lans there is half in the linger this is reduced in size and perhaps a small deck or balcony but this is not for this board to decide. >> thank you for explaining that. >> why not flush out iowa or what we can go ahead down or done i'm willing to go with a set back. >> commissioners. >> i'm not sure maybe we should continue this sometimes we've done that where anybody not being here. >> often that's depending on where the others are we're not quite sure yet. >> how many votes do we need. >> 4 votes to modify the permit

and 3 to continue. >> explain our set back idea i want to be clear on that. >> you you know the - >> the question of scale relates to not just the immediate buildings on each side but a little bit more than that i agree with the zoning administrator that you know from the photos hose showed there's another structure there foster downhill that is approximately 5 stories the way they're calling this is because based on the planning code parking didn't count all right. so the number of floors is measured from the street so in the document you

see this as a 3 story building but it is actually in the rear it is 5 stories physical stories. >> right. >> so - and when i was talking about minimum to maximized the reason the scale is sometimes, it can be reduced which one creates a set back so the top floor of the set back is then not noticed visually as much therefore it scale is reduce more. >> but not a perfect scale. >> yeah. >> i do have a say a couple of things in response to what the public indicated i don't keeper 3 thousand to be magnificent if maybe too regard of a home for

this lot but not a monster home. >> i'll try to flush out if we have enough votes. >> i wish i had a better sense of what that would do or look like. >> i think if we were to do this we'll want to do a preliminary motion of intent and allow them. >> - >> bring it back i don't want to tell them to make is 3 are 5 or 7 feet if we're looking at a set back it's i think bunt on the - >> why not continue. >> sorry

i don't need to go that way. >> we don't have had votes we have 3 for a continuance i want to make sure that both parties have some ideas of where this potentially is going and not leave it - >> without putting words in our mouth you wish to continue and instruct the permit holders to come back next week. >> yes. >> motion. >> make that motion and then all right. i'll make the motion let's see where it goes all right. i'm going to move to continue this director to what date how much time do you think the permit holder will need to prepare an alternative >> three weeks.

>> the 13th of may is a couple of weeks after that the next meeting is june 3rdrd. >> let's see where this goes and finalize the statement okay. >> move to continue this to may 13th with instructions to the permit holder to study where they provide a set back open the top floor rear sent. >> at the rear of the building. >> a quick question on the date will we have full compliment. >> yes. >> okay. so this motion do you want the permit holder to provide the drawings for the top floor or drawings that reflect this yes and do you want to provide any more gowns on to the size of the set back?

no, i think we will allow them to take a shot at it and see whether it is sufficient >> okay. so the motion to continue the appeal to may 13th to allow the permit holder to provide the board with drawings that reflect a set back on the rear of the top floor. >> right. >> and those drawings to be provided no additional briefing or imagine; is that correct. >> yes. >> okay. there's a motion on the floor commissioner president lazarus commissioner vice president honda commissioner wilson okay. so commissioner swig is absent that motion carries with a vote of 4 to . >> week to the wednesday, april 29, 2015 of the san francisco board of appeals we are calling item 8

lay lay versus the department of building inspection with the planning department approval an 20th avenue protesting the issuance on february 2015 to elizabeth o hear of arresting an revert to storage rooms f this is on for hearing tonight we'll start with the appellant the appellants council you have 7 minute. >> good evening, members of the board and staff you've seen me argue this i represent lay lay the appellant in this case we have a situation where after becoming suspicion theory landlord modestly might be wanting to change things in

the building piloted for a block book notice on february 17, 2014, and then found out that the occasion permit had been issued on february 20th 2015, and she, of course, makes the appeal tonight bones the fact the planning commission record did not follow his procedure so she was not innovative of the permit before we had time to look at it and decide if she wanted to apply for conditional use as i pointed out in my belief i've remind you of a case on february 11, 2015, whether there was a hearing on ancillary

issue of an electronic permit on a kansas street addresses in that case the board unanimously granted the appellants appeal the planning department in that case had issued an actual the appellant had gotten a b b n the same day the permit was issued yet you unanimously voted to grant the appeal because the planning department had not followed it's procedure we urge you to vote the same way tonight thanks >> okay. we'll hear if the

permit holder. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus. >> would you pull the mike closer. >> i'm short. >> not our fault. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and commissioners i'm rossi on behalf of the richard and his partner the ground floor unwarranted unit that was previously built without permit and not code compliant the owners elizabeth and richard are new purchasers of the property and didn't rent the unit to micro and not represented it as a legal unit to her i'm advocating for the approval of this demolition permit which is approved an february 20th, 2015, for the following reasons first elizabeth and richard have the right to demolitions an unsafe and urban warden unit in their belief with the pursuant to the

thought a code not only they're right it is upper reasonable to deny them the ability to make safe and legal their own building that possible unfortunate circumstances later on would be voided now and the permit should be approved if it is not the unit will continue to be in violation of city and state codes this is not state requirement but to bring up it to state code count ceiling of each unit will have to be raised to commodity the ground floor unit this can't be corrected and at a reasonable cost and in addition the unit violates the affair safety codes the window are not big enough for a person

to exit and the unit sfwri door is not 20 minutes rated and not a direct closer and lastly one bedroom in the unit has no emergency unit except the door into the bedroom those are a serious sdarng the fire can easily spread a limited way to escape also the unit violates building codes it is in reef only two residential units are loud the unit brings it up to 3 units the letters state that micro was not

give the proper notice, however the city is required to provide that not elizabeth and richard they shouldn't be penalized for the mosaic forgive error any building codes can be corrected at reasonable costs as i've stated the ceiling height and the numerous fire hazards the cost of demolition are not in comparison to what it takes to bring this unit up to code thank you. >> okay mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department regretfully it was issued in error without the b b n notice filed on february 17th of this year the

permit was approved in error the following day and unclear in the record were not updated in the stem but based on in b b n it is showing received and into the records on the 17 the subject property is within the rh2 zoning district that only allows two dwelling units, however, under the code they could attempt to legalize it i'll defer to joyful it maybe out of inclines and how life-threatening it maybe but the permit was issued in error we'll respectfully request the board grant and appeal and deny the variance and the refiling the permit i'll be happy to

answer any questions. >> mr. sanchez the process for noting b b n is now different than the old days we'll rely on one book for maps. >> those are computerized. >> that's correct. >> who shares that information because you don't have a joint system with the building. >> you hope to. >> on the b b n point we have our in house the operational information that is a website available to the public and internal more information on the internal and when the staff look at the map and told to check the b b n and highlighted when there's a b b n it's unclear why

the staff missed that it took someone from the information counter this is not the first time this is an issue before the board. >> is it entered right away. >> having been filed and entered open the same day on february 17th sometimes there may be a lag but showing in our system entered and filed open the same day. >> thank you inspector duffy. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi permit application for the removal of legal unit in the garage and rather than the planning they approved it over the counter and went through building plan check on the 5

floor that all happened between the 18 and 20th of february building the city careers oversees record is a two-story building so i did hear some comments about the legalization if it is a legal 2 unit but a change of occupancy under the building code that is harder from a single-family to two units in a different occupancy and more restrictions ticket and stuff like this so if anybody has questions i'm available. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, mr. crow have you rebuttal if you care to use it i'll make this one short i wanted to note no pend notice of violation on the unit and

reference by the other party to violations is is an opinion about various building codes, etc., etc. but i have nothing foster to say only to grant her the appeal thank you. >> ms. o'hare anything further on rebuttal. >> i'm not sure i heard that last comment correctly as regards to the notice the code violations but in case i heard it correctly i want to note in elizabeth and richards letters to the board of appeals this is noted from the architect that the briefing excludes includes a letter from the architect that spells out separate violations and lastly i'd like to note it is unfortunate that a

administrative error could deny it permit to go forward when elizabeth and richard were not at fault for that error. >> anything further seeing none then. >> the question for mr. duffy just to confirm there's a little bit of the confusion i believe that the appellant indicated that there was no notice of violation officially issued by your department so; is that correct. >> that's why i didn't say that i couldn't find any notice of violation from the building inspection or housing inspection services been an illegal unit so we don't have any enforcement i show have said that earlier. >> you'll have no why way of knowing if there's issues with

the united it possessed a threat to the occupant. >> i think that was done by an architect it is fairly accurate. >> thank you so commissioners the matter is yours. >> i think of that is clear. >> it's clear i'll only make one comment in the appellants brief that was mentioned that in was principallyal an item to be the case. >> agreed. >> motion. >> i think this is appellants due process has not been joined therefore should be allowed the opportunity to experience anything that relates to the notice that she applied and

received before the issuance of the permit motion to grant the appeal and revoke the permit. >> was it because the failure of the block as you stated. >> that's correct. >> okay. on that motion commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda's commissioner wilson and commissioner swig is absent that motion carries 4 to zero thank you, commissioners move on to item 9 paul white versus the department of building inspection the property office of the city administrator on broadway wick street for 2015 to pam whitehead to clarify the

height of the building before and after being revised under the permit application for a previously shown height compiling with the allegations to the restriction of the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 other permit applications starting with the appellants advertiser mr. williams you have 7 minutes. >> thank you. good evening commissioner president lazarus and members of the board steve williams representing appellant that lives contra from the site the neighbors oppose this project for many reasons i've detailed in those in the extensive briefly i apologize for the amount of abbreviations and you've gotten written opposition from the neighbors

this was disabled by a fire one lady brought a rehabilitation project in october 2011 proposed philanthropist the inserting the garage that project was approved within 8 most the present project sponsor took title to the building in envelope there was disagreements the parties entered into a written settlement agreement with plans attached in september of 2012 those plans were brought to the board of appeals and ratified appellants dismissed their appeal the folks breached the plan and to confirm that i want

to expand the building and propose the merger in and the neighbors opposed this it is in compliance with the planning code it explicit comply with the status of the prevail was not submitted within 6 months of the application as under the direct terms and sponsors admit that error but should not be required to follow the staturey requirement they failed to mention they're responsible for that convoluted permit hills and now requesting a waiver of the staturey requirements that waiver ignores in with a project sponsor who has not followed the

law let's put this in context one month after the application was filed dbi issued it's first notice of violation and stopped the work at the site the work was done without permit and beyond the scope of the proprieties issued on may 22nd and a question of the height of the building because the building had been listed in february of 2013 that was also put in inspection context the project sponsor submitted an appeal i attached that as exhibit 7 the martha letter from real estate not asking for a second abate of the apple but a third bite of open the project sponsor spent most of the summer with the mess created by the permit when asked

for a second appraisal they didn't comply with the notice that was supposed to be required the materials were supposed to be submitted as exhibit 8 to the belief and also for a density survey map not produced the new deadline was not met more the materials material see if the project sponsor was going to get a wave if the was to be granting it not retrofits the real issues the neighborhood 80 want to address is not addressed in in any way, shape, or form doesn't this comply with the policies for remove a loss of housing stock by morgue as outlined in

my briefs on pages 11 and telephone it is changed in the past two years if you look at exhibit 6 that's the old application that was submitted by this project sponsor more than too years ago the new application was submitted by another neighbor as exhibit c to timothy and the policies have completely changed since april 2013, the mayor has issued executive orders and please remember there was a rent control tenant living in the lower unit at the time of the fire and rent control tenants occupied this building continuously there was a vufbt of a mandatory discretionary review but that's not true plans

was contemplating the merger 3 months after this is an e-mail to one of the neighbor if i can have the lighten i'll decide this in are a year not an our that was decided and two planning commissioners vote against the project based on the loss of housing by merger because of their strong feels of what is going on in the city with the forgot crisis and the loss of this housing but no party submitted no testimony given and that application was still being considered the morgue application before the where had does not comply in order to submit that the board needs to make sure the current

provisions are met this can only approve within it also removed affordable housing and the replacement housing is less forcible and the removal will take it out of compliance with the zoning rh2 with compliance the prevailing density on the block face ever other building has been since the 18 hundred we're you're going you to send this back to make sure that complies with was it asked for now, everything changed on the mergers. >> thank you thank you. we'll hear from the 3rr8dz holder. >> i'm hereon behalf beef of the

folks the issue before you what does section 317 on 2014 it is not the date of the application that matters the date of the approval and effective on september 18th rather 2014 it was approved with regards to what mr. sanchez put in his e-mail he was refer to the consolidated permit i've added documentation in my submittal i apologize. i said that in front of you we remember in front of you in january with regard to the pending issue that is in front of you with the overarching concept the issue what does this article