was getting ahead of what was expressing said in the permit but it was being addressed thank you and we request the appeal be denied and the permit upheld. >> mr. duffy anything further.

>> commissioners joe duffey dbi again i don't have too much to add one thing if this hadn't been appealed and we dealt with the complaints from the lady we in all likelihood this permit would have been suspended we would have said hey your plans are not showing you properly what our doing i which is looking at the plans there's no existing sections to show where the angle window is not scared off this triggers something i imagine that is something even though it's small they'd consider is additional square feet so i think we'd stop them

and say hey, get a proper set of plans and employ for your permit you have to go drove the process that would be fair to say looking at that is how we would probably deal with that we can do that good work of mr. larkin on those types of cases the stair a way way confusing it was a violation, however, the plans don't should a stairway there was stairway that was fine but it was on a notice of violation i noticed that i was confused a little bit about that. >> good evening corey t for planning a couple of quick notes and we didn't point out this out before but prior to the under

oath variance an existing shallower deck but widower the proposal in the variance was to demolish it deck through the ground floor but no deck on the south side with the conditions the variance the plans were approved with about consistent with the plans with the variance you can't simply choose after the variance not to demolish a portion of the 0 structure that was non-conforming and be it that by itself will trigger a new variance that will not be consistent or approved by the variance even though they didn't build the small balcony it was -

the other thing i want to be clear that our position on o this project is in 0 no way a judgment on the current owners everything with the prior owner it appears that you know whatever work that was done or not done in violation of the variance and the issued building permits before they bought the prompt and the work that was done was not done well, the issue of them going progressively from a repair to 0 proorment situation probably was a dry rot situation that wouldn't go away unfortunately you know bans the facts we have the project will require a new permit and variance i'm

available for that other questions. >> what action will you take then. >> well, what we recommend here is the current permit is not adequate the permit that is before you should be denied and they need to file a new variance and permit the exact scope of the variance depended on what the project sponsor wants to move forward it if they want to do a project to the scope of what is proposed on the permit they need to file a new variance request and have a new permit. >> they're not pressured on timing come back with another permit. >> if the board denies it. >> no, it will be changed. >> or they have a choice of

conforming to the original variance which is entirely cyst situation but requires a new permit. >> right either way at this point, because of the repair project has essentially gone to a basement project of they build back what was the same variance they trigger the variance by replacing it technically it is required. >> the variance and new permit application in my opinion. >> i think see. >> i believe the building inspection believes that also. >> so okay commissioners the matter is submitted. >> action and motion i think it's clear. >> unfortunately, the permit holders argument that so it was signed off but signed off based

on the documents it didn't conform to the variance give him a change of scope that is allowed the condo map substantially does not necessarily provide any further entitlement beyond what is the fact it was filed for that the representation itself so i think we have no choice but to revoke the permit. >> okay. you want to move. >> do i have a suggestion? commissioners, i would agree but is there a plan for the new permit and we'll add to it he needs to be able to close that off if in some manner >> yes. >> the one year bar in the

status didn't prohibit someone from getting a new permits the reason for the permit is to correct. >> that would not bar them from being able to apply within the one year. >> what about protecting them against the manual storm coming tonight. >> it probably we work closely with the board of appeals certainly with the cynthia 2k3w08d at the scene if someone needs to bmi up their knowledge we allow them to temporarily waterproof it. >> i want to make it clear can i unusually it's a day or two to close it up. >> but it needs to be in conjunction with our office. >> we need to meet with the

contractor and clearly state what that entiles not finishing the project. >> misunderstood. >> so is that a motion commissioners and is the basis that the existing 0 permit doesn't conform. >> mr. pacheco call the roll please. the motion from commissioner fung to deny this permit with the finding that this permit didn't conform to the existing variance. >> that's right. >> on that motion to deny this permit commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda is absent commissioner wilson thank you vote 3 to zero given the boards vacancy this permit a

rerecognized with that finding there's no more business commissioner president lazarus. >> we're adjourned >> good afternoon. welcome to our san francisco board of supervisors meeting of december 16, 2014. madam clerk, please call the roll. >> supervisor avalos. avalos present. supervisor breed. >> here. >> breed