environment it's truly >> welcome to the regular meeting of the for wednesday, january 6, 2016, happy new year i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner hasz commissioner hyland commissioner hasz commissioner johnck commissioner johns commissioner matsuda and commissioner pearlman commissioners, the first item on your agenda is general public comment at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, members of the public may address the commission up to 3 minutes i have no speaker cards does any of the members of the public wish to speak on a non-agenda items

general comment is closed that places us under department matters directors announcements. >> good afternoon, commissioners and happy new year to all of you just one announcement it is note in the written director's report on the housing bonus program i think you had a presentation we're moving forward with not only the program but a series of public meetings and we're trying to prepare public hearings in the supervisorial districts in district 2, 7, 3 and one in that order and looking to do one in all district i want to just the you with your tentatively schedule at the planning commission to approve or for them to act on the program at the end of january on the 27 yeah 27 and we do anticipate further

changes as he go forward a substantial program we've spent a lot of time on and it is part, if you will, the memo of tools in the tool in the toolbox we use to increase the affordable housing production, and, secondly, we're also the mayor as assembled i think as you may know re150eb8gd r assembled the housing task force in preparation for then prop c that created the housing trust fund he harassed asked that task force it reconvened made up of community folks and others and the goal of the task force is take a look at the city's affordable housing bonus program the inclusionary requirements to see if there are other items that should be addressed in that program given the current affordable housing crisis in the city asked me to chair and

committee on the status of projects in the pipeline will be i've convened a subset of that task force to do just that and certainly, if any of you are interested in working other than that or the other working group the other working group will be chaired by olsen lee in the mayor's office of housing to look at the economics and the actual requirement for the inclusionary program claim whether it should be raised if 12 percent and the types of projects and that sort of thim thing we'll share i'll be chairing the aspect of the program 3 deals with the improvements and the procedures within the city so if you have any questions i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> otherwise that that concludes my report. >> item 2 review of past events staff report and amazements. >> good afternoon, commissioners happy new year tim frye department staff a few

things to share and first hearing the health commission there was an appeal of you're certificate of appropriateness for the van ness brt which you're probably aware of the two main concerns the appellant raised the removal 6 all the trolley poles along the project and then the true tree removal we're preparing a brief in conjunction with mta and presenting on your behalf at the board of appeals hearing on the thirteen next wednesday and i'll have a full report at our following hearing at the outcome of that that appeal also wanted to let you know with the board of supervisors adopted all the contracts and they were recorded as there were 3 for this past year and recorded with the assessor our so those projects

will now or those property will take advantage of a spirited assessment as the upcoming years tax bills 90 excuse me. 90, 92 second street the board is the remaining article step outside the box designation at the board of supervisors where we are working with the clerk to have it scheduled at land use committee we think pretty soon but will give you an update once the land use committee has their hearing and one last item is this morning i attend a births conference to identify we communities partner for the old mint there was a pretty large turn out this morning excluding including a q and a and a tour of the building the as you may know if you've

familiar with the rfp we looking for a lead community partner to identify the mix of uses or single uses within the building to help to support a larger statistic plan to get the building we occupied in the long term so this is really just identifies someone to help to work with the city to facility to realize it is a community amenity the closing of the rfp is the first week 40 in february the committee or the panel four reviewing the bids i'll certainly keep you updated on the updates sorry one last item two requests separate requests

by the historic preservation commission to provide regarding rec and park properties from one update on the mothers, as you may know the historic preservation commission committee funded an analysis the new conditions of millions in the mothers building and the windshield condition of the property on the landmark designation i'm working with rec and park to schedule an informational presentation in front of you hope by february to give you an overview of that report and let rec and park share with you some of their ideas for moving forward in the stabilization of the building and an active use of building, and, secondly, based on public comment at previous hearings you have internal revenue inquired about the proposals for the palace of fine art and working with rec and park to gather

information and lemon elite you know their in the selection process four any new proposals for that location that now concludes my comments unless questions. >> seeing none, commission moving to president's report and amazements. >> the only amazement is that we will have the election of officers at the next hearing on january 20th and we'll do an appointment of committees. >> we could take that matter under item 5 commissioners questions or comments and item 4 consideration of adoption of draft minutes for december 2, 2015, hearing and the draft minutes for the other i need to make one correction for the

december 6th commissioner hasz you were absent we'll indicate you're absent at that date and any comments commissioner hyland. >> yes. on the ar c minutes i was in attendance and present for the 8567 market agenda item i kulsz myself and very good. >> duly noted any other comments or revisions does any is there anyone else who wishes to speak on item number ar c or regular hearing seeing and hearing none public comment is closed. do i hear a motion to adopt. >> i'll move. >> thank you, commissioners to

adopt the draft minutes hearing as corrected and the draft minutes for hpc regular hearing for december 16, 2015, as corrected and commissioner hasz commissioner johnck commissioner johns commissioner matsuda commissioner pearlman and commissioner hyland and commissioner wolfram. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 67 to zero and places you on item 5 commissioners questions or comments >> commissioner johns. >> in the current issue of the new fillmore the kind of neighborhood newspaper there is an article about japantown and you know we've approved the district there and i wanted to call everyone else's attention it is interesting and i think that is worst reading but i also wanted to schedule on the agenda maybe

foyer sometime later this year i'd like to address or investigate and address the jan district to see what is working and why it is working and didn't pan out and why not and what's needs more time if we're going to use this is a model for other district it would be good to evaluate it go along the line i think it might help us when the same issues come up one of them pointed out in this article that the younger generation of business owners didn't seem very interested in running businesses in japantown i don't know whether it is anything can be done about that i think we

should go over the whole thing and evaluate is it so - >> thank you commissioner hyland. >> good idea commissioner johns. >> i had an announcement on monday, i guess tim frye, shelly and i met with regina she's from the staff person for the small business commission and we our commission is going to be hearing next meeting next hearing kind of an update on the cultural the legacy business prop j that just passed so we were meeting how the small business commission and the historic preservation commission and work together and how we

fulfill our role we'll be heeding that next hearing. >> thank you. >> any other questions or comments? >> we should attend to the election of officers. >> that hearing. >> so it's been proposed we have the election of officer at the next hearing january 20th do we need a motion to set that on calendar. >> please. thank you commissioner johns and commissioner johnck on that motion to set the hearing date for election of officers for january 20th, 2016, commissioner hasz commissioner johnck commissioner johns commissioner matsuda commissioner pearlman commissioner hyland and commissioner wolfram. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously and we have no items promoted for continuance or items under consent will place us under case

62 larry ken a certificate of appropriateness good afternoon the in a nut shell is for an art sflaugs at 200 larkin street the former library for the city the asian art museum can i have the overhead? >> allows civic center was designed to be in corners with the arguable and urban planning the civic center is identified by monumental closed arts around

the centralized public scare added to the national register and latter designated as a landmark district court in 1994 in article 10 the landmark ordinance identified that buildings within the district as exceptionally significant interiors. city hall, with raiders have lost arc scene. >> the public health department interior was designated with the body snafrnz scene and the former main library

the asian art museum protected interiors westbound called audited in section b on a designation for the scene in the photographs the ordinance states the museum shall consultant with the historic preservation commission on hpc on any interior altercations to the spaces of the building regardless whether a certificate of appropriateness is required by the civic center go historic district ordinance e.r. by article 10 the blade that the major requiring the cv a if removing a significant interior this proposal is in the middle it is an introduction of a new element, however, it had been suspend in a manner that is held

of historic fabric and has a level of transparency it will not obscure the section you're packets include the installation dining rooms and in summary that was found to meet the secretary of interior so staff recommends approval with one monitoring condition as stated in the staff report the project sponsor has a brief proposal and patrick is here representing the museum i'm going to turn it over to the project architect alicia skaggs. >> good afternoon, commissioners

my name is and i that library skaggs i want to take that chance to wish you a happy new year. >> as stated the project consists of an art installation at the asian art museum located off on second floor. the photos those are historic photos and the foitsdz on the right are the historic building these photos should the existing conditions of the downstairs and the further on the right where it will be installed the right where the piece of furniture is located and this is a plan that shows the location of artwork on the second floor. >> the project consists again of on art installation the art is

by an artist from china whose work is consisting of an array of important clinic that hang in the out coffee and superintendant by fishing wire the image on the right is the simulation of the right work that hangs from a imprisoned that is supported from above and located so it is not in contact with the surrounding walls the photos on the left is of the out coffee building the render on the right shows the support of the rods will be located in the ceiling will come through the existing pen tracing for now there is recess lighting the existing structure will be used to support the grid and the artwork the asian art museum has

been working with a e the structural engineers 0 it doesn't compromises the existing structure of the building this is a dynamicic cross section for the existing channels that supports the frame that will in turn support the grid with an 8 inch space between the grid and surrounding walls. the artwork will be lit with the led lighting the led lights on a track fixed to a one and a half by one nature aluminum tubbing the tubbing will be medicare fattens to a custom frame that rests on the ledge the steel frame will not be medicare toishld by relies on felicity to protect the fabric of the building that's it thank you very much >> thank you

commissioners is that the conclusion our presentation yeah. >> are there any questions for the presenters seeing none, we will open up for public comment i have a speaker card from linda lee. >> my name is a linda lay a person of the art museum and the person for asian society for a support group i'm speaking in favor by enthusiastically in support of the museums art installation several reasons first of all, the design we saw and the piece of pieces of porcelain that forms english letters and parts of the chinese characters of

written words that means toolgz of education this art piece will be in perfect harmony with the indescribed portions paying homage to the history of the building as a former san francisco main library and secondly, as a retired teacher this project is very close to my heart to teaches the importance of education because it takes education learned people can put those learned letters together in words and sentences and ties the existing traditionalal sincerely erratic art to the contemporary surrounding art but fits perfectly with the brand new bonus of inspiring the next and in addition the installation of this is not permanent it can be moved to another location in

the future without damaging the original architecture and finally what a piece of beautiful artwork for the city of san francisco to hair at local and integral visitors so for all the above mentioned raenlz i'm strongly in support of asian art museum with the world renowned art and hope the commission passes this without reservation. >> is there anyone else who wishes to speak on item number seeing none, and hearing none back to you, commissioners. >> >> commissioner johnck. >> i'm curious ms. lee did you commission this did the museum commission the artwork. >> the society of the asian art for it is a gift to the museum 50th anniversary of this

year. >> oh, is that right. i didn't see that okay. thank you. >> is that you commissioner pearlman. >> ever hearing i'm someone different. >> commissioner pearlman. >> i wanted to say i was so impressed i was surprised is it came before the commission it is a minor permit to author the design was so indicative and so brilliant to bring many light fixtures i wanted to enlightenment the team it will be a beautiful piece of art so thank you very much. >> do i have commissioner hyland. >> thank you, ms. lee for speaking and giving us context it a worthwhile installation. >> i'll motion with the conditions condition. >> second. >> thank you commissioners on that motion then to approve this

matter with conditions commissioner hasz commissioner johnck commissioner johns commissioner matsuda commissioner pearlman and dick davis 1st district and commissioner wolfram. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you on item 7 for case no. pta at 69 mad even lane a priority to alter. >> good afternoon and happy new year commissioners with the department staff this proposal before you this afternoon for the exterior additions to the facade of an existing building animated even lane constructed in 1920 the exist property is a category 4 contemporary building located within the current market mason

district that concludes the removal of the existing treatments on the ground and second floors and the regional housing summit replacement of a new one consisting thoughtful height of the building supported by painted curtain wall hardware with the light color stone surrounding and the ground floor will be delineated with the horizontal material and approximately awe lumped sign to be installed 10 feet above grade about 2 inches thick and bolt to the new stone material that will be comprised of the tenant name

and the backed with the acrylic the proposed project was reviewed by the architecture review committee on november 4, 2015, the ar c provided comments and including a go compact of the secretary of interior standards and the article 11 specifically guidance was requested on the overall massing and composition material detailing an oriental sign and it's location in this part the ar c recommendation the light stone has been revised to be consistent across the facade, however, the revised plan displayed the stone padding has been reduced additionally the

painted metal base at the storefront level is reduced if ten feet to 8 feet recommend the number of joints and overall size of each stone cutting material should not think altered from what was presented to the ar c and future the height of the painted metal base kept at inch height and if such of the requirements be kept as presented and reviewed by the ar c and the that attachment, submitted for review and will evaluation the vertical elements in the painted metal surrounded has been eliminated from the proposal leaving only the horizontal banned from the ground floor and additionally the height of the horizontally

element is increased in 7 nature to 9 feet to be adjacent the storefronts on adjacent buildings. as current proposed the horizontally r horizontal element is sobriety from the stone and the department recommends the horizontal be in line with the facing to break up the massing and scale a condition of approval has been added as such and the project sponsor has revised the drawings to reflect and incorporate the comments and recommendations bans the review of the revised drawings and the supplements that meets the standards and the article 11 for reasons flu detailed in the draft motion based on those finding the

department recommends approval with the following conditions that the horizontal element proposed between the ground floor and upper level should be pulled to realign with the storefront and the size and joint shall be kept as originally proposed as presented to the ar c and the height of the base should be kept at step outside the box inches minimum with the ar c and the project sponsor shall continue to work with the historic preservation commission on the building design final materials and glazing and joint and or attachment details should be subject society instead of approval the architecture agenda shall be approved that concludes my presentation. and staff is available for any questions you may have the

project sponsor team is here to give a more detailed - any more information on staffs presentati presentation. >> here's some new material to add i understand you have a copy that was submitted last to planning?

>> did everyone receive one well happy new year my goal our goal today was to take off from the material you already have i'm happy to go back and talk about where we are been and where we are going i'm happy to do that where we are going to work off of what you already understand in the project from the description and the material that you have for the sake of time address the conditions and one item that we believe was

misinterpreted from the ar c i'm asking a question would you like you go us to springboard from planning or like us to go back and give you the full presentation from the ar c. >> most useful do the presentation in terms of the planning department recommendation for the approval if you're okay with those conditions we don't need much of a presentation. >> if you have comments about those or want to add to them then. >> that's exactly what we're going to address. >> can we - is this working this other mike okay so the comments that we would like to address and i'm going to use of us see the material we just passed ousted on the left that is what was submitted what

you have and the rendering on the right picks up on a few help us to explain our disagreements or requests for compensations from those comments based on what we made came from the ar c and developed the line further how we've come to what we call the desired facade on the right so on planning department's recommendation number one did horizon am element continue the ground floor and the upper level shall be pulled forward to align with the stems when we were discussing that at the ar c we agreed to put the horizon am member in the end had a discussion shall that will flush we double-checked from the transcripts it would help if

there was a distinguishing line it could be a good thing to setback, however, look at it and study and propose small business owner something we've setback a little bit to have a distinguishing feature between the stone and that metal header that's our first point in our sense that we agree what come out of the ar c meeting the next point the size number the joints and the surrounded shall be kept as oriental proposed astounded we're fine with putting in more joint when we left the meeting we not a lot of features between base and height we start looking at keeping it more sleek because of having smooth stone not having a rustication that is something this is work we went

in that direction it is more of a monolithic band around using the historical stone we've come to the point of trying to reduce the joint but we're open to adding them in the - all the commissioners agree we should do that and item number 3 the height of the metal base shall be kept at minimum we reduced to allow for the header we're fine if we need to go that if it is going to satisfy the code we're fine but relating that to an element of last meeting and the one item i'd like to add for discussion is the blade sign itself that what we submitted on the left is actually not what we

originally submit to go planning within about towards the end comments very close to the gate when this has obtain it be 0 finalized new comments from planning right before it it had to be copied we were instructed that our go sign more in line with the right is taller was not in line with the planning interpretation from the r o ar c meeting so we were instructed we should to pull this down we went head and did that but did we misunderstood the art meeting that was discussed at the art meeting or not on the right the desired is based on and again we've double-checked the transcripts we need from the previous design didn't have the

9 foot high header okay. so planning was pushing to hold this down as far as possible for the pedestrian scale but the discussion at the meeting get that horizontal membrane and sign shouldn't be pulled down for the sake consider it being lower but consider how it relates what's the logical position related to the facade so for us on the left what was submitted is for us it is out of balance with the facade it actually takes away from the horizontal line above the industry entry is it so almost touching this is not a very tall building we're talking about 26 feet to the top this was that was also discussed once you get that horizontal part what's the

office space swopping so this is portionly bitter for a smaller sign than before but still relate it to the overall building. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, any questions. >> thank you very much oh, do you have a question commissioner pearlman. >> no i'll talk about it in a minute and we'll move to public comment is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak on item number if so please be advised seeing and hearing none public comment is closed. and back to you, commissioners. >> commissioner pearlman. >> i'll be john marshall the person of the day. >> yeah. this looks at clean and simple i did you followed a lot of the comments the one thing about the based on the door my understanding is from ada code you have to have a

tenant kick on the sunglasses door you might as well kept it at 10 inches you're going to run into this if you go to the building inspection ii agree to make that 10 inches for the reason stated. >> we're having some weird thing happening and the sign itself you know on one hand whatever works work i have one question not really a question a comment on your sheet after the accident 3.11 you're detail sheet and top of storefront number 8 it appears that the water of the el nino rains that are going to slope down that

sloping portion of you're roof is going to go into the building no coping cat flashing on the stone i don't know if that is a piece missing the water will run into the building. >> sure it is a rain screen you have a gutter at the bottom it's not been detailed and basking which diverts the water from the top of the stone down to the does it is a funny detail. >> and again unrelated to the hpc comments so in terms of the horizon always i think it should more of a horizontal more spacing in the stone otherwise, it is very vulnerable exactly that's the original and the cuts in the stone are better scale

wise relative to the other building. >> thank you commissioner johnck. >> yeah. i want to see what's on the board that was a question i had coming back from the later to the former yeah, huh? i agree with the philanthropy of the facade being higher yeah. i think that is perfectly good the way if we can resolve that one at least for the proposal to add more of these joints and that's what you recommended i guess. >> it feels. >> i'm torn is it so a little bit more classical i'm a little bit torn i really like the philosophy of the design in

terms of our role how it gets e fits into the rest of the street would be the joints there's disagreement with the historic preservation commission to add two more joints? >> okay. >> i'm torn so i'll hear from the rest of you. >> commission. >> thank you. i'll go down the list number one the stone is 26 high building i like the vertical all of it it definition us a grander scale in a compartmentalize listed area so what's the next item? great the they aske for the header we talked about the bottom and then the sign i like it higher i think that is more balanced so i

actually like their desired proposal currently as it is. >> any other comments? >> commissioner johnck. >> oh, commissioner hyland. >> so on the sign i think they've already reduced the height of the sign i personally don't have i guess i prefer it higher i guess the question for staff in conflict that the signage code is that why we're not wanting. >> commissioners tim frye department staff i'll jump if you have something to add prior our direction to make the sign lower was based on the overall height and the general a narrow street and most of signage per

guidelines we've been improving to make that more pedestrian scaled there are a number of signs that are on upper floors and a number of banners we think there is a conflict with other signs at the general height me might not get the desired viability there are a lot of signs at this location we saw that as an overall benefit to make the sign lower i don't think we feel strongly about that either proposal seems to work i think you're main goal during the ar c do get the sign reduced in overall height which they have done. >> do you wish to add something. >> so i'm okay with the height the sign being at the higher level based on the conditions. >> it is actually not the current design is the one on the left so if we want the sign to

be higher there is a condition saying the sign could come back higher than it is. >> i'll support that. >> on the joints i really don't have a strong opinion but 6 vulnerabilities gives the signage some grournd so in conjunction with that more additional joints will might help. >> can i comment on that we may be stuck with a couple joint because of the signage how do we get this to work with the zone we're not put a hole in the stone so i appreciate the comment. >> i have no opinion either way on that the one recommendation of having the metal flush i prefer having it recessed so i would go

against staff recommendations. >> so is there a motion? >> (laughter) someone craft the motion. >> move to approve with the changed condition they have the option to add more joints it sounds like you may be working on that they have to be even all the way around and the metal surrounds we're good with the metal setback. >> to remove the condition the first condition. >> yep or the condition. >> not more than it shows. >> the 10 inch base. >> the setback of the header. >> oh, we remove the condition we'll approve it as designed. >> looks like 3 motions.

>> okay. >> materials and colors were good with. >> and you'll leave the condition around the basin and the signage in height they have the option to go as high as shown in the proposed; right? and then. >> yeah. i guess we need to clarify what document the height of the sign if we go with the higher sign can are we referring to in terms of documents. >> so it would be the latest vision with the higher location with the sign that with the reduced size. >> right. >> yes on the left just to be clear we're removing the

condition removing the metal to be flush with the stones surrounded we're keeping condition number 2 where the number of joints are increased but that is optional number 3 where the metal bilk head will be kept at 10 inches minimum and number 4 where we talked about the location of the sign it would be the version that was presented to you today with the reduced size. >> that's number 4 number 34 we'll keep the projects. >> yeah. number 5 and the sign. >> good with the maker? >> second. >> (laughter). >> thank you for your time. >> shall i call the question. >> on that motion to approve

as amended eliminating the first proposed condition retaining the second giving the sponsor the option to increase as long as they're of even numbers and retaining the third and fourth condition adding a fifth noting the proposed sign height as being acceptable to the historic preservation commission on that motion commissioner hasz commissioner johnck commissioner johns commissioner matsuda commissioner pearlman commissioner hyland and commissioner wolfram so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero. >> there are no further items on your agenda hearing is adjourned welcome to

did you know that many buildings in san francisco are not bolted to the foundation on today's episode we'll learn how the option to bolt our foundation in an earthquake. >> hi, everybody welcome to another episode of stay safe i'm the director of earthquake safety in the city and county of san francisco i'm joined by a friend matt. >> thank you thanks for being

with us we're in a garage but at the el cap center south of market in san francisco what we've done a simulated the garage to show you what it is like to make the improvements and reduce the reflexes of earthquake we're looking at foundation bolts what do they do. >> the foundation bolts are one of the strengthening system they hold the lowest piece of wood onto the foundation that prevents the allows from sliding during an earthquake that is a bolt over the original construction and these are typically put in along the foundation to secure the house to the foundation one of the things we'll show you many types of bolts let's go outside and show the vufrdz we're outside

the epic center in downtown san francisco we'll show 3 different types of bolts we have a e poxy anchor. >> it is a type of anchor that is adhesive and this is a rod we'll embed both the awe hey that embeds it into the foundation that will flip over a big square washer so it secured the mud sell to the foundation we'll need to big drill luckily we have peter from the company that will help us drill the first hole. >> so, now we have the hole drilled i'll stick the bolt in and e post-office box it. >> that wouldn't be a bad idea but the dust will prevent the e

post-office box from bonding we need to clean the hole out first. >> so, now we have properly cleaned hole what's the next step. >> the next step to use e post-office box 2 consultants that mixes this together and get them into tubes and put a notice he will into the hole and put the e post-office box slowly and have a hole with e post-office box. >> now it is important to worm or remember when you bolt our own foundation you have to go to 9 department of building inspection and get a permit before you start what should we look at next what i did next bolt. >> a couple of anchors that expand and we can try to next

that will take a hole that hole is drilled slightly larger marathon the anchor size for the e post-office box to flow around the anchor and at expansion is going into the hole the same dinning room we'll switch tamet so, now we have the second hole drilled what next. >> this is the anchor and this one has hard and steel threads that cuts their way into the concrete it is a ti ton anchor

with the same large square so similar this didn't require e post-office box. >> that's correct you don't needed for the e post-office box to adhere overnight it will stick more easily. >> and so, now it is good to go is that it. >> that's it. >> the third anchor is a universal foundation plate when you don't have room above our foundation to drill from the

top. >> so, now we have our foundation plate and the tightened screw a couple of ways to take care of a foundation what's the best. >> the best one depends on what your house is like and our contractors experience they're sometimes considered the cadillac anchor and triplely instead of not witting for the e post-office box this is essentially to use when you don't have the overhead for the foundation it really depends on the contractor and engineering

what they prefer. >> talking to a qualified professional and see what. >> working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrate and dynamic city on sfroert of the art and social change we've been on the edge after all we're at the meeting of land and sea world-class style it is the burn of blew jeans where the rock holds court over the harbor the city's information technology xoflz work on the rulers project for free wifi and developing projects and insuring

patient state of at san francisco general hospital our it professionals make guilty or innocent available and support the house/senate regional wear-out system your our employees joy excessive salaries but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape the city's future but for considering a career with the city and county of san francisc

>> good evening and welcome to the wednesday, january 13, 2016, meeting of the san francisco chronicle's the presiding officer is commissioner president ann lazardus and she is joined by our japantown commissioner honda and commissioner fung and commissioner swig and commissioner bobbie wilson will be absent to my left is robert bryan the city attorney and at the controls is - i'm cynthia goldstein the board's executive director and wurjs the assistant zoning administrator will be

representing the planning department and planning commission wear september 11th e expecting joe duffy to be here representing the department of building inspection as well as tim frye a preservation coordinator with the planning department and sheryl of the historic preservation commission as a historic please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. out in the hallway. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk. speaker cards and pens are

available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i

do. please note: any of the members may speak without taking 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. >> okay. thank you commissioners we have one housekeeping matter has to do with with item 7 appeal regarding a plumbing permit on 22 street that matter is withdrawn and will not be heard moving on to item number one general public comment for anyone that likes to address the board within the board's jurisdiction not on tonight calendar anyone wanted to speak under general public comment seeing none, move to item 2 commissioners questions or comments commissioners anything? okay okay. then on to item 3 which is the boards consideration the minutes of the board meeting of

december 16, 2015, additions, deletions, or changes if not may i have a motion to approve as submitted >> that motion with the vice president that's right thank you commissioner honda and any public comment on the minutes okay. seeing none think outside the box that motion to drop out adopt the minutes commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus and commissioner swig pngz with a vote of 4 to zero then move on to item number 4 which is a jurisdiction request the subject property on 34 after the board get a got a letter asking the board take jurisdiction over the building application which was issues are issued on october 2015 by the department of building inspection the

appeal period ends in january and the request was filed on december 3rd, 2015, the permit holder is stephen katie tang with a notice of violation to doogs don't worry about and remove a in-law unit kitchen and a separation door at the end the stairs we'll sta with the requester the requesters attorney. >> you have 3 to present. >> i was expecting 7 maybe i ought to talk fast good evening board members and staff my name is dave crow i represent the requester ann corrigan and her family there is an old familiar two familiar you're aware of this in many cases got in the unit since 2012 they've been good tenants and good neighbors on october 27,

2015, out the the blue a notice of terms the owners so you get to remove the unit from the rental market not any, no, sir, that the landlord applied for a demolition permit no opportunity to see it to it was fact parents that promoted did boards resolution that the board of supervisors amend the planning code q notice to tenant and landlord will apply for permitted to remove the units you're likely aware that new law took effect an january 8th unfortunately ms. corey began and her family will not benefit from the new law that doesn't mean that she was not required to receive a similar notice and as i wrote in any brief

calciferol code requires the owner of a residential dwelling unit or any owner for a permit to demolish it renal with dwelling unit shall be given written notice of that fact the current tenant prior to applying through the public agency to demolish the residential dwelling unit so 1930.6 the notice shall include the approximate date on which the owner expects the demolition to occur and however in no case may the demolition of the owners or owners agent has applied prior to the early as possible approximate date to be clear i'm asking to apply the new law

retroactively the state law required her to be noticed and the new san francisco law cards with the civil code base my client has to notice i point out in my brief she's evicted the upstairs potentially protected senior tenants could be evicted by way of having their rent increased inform whatever the amount the landlord wants so i think that's enough thank you. >> thank you we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> mr. chang. >> i'm here to briefly state my objection to their request for a jurisdiction request. >> excuse me. speak directly - you thank you. >> i'm here to talk about the

jurisdiction request we served the tenant on october 29th and so she had over a week to go ahead and file an appeal so this is an unsafe and illegal unit and we're trying to work the system to try to drag this thing out and us for additional monies tovt statutory relocation fee thank you. >> thank you anything in the department? >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and commissioners koreay representing the planning department just a not to the appellants

point he is correct new legislations that took place last friday that requires notice to all units including unauthorized unit from the zoning permit is filed to remove an illegal unit that took effect last friday and additional legislation that is through the planning commission support at the full board of supervisors now that would also take that further and require a confusion for that proposal at the time in october 22nd this permit was issued over-the-counter by the planning department that permit didn't require any neighborhood notification not subject to a conditional use and not subject to 317 of a removal of a unit that politics to authorized

dwelling units not unauthorize if the planning department prospective we're obviously supportive of protecting housing and tenants this permit at that point, was approved i'm available to answer any questions you may have. >> i have a question mr. teeing what's the current zoning the residents now. >> rh1. >> it's rh1 right and if i could elaborate just a bit one opening statements not raised there is an avenue now through the legislation in effect for a couple of years with the unite could theoretically be legalized over a density with no requirement. >> illegal non-conforming so effectively they'll no longer be able to add that that will go away. >> that's correct which once you remove the unit once to legalize it is no longer

applicable. >> thank you anything mr. duffy. >> good evening joe duffy dbi the building permit for the rae hearing request was issued on 22 of october 2015 an over-the-counter form 8 that means it wasn't taken in for review by planning or building and it goes to comply with the nov the demo an illegal units add separation door at the time bottom of the stairs i think you heard about the notification process dbi didn't have one at the time and obviously legislation changed that and the interesting thing not an nov a complaint number that was filed with housing inspection on

october 5, 2015, so approximately 16 days before the permit was applied for the same housing inspecting mac he had notes he left a message for the complained and inspector mac tried to get into the property not loudly entry that would have been right to have on that to comply with the complaint number instead of the notice of violation it is at that point it is a clean there is something wrong that's a little bit of the language not right but i see that a lot on permit it is inadvertently put on there the complainant gave hair name and phone call so we have the information that's all. >> i have a question inspector

duffy are there any of the rooms or the work performed is any of that legal downstairs. >> we never got in. >> any permits on file for the additional rooms. >> i did not check that to be honest with you commission i'm not sure which rooms. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? are you speaking mr. public comment on this item, sir? okay. thank you so no public comment on this item commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i have a question for mr. bryant a citation of a california code which i don't know if this was raised can you comment on the applicability of

that. >> it raise an issue between the landlord/tenant not a city requirement. >> orchestra okay. >> commissioners. >> this board historically has been relatively lenient when it comes to time frames i'm prepared to accept 9 jurisdiction given the approximate it of the new legislation and it's timeframe and the right for the tenant to have at least their day in court. >> okay. >> motion? >> move to grant jurisdiction on the basis that the information was not priority to the tenant. >> okay. on that motion by commissioner fong to grant the

request commissioner president lazarus no commissioner honda and commissioner swig no that motion fails there is no other motion commissioners than the request is denied by default. >> commissioner president lazarus shall i call the next item. >> yeah. >> okay. >> so then owner move-in to item 5 a rehearing request the subject property on 1616 a and 18 iris after the board got a letter from the appellant requesting the rehearing of the appeal and decided on december 9th at that time the board votes 4 to one is commissioner wilson absent it is

code compliant 16 iris remodel of kitchen bedroom and bath and second deck at the rear yard 3 dwells to remain start with the requester you have 3 minutes. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus aim kathy making this hearing request can we have the overhead inspector wong now agrees with the plans don't comply with the building code requirement as to the the exterior wall with the property line and the judge my mind a property line was 24/7 short to satisfy code the problems being caused by this unusually large 230e8d window that is disqualifying the southern wall of the addition from the fire rated wall ms. wong said this is if reduced to 25 percentage

meets the code and not into the weeds a separate wall here's the 25 percent on january 25th we've promoted to the project sponsor they reduce the window size we continue the hearing and received no responded to our e-mail i asked him together and he's indicating to reduce the window but not continue the hearing and all i have to say is that you know, i would like to board to retain jurisdiction until the change is made respectfully this is the second arrow the planning department or the them to take out the stairway he has an addendum i may not have the opportunity to see the restrictions restriction this could affect the result grant the question and let him make the changes and i'll dismiss it or continue the hearing let me

make the hearing and dismiss the rehearing request if at the stays with a stand alone wall the inspector said it has ton 80 be 12 and a half feet tall under 9 converter to the 8 foot wall didn't comply with code so we were are the last time not here mission but thank you to mr. duffy for his e-mails getting dbi to respond she's been two busy before me or my architects e-mails arrest phone calls so he might need a evaporates with a tall wall and the planning code didn't allow walls that size within the 45 percent required rear yard so i'm not sure what he will do before everything was

setback 5 feet and this requires digging a foundation i'd like the court to grant the rehearing on the basis, in fact, the decision before the project was code compliant was erroneous and retain the jurisdiction or continue this hearing thank you very much. >> mr. ask you. >> i was out the state at the time of the responsive was due i brought in a paper response of a letter but who i spent time with the architect as the architect for the remodeling for jan and my client we remembering are respectfully ask you to grant this to the property line construction as the building inspection will

not agree with the planning department and the planning department will not allow an increase in the construction a rehearing to resolve the construction about not be an unnecessary burden on the permit holder and appeal to the brotherhoods now a rehearing appeal that is taxing to my clients families in their removed the home i want to sought you by most importantly the project sponsor will shift or reduce the size of the windows to allow the 25 threshold that triggered the property lines balling wall it is upon the cost of the construction and left to the discretion of the project sponsor contrary to her e-mail i can't think 5, 2015 that suggests a continuance in the project sponsor has a - my clay

has been bound by the lady too long noted as the permit was issued the revisions will be memorialized with the addendum and not took place until wear wiener cleared with the board of appeals during the addendum the department will have the planning checkers look at it for code compliant the addendum permit review is generally much more thorough in the lay out is code compliant if 9 senior plan checkers determine it the not code compliant we'll see toe have the gentrification as described in the currently approved project either way it is the same to shift are reduce the window belief the 25

threshold that triggers the property lines decide any client is achieved and appears the resolution is the same between the parties but the untackling of the appeals process is important for my clients ability to move forward with their lives i'm available to answer any questions. >> okay. then we'll. >> we'll hear from the department now. >> mr. duffy. >> joe duffy dbi at the previous hearing the drawings i saw i was i was perplexed by the firewall up the property lines 5 foot two from the property line i thought it was i looking at it and wow. that is i've not inspected something else it

needs to be closer to the property line or the property line wall a bearing wall i went back to dbi and contact and the architect i made it my business to go do the plan checker and revolve this and educate myself the issue is the angle of the opening of the window on the addition that triggered it's as opening in a fire rated wall i've asked the plan checker at dbi a long time and he's breath in a number of planning checker the bottom line in a nut shell simply the wall was no longer exists from the window is made smaller so i think you've heard they're willing to do that that could be open the addendum

process and dbi will be flagging the wall if they want to keep the window the same size and the calculations don't workout they'll have to redo the wall they don't want the wall you've been heard that it is there's an opportunity in the amounted to get this at dbi the other thing well looking at this again with staff at dbi scaling the measurement it is 90 degree from the angle of the window that pushes it out further it would be on the table between 10 to 15 feet it could actually go to 45 percent loublg opening i'm trying to say the altercate foot the project needs to meet with dbi plan check and get a proper

measurement worse case scenario the window might be made smaller or remain the same but the wall no need for the 12 foot high wall so - >> making myself clear. >> mr. duffy no disagreements on the matrix with the firewall one of the items i didn't bring up last time used to be the addition is 5 feet away didn't require p had a is that changed. >> yeah. the new code the 2013 code chance to a table it is it's got a little bit more restrictive when i looked at the it a little bit more restrictive

but harder to understand the other thing to remember the attraction for the addition is going to be one hour construction because of the 3 unit building it is type 5 construction that is anymore safety plus sprirlgdz that's the last time i saw i was definitely confused i'm comfortable standing here this can be resolved in the addenda process that cannot be built with the wall not going to get out of dbi and this person was aware and both sides i've been getting further correspondence in the last week or so i think i spoke to katherine yesterday on the phone shooe she understands that the position of dbi that wall will not be going to be an issue anywhere there is a 6 foot fence

on the property anyways so - >> okay. my question. >> i did not understand it 100 percent one solution a reduction in the window or door size to 25 percent or 25 percent. >> not 25 only about 8 percent. >> and is other potential solution so changing the angle a 90 degree angle anal in the 411 degrees is fine from the calculation worked out 10 to 15 feet away from the property line measured at a 90 degree angle i'll show you on the overhead why not do that. >> i think graphically probable not going to be 10 feet. >> i did not want to get into detail but we can do that that's

fine. >> overhead so we can use the first floor exit diagram this is the property line wall the 8 foot wall. >> we're not seeing. >> sorry the photo copy is too big there we go that might be better this is the wall that would be proposed along the property line the 8 foot wall and the u

construction is it comes up well and a 45 degree angle the measurement the 10 to 15 feet is 90 degrees from here going this way and trying to scale that between 5 and 10 or between 10 and 15 it's close if it is between 5 and 10 they're allowed 25 so this is 33 percent so it ha, ha to be reduced by 10 percent so 15 that category then the window size can remain the same either way. >> thank you so much for mr. pacheco it to the non-architect on the board. >> it is a code section that you don't see a lot but it is in there and - the one of the things i'll say that is difficult the california

building code is for the whole state of california our lots in san francisco make that difficult sometimes and it is i've felt two severe their 25 foot lots and the overhead for the table to let you see the table 705.8 in the california building code that is talking about maximum area is based on fire separation and the protection so from zero to 3, 3 to 5 and 4 to 10 and 15 to 20 and again different levels of protection in your walls and sorry one r construction versus the construction the openings are decreased and sprinklers kick in the wall is isn't there

i think everyone will be happy depended on the size of window. >> mr. duffy is this going to end up where it ends up which means should we just continue this so the conversation can continue at dbi and let that resolve and come back and say resolve resolve so we don't have to do anything; right? >> or. >> the architect - when the permit is under suspension they can't accept any drawings 83 at dbi so we certificate of occupancy have filed anything while this was under the board's jurisdiction so they can't do much awhile this is under suspension unless they brought a drawings but they brought a letter i don't know if it helps to keep it suspected and frankly

i'm not for either side but i'm pretty much certain in the addenda process is another layer of plan check and i think there is enough eyes watching that wouldn't get done i'm not continuing with only mean the creation of a drawing that will cocoa to this board but not accepted by dbi. >> actually not because we'd have to reconvene the case before and accept any modifications to the document. >> yeah. >> excuse me. not to adopt but permit. >> we can't continue the rehearing on that ground we can continue the rehearing but not take any action we'd have to grant the rehearing and mr.

duffy do you flag those permits can't there is something in the system that this permit needs a revision. >> there is a thing called an address restriction we can stop it at the door i can request an address restriction on this address it pops up every time you come in there's a flag an address kind of a safety net so someone gets a zoigs we put an address restriction so we see the permit they're not putting something on that is wrong. >> just for information purposes would you agree this information is new and therefore their if there weren't an easy solution a regrant for hearing. >> not as much as new as not

probable explained properly the last time i think that there was mistrust between the parties on the wall someone thought that was a spike wall those people don't want the wall dbi put the wall on this it with the time check it is definitely something i wish i'd known at the last minute at the hearing but i don't know that it is something i'd like to say a change more information i would say not new but better and review so i think that we didn't find out enough last time from the architect where - i honestly didn't know i say that as well i've not seen that wall an 8 foot and this is warranted tonight but to give a

rehearing on something where the windows have definitely going to be smaller they're willing to do that the hearing from them while put a stop before it is issued it certain we're not going to be dealing with this may be the appellant dangerous with me i definitely am not sure where why you want an appeal. >> if we grant it they can't would anything with an addenda anyway. >> how can we be assured other than you're a not able person if we requested you flag and assure us you'll flag that in fact, this matter will be flagged and therefore forced into center scrutiny to assure that it

becomes code compliant. >> i'll put a note on it i'll put an address restriction all you can defend is dbi with the inspection. >> i'm sure someone from the sides might remind you to do that. >> that's what i think as well so there is nothing to hide it is something that needs to be fixed how we fix it an addenda process and it is something with this - if they've tried to into keep the windows the same size you need a 12 foot high wall back to the department they'll not want to do that so - >> okay, sir nothing any public comment on this item?

seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> find a resolution 80 they don't it have to pay more money, however, i would consider this as new information therefore it has the basic for a rehearing. >> as explained by the department this would cause extra process the permit will still be suspended i have faith the department after today will flag this and make sure if gets to the right place.

>> i go a commissioner fung as i feel the same philosophically with commissioner vice president honda the snaefsz this is new information and new information mea >> it is revolved or the. >> commission you'll set a hearing date in not the jurisdiction request the appellant had an opportunity to set a date for a new hearing. >> they can always withdraw. >> i have a sneaking suspension that will end up and unwise for the appellant to

request a rehearing i based on what we've heard from mr. duffy the process will take it's due course. >> but just to be clear as mr. duffy pointed out a limits to what steps can be taken in the process while the permit is under suspension. >> they'll negotiate between them and if not satisfied the appellant withdraws the request for a rehearing is that the skungs of event. >> the appellant withdraws the appeal. >> the appeal. >> just to be clear the authority to grant a rehearing is completely yours you may grant a rehearing and the parties will go on to the next step but, of course, if they disagree you don't have to grant

a rehearing. >> rips relies from the commission. >> i prefer to be consistent therefore i would be inclined to grant the rehearing. >> are you making a motion. >> motion. >> move to grant the rehearing on the base new information was provided. >> what date would you like to set the hearing for? >> you need to give them time to submit briefs and you know - >> actually, we don't require a brief. >> at a new hearing everything start from the beginning new

briefs and everything. >> january 27th. >> then you would need to set a different briefing schedule this is usually people have more time than that to prepare and submit their briefs. >> okay more time to potentially resolve it. >> just on the date. >> so if we are to rehear it and you guys come to that conclusion there is nothing to prepare can't submit any new drawings we're prepared to rehear to tomorrow but a delay will end up the same.

>> the permit plan shows it. >> we can't permit. >> show the drawings it the appellant. >> she's not going to agree to a drawing without this continued or without being reheard we've already had that discussion. >> there is no way to come to an agreement. >> understood. >> go ahead. >> thank you i'm sorry this is taking so much time i'll dismiss the rehearing request if he makes that change but i don't know this is true and as soon as he does the revised plan i'm not sure what that'll they'll do. >> he can't officially submit

them a permit is suspended nothing he can do with the department of building inspection that's as the issue he has to deal with you or directly and some point you'll decide it is going to go the way it is supposed to go we only have certain option. >> i'll dismiss the rehearing we have a situation where he has a late brief he didn't give me. >> the brief has not been submitted to the board either not accepted. >> my point i'll not see anything continue this grant and i'll dismiss it. >> we'll see whether anything happens from the at this point, i feel compelled to maintain the

consistency in our policies and therefore i will move that the rehearing request be granted and the date would be february 10th. >> okay okay so that would set the appellants brief to be due on the 21st and i have january and the permit holder brief due on the fourth and, of course, in the parties can prepare and dba agree to plans prior to that they'll do it defendant as discussed on that motion by commissioner fung to grant the rehearing request and rehear the appeal on february 10th commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda and commissioner swig okay that motion carries

and we'll call item 6 ab this is appeal the first filed by leann and second by france living trust against the department of building inspection with the planning department approval about protesting the property on palm avenue protesting the issuance of joesh josh barker to remain at the existing grade to revised revised to rear yard retaining wall modification there are two appeals so each appellant has 7 minutes to present their case and hear from the other parties go ahead. >> hi, i'm leann we live at california street as you can see

from exhibit a one backs the subject property like this so about 2/3rd's of they're back wall or april property lines i eaten apologizes i have hired roebz and their representation appears before this board will not have any effect i apologize. >> we've not received any, no, sir, of permit they've received they've received on this project they've been over-the-counter permits a series of over-the-counter permits that results in a wholesale remodel i tried to contact them, they were close to thai property i was behaving told to mind my own

business and i contacted the city they came out and found a notice of violation they've exceeded the scope of over-the-counter permits there's a lot of negotiations with the property owners and city is resulted in them filing angle amendment to their permit and we are strongly against the amendment to the permitted for two reasons the stairway came down into the setback area the 25 area directly towards my property in their brief they said he will turn the staircase i've suggested months ago so i think this is no longer an issue however, it is still an issue they want to move the sdranz to two of the units to the rear wall the building i find that utterly urban acceptable and against the retain guidelines

they read they shall respect the pattern of the buildings in the neighborhood and block not one property on the avenue probably not in the park the sgranz where the side yard was turned into american people alley and the entrances is on the back wall someone needs to walk the walls around this new set of stairs they're building down a set of concrete stairs into this new concrete patio they've created for the basement unit i think this is absolutely unacceptable it creates an outside front of building type of transaction in the rear of the building our house is on california street it is very busy we're

city people that's okay. the backyard is quiet my children play soccer and want that assessable to the world they have in their brief suggested a security gate as a means to make it acceptable the entrance is on the back wall i or so how a security gates help with the entrance but not noise in fedex want to say deliver a page they have to come all the way up the building again and again for any type of entry cerebrotheir units in this day and age in airbnb tenants checking in at midnight will drag their suitcases blow the daughters bedroom window to

check into accident bottom unit this building has at that time, entrances in the front i don't understand the need for the change there was a lot of things in their permit which we never got notice of which was in into briefs i didn't know you could ask for jurisdiction maybe we could do that in the future but we could have complained about this huge roof deck deck 200 square feet and changing the roofline the building by adding bloomers the that effects the light and air and have put in the subterranean patio less than 15 feet away from the property line i think there is a lot of these go things we could have objected but but the entrance to the back of the building is

absolutely not acceptable in their brief they really want the buildings to be a 3 unit and not 4 unit they say several times in their brief on page six the overall goal to renovate the building to fit two families and on the next they want to rehabilitate the building this is a 4 unit building not a 3 unit they don't want to modify their plans to make it comfortable for they're two families but impose on the neighborhood to make that less comfortable for our families not to have a 4 unit building they can avail themselves i feel like this whole process has been another way to cut corners and

not avail themselves to that pro bono process we shouldn't be struck with a peer design because we don't want to cbo go the dwelling unit process this is setting a precedent for jordan park now those side generated are alleys to entrances this is not okay in the residential implicitly all 3 properties have been effected by their remodel and sort of way and these are long term property owners that live in our houses over 10 years i am polar the board to uphold the residential guidelines and put all four sfwranz to the 4 unit building in the in front of the building where they have been thank you.

>> question. >> yes. >> one of the sgranz is now in the side yard. >> i believe, i was intend to relocation one of the sdwranz we didn't receive a notice of a plan to have sgraentrances it i unclear how you enter the unit they don't want the unit. >> we'll hear from them and conclude. >> we'll hear from the appellant now. >> ms. baiter. >> thank you. i'm elizabeth baiter i'm her on behalf of the jessie the treaty of the living

trust the owner of 14 palm avenue our issues have somewhat the flavor of a background to the issues you've heard everyone knows that the basic background an excavation over the property line between 8 palm and 14 palm which is let's see california is in the back and palm in the middle and 14 palm to the south the excavation i'd like to show you this picture does that work. >> offend a history i'll not go into the novs a very

difficult negotiation which resultedend a history i'll not o into the novs a very difficult negotiation which resultend a h into the novs a very difficult negotiation which resultnd a hi into the novs a very difficult negotiation which resultedd a h into the novs a very difficult negotiation which result a hist into the novs a very difficult negotiation which resultedv a h into the novs a very difficult negotiation which resultede a h into the novs a very difficult negotiation which resultr a his into the novs a very difficult negotiation which resultedh a ho into the novs a very difficult negotiation which resulte a his go into the novs a very difficult negotiation which resulteda a history i'll not go into the novs a very difficult negotiation which resultd a history i'll not go into the novs a very difficult negotiation which resulted in - this will not help our cause as a lawyer i object to everything in the brief by 8 palm i'll not go into that i want to is 8 palm said in their brief i'm sure we'll hear how sorry they are and move on and this is so on this is true to some stent but most importantly if you look at it is i think exhibit 15 this is after the excavation and an e-mail to 8 palm we asked them for a property line survey as a part

of fixing this problem and that was on june 9th they produced a survey that did not was impossible to interpret the dimensions of 14 palm any clients property and therefore laid open the risk of additional excavation owning over the property line they never produced it finally on november 24th we have a letter from a surveyor who said you asked if i can determine the distances from the building at 14 palm to the property line from the survey they've mixed survey i can't determine this we're grateful this board exists by the way, we finally bought a comprehensive property line

survey and in the appellants brief they agreed to the survey wear finished with that more or less where we are now we want to build on this success to make sure that we don't have to come back here again, i've spoken to inspector duffy we have within might have things we're looking for but important to us they nail down what is possible the first we'd like a licensed superintendant with experience if property line cases to be appointed to be they site during the time that 8 palm is working on a submit walkway on the property line that was suggested to me by mr. duffy i hope that will be something we can agree on here they've said they're willing to use your property line survey i want that

specifically said in the modification to modify the permit like the language survey to be included in the modified permit mined this is acceptable also to the city they agreed to staked by a surveyor before they start a cement walkway but the surveyor said it takes 8 months they've suggested since in response to the ladies appeal i'll talk about that briefly i've really tried every way to see a way to come to a resolution and get to over with the stairs they let me

show you well, actually on here they want to have if i could with the overhead they want the stairs at the back a whole new assure that is something she's stated it is sxheel small area the sprept t said it off by 8 inches it is only 5 feet we have the problem of my clients house will be basically 5 feet away from the stairway with people up and down we've tried to make it is work so we have some kind of architectur architectural innovation on and on so for we have not yielded found a acceptable by everyone i mean our does it this is what that looks like previous to the

excavation open this overhead on this side yard people could walk but not used this is on older couple from the back occasionally and sngz from the back under those not on the side yard it is east the stairs had were inside the property not on the side yard as far as i see there is one one that there are is a feeling of unfairness the feeling none was given notice in their brief they recite and perusal history that is inadequate they say there was a brief - am i out i'll cut to

the chase as far i can tell the planning department didn't know when they approved the march 20th they were relocated e relocating not just remodeling but relocating those two units while to change in use of the side yard to take it back to planning let's go forward with the rest of it and have a separate permit onion the stairways the change of use is aired in the neighborhood maybe they'll win maybe not thank you for your patience. >> mr. kaplan we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> >> john with the law enforcement of reuben, junius & rose here on behalf of the appellant a point of procedure

two appeals we get 14 minutes we'll not use it thank you very much. >> so thank you, commissioners the permit before you is the final step in the process to syllable a renovation of a little on 8 palm avenue the project was originally approved in late 2014 and early 2015 and generally is exterior renovation some interior alteration were embarrassment of the windows and doors an additional garage door the enlargement of some of the decks and the excavation along the south property line for a grammar assess the original grade link the first level the down one level access to the basement now as discussed

unfortunately, the excavation contractor who was hired excavated what was beyond the permit that contractor has been fired and the project sponsor is trying to resolve issues with the southern property line not differences in the technical resolutions to this problem for other reasons the parties were not able to get to a private settlement as a result of that the permit holder and it was acted that refilling that excavated area would be the best solution commissioner vice president moran the situation now the rezoning requires the eliminations of one entrance to the garage and the relocation to

the one of the entrances and that's what we're appealing one of the homeowners will speak after i speak their apologetic about the work they're the substandard work their contractor did and truly committed to resolving this for everyone involved to that end we want to be responsive to the concerns about the appellant in the two briefs the first one the entrances to the two basement at the rear of the property to your question commissioner fung the originally approved permits was one of the basement unit and the other one they do yard only one entrances relocated to the rear we understand the permit holder concern with no security we proposed here to install a security gate at the front of the property so again, it can't

be assessed by anyone off the street like deliveries and pizza and the occupant of the basement unit will have to come out to the front to receive if packages are left the occupants control the access to the rear the building this is a standard approach to maintain the security in rear yard navigate the home previously had a similar gate preventing access to the reagan rear now the appellant court will talk about the entrances to the unit we looked at this building me we prefer not to be here asking the board to decide on decide on this matter and not feasible for the project it would require putting an internal entry a loss of one of

the parking spaces and again two families moving into this building only you're going to have one space per unit and two units in the basement with no parking this requires one-on-one parking and would be detrimental to the families that purchased the building if not parking space in each can't move one of the basement units to an upper floor that undermines the whole purpose of the project they purchased the building in order to create family sized units moving one of the units will really undermine the ability to have a december descent sized basement no privacy concerns with the currently proposed condition at the entrances if i could get the overhead so this is a photo of rear so

right here you have the rear of 8 palm and the appellants home fronts on california street the basement units down here will be essentially two floors below the windows and doors on the property significantly lover they site line from here property the second the distances between the rear or side of her property and the rear of 8 palm is 23 feet not butted up to it and beyond that the permit holder is willing to plant bamboo or other screening to provide further both noise and privacy if this is something that would help the situation their more than happy to do that

the response to the concern without undermining the purpose of them to purchase the home in the first place the appellant mentioned the concern with the stalker you'll see in your packet restored the direction of that stalker it hugs the side of the building as you can see it actually is not as wide as one of the bay windows on the side of the building not restricting that walkway modern this is currently there with the bay window i think we've teacher taken care of and the other appellant asked for a conditions and the first was to restore the sidewalk to the original grade we believe we've done that a small amount of removal of dirt to maintain the grade we're open

to suggestions if there is concerns the grade is not at the original state and the permit holder accepts the survey prepared by the appellant no disagreement we're happy to incorporate it into the plans and in addition to that we'll hold the as you can see on the plans hold the concrete walkway two inches off the property line to make sure it will not go over the property and updated the site plan to show more detail and happy to accept it was referred to as a lighted superintendent if this is a brick and mortar that's fine or prefer some third party to observe that is fine we're happy but there is not substantive differences and finally the site is winterized the dune is

absorbing the water and when the concrete walkway will be poured so no water drains to the adjacent property it is code compliant so we're asking the board to incorporate those modifications into the permitted so everyone can feel comfortable that this is not just you know up to the the good faith of the property but again josh will come up the bakers are apologetic about the southbound standard work and the boards acceptance will bring this complicated process to an end and now josh to say a few words on behalf of the family. >> hi. >> good evening

my name is josh barker my wife steve and annie we purchased 8 palm together in 2004 i'm here to speak for all of us we saw 8 palm a great opportunity to own a home in san francisco we could live for many years and purchased in a multi family building to purchase for something not available to us on our home we began the modifications we were upset with the mistakes by the subcontractor we were relying on him to be up to code compliant he was fired we would like to apologizes for the difficult process as our move to our new home was significantly delayed by the issues we're here to

respectfully request you board responds allows us to finish our project and move into our new home thank you for your time. >> anything further mr. kaplan anything further. >> i have a question this project the four units were on the existing two floors approximately what size. >> each the units i don't know the exact square footage but not reduced blow those size beyond what is permitted in the planning code. >> so the relocated two non-conforming is; is that correct. >> it was interesting the home

was original a single-family and the additional units were created within the building if you see the original as built plans for the building there were 3 units on the first floor but not separated by wall i am not they were kind of existing amongst each other not because the building had been breakdown and the city recognized as 4 dwelling units and the protection of those rent-controlled unit we were able to do so in the basement that if significantly reduce the size of yeah - >> this is rh1 zoning based on this specific site area allows how many units. >> it should be one permitting permitted under the zoning. >> since you're up. >> how big i think that was in the belief i'm not sure senior

moment how big are those two units going to be how big. >> the basement unit? one is 3 address 70 square feet and one is 410 one is a a studio and one one bedroom >> perfect for short-term occupancy that's another story why don't the property owners make this into a two unit building instead of having itch i mean a three hundred and what. >> three hundred and 10 three hundred and 10. >> 370. >> so when i was on the redevelopment commission we chatted how small is too small even for the most affordable of

the affordable housing in the city i don't believe that 370 made our muster that would be likened to a closet so this brings up the question why bother not incorporate the two units and why create two apartments that wreck of short-term rentals which are some people don't like in places especially like jordan park it turns into a hotel or with that said. >> the owners came to me and said file a merger application we can't because the planning commission right now is not going to support the loss of any rent-controlled units i say that

to clients it make sense in some situations the board of supervisors has spoken 11 to zero on a esteem case for poor housing they have to maintain so the short sincere that is not a process we can really have much chance of winning and being successful. >> okay thanks. >> uh-huh. >> okay. thank you we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> . >> we'll hear from the department now. >> mr. duffy. >> joe duffy dbi commissioners the permit for the superintendant under the appeal it was a revision to other permits with the existing grid and the two units revised the rear yard retaining wall

modifications united states of america it is remaining over the current issue on the 16th of october sorry 8 of october and suspended by the 16 by dbi following the appeal i saw photos it was a bad situation at the time, we issued a stop work order there was an over excavation too close to the property line it is quite scary i'm not sure what happened the subcontractor got blamed the general contractors name is on the permit he's still there and you know the board itself from a building point of view is probable fine what is going to need to happen there needs to be confidence restored been the neighboring property owners i'm not sure this is there i think

they might be getting there i did speak to the lady earlier and i suggested that you know the general contractor if - we've had problems in the past we've fired that person we need something to say we'll not have problems in a few weeks i did recommend the superintendant small business be with i rented a site myself yesterday and luckily the condition i described as part of notice of violation is gone the building is off foundation and the shoring is gone we've signed off on the shoring abated violation that's the important thing to do going forward it definitely needs to go better i speak to contractors and it's like they

move both a neighborhood they're like residents and introduce yourselves and give the neighbors a phone number to call if someone is doing something and respond right away and make sure your project is done properly and evasion is extremely dangerous can cause hurt to people and i'm hoping moving forward if they get the permit approved upheld that things are done better so that's really my part on i'm available to answer any questions. >> mr. duffy do you see any evidence of what we have cordially referred to as serial permitting the project started as one thing that was okay. about with the neighbors and morphed into something different and part of issue not only that we're here because a contractor did a bad job but also what was

approved in the friend was not the same as then. >> the terms serial permit is brought up many, many times it is pleasant permits inform law against it i find that a lot of developers when they buy a property and realize what we can and can't do over-the-counter it depends on the parklet you're going higher or bigger you'll be into a longer process a lot of people sees their projects fails to get going i don't know it may have been downey done in 2, 3, 4 case i've seen this on many projects it seems to me the trend but if they put it all on one it is a huge project and might be even dbi might take it in because of the amount of work

they piecemeal them it seems like the way things are done this is not out of control the garage was one i don't know about the kitchen and bathroom permit they'll do a lot sometimes that permit is going taken out to get the work started and but this permit i'll say shouldn't have been taken out by the current contractor you can ask they've done it it it seems to me they do and - >> if you're the neighbor you wake up and say gee, i thought that was a bathroom, renovation and now something is completely different. >> i imagine they have notifications for the two car garage i usually check that but

probable notification from dbi at least some of the neighbors for the excavation the annoying part we're seeing a lot of the evasion of property lines a civil code probable wasn't done that didn't require on this permit but required on the permit that for the adding the two car garage and the basement a big permit we call it $342,000 and again, you're going to be in the neighborhood for a year or two say who you are i'm going to be working between 7:30 and 5 this is who i am and dbi can't make that but we're being advocates the outreach is so important there are room you can get permits over-the-counter for sincerely or certainly types of work that can start quickly 15

days to require the appeals if they're on the ball and in this case i don't think that the gentleman next door that was impacted by the excavation headed him out in the war room and i saw foifdz we were shocked but that situation has gotten better this is the may have last year. >> do you have the ability to find out who received notice for the excavation permit. >> here. >> not now no, i'm sorry it would have been the adjacent neighbors and the foundation under appeal. >> building permit. >> oh, sorry i was concentrating when you see the garage and add the rezoning of

two units and the basement the first floor and second floor dbi should have done structural notification i would be shocked we're supposed to do that and as i said, the civil code should have been done i spoke to the contractor briefly yesterday you've got to be cafeteria on he oebs vacations you have to it is definitely cause you all sorts of problems and has the right to look at the plans and see how they impact their property and hire a geotech or structural engineer how are you going to protect my prompt rather than seeing the photographs the soil again, i don't want to repeat we've moved on but in a better place. >> so inspector duffy the

construction is the original contractor and the now contractor. >> they're the general contractor but had hired a subcontractor for the excavation on foundation that is pretty normal that brings someone in to do the foundations the contractor and subcontractor you know i'm not sure what- it seems like they brought in an excavator and started, you kno., >> the shoring is scary to be honest with you. >> thank you. >> good evening again corey

from the planning department just a few quick points again, this permit was approved by the planning department over-the-counter think last year and able to approved over-the-counter no neighborhood notification was required 40 no proposal to expand the envelope and the roof deck was not within the rear yard if that was the case there would be been a 10 day notification to the neighbors that permit was approved over-the-counter by the planning department just information on what is permit on site the permit holder council mr. kevin was thinking an rh1 that allows only one unit or m-1 that allows one unit of 8 hundred square feet that equals 4 units the site contains 3 unit

and the oz are left-hand side within the density of the site as mentioned if they - there is an avenue for them to move forward in terms of requesting to merge two more than units that requires the planning department approval and it is a high bar if their rent-controlled that avenue is there not indefinite not encouraged from the planning department and just to touch on a couple of comments for classifications about the residential guidelines it does ask that entrances respect the blocks in the neighborhood that's true this is relate to the entrance son the front of the building not mean that every entrances to the building must be for every

entrance of every building the existing block has second story entrances and have a building flush ground grade entrance not in the character as you may know lots of buildings in the city multiple buildings with multiple entrances with below grade at the front on the side or often have rear yard cottages that have their own entrance there is some type of passageway and a comment about the new shares and isn't it true new use i just to be clear that the stairs in the original permit that was approved and the proposed stairs the permit holder proposed in their brief both of those will not constitute a use new use and

go a step further all the changes by the permit holder in their brief none of those revisions require a new notification if these were to be made i'm available to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you any public comment on this item? okay seeing no public comment we'll have rebuttal and start with the lady 3 minutes of rebuttal if you care to use it. >> thank you i'm learning a lot about the process i don't understand the point of variance like if he were to put the unit in the front the entrances in the front to get a variance for parking i mean a variance would be less intrusive to the neighbors than moving the entrances unit back

and making a public alley plus this is palm avenue i don't know if you're familiar with the each other neighborhood it is perpendicular it is on street would have two spaces to park so i'll be under oath under oath of a variance but strongly against the unit having the entrance son the street i did not know the planning that meant they had to be the same but i think this building is one hundred years old the entrance is in the front of the building it's not appropriate to change the entrance to the back and make an alley just to avoid through the dwelling units process it is too extensive they've spent $2 million on the

building and completely getting the building adding the parking and excavating the building is hallow as you can see through it to the street all new kitchens and bathes the one thing out of their budget is keeping the intrashz in the front that's the one thing that is off the table as far as affording it that is not acceptable it is superbus to the point of ridiculousness i'll ask the board to have the entrances in the front as they've always been thank you. >> ms. baiter. >> for a brief rebuttal i have my client he can testify under the penalty of perjury he's sworn in no notice of march 20th

permit in fact, none of the permit intrur inspector duffy was saying subjected to notice i asked the board to do whatever they feel is appropriate to grant part of the permit and put that part over so the neighbors can have notice and respond this is only fair briefly will chronology the bathroom model and the second one the paper one one in november december there was a kitchen and bath none knew about that and the next one is february 15th that is labeled foundation didn't say nothing you don't know this is march 20th inspector duffy sunshine said should have been relocating the unit to the back and if you look at the planning

commission notes they talk about remodeling the units so they don't seemed to me that be aware there is an issue of relocation and then the current permit occurred discharge reduce permit the rest i'll say still a minute and a half if you look at the pictures in this picture left up here versus the strange angles if you look at the picture what they're proposing to put a stair in a narrow side yard your spent say 5 feet from any clients building to that stairway and people will go going up and down they don't want to follow the law in taking two unit off the market i'll ask the board not to allow that or at least give the

predicament notice so everyone can chime until and the commission and building inspection can make a appropriate decision you wake up to knowing about a permit but knowing that his foundation was under attack and had been extremely mentioned as well as save and property lines survey was asked for in june it didn't appear that they stipulated until january 7th thank you very much. >> a point of clarification the department has indicated the only notice should have been provided would have been a notice of structural altercation. >> in march. >> in addition the appeal of that would have been here and not been through planning. >> i see then i meant the - if

we are wrong on the change of use of the side yard not of the stairs but the yard is not a yard then your point is well-taken i appreciate it but thanks. >> if you want to ask any questions no notice until it is found out that the department said out arraign. >> sir, your rebuttal time 6 minutes. >> thank you, again commissioners to wrap up none p is more upset about the excavation contractor than the barkers and the sloolgz everyone is impacted they've been severely impacted, too, and really have been working to try to bring this situation to a close and resolve the mistake

that had happened these are not a bunch of developers two families they had an opportunity to purchase a home in san francisco by combining their resources and doing a home renovation so thankful respond to every concern by the appellants we not only agree but like to have a additional supervisor at the site to oversee this work to make sure that everybody is comfortable and and the third party is okay. and we'll ask you guys to add that as a condition to the project and so we're here tonight to immuno polar the board to accept the appellants concerns and bring this process to a close if

you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> you have re-established approximately the grade of what use to be the existing walkway the bay window there's a gap between the face of bay window and the adjacent building 146 page what is that distance? >> the bay window. >> in the bay window to the property line. >> to the property line. >> (inaudible).

>> from do bay window to the property line? >> it's okay their survey shows 3 feet plus. >> thank you. >> i have a question. >> yeah. >> so, sir eventually the notice of violation that was served as well the excavation was pretty severe why did they continue to hire the same general contractor. >> a that's a good question tract was the one that pulled the permit for this work drake was not the contractor that was doing the work that was a subcontractor. >> i understand that. >> yeah. >> was the subcontractor hired by the client. >> hire by the permit holder who is readd the development

company 9 sloolgz and barkers toned do this project. >> so the client hired the subcontractor. >> yes. >> all right. >> mr. duffy anything further? no, sir nothing okay >> no, i'm sorry commissioners unless you have another questions commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> >> for mr. duffy. >> doesn't look so exist. >> to clarify any question to the permit holder council access to the rear unit then considers between the face of the bay window and the property line i'm guessing that bans this occupancy f this is only required to be 36 inches. >> i thought when you brought it up that is where you're going

i thought 36 inches is fine it is - they're not changing - the occupancy didn't kansas so no change of occupancy four unit is still four unit i think that is 36 inches yeah. >> a question for building since adjoining properties existing window. >> with less in kind without change in the side of the openings not required to be changed if their property line windows they're changing the sues of exist ones you'll get a 45 expensive window. >> a question for the deputy da actually.

>> so mr. tig there's nothing that requires the notification of the nightclubs i mean the relocation of the rae units. >> you mean in the permit none of that triggered notification. >> okay. >> if you move unit other than within the building even if you ask do at&t add more units that in and of itself didn't trigger notification. >> okay. thank you for clarifyingt&t add more units th in and of itself didn't trigger notification. >> okay. thank you for clarifyi&t add more units that n and of itself didn't trigger notification. >> okay. thank you for clarifyit add more units that i and of itself didn't trigger notification. >> okay. thank you for clarifyi add more units that in and of itself didn't trigger notification. >> okay. thank you for clarifyiadd more units that in and of itself didn't trigger notification. >> okay. thank you for clarifying that. >> i guess the you know there's quite a bit complexity this history of this project and the situation but the one thing that stand out this year i'm not

sure i'll bring up other things the one thing that stand out the entry in the back you'll object to might have their need is to maintain the entry if not in the front i maybe amenable to in the sides that a pattern a we've seen in the city but the one in the back bothers me. >> that raise and question i'm sorry, sir are they required- what is required in terms of parking is there any. >> sure so in a district that requires one by one parking the ooinltsz units were legally without parking the legal requirement is 4 spaces they can add more than that they're basically getting closer to

enforcement it once the parking is added part of a requirement which would be you can't take that away without a variance. >> they're not required to add it. >> no. they're not under the original permit if march but for the required butable that was a requirement they were deficit in this. >> sorry i just want to - >> that's fine i guess i will bring up some of the things that crossed any mind as we heard this case there's been an intense indication of use more people you've got extremely large - there needs to be give on the part of property owners they're impacted on the adjacent homes is fairly substantial

a couple of minor points if the 14 palm neighbor only wants them to fill the walkway up to the property line then i hope they're aware there is a gap then that is basically sand that is adjacent to their property which does not being filled i was curious in this case where they could have avoided some of the things they raised the building jacked it occupy. >> you're talking about a side entranceway i may the side sgrns by the way, center to have a small hallway into the central hallway and access this. >> that resolves the neighbors concerns. >> not necessarily but

reduces. >> i will agree with commissioner fung at a very least. >> a complicated situation i think none will be happy here i'm a little bit disturbed it is that respect that the permit holders have experience added this this is not they're first swing at the bat they have the ability to hire excavators and contractors so the merger was not a possibility so. >> mr. duffy wants to respond. >> sorry commissioner, i maybe portsmouth square out the obvious the side excavation that occurs next to the neighbors problem that caused the problem

on the property at 14 palm not all was excavated how to get back filled and come packed we can't have that. >> i must have look at the wrong drawings. >> there are - it is too close. >> in both instances are under the rear. >> i think that is the way it is i believe yeah. it is - i wanted to point out that. >> it makes that doubling offendi doubly offensive. >> it creates a public additional there was iowa's not one creating units of such. >> minimal size their again wouldn't or would or may not be

appropriate in a - a low income housing permitted situation ass as a standard in the city you know the whole building is jerry rigged and then to create at situation that the owners want to create but at the forced compromises to the neighborhood that is bother some curd by making the entrances from the small apartment from the in front of. >> the reason for not doing the front is the parking garage right that's as the sacrifice. >> there was one garage there

historically. >> so is there - ii went back if they raised the whole building up you could have had an entry on the side wall. >> mr. tip of the iceberg ygg bigger scope of work one of the units pieptd had access to the rear they took one of the basement level rear yard units and changed the entry from the side to the rear he wanted to clarify the department under appeal was not changing the access. >> i misinterpreted there were multiple floor plans in multiple sections. >> absolutely sorry.

>> if you've got one back entrance; right? i mean is that that much more significant to have two? >> just so i'm sure i understand mr. tiggs point that created the back model - the first back entrance is new not part of what is existing; is that correct oh, is that part ever what is xoifs existing. >> multiple permits the original permit to relocation the unit that permit which is not the permit under appeal now, one the units on the ground floor that provided the access they rear that created a situation were you had a units someone was required to go to

the side and the side passageway under that previous permit also included sfwrans to the other unit basement that required the excavation the permit is under appeal the excavation was moved that entrance to that second ground floor unit from the side to the rear so the permits under appeal didn't change the central subway's entries from the ground floor to the area only the entry to one of the ground floor units to the rear that's the distinction i wanted to make i wasn't sure that was contrary there were multiple permits that's the point i said to make at status or somewhere of a side entry going to a rear entry units already exists as in terms of what was approved and the appeal under review will add a

second entry from the rear yard. >> while this is not necessarily but the concerns about assess and that exist already. >> right? >> you mind if i ask. >> on a permit i would have observed inform. >> mr. kaplan can you come to the - >> so was this building as purchased it or prior to them purchasing it was it used as a four unit building and someone living under. >> there was one family. >> yeah. and . >> only one family in it for all those years. >> perhaps the neighbors have the answers. >> i'm not trying to your. >> if you're going to speak

please step forward. >> an older woman that lived in her united with a caregiver but with respect were occupied in the 10 years and she passed away and her estate sold the little we've not received notice. >> the question really was sorry - the question was if someone lived there you've answered that but i haven't had that situation was created that's why go - >> they entered through the front all 4 units never any entrance from the back. >> okay. thank you. >> it's getting more confusing. >> i guess you know my take on this is still the same this permit was issued rectified certain problems that occurred

on the site therefore as far as i am concerned i think the permit is still valid i object to having one entrance in the back. >> so what are you saying exactly. >> you can't hear me how is that let me do this you know, i would life or leave it up to the permit holder to find a resolution it is up to them to rise is as necessary should there. >> are you suggesting a

continuance. >> i want to see if there's a word to modify this permit because it requires a super majority. >> i would go along with the continuance and work on it and not kill it completely. >> i mean that would be my first inclinations to by the time let the permit holder and the appellants try to solve this i don't know how they'll get two doors in the front but that's up to them to resolve. >> if they say we have one door at the side and one at the front. >> they couldn't. >> the problem with the excavation to the joining neighbors property unless the permit holder or property owner

is relying willing to work with them. >> it is possible only a different elevation a different elevation. >> mr. duffy did you want to comment. >> commissioners again, i do remember back when this thing got excavated a lot of sperpd geotechnical engineers franklin was involved i'm pretty sure the site is not definitely something one wants to explore excavating they don't want to go there and again on this side property line and i'm sure the appellants will unskilled skip that as well and obviously if they got over this and for some reason an option coming in from the side i think the reason they didn't want to touch that so - >> i don't think we -

>> no. >> we'll be providing a direction other than the fact they need to resolve in their own way. >> exhaust their options. >> which way do you want to again go. >> i believe a continuance is called for . >> council mr. kevin how much time do you need? >> commissioner fung is this continuance propose a continuance that gives time for the permit holder to prepare a revised plan that articulate an alternative that puts the entrances other than in the back. >> should they be so willing

if for the willing then we'll hold off. >> after thank you. >> thank you, commissioner we'll be open to a 3 week continuance to find a resolution to this front entry problem. >> got to be four weeks we have no meeting on this day am i right yes. >> four weeks is the twelfth is that the substantial load on this night. >> i expect 5 matters of

listed ones may move there is some wiggle room. >> february 10th. >> okay. >> i would move to continue this case actually february 10th in response to the comments the commissioners made and commissioner fung do you want to have any additional briefings submitted are revised plans submitted. >> if they're willing to show an alternative then they can submit the plans. >> okay. so then your plan to continue this to allow times for the permit holder to if they - to prepare a revised plan that shows an additional design you want to specific that shows an entrance other than in the rear. >> to show an additional design with no entrance in the

rear. >> okay. >> with the submittal of the revised plans they'll submit the thursday prior to the hearing with no other briefing. >> yes. >> okay. >> okay on that motion then commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner swig that motion carries this matter will be continued fill february 10th. >> we'll take a very short break. >> the folks