it the right way, and the business about the garage, the fwraj got hit by a car, that hold down there has got ining to do with the siding, it has a deck above it and that was never properly prepared and that was years ago and you can't put the two things together because they're two separate incidents. i own the property next door, i'm going to build another building next to it so it's going to be covered up eventually anyway, but i don't think it's going to solve the problem. i think you're going say, alright, you put the cheap siding on and it will do it and it won't do it it's not going work, if i'm wrong i'm wrong but i'm not. but then what? i mean, they need to take the sheet rock off and fix that anyway, you should take it off, take a look, see what's happened don't guess don't hope that we don't have to ever

paint again solution is the one that you want, this is not the one you want, what you want is to cure the situation, the way you do that is from the inside, you have to get rid of the sheet rock anyway, it has to go. when you do that, you'll see where the problem is and you can deal with them then, you can deal with them with the best way possible the cheapest way possible. that's my point. >> thank you. >> rebuttal from the permit holders? >> hi my name's gladia, i just wanted to point out the fact that we don't think that this leak is only due to that space wean the two buildings. the plywood siding that we have on the wall that's 20 years old, and you can see on this photo is clearly end of life.

we need a wall that protects us from the elements first of all. secondly the trough, i refer to it as many feet back into our backyard 42 feet into our backyard away from our house and that 4 inch wide ditch between the two buildings is very, very deep. there's not standing water in that ditch absolutely not and the carpeting that's getting wet is five feet above that ditch so it's not an issue of a paom of water down below leaking up to our bedroom up above that's not happening and the other issue i want to make clear there is that section where the two buildings are side by side. we're seeing leaks up to at least 23 feet forward of that building so very far away from these two buildings are side by side, we're seeing it all the

way through our bedroom and to our bathroom and into our den, so very far away from that area. >> and to address carl's point i mean, we have a modern vinyl insulated product, it's different from the vinyl siding products years ago, and i showed properties and he said that's a discontinued product that [inaudible] used to make which is not representative of what he installs today what we have today is actually, you know, much more rigid there's inlacing here, it's a more wood-like strublgbacker structural appearance. it's a green product, i don't believe it's going to rattle in the wind, it will be a better solution to the wall leak and our goal is to fix the water leak from the outside and

prevent mold from happening, during the last storm in december we smelled mold strongly for tweaks, it's persisted if our unit, we tried blowing it and drying it out and it didn't stop until the rain went away. >> are you folks finished? >> yes. >> have you ever considered hiring a water intrusion expert? >> we did. >> who did you hire? >> i don't the have his name on hand? >> mcguinness or one of those firms? >> i don't have his name, it was right after we put in that request for the insurance company to cover the leak intrusion, it was right after that we had someone come in who was a leak finding expert. >> what did they say? >> they said we need today repair the wall. >> okay. >> i have a question as well, have you opened up any of the spaces, any of the -- have you opened any exploratory holes in

the interior property? >> no we haven't, but that leak finding expert who came in said he thought -- he was of the opinion that we were going to find so many areas that were letting in water we would end up opening our entire wall. >> i'm sorry you can't speak for him, i do agree slightly to some point with your neighbor in that if you put a new wall over existing damaged areas, you're still going to have an issue. >> right i mean, the thing right now, there is no documented mold. we haven't documented there's mold there. there was for the first time that smell after the last storm and our purpose is to stop that from ever happening again stop any further damage from occurring and then we will investigate that of course. if there is some documentation of mold, then --

>> okay. >> okay, thank you, is there anything further from mr. duffy? go ahead. >> commissioners, just to add on the mold, that's a very serious concern. i think the owner should take up seriously on make ago mold report done on the building. it's putting the [inaudible] but if you have mold in a wall, it's my experience it's not good, we all know that, there's health things for kids, i've seen some effects of that and it's not good, so i would -- and just tagging on to what commissioner fung said, i do think that a proper report would be good from a -- you know, some expert on the leak, put thing siding on, you can put the siding on, we don't have a problem with that, but we have always said, the

building envelope is where you see the building from, the siding is really an -- you want to be sealing that in from -- you want to be checking that when what you're putting the siding on is properly sealed as well and maybe there's some leaks with the flashing but i don't think there's anything wrong to put ton siding but i would encourage them to -- i haven't heard them sealing the wall or looking for more the source of the leak, as you know, commissioner fung that water could be weaning in from the roof, from flashing water could still get in there. are we going to stop them -- i think the siding's going to help, i think maybe they need to do a little bit more to make sure this isn't a waste of money. just o -- a thought. >> 35 thousand to rip out all the plywood. >> leaks are tox fiing, there could be a leak coming from the

other side of that building trick ling down. >> what failed is probably the building paper behind it. >> that's what i'm getting at now and it concerns me, the inside, getting some readings on the mold levels, if that was my house that's what i would do. >> i would rip it all out. >> are you done? >> i'm done. >> so the initiative to put on the siding is legal? >> yes. >> the issue really is a homeowner's dispute. the hoa in their wisdom have chosen this is the direction they want to go. it's a perfectly legal direction to go and maybe the wrong direction but we all make choices.

and it's a democracy and they have a vote and they chose to do it this legal way and maybe they're doing it wrong, but in fact putting up vinyl is not illegal, it's not impacting the neighborhood, it's not doing anything wrong according to anything it just may be according to some people a bad choice and maybe they should do something else before they do it but in fact it's okay to do? >> yes, exactly, that's well said, that's what i got up to say, i can't put it any better myself, yes. thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> would you like to make a motion? >> i'm in agreement with that position. >> so, deny the appeal based on the fact that there is nothing wrong with the project, nothing illegal, it doesn't do harm, it doesn't break any laws, it

doesn't -- you know, it's the best choice and best advice of the homeowner's association at the site. >> you consider a friendly amendment, deny the appeal that the permit was properly issued. >> thank you, deny the appeal as the permit was properly issued. >> make it easy for victor. >> thanks, sorry victor, i know it's 9:30 at night. >> there's a motion on the floor from commissioner swig with that amendment to uphold the permit ton basis that it was properly issued. on that motion commissioner fung? >> aye. >> president lazarus? >> aye. >> vice-president honda? >> aye. >> and commissioner wilson? >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 5-0, this permit is upheld on that basis. >> thank you. >> we'll move ton item 10 appeal number 10-053, mare rin

amine versus the department of building inspection, the project is on 300 wawona street, protesting the issuance on march 11, 2015 to kim clash of an alteration permit, add 2nd story master bedroom and bath, remodel and expand kitchen, connect basement with internal stair finish and expand basement you have 7 minutes. whenever you're ready.

>> good evening, commissioners. i'm marilyn amini ask i'm here to appeal the permit that was issued, actually the primary issue is that this is a horizontal addition into a rear yard that is not compliant in

terms of the required minimum area and i'll put this on overhead i'm not sure, how do i do this, have i -- victor? the addition would be put in the rear right here, right in this area, and i have on this board and i don't know if you can see it but i numbered areas of the rear yard that are not code client and are inaccessible. are you able to read the numbers down there? is that something possible because i brought individual sheets if i could hand -- >> i can't read it. >> you can't read it? can i hand these out, it's the same thing that i'm distributing.

>> do you have a copy for the parties? my time is going. >> just pause it. >> i have for myself, yeah. >> well, we'll share. >> we can share. >> i don't know if the departments need one as well. >> okay, so on this piece of paper that i gave you, if you look up, this is 300 wawona area here, there are numbers 1,

2, 3 and 4, there is a line drawn straight across from the lot line at right anings tolls the lot line which is code client assist tent with section 130b and so this line falls on the plain of the rear wall of the building and it ends over here intersecting my front setback lot line, and so i had on overhead is picture of where that would be put and i have pictures of the areas that i'm describing, so this picture showed the garage that's there and the paved drive and that whole area's number 1 and 742

square feet it occupies and then there's area behind the garages that's inaccessible and i have pictures up here or rather pictures here that show the area behind the garage that's unusable. and then there is an area fenced off proximal to the garage which is back here, it's number 3, this shows the fence and all the shrubbery behind it so that's not usable and this shows the same fence and area after it was washed out by the significant december storm that we had, so that's inaccessible area, and then number 4 is

behind the east side gate which is like a security or privacy gate on the east side of the house and this picture shows right where the gate is and so the little bit of area behind that gate is inaccessible so the total area that's inaccessible is 983 square foot and that's based on the scale and the drawing project plans and of the area, 300 wawona current non-obstructive yard is 974 square feet and planning code section 134a1 requires a minimum rear yard depth of 25% and code section as i mentioned earlier, 130b requires that the

minimum required rear yard shall extend the full width to have yard and so i showed you that drawing showing the width of the yard which runs from right angle from the side lot line to where it intersects, and these are pieces that show the lot area, 7200 square feet on the plans and then also -- i don't know where i have planning department, also 7200 square foot lot area, but planning with an -- this -- the width measures 80 feet and if you take midpoint here along the angular line, this line

measures 96 feet, midpoint 48 on either side gives you a depth midline of 90 feet, so that gives you your 720 foot square yard which is what the project plans say as well. the planning department however has indication of a 91 foot depth and a 76 foot width which their plans -- on the plans where with the 80 foot and 90, this rear yard averaging code section 130e, this whole area right here actually flips over

from here -- from here, 25, it flips over remarkably to fit exactly into this section right here giving the perpendicular lines or rather parallel lines with this lot line and also it's perpendicular to the parallel front and back face and this then would be averaging, it would be the back lot line that would give from the midline, it would give 27 feet up to the structure and that method was upheld in 2006 when project sponsors wanted to put up a fence and couldn't --

>> excuse me your time is up and you can go further during your rebuttal. >> okay. >> what would you want this board to do? >> well, i think that given the nakt this rear yard is currently not satisfying code requirements, that if the board allows the horizontal rear addition that will be putting an additional amount of mass into the rear yard and will intensify the non-conformance. >> so, it's the horizontal. what about -- not the vertical. >> it's not the vertical and then also the footprint of the building is such that they could have their -- >> i understand, thank you.

>> on the side yard -- >> thank you. >> i'll see if i can get all of this. okay. >> okay, we can hear from the permit holders. anyone here representing the permit holders, please step forward. >> hi, i'm jacob michelle my wife and i live at 300 wawona, i w*ef been trying to remodel our house for about two years we followed the process, we followed the code. we've -- we went to discretionary review and it was upheld and i don't think there are any problems with the plan as such. we bought a modest one storey

building in an area with two storey buildings ten years ago and we have two small kids who are growing up quickly and we need an extra bedroom and this is what we were able to come up with. i don't have any other further comments. >> thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department, the subject bruited is located within rh1d district it's a single family detached district there was a discretionary review of this, the planning commission upheld this, there was an appeal of the environmental determination, that with withdrawn prior to hear, now we are on the appeal of the building permit application. i did not receive an appeal brief but i received some planning code arguments, i can

say the existing legal is legal non-complaint and portions of it do extend into the rear yard, directly close to the appellant's side and the garage structure, under the planning civil code, this is an irregular lairl shaped lot, it is unorthodox on how the code would apply to the requirement here, we take it from the full width of the lot which we have, when you have an irregular shape lot like this, we take the average lot depth and the planning code requires that rear property line be right angled to the rear property line, that's what we have done and that's what's shown on the permit holders plans the 25% rear yard for the full width of the property parallel to rear property line, this is code compliant, i have not heard any argue lts from the appellant

tonight that would lead me to think otherwise, it looked the appellant had a portion of this property's required rear yard being imposed on her property and so that's not how the code would call for it. the project sponsor has preferably done that. the residential design team has reviewed this, it has found it to be compliant and the planning commission felt the same. >> mr. sanchez, either rear property line could be the rear. >> well, this really is only one rear property line because if we have the frontage on wawona, the side project line is 117 and a quarter feet and the rear property line which is -- the rear property line for the subject property is the side property line of the appellant's and the other side property line for purposes of a

requirement -- >> you can say the front of 14th. [inaudible]. >> [inaudible]. >> a larger o portion of the building would be nonconforming. >> you're correct. >> right, okay. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy? >> commissioners, joe duffy dbi, i don't have too much to say haoe, we have approved the site permit, the agenda is going through review, i don't have any comments to make. thank you *. >> thank you, is there any public comment? okay, seeing none, then ms. amini you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> mr. michelle did refer to the fact that it's taken them a long time, they did have pre-op

meeting on february 20, 2013, they submitted their permit in june of 2013 as well, then it was seen by planning in december of 13 and passed through the case plan per in like a couple of days, then it went to historic and environmental review, i had no block notification in that view even though i had consecutive coverage for many years and i didn't delay any of that, that was taken up by all the planning activity. i heard nothing from project holders until i found a note -- well, i found out in may of 14 because i thought i just wanted to know what was happening with

the permit, i hadn't heard a thing so then i tried to get a hold of the planner, the planner didn't respond to me. i got a note in my box on may 15th of 2014 saying let's talk, there have been many change, i responded the same day put a note in the box and i got a call back about five days later saying, oh you know, it's -- sorry this is late notice but they've already approved it, so i did -- and the permit said mail 311 in hold on the 22nd, so i did submit a dr application by the time that may 22nd period of 30 days was up i did file dr because i hadn't talked to the case planner about the fact that this in fact is given the

information there it's deficient in terms of required rear yard area. mr. sanchez is talking about something being done to the legally nonconforming structure that's not the issue. there's a certain amount of area that's legally required and based on an 80 width by 90 depth that's 7200, and 25% of that is 1800 square feet. they're deficient in the amount of usable space by about 900 square feet, and if they put a projection into that rear yard, then they're going to up the amount of square feet that -- they're going to intensify the non-code compliance and somewhere in these papers, i've got interpretations, planning

code section 172 says nothing can be done to increase non-compliance and this is what's happening here by permitting a horizontal rear addition they're increasing the non-code compliance and with the way that chris hall had in her [inaudible] -- >> excuse me but your time is up. >> alright, thank you. i hope that you don't go for [inaudible]. >> mr. michelle you have three minutes. >> hi i'm jacob michelle. regarding the permitting process, it took quite a long time, i thought, it took about two years and we did