excuse supervisor yee? >> good idea. we can take that without objection. any other business in front of us? >> there's no further business. >> anyone thank you. we are adjourned. [adjourned] >> good evening welcome to the meeting of the wednesday, february 10, 2016, of the san francisco board of appeals the presiding officer is commissioner president honda and he's joined by commissioner vice president fung who will be here

shortly and commissioner president ann lazardus and commissioner swig commissioner bobbie wilson will be absence this earning set the record straight is robert bryan and at the controls the leg assistant gary i'm board's executive director we're we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. sitting in the front row is chris buck urban forestry the public utilities commission of urban forestry at the table is assistant zoning administrator corey representing the planning department and the planning commission walking the room is senior bickering john updyke he with mark wall will be representing the please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. please carry on conversations out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their

case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. 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 the oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance, and thank 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. >> great. thank you very much commissioner president honda and commissioners two housekeeping items 6 ab those are appeal numbers which are appeals of a building and a plumbing permit on pillsbury street they have

been brawling and regarding item 10 at 30th street that is for an altercation that was the subject of that appeal that has been cancelled the appeal was cancelled that item was dismissed and item number one general public comment 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, any general public comment seeing none, move to item 2 commissioners questions or comments. >> commissioners i'd like to wish everything wealth and happiness for chinese new year. >> any public comment on item 2. >> seeing none, move to item 3 when is the boards consideration of considers of the minutes of

the january 2016 meeting. >> any changes or additions can i have a motion. >> motion to accept. >> motion from commissioner swig to adopt the minutes that i am on this minutes. >> seen on that motion with commissioner president honda on that motion. >> commissioner lazarus and commissioner vice president fung is absent as commissioner wilson that wares carries with a vote of 3 to zero. >> commissioner president honda wait to move on to item number 4. >> a water a second. >> a short recess then. >> order and we'll start with

the appellant please step forward you have 7 minutes to present your case to the board. >> please speak into the microphone. >> thank you for looking at our detailed appeal. >> would you speak into the microphone please. thank you very much for looking over the appeal which we spilled our board with documentation and i think we have a reasonable request to - 0 postpone the case later in the year perhaps at the end of spring no urgency no kind of danger their perhaps collapsing tomorrow that is

documented not only by our arborist the leading expert on trees particular and the eucalyptus trees which we know quite well, i submitted a tremendous amount of documentations with it and why he inspected the area on october 22nd and from the 11 trees he recommends 4 for removal and as you can see on the documentation all the other trees does not remove don't remove do not remove no imminent dangerous our association was mentioning they have to arborist we paid 20 two arborists never a

second arborist completely from the bureau of government affairs but no second arborist he doesn't exist the finding of the last time we had the meeting here from public works that matter you can find on the order where we also stated the removal is not actually requested i connected 26 snatches from individuals with a petition they signed they knew what they were signing and very polite and signed out of they're free will 26 people are against the cutting but i know with the appeals process the other party they have 4 people that are for

removing the trees and so i talked to mr. keller and said any objections for removing these 4 trees i say i do not have but i cannot speak so far the other people that as i understand the petition you better get in touch with them and send them the documentation i don't know if this was the case i don't believe it was and also we're waiting as of this day for documentation we has good photographs and at the hearing a point source mentioning the different trees and actually never put my measurements or detail in it we trust 3 times the documentation we never received that due to the fact that we have 26

individuals that are against the removal of trees and since i do not represent any danger it was stated several times the the arborist or arborist joe mcbride it is reasonable that it be postponed and we waiting for the springtime this morning i have deposition here we photographed new sprouts coming out of the trees and they are reasonable healthy why they're not new trees the past they removed six or eight trees and never replaced them they tried to remorseful those trees in july without any preempt and suddenly they removed the cart from the

tree company and they were gone then later somehow didn't apologizes but get the proper permit and the tree company had tagged for removal and they tried to do with without a permit which most likely the trees in our area were removed without permit and the past years but they never respected them by law will replace them within 6 months i left you the documentation of the eucalyptus trees that are dying this is here if july from the newspaper about the public defender's office joe mcbride that speaks for itself and also the other parties bryan murray of that log

company is mentioning on page 8 appellant is a sole san francisco homeowner opposing the removal is true and on page temple they typed one on line three and four a person and using the word misinformation on page 10 at the bottom it is also not true absolutely - well, i don't know want to use derogatory language not correct we appreciate from the board if they can see the point from our arborist and so we can hopefully looking forward to springtime when the trees were more revived

and more will grow. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening. i'm american people attorney at ignoring den and reece we represented st. francis hov responding to a appellants appeal before you tonight i want to state that st. francis wood is made up of approximately 51 exactly homes many of whom came out to public meetings held by the parks committee i have shannon a member of actually both the committee and braid and speak to the public hearings or meetings

that were held to kind of vet it landscaping plan of which the 11 tree removals are part of she's her to attest to the fact if there was widespread community involvement with respect to the 26 snatches shannon will speak to the fact she's people spoken to some of landscaping plan and will withdraw their name from that snatch in responding to appellant i nodded he had one support letter in his appeal that support letter was from someone not the hov a homeowner not from the hov this is alluding to my comments on page 10 no support letters within anyone from st. francis hov 5 hundred and 15 homes is

quite a few of the a homes between santa clara are about 46 trees of the 46 trees 11 were identified by certify ooshtd steve and steve keller part of bureau for urban forestry i understand they'll speak together as well both mr. keller and the arborist have identified trees to be removed for public reasons and once the certified arborist report and the opinion of mr. keller they had to act their computed with a public safety issue to do so as part of a 200 and $50,000 landscape they'll remove the 11 trees and submit 20 or install 20 red maple trees

that are pretty extensive and large trees serve as a beautification for the area part of their order aside from public safety that is the primary reason to maintain the overall feel and character and beautification of the area these trees are dying they want to kind of want the landscape plan into the future so that's basically, what the motivate is aside is from public safety public safety first and a long-range planning for yerba buena avenue they've heard from a number of homes from yerba buena avenue and everyone is in support of comforting that street bringing the new trees and the new scholarship plan and enhancing the area, of course, it will help to enhance property values and so forth so a lot of reasons for that doing it it through a public process and

neighbors were allowed to come out like tonight so you'll hear from steve over and over man he is here he believe they'll be entitled to 3 minutes and could you please stop the clock this is not correct i want to understand you use ours time permanent representatives include mormon association are party to the appeal the officers of that association or board members are considered represented by i they canned speak under public comment any individual that you the homeowners organizations associations has hired an arborist will be considered a representative and need to speak under the time allotted under the 7 minutes speak separately

and great, thank you we'll have mr. over and over mrman come upy to talk about that but without further ado, what mr. orman found i think that will coffer it is also not repeating so without further ado, here's under orman. >> good evening i'm steve orman a landscape certified arborist and a tree risk assessor our by the united arborist i was hired by the st. francis association for the past 4 years i was a

landscape manager and basically, i oversee the contractors, the tree contractor and landscape contractor and do walk through once a week throughout the property assessing the trees and the dollar story plants the reason that i'm here is because the yerba buena is a street to believe relandscaped and i do walk-through's with another arborist who is the owner of northern trees and during the walk through we noticed the trees were declined and hazardous you'll see later in the photos these trees are not healthy any tree that has a target is by definition a hazard

and those trees will have homes and vehicle and parked vehicles so i advocate as much as that's part of my job to advocate those trees it's not my job to take down the trees but when a public safety hazard we apply for permits and go through the process we have homeowners here that have been innovative been through the process represent the homeowners and yerba buena that they agree the finding with the city's finding those trees are hazardous like i said i'm not there to take trees down i don't want to take down trusts e tries but preserve what we have with we're in a process those trees are

over one hundred years old it is time to take out the hazardous trees and install new trees thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. buck. >> good evening, commissioners chris buck urban forestry are public works general summary from our department we think this request for removing 11 trees is reasonable a number of trees across the properties at st. francis wood at the staff level we received the application for removal we evaluated and found the trees are in declining health we approved that for the public works hearing and another that hearing steve our ooshtd provided testimony about the condition of the trees and the departments decision the result from that hearing to approve the

trees roller it o removal the appellants brief focuses on the drought concerns we've been in drought situations for a long time an el nino winter this winter not likely to have two el nino winter back to back from the trees get a punch if the irrigation there guess decay present injuries present and some of the branches and general reduced vigor i don't think an el nino winter is enough to help the trees this is very reasonable request to approve for removal the 11 trees st. francis wood that manages a lot of trees across their domain and this is the first time in a while we've received a tree application from them regarding the species the red

maple the large tree at maturity a different look and feel a lot of the trees in st. francis wood are eucalyptus are evergreen, however, we defer to hoa whenever we've initiated the plan for new trees along the block every time we remove an individual tree even when like market street or delores you know that you can expect to plant a similar species everyone wants to say choose their own tree it is like when you're in elementary school if you give one period of time a cookie you need to provide everyone with what they want i'd like i'd rather decide on one tree so i'm imaging the board there at hoa

has done a lot of enough outreach to build that consensus the tree itself is it does better in warmer sunny micro compliments within the city it has wind protection there with that we've - are approving that supposing species for replacement a different look and feel to that block and over time my assumption when the other trees are eventually removed for legitimate reasons this will be red maples. >> st. francis wood as demonstrated a commitment to maine i maintaining the trees the neighborhood it is a heavy tree i'm here to reiterate those are reasonable trees to remove approve for removal and the species decision it is a large statute species that hoa and st.

francis wood is proposing you don't think i don't see an issue of planning department of red maple and keep it flexible from the board condominiums to a species what if that species didn't do well in 6 months and we're stuck into a species decision that we'll need to possible come back for a decision on so in my brief he put i want to put that out there we want to accommodate as many people as possible but st. francis wood as made a decision on the species we ask that will deferred to our department and st. francis wood with that, that's all i have to say that evening. >> mr. buck what's the life of

the existing species you want to approve. >> the lifespan a difficult to project in an urban environment my sense that trees is there thirty to 40 years old some of the eucalyptus planned there is different on each the block on st. francis wood i said say an average lifespan upwards 50 years the low end is thirty years and red maple are similar in the fact they are not a fast growing tree but a longer lived species not as weeping or drop i didn't they're open they let light ♪ the winters and the canopy the wind will keep the cannon from

two dense not a dense canopy but openness to the red maples that's a little bit of the span of the life of the maple >> the permit holder said those trees are over one hundred years old it is one thing about age it is very different to tell unless our counting the rings i'm not familiar with a lot of the gonzales of st. francis wood but i mean they maybe 50 years old. >> the question mr. buck the appellant mentioned several trees were removed without permit will you or your department look at that. >> i'll have to double check

with steve kelly know there is an acknowledgement some location along yerba buena avenue 20 replacement trees an acknowledgement that we've confirmed some planting not been replanted by st. francis wood i think generally, if there is an issue something that can, looked at some stranger boundaries something about kings law they don't acknowledge certain renovations these trees are significant trees our jurisdiction extend within 10 feet from the curb line no jurisdiction over the right away but significant trees jurisdiction go there their attorneys may explain that better but the reason we have a hearing those trees are 10 feet of the curb line not street

trees it is possible some trees are further away don't require a permit before i need to check with our staff at the office but my sense they've been committed to replant trees and absolutely look at any thoughts of trees not getting replaced. >> the second question i don't i don't. no, sir the brief the box size. >> the requirement is a minimum of 24 inch respected tree a general requirement minimum requirement it is typically what we recommend when people are moving trees through no fault of their own no fixtures it is part of a plan by st. francis wood to revisit the landscaping on those trees in that sense our

department was looking at to make a larger recommendation based on really on the fact that is reasonable route maintenance. >> explain how large is the 24 inch box. >> it is approximately 2 feet by 2 feet square 36 same thing they're getting a thicker trunk a year or two years of growth the 36 inch box you're getting one or two years additional growth about a one or two, 2 year jump start. >> in height wise. >> height can vary quite a bit red maples are at all and a but a 24 is 8 feet tall tops to the tip and 36 inch box tree is

potentially could be 10 feet to 12 or 1 feet max the height is negotiable it is the trunk. >> question mr. buck to clarify do you want the permit potentially changed to take out the red maple to be planted with a tree with your department. >> right now the recommendation says 24 inch box but species to be approved by urban forestry so the current permit recommendation is to hold the permit as it stands with the species to be approved by the bureau of urban forestry that will not require a change. >> thank you thank you. >> we'll take public comment can i see a show of hands how many people plan on speaking on

this item please step forward. >> studying my school history and i would think that we restore it tree i have some technologies that make the trees feel more alive and as far as the tree you know do we replace to get rid of - i don't think that it is really just a way of speaking that the world is going

to change or because when i intend to do that i'm sick and doing a whole lot better and that trees we have and things we say there is nothing wrong with them which can be fixed i think public should be stay there and not destroy the who recall world by a tree i think it is unfair not you know recommend that 4 years i've been through to no consideration i already am mechanical and i know everything about cars and can have a job but there is one of the ways

they tried to mess up the whole universe and nature, you know, because of giving medication by doctors and not fair consideration because of my family and my family is very great and i think this is one of the reasons why they wanted to go ahead and rob like they did before i'm going to make sure this didn't happen before i was sick we had no reason for those trees and i look further into that thanks. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening my name is

kevin and i live other yerba buena and have for the past 10 years i issue wish to convey my removal of the old and diseased eucalyptus those trees have loss branches in 2008, the trees outside my neighbor's home dropped a heavy branch cross any driveway and against my houses you've heard the trees that died in past years were not replaced the association is run by volunteers there are plans to replace them and maintain trees on different streets if trees were not replaced due to the cost of dying trees removed after storms the association has set aside the funds necessary to remove and replace the members of the

commission trees st. francis wood was designed over one hundred years old with the emphasis on key to opportunity u fundamental of neighborhood as you may know eucalyptus was introduced in 18 hundred as a fast source i have wood unsuitable for buildings because of splitting and cracking as these trees keeping and replacing loupz trees it good additionally we support of commissioner sanchez wood plans as presented to you i also want to remark i attended in september or october a neighborhood consensus meeting on this topic aot at any neighbor sharps home a majority i say a large number of residents up and down the blocks of yerba buena impacted were in attendance afterward we were polled for the

type of tree and after that powell a decision was made thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you is there any additional public comment? >> seeing none, we'll start our rebuttal sir, you have 3 minutes for rebuttal if you have anything else to address the board. >> thank you for giving me the opportunity in regards to the replacement tree i think that will proper to stay with the eucalyptus trees like the ones on terrace i've left you a sample they come relatively close the other tree the association would be totally out

of character for that street unless you kept the 46 trees and plant all new ones that would be absolutely ridiculous and i only urge you our arborist the gentleman he is a totally independent arborist not paid for anything like your local arborist steve he works and gets paid for his services that is probably good the arborist from berkley joe mc bride totally independent and that is important for making a right decision i urge you to read his report which i left with the documentation

thank you so much thank you. >> sir any rebuttal. >> i want to thank the board for their time and again to let you know other neighbors that can speak to their support and shannon as well thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. buck. >> chris buck bureau of urban forests i want to clarify one point we did produce evaluation sheets for all the copies for the arborist of st. francis wood thank you. >> thank you commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> the question whether or not the department erred i find the

department did not error. >> there's a standard but you're hearing this brand new i still find they didn't error therefore i mean, i'll not support the appeal. >> my position where the risk is with the homeowners and the homeowners are go voluntarily taking down and replacing and there doesn't seem to be a reason not to uphold the appeal i'll support denying the appeal. >> i concur. >> so i make a motion? >> move to deny the appeal on the basis that removal would allow the vegetation there.

>> okay. thank you. >> on that motion to deny the appeal and uphold the appeal on the basis the removal of the trees will allow for the renewal of the existing vegetation commissioner lazarus commissioner honda and commissioner swig that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero thank you so we'll move on to item 5 ab appeal numbers and france living trust against the department of building inspection both appealing the project on palm avenue protesting the issuance on october 8, 2014, of a altercation permit application number south breed remain at

existing grade enhance indigents to the rear yard and modification this was heard in 2016 and on for further hearing today it was continued to allow time for the permit holders that show an additional design singles the board continued this time for the permit holder to present you with an alternative commissioner honda i recommend we start with the permit holder. >> i agree. >> i need to make my disclosure i wish to say i've hired reuben, junius & rose of the entities before this board not having is an effect on my decision. >> thank you, again with the presidents extent we'll give peach appellant 5 minutes to present their case because of two appeals you have 10 minutes.

>> thank you thank you john with reuben, junius & rose here on behalf of the project sponsor we were here discussing the renovation of a residential building we've got appeals from the rear neighbor ape the south neighbor a side neighbor the south neighbors concerns were related to the fact two dwelling units at the basement where their preliminary means of entrance from the rear of the property in our first- their concern was we had rear steps directed towards their home santa monica's towards the front the first hearing we proposed clipping the stairs to move towards the front of the building and proposed putting installing a entry gates on the side of the home where there is the walkway in order to control

access to the rear we heard from the boarded last time more effort firemen's in terms of fortune reducing assess to the basement to the rear yard so what we did we came up with two option one a direct assess through the front next door to the garage that access to the garage to two unit and side entrance that will be behind the front gate but halfway up from the rear of the property we run this by mark at the building inspection before we submitted i don't want to speak only on behalf of the the mouth of the staff i want to speak to this as well acknowledged it was code compliant and said the preference will be for the side entrance due to the fact if even though it is code compliant the front door you can walk into an

open garage we filed both options last thursday and since spoken with the zoning administrator corey the gentleman mentioned that also the project - both options will be code compliant, however, planning department staffing prefers the side entry and with an enclosed walkway to the does the door didn't open into the garage is gloss a walkway into the two units for it it was after last thursdays deadline to file i've got a third option with me from the board wants to consider 15 copies we provided copies to both appellants as well so with respect to the south neighbor the concern no additional excavation we spoke we brought the grade back to the original level that it was

in order to accommodate the side entrance we're doing because of the basement blow that grade we're actually descending inside the building walk down the steps as opposed to cut into the centigrade with direct assess into the side and garage we added the parapets the south appellants surveyor mark the boundaries so it is absolutely clear where the concrete walkway will be poured so no controversy over that we're on the sampling accepting of their survey as well as the marks i think this is a long process not all the parties have been on the savrj but a permit holder that is accommodating and hoping the boards recognizes tare efforts to fill their concerns we're here if you have any questions

and the project sponsor josh barker will speak as well. >> i see the appellants are shaking their heads in terms of receiving the option 3. >> so this option 3 was finished this morning and . >> provide them with a copy. >> sure uh-huh. >> okay commissioner vice president fung dow did you want to receive the copies as well. >> keep one more yourself and give one to the board members pleasereceive the copies as wel >> keep one more yourself and give one to the board members plea please. >> i'm josh backer one of the owners of the property on palm avenue with regards to the lastly option being distributed that was worked on until the afternoon a i overwhelmed it to the owners at 3:00 p.m. they've

not had adequate time to review it but by e-mail i wanted to make a few brief points on things that were discuss at the last hearing i want to stress that you know we're not developers we're looking this is my home - looking to go make that my home there were a lot of mistakes almost a year ago now when our excavation remarkable contractor you know didn't do the job we hired him for we have been trying since that point when the issues came up to resolve those together with our neighbors and while i'm sure they'll disagree i believe we have tried to be responsive,

credit rat of their concerns that have been brought up as they've been brought up we have tried very hard to do that you know we're well-intentioned consider r considerate people - we didn't i and the rest of the team didn't a good job we tried to had two options we did submit on thursday that have since yesterday had more xhufgsdz with the department of building inspection that they were not crazy about those ideas of having the direct entry to the garage that's why in that communication there were an

initial communication we initially reviewed them but also discussed they were code compliant if seems that more research was probably done you know mr. walls sent more detailed e-mail to us yesterday about that this is when we rushed to put together and finalize those option in a manner that has no excavation o avoid the issues before you we'll hear from the appellant now. >> starting with - >> (inaudible). >> can you come and speak into the microphone thank you. >> we were actually, only given one set of plans before they were submitted and then we realized this is the first we've seen of the third i'd like to

look at it for a second if that's okay i don't want to waste our time everything i said was based on the other two submittals so. >> maybe yeah, we should call the next item and maybe have a conversation the hallway that way - >> okay. >> you said you only. >> i just received it right now. >> let me finish. >> only one set they submitted to us two alternatives did you get both. >> i did from cynthia goldstein the board's executive director. but the third one right now. >> okay. >> it seems like inspector duffy has something to share as well. >> joe duffy dbi maybe if this is helpful i could have the

inspector talk to you about the code. >> actually have a conversation commissioners would you - >> he can explain so the appellant can hear. >> what the permit holder is saying is correct original discussion only yesterday that mark was able to get everything sorted out this is the senior inspector mark walls can talk about the last drawings being submitted thank you. >> okay. >> i think that is fair that the parties are chance to look at himself hear what is going to be said by the building inspection building department about the code and so forth. >> good evening mark walls senior intishgs dbi the plan i'm seeing is kind of what i recommended as a good

option in lieu of of entering into there are no a garage says that the problem is the entering part of units through the garage it the existing part the code doesn't allow to you exit through a space especially, when that space is more hazardous than the one you're coming from not that diminish the level of space this is a storage space i keep our car most people keep a multiply e mugged of other amends items and mechanical equipment with water heaters a boiler a washer or drier once again that adds to the level of hazard for that space and existing through a garage is not a good idea and also the event the people that live within those units

don't have the potential to control who parks a car or cars in that space maybe problematic not only for exiting but entering and especially towards emergency police and fire and ambulances needing assess through the garage many things to consider i bring this up there is options in a type 5 wood-frame building but dbi through the san francisco amendments have go administrative bullet that allows for exiting through a garage with a lot of conditions i don't think that would have been at best recommendation based on first and foremost making the garage urban usable the dedicated walkway and sprinklers the plan i'm looking at i was handed

makes a lot of sense there is atmospheric separation between the garage and the entry to the dwelling units in addition it is just you know we're kraefrns of habit to enter through the garage and most likely people will consider that the most primarily exit and no way for people to enforce people to exit at the rear or the side this controlled that enters and the south side of the building and continues on to a common area and gives access to the tenants through the common space is something that seems to work on many levels. >> thank you. >> questions. >> thank you perhaps we should hear if planning that gives the appellant a little bit more time

to think about this. >> please come to the podium. >> i think there is some communication occurring about whether those plans comport with what the board asked the appellant to do as mr. goldman stop sign read out the contradiction to remove the entrances at the back and remove them somewhere else those have not yielded changed negative impact any of the plans you've done they've included an exit the garage either on the side of - >> it that's it is a point of clarification. >> it is not and it is part of your argument. >> i'm trying to see what we're talking about. >> i thought the department go ahead and give their.

>> - >> we'll give some background. >> we're not talking about new plans the same way. >> we'll glow all that. >> thank you very much. >> you want to hear from corey. >> make sense mr. president. >> good evening commissioner president honda corey with the planning department so some of this is a repeat that will essentially the plans are originally approved were approved correctly by planning department the sense they met all the code compliant and the guidelines we share with the building of the decisions on the side entry we'll be supportive if if so a separate corridor as shown we'll not be supportive for many, many of the reasons if an entry cerebrothere are no an

open garage one other point that is worst bringing up that is obviously for the board to determine but the issue of entry and exit what will be used is one thing but also with we have situations like this dwelling units are access to open space such as a rationalized did planning commission and planning code strongly encourages that direct assess be given you're not sdoujd great using the open space you're entitled to that will be a concern about moving all the rear you know entry or exit points that provides direct assess it is required the code to walk towards the friday nights of the building and walk to the back one thing i'll raise los are also issues an oversight or

clarity on the plans but the new entry to the side of front essentially brings you to a hallway on the basement level where you can enter through separate doors the two ground zero but a stair up to the door should a door at the top of the stairs otherwise, it is open to the unit above. >> it maybe lightem.

>> could the okay. >> it was very interesting >> okay. we're resuming the wednesday, february 10, 2016, of the san francisco general hospital and we're still on item 15 and 15145 appeal numbers 5 ab we'll hear from one of the appellants. >> hi, i'm at&t's on california street my daughter kate is here for two reasons her bedroom window that looks at at the place and two i wanted her to learn about the public process that i made ever effort for obvious to stay in our

family home i'm okay with those plans i worry about that had been reveled months ago with the entrances on the does the only point i'd like to make commissioner president honda made at the last meeting is i think a great deal of effort has been made not communicating amongst the parties i appreciate the apologies but somewhat insincere they accuse the mystery contractor but i've contacted them and offered away ways to help them out of the mess they've intentionally made 24 this difficult the plan issue is the same issue i mean earlier this week they told us they were

going to excavate if we again agree to the plans there's been a lot going on in this case as far as you're concerned those plans are exactly what i said none some assess blow any daughters window to have a real legal units and that unless they want to do a dwelling unit merge i'm a follow eerie like people to follow the rules if they're going to merge if merge it i don't like everyone winging and nodding the entrances are not the back so thank you that's georgia great for me. >> glad to hear it. >> wallet through his attorney. >> members of the board thank

you for your patience with a matter that tends to be very conflicting i have to say we don't have a way of evaluating those plans we didn't know i have comments from the experts on other plans i don't want to necessarily say we won't agree with them in principle we would like to get this over what i'm open to our suggestions about them we got a copy from the board from the building department of the - the administrative blunder that might be a way to go to agree it specifically follow the administrative bluntly we'll be more comfortable with that than following plans we've not seen i have to bring up something i

asked the permit holder to address this themselves they did the opposite during the meeting last time one hour 36 minutes they maintained they were developers and just innocent line up on the screen side of the room everyone feels innocent the fact that mr. backer works for at the same time the man that was represented mr. backer is on the internet as the real estate specialist in house council for the capital i can show this to the board. >> please. overhead. >> he's here on the employment roster of the team about us over one hundred million dollars of assets under

the management focuses on the multiple family acquisitions and luxury developments in san francisco. i bring this up as you recall i opened my racks having it repeated over and over is just annoying to us the other thing they've filed a brief i said in my brief a footnote one or two no such things as a triage a fictitious name it is illegal to have a finish tuesday name or a entity that says you're an inc. corporation if you're not i could go on and on why we're skeptical about approving the plans we have maybe some

feedback the thing i don't want to get away from is why my client is primarily you want to repeat one thing i apologize it was out of order those planks don't change that is necessarily going on in the back only adrc small business owner something on the front here's what we wanted i happy to hear some of the things are okay. i want them in a piece of paper from this board we have in success getting agreement even the hallway without small business the room and one we want the permit to be modified to require that the cement walkway a built up to 9 property line and shown the length of the buildings we had to purchase thai didn't provide one sufficient for 8 months and

want the survey to be included in the plan documents and so the gentleman said that was fine with him i don't see why he'll object but not concerning any clients so bring him up again, no further excavation at the site of the property to create this cement walkway other than temporary evasion for a 4 to 6 cement topping and the reason this is necessary is they've threatened us with a 10 inch slab and the esz vacation is bad for over slab we ask the hall if you want to put a security gate give us a key we'll have not been into the property and asked fifth story times to gulfs

>> key we're a we only want a key can you please put in we'll get a key they manage to put in a security gate. >> we're not use it your time is up. >> can you finish. >> thank you very much my last point we don't want this happening to the other neighbors want architecture elements for the decks for the children next door on my clients property and like to be clear we're clear they're not going to contribute any costs and raise the tax evaluation on my clients property. >> thank you. >> question our point will the deck that's new item isn't it there. >> about the deck we're

objecting to the deck. >> that is not the - >> those two points at the ends are new everything else property line we've had our surveyor after i cited legal authority we brought the surveyor. >> they special inspection. >> thank you thank you. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? there's no public comment so commissioners we've heard from everyone unless you have questions of the parties you're in deliberation. >> i don't know who to ask this of the zoning administrator or dbi there is a reference they're now two entrances there are two exits

clearly the appellants are being more favorable now to the plan because the new plan indicates that the entrances are by the but what is to stop the developers and i'll call them developers i don't call of homeowners from putting the entrances right back where they're not supposed to be how do we stop that? >> anyone? anyone? >> corey the zoning administrator you're correct i mean there will be two points of egress and ingress in each unit how an occupant choose to enter and exit the unit no way i'm

aware of from the planning code prospective and specifically from the planning code we want those units to have direct assess to the open space and backyard there would westbound two entrances and or two points of entry and two points of egging e egress. >> so we could go through this activity we've gone through with the intent of having the side entrance being an entrance to 9 units and then, in fact, it all goes for nothing the developers choose to abuse what is again intent on behalf of the appellants maybe to accept their plans. >> well again address any actions from the developers but from the units are create and legalized two separate points of egress and ingress up to the occupants how they want to enter

and exit their units. >> it not about the doors. >> i want to mention the 3 exits as the legals prospective is not what is discussed at this point. >> i understand. >> okay i'd like to ask the project sponsor again to remind me how large the two units are in fact,. >> the two units are the one one of them was to make many corridor some space was taken out of the units and some space out of the garage it looks like it is about a little bit more out of the garage than the units that unit is three hundred and 68 and the

other one 4 hundred and 10 a point i wanted to make earlier as well the existing units prior the 4 units were 4 hundred and 40 and three hundred and 83 and 4 hundred and 40 that's before the project the existing conditions but three hundred and 68 to 4 hundred and 10 are the spectacular units size. >> bring it back you'll live there with our family. >> i'll not be residing. >> how large is your game family i saw your wife here and we're expecting our child. >> i'm not going to live there but those units were extremely small before this property was a

single-family home that was originally illegally converted to 4 units the 60s it was legalized but i brought photos if you want to see of the original condition but that is - it was - the units were very, very small you know the same size as they are now. >> i'm concerned you've heard that the new entrances will be exits and the exits intended will be entrances would you consider in keeping with good neighborlyness to have a gate so the only way the gate opens from an exit gate? >> so would that that would prevent any discussion of the

back entrances being a - and he appreciate where you're going it if work you'll personally be living in the upstairs unit the only access is there that gate informing interior e.r. exterior stairwell the only way to get there out the front door and through that side gate that would be very difficult. >> thank you, thank you. >> commissioners and i'm a little bit uncomfortable with this particularly the plans were just submitted i only have time to see i'll toss the idea of a continuance and maybe a few minutes worth of comments by the appellants and permit holders before we make a decision but i'm amenable to other ideas.

>> i guess i'm not so uncomfortable but i can - the concept is not that difficult i think for all parties to see between the two initial proposals they made versus the current one the - and i will reiterate similar to the departments i had issues with the initial two schemes that having had no assess to the garage if any time is required you know it will be to perhaps condition this let me ask a question of the gentleman i think you would want us to condition the appeal with this new plan to insert that as part

of our permit. >> we're here to ask you to take the appeal and amend the appeal pursuant to the plans in front of you tonight. >> one of the appellants asked for 4 conditions i'll support 3 of them i'll not support of key and we're supportive not the key but the other 3 if i can make one clarification along the property line. >> overhead please. thanks. >> so the sidewalk it is a 4 inch depth it if butt up against another building apparently, the code says at the edge it is 10 inches deep if i could i couldn't for that accommodations which is from what i'm told the

code requirement the building department has other thoughts we're totally in a sense ass a as otherwise. >> it is not code compliant but structurally so the edge didn't quite and that's the one accommodations but the other 3 we're supportive. >> how does that work they're not abutting to the property. >> there will an little strip of curiosity the sidewalk concrete will stop at the property line it is not wide but there will be a stretch of dirt. >> okay. >> the concern i have here i'm not adding for additional process but there been a high-level of mistrust that goes

along with this project following commissioner lazarus i think that will not hurt if we got more clarification especially we're talking now 10 more inches for sidewalk or more clarification issues here. >> i agree if i was the appellant and he was presented with a late moment plan though the spirit of good neighborlyness their seeing 40 no fault but after 5 minutes i would want to have the the opportunity to sleep on it and so i would support the concept of having them come back.

>> they should adopt. >> move to continue for a week and require oh, inspector duffy. >> commissioners i'll be in agreement as well but this is has been - we deal with a lot of these cases i work at dbi and people come to me but these people need good dialogue they'll be back the week and still not finds whether an expert or their needs to be progress what happens the last time i mean it is probable it is hard to get drawings i guess i'm saying it needs to get done - i

know i speak into this most dazed it really isn't such a big deal if those guys did their excavation in such a bad way we wouldn't be here month projects are done like this off to the wrong start there is no excavation on the site they need to get their heads around a couple of items i want to get that. >> - >> you know it is hard. >> i know. >> if you want a point of clarification but not wanting to hear any more testimony you won't have to come if we're go to go adopting the plans reflecting the side entry and any conditions based on the 3

i'm prepared to accept from our appellant so you don't have to come. >> is that not possible the appellant might have an objection after reviewing the plans i'm asking if it is not possible you might have a objection after having our experts look at it. >> i'm inclined to continue for 2 weeks from the man be submitted in advance with the plan outlined by the appellant. >> so you want plans if there are plans that are different than the ones submitted today. >> i guess can be resubmitted but there were additional items. >> well, we had the plans that were submitted today, we don't need them resubmitted unless thai change but we need to have

the conditions that are being proposed submitted in writing and either of the parties can agree or submit them jointly or disagree submit them spacial. >> if we have it on the 24 everybody 134i789 what they're not to submit on the 18 if you agree on the conditions jointly submit them if you can't agree submit them separately commissioner lazarus are you allowing a 0 additional conditions. >> a list of conditions. >> i might reiterate to the appellant in you agree with the conditions you agree with the allergies and the drawings you don't have to come; right? >> they will produce

conditions for everybody's review. >> based on the 3 that you brought up today. >> okay. >> the february 24th? okay than that motion by commissioner lazarus is to continue those two appeals to february 24th allow time for the parties to discuss with the list of conditions submitted on or before february 18th to the board as well as to the other parties and for revised plans to be submitted at that time, only if they change from the set that was submitted to the board today. >> (inaudible). >> any party it is up to the motion maker can anyone submit revised plans. >> i would think they'll come from the permit holder the

permit holder submitted these i'm believing we'll see those with the conditions. >> i'm not looking for a four or five alternative if this is what is proposed. >> okay. so on that motion commissioner vice president fung commissioner president honda and commissioner swig okay. so those items are conditioned to the 24 of february. >> item 6 ab have been wraunl we'll call item 7 katherine versus the building department the property on iris protesting the issuance on july 2015 to anna murray of an transformation permit at the rear 16 iris remodel of the kitchen and bathroom and bedroom and 3 dwelling units to remain

the hearing request was grand on january 2016 and on for rehearing today on december 9th upheld the permit it was code compliant and as i said on the 13 of january the rehearing was grandioso we'll hear from the appellant now. >> thank you may i have the overhead good evening commissioner president honda and commissioners i'm catherine asking for a condition of approval the board order the 4 sheets of the plan that shows the wall at the property line be rise to eliminate that wall the wall was previously required by dbi and is now not required by dbi doctor sheets a plus have the wall and will need to be revised the project manager

should not object it is the usual way of committing to a modification in our prior case it was agreed to a condition of approval and has proposed revisions with the stamp of architect showing the revision two, that can, readily will i approved by staff however, the project manager here will not commit and only stated his present intention to make the revisions during the addendum i investigated additional dbi tony what the saying the - i'll not be involved and not obtain copies there maybe considered drafts mr. wong of dbi told us they smient be the one that approved did agenda she has a new

assignment and definitely required the waterways walls abused the window was two large she suggested we call the other side and reduce the windows to 25 percent to service the fire rated wall we were unable to obtain an argument agreement so we grand the rehearing request based on new evidences instead of reducing the window they prepared an open diagram as to the window that didn't state the number of plans sheets and calculates percentages of the window with different distances from the property line that is contrary to everything that ms. wong told us the table uses the percentage of the exterior wall as the openly and not portions of the wall so we don't agree with the window recalculation oddly not

contesting the wall and i asked mr. duffy who find out that wall is not required i asked him if dbi can require an unnecessary wall to be removed during the addendum process he said no it is in under from the project sponsor really needs to remove the wall no reason to obtain to a condition of approval also the planning department approved that wall in violation of my block that applies to any applications brufd i planning department and so i wasn't given notice of additional to the wall overflow room everything was sixth district from the property line 5 feet so the wall could be removed by this board on the ultimate grounds that was added in violation now the board regranted the

hearing that ruling wiped out the appeal so to we had to refile the appeal we don't expect you to change our ruling there is intlunl other grounds if we do so i'm concerned he might not remove the wall for example, the second story flat was the designated non-conforming unit subdivision c-2 prohibits altercation the new deck off the second story will be a alternatives and the deck is a structure the last time the zoning administrator said that habitable rooms due to the restrictions on the envelope

contrary to the project architect the project could have built rooms you can for professionalism structure but not a non-conforming structure sheets 3.2 and 3 shows the deck and second story of the horizontal addition this is beyond the enough of envelope the code says nothing outside of envelope and it provides no exception for non-habitable spaces it should be revoked and also the ground level capitalizations is 12 inches encroaching in the rear yard the reasons explained the brief and other grounds i'll northern california not repeat the addition will go within one to two feet of the required rear yard and not small for the area

where the homes nun of the homes are is a deck expend 10 feet out from the second story that would bring noise and i have all the 3 neighbors the back oppose the deck not needed for the family and under the residential design features lake the porches must be proportional and here's the property with the 6 foot fence none of the surrounding properties have features i've prepared a written agreement to resolve it if they'll august to stipulate to a condition of approval and not file and rule on the grounds to exhaust my remedies i couldn't get an agreement i'm concerned they're going to mention the amount of time that

has taken from the time the planning commission ordered the external stairwell it took dbi seven months to go through the plans larger because the rooms were non-conforming which was constructed without permit and mr. murray continued it for two months substantial time for the occupied by the appeal so just asking for resolution of this now thank you very much. >> ma'am. >> yes. >> kind of wade through everything so bottom line they cut out the wall are you happy to go forward. >> i don't want to waive the grounds of the appeal but as to the wall issue that takes care of of i'm concerned the excavation issues and all

the things that occurred here today and we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening commissioner president honda and members of the board of appeals my name is jim murray and my wife and i are the permit holder on the avenue the fairness and we ask you to uphold our permitted issued in 2015 we purchased our home in 2006 and blessed with three children the lady mentioned the two month continuance i lost my mother in

the fall and trying to handle personal family affairs we began this process about two years ago and for a modest remodel we approached that with our neighborhoods in mind including the lady our conversations with the neighbors were positive and inwill i the design were to accommodate the lady and move the consumption 5 feet away from our property line in 2014 the appellant lady only tied up to raise the concerns quite frankly she was come behave and not provided feedback how to improve the situation i hope we move forward after that evening

it is embarrassing how many public resources and time this has taken for again, a might have had remodel one of the earlier this is not easy quite frankly after discussions with independent professionals i think utilization of the law school heats has been an officer for many years was miss utilized and misrepresented i need to say that for the record that might lead 0 you to understand we've been hesitant to enter into an agreement with the appellant this is through a number of stages i've presented any written document that appellant

presents to me to dependent folks i trust can make a good decision they've advised me to not to design her professional reputation has drawn out things for a long period of time it is unfortunately mined that a lot of the letters that were resubmitted in your packet were drafted by her an attorney and board officer and not adequately portraying the personal opinions of those so again, i'm sorry to say those things the complexities is important it appears that my wife and i i am sorry to the architect and i'll

be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. >> mr. murray before the architect i'll ask the related question. >> please stop the clock. >> wait until she finishes. >> make sure the clock was stopped. >> woo be willing to abandon the construction of that wall. >> commissioner swig absolutely this is gone on ways too long. >> okay. thank you. >> great appreciate it. >> good evening commissioner president honda and fellow commissioners i'm kevin acting inspector acting senior bring to your attention after discussion and the building inspection has said the permit was properly approved and meets the requirement the 2015 building code i've attached american people i'm with her address to

mr. duffey and when lead to this rehearing has thus been clarified not new information but that concludes my report information to the original properly approved the property line had addressed the concerns and meets the requirement for the planning code and approved properly whether or not this is built more included as part addendum has no - as the property line wall is for the requireed we have no intention to rebuild that wall and all the issues raised bhetsz the appellant were repeatedly addressed by the planning department and planning commission and this board and have been determined to not be accurate interpretation of the planning code thank you. >> thank you we'll hear from the department

now. >> corey. >> hello corey planning staff i'll let any colleague mr. duffy elaborate on the issue of wall and whether or not the blade requires it i'll address the block notification that was filed on the property that does require when new permits are filed that the life the requester is notified not every time that is having a restriction it was not violated due to the revision the kind of revisions that happened throughout a project i'd like to address the issue raised regarding the non-conforming unit and how the planning code independence and deals with that non-enforcement

the brief references planning code specifically goes with noefrment uses and theenlarge t no structures can be endangered par fraying, however, that subdivision is related to the uses not zoned for example, an old retail store in an ore zip codes tore remain you'll come in today that use couldn't be permitted in that district one 81-c is specifically addressing the issue which are dwonlz dwells not performing because of density this use itself is a non-conforming use but because it is over density one of the dwelling units on that site is not compliant to the zones controls if i could get the

overhead i'll share the language and read it verbatim i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> overhead please. so one 81-c states a typically or other structure other houfrnz the district that it is located shall be classes as a norm use but only to the extent that the hours structure exceeds the density that is the only non-conforming and two in district where the dwelling unit is such as this case the session shall not apply to the alternatives of the non-conforming portions the dwelling are how honors for the density so long as the enar

lawmaker don't extend beyond the envelope in 2013 so the appellant also makes the case the deck above the ground floor addition that is a deck that will be assessed by the second story unit that was designated by the property owner to be non-conforming that will be defined as a evening lawmanls is the skin of the outside areas decks radio not part of bidding envelope we encourage decks like this to be rezoned they've over density under spilled with the code compliant open space we actually encourage there is reference the brief to angle

interpretation about something that may be considered to be habitable space without going into full detail that is out of context a larger interpretation on a large issue i have a copy we can go over that word for word unless you don't want to question about whether or not that was actually required a walked or rear yard not within - if it is within the required rear yard but under the planning code that are permitted obstructions into rear yard we commonly refer to as a pimp out in zoning district have a 4 percent depth lot deeper than the 25 percent offset that we allow projects to first story up to 12 feet button required rear yard arrest second story bigger

but this goes approximately 9 feet and not all the way to the property line to property line as it could as such it is completely compliant with the planning code in terms of the it's dimensions into the rear yard related to that from the design prospective that was reviewed multiple times by the planning staff and as you recall reviewed this through a dr in december of 2014 that was determined to meet the requirement or the guidelines the residential design guidelines and - and lastly there which is information in the appeal about how a units is designated as noefrment unit and give kind of that process i'm happy to go into detail in this case second

story it was a legal unit is able to expand on the ground floor i'm available to answer any questions. >> in shorts you find this project to be planning code compliant. >> absolutely. >> inspector duffy. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi i'll try to be as short this is a site permit that is approved and issued and expanded to the addendum needs to be approved by planning and building and the only issue on the brad is the wall we saw that originally i had thoughts i touched conversations with the architect and conversation baertd or back and forth and ultimately that led to a couple of e-mails i want to read from harry wong to

the architect it is confirmed the attached plan and elevation was with the allowable opening in 2013 table a property line wall is for the required and need not be included in the addendum supplemental it is hard for those people to building that will happen i think that is one of the things the appellant has been calling me the wall is not required the dbi is not requiring it i don't know how the board wants to handle that i'm available to answer any questions if you have them. >> mr. duffy when you in that i'm it references per that attached plan, which plan is that the site permit plan? >> that would be probably something coming in with the

addendum because the site permit has the wall. >> i'm not talking about the wall i'm talking about the second review by your staff. >> uh-huh determined that reverse their references and attached plan, which plan. >> the plan. >> that was submit as a site permit plan. >> not the architect might be able. >> he showed do percentages. >> yes. there's no stamp on that but that's part of addendum it operationally is eliminating the wall and changed from the site permit the wall will be removed. >> so at this point your department considers this building code compliant. >> i didn't thank you. i meant to say that thank you. >> thank you is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item please step forward.

>> good evening commissioners i'm with the richmond community association our organization supports the appellant for the condition of approval to remove the wall and there seems to be no reason not to agree to conditions approval at this time. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? >> my name is mark stall on i's religious i thiris i think >> i'm sorry are you a co-owner of the property so you

really are not i don't think you should be speaking but under the time allotted for rebuttal is there any additional public comment? >> my name is silvia johnson. i'm an engineer i know everything about cars and mechanics i have been trying to get any there transferred i have a passport and make sure this priority you know is done to the better writer i'm going to start building and doing like any entities and nothing wrong with the way she builds her house she all right.

not take take advantage i think my air force to hawaii wherever i need to go during this process this is what it is all about and of course presentcy in words in order to keep the core going. >> is there any additional public comment? >> seeing none, we'll start our rebuttal ms. stephen on. >> thank you commissioners at the preapplication meeting i was not opposed to the project no deck and it was smaller it was 7 and a half feet i thought he was good evening to fill in a 3 feet under the offer hanging 4 feet it is cordial they were talking about giving me a heart

he mind he has 4 lawyers none of the things are true but the planning department told him inform take out the stairwell mr. murray said he'll say because of the dir i'm sorry the situation needs to be defendant we have a cordial relationship their garage door was open tylenol's and my family giving them gave him chocolates mr. murray didn't talk to the neighbors brown bag we submitted his application my family owned the property next door since 1955 he said he's not willing to change and he's been consistent and as to the 5 foot is not they're required by the

encroachment into the rear yard is over 10 feet that's innovates done i'm sorry but i think he is very bitter about the stairway i don't trust him to take out the wall i ask that will removed as condition of approval i'm sorry to take up your time i'm concerned about the excavation t and it turning into a bigger mess in the future thank you. >> mr. murray. >> all, is there were several witnesses and if in is cordial i hate to see when if so not cordial i'd like to give the time to the architect to this i hate to say this but i think the appellant

want to be an affirm to say she won this debate you can ask anyone i mean, i'll bet my professional licensee had conversations with several people she's a fearless litigator i can't believe she's say she'll threaten it sue i said i believe this was a violation of unfortunate rules the conflict of interest for a vice president officer to utility a nonprofit this way and advised the president of the seeshgs a few weeks ago later and letter saying we're no longer members because i volunteered to provide that information so it is just absorb i'll bet

any professional license if she wanted to say the same thing we'll look at the facts it is an embarrassment to where you are profession she'd say that thank you. >> i didn't want to take up a lot of the your time but address this why this wall came up we're looking at oopg the measurement are taken parallel to the property line and in those situations it is at a 45 degree angle the measurement should have been taken during our original review irene asked us to look at a parallel line that's why we needed the one hour wall to protect so it was clarified this is the correct interpretation and been further

clarified thank you. >> corey anything further mr. duffy commissioners unless more questions commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> no questions. >> this project is planning code compliant i'm not prepared to support the appeal. >> ms. goldstein how do we put in the condition to assure that the wall will be taken out of the plans as volunteered by the permit holder? and in front of this buddha you'll need to have a motion to grant the appeal and uphold that the wall be removed and need 4 votes in order to have that motion >> i'd like to make that

motion since you stated it so eloquently. >> any other commissioners deliberation before that position is called so the motion by commissioner swig is to grant the appeal, uphold the permit - on the condition that the disputed wall be removed from the plans. >> okay an m that motion commissioner vice president fung no commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda. >> so that motion didn't pass it needed 4 lacquering any other motion that permit will be uphold upheld by default so

there's no further motion we'll more often move on okay. thank you. >> move on to item 8 appeal leslie versus the building department on hartford street protesting the issuance to samantha campbell to document the legal use and occupancy as a 72 hour and basement with two residential dwelling units basis city records and accessory and sand born maps no orchestra on this permit this is on for hearing today and we'll start with the appellant. >> council mr. patterson.

>> thank you commissioner honda and commissioners ryan patterson on behalf of the permit holder that appeal will about a permit a $1 permit for administrative documents that are legally two units in a building seems simple on a face and it is quite simple the problem this permit is entirely inappropriate in its process that house was built around 4891 with two units legally for its entire span until the permit holders bought it they then came back in 2003 and applied for permit to expand that as a single-family home they got caught and at mravrgsz denied their application this project was opposed by many

neighbors by the trio neighborhood association we don't like the project but this is a separate matter today we are not opposing the restoration of two units in fact, we want two units the problem is the permits that were applied for papers over the fact they demolished the second unit and won't restore that maybe hoping someday they'll get a second permit but the city cannot issue a permit for two units if there are not two units i'll give you a little bit of background about this case. >> good evening, commissioners i'm leslie i live next door it is december hastening to sit in those proceedings and feel like on a consequence for lying

and cheating i i do not like like their project the permit holder they have moved on and purchased and moved into the most expensive house in noah valley and clearly no intention of moving back to hart for the record street they'll get their permits and sell to the next homeowners making it ann. >> walking away without rehe permeation code compliant when you remodel and if you get caught why bother playing by the rules mr. williams can only through stones from the glasshouse they took. >> unit out i ask you to do the right thing thank you. >> so our request today

commissioners it operationally is that this permit be conditioned on actually restoring the unit the alternative is a real problem but the physical reality of this building not having a second unit a naturally affordable unit the city will papered a ghost unit the occupant units on paper but didn't exist that is based on a unit that didn't actually exist a cf v or c a like a certificate not issued unless the person is in existence we don't hope that the person had been in existence a person has to be born that permit didn't receive the department review

even though it was appropriate and draw your attention to information sheet g20 of the building department that directs this needed to be reviewed and it will reward them they removed the unit and more often and likely sell the building as single-family home in reality and it violatpublic policy and problematic now the permit holders may say they didn't know this was actually a two single-family home but there was overwhelm evidence this is not true we have a declaration from the family of the prior owners saying this unit was here legally for years and the neighbors saying it was in existence at the time the permit

holder basketball it if you look at the marketing documents for this project it refers to the added bonus of an income units those units will be vacant at the close of escrow if this is not enough we'll looked at the physical conditions the property there are two water meters and two gas meters this is a recent photograph so this suggests the orientals are getting a discount on their utilities having two utility accounts this was done without a permit they did it undercover of renovation permit i believe this one in 2007 for foundation work and that permit was not filed it expired if 2010, i assume it was expired they didn't want the

inspectors to see what was done here are the paragraphs of kitchen number one be and kitchen number two as part of documents for the purchase so i think the evidence here is overwhelming this is a two unit building legally and their permits saying they're not doing work we're only documenting the two unit building awhile that may or may not a requirement to move forward with their project they have to put the unit back in order to get that type of permit that is good for public policy and good for san francisco we shouldn't be rewarding folks for demolishing units the middle of the night i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> mr. patterson you're a land use attorney. >> yes, sir. >> the between merger was

denied. >> it can't an single-family homes so what is it in your opinion. >> it is legally clearly a two family home it is actual conditions are de facto a single-family home all the permit has to either say they were turning it into a single-family home that was denied or they have to get a permit to restore it to its legal units there is no in between. >> you understand legally it maybe zoned two units but one family can do that. >> absolutely but respectfully that is different if a condition of removing the unit. >> mr. patterson is there a notice of violation on the property. >> yes. there is even if it is sold it will not be fined with a notice of

violation so the new pertain has to pay in cash. >> many property owners are doing that these days. >> okay. thank you. >> we'll hear from the appellant now. >> mr. williams. >> thank you pursue steve williams on behalf of the appellants permit holder and payrolls hesitate solely for the purpose of establishing the legal authorized use of the property the appeals is frivolous you have the exact same operates that told you i would appealed it last year and said does not allow this to go forward a two unit building don't let that will remodels which is this family lived there over 10 years wanted to stay there

now you have the same parties before this body saying don't approve that administration active permit because it is a two family building so i put in a quote to mr. patterson testifying before the planning commission he can't understand why the building inspection didn't act it make this a two family building and now he's stopping the permit to make is a two family building if you look at the - they want to relitigate accusing the family trying to make them look bad did fang they've goods in the building a single-family building and bought it and look at my brief the two legal documents on which your bowed u allowed to rely on the purchase is a unit exhibit 3 and 4

the assessor oversees report saying saying says your buying a one unit building and the report saying your buying a one unit building they relied on those even if you look at the marketing material mr. patterson supplied they're first to the referring to the building as a single-family home those folks thought they were buying a single-family they went tool remodel it and found out that planning will not allow them to go forward until they can establish through the dbi process that it is a single-family home and dbi wouldn't do that it was denied to be a single-family home we that came forward with a two unit building same envelope but those folks are a dr spends on that project

and so to stand up here and say they don't know it is two unit it disingenuous from the appellants so we have been directed by mr. haney to exactly what we did planning and i put this twice in my brief said they'll not go forward planning is unable to proceed with the permit review until the unknown status of the dbi 3-r report can be resolved this is what we did i went to mr. duffy and said how can we resolve this you have to go do the units culture determination process that was the process that resulted in this permit the appeal is again completely frivolous they're hoping to delay this you think or until one year has

passed if you saw the dr action memorandum it gave the permit holder a year to come back with a permit with two units it is frivolous delay no merit whatsoever to the appeal and hopefully mr. duffy will satisfy the board that the administrative permit to legally state what could be built here was issued correctly i'm available to answer any questions about the history of it i think i know that better than anyone so from the board has any questions where we are i'll be happy to to answer that. >> i have a question singles all your sawing you want a two unit building you wouldn't mind a condition that we we put on to to return the building to its

original and preexisting conditions. >> that's the point we have a plan and permit pend at the planning commission and they have the dr on that. >> to it's original configuration? >> the building is being expanded at the same time it is not the original configuration but the envelope of the building is being slightly expand an additional of 8 hundred square foot square feet that was the modest remodel that started this the beginning. >> thanks. >> thank you corey. >> again corey with the planning staff as mentioned kind of the history behind this a little bit and the permit is not one that was reviewed by the planning department it was about the project was a subject to two

discretionary review with a dwelling unit merger the original expansion permit was actually a to unit building and so this triggered the required a discretionary review for a joint merger and a spate filing by the neighbor both of those were heard at the planning commission the planning commission simply said they took action on is mandatory discretionary review and didn't approve the merger and sierra club said we'll not take action on the other dr that is pertaining to the other correcting the record to make sure the records show it is a 2 unit building and the revised plans need to show that unit and revised that unit on the empowering where it was before

as mentioned that was the process we needed with the planning commission and the planning department needs for this project to move forward at the planning commission is a 3-r report this was necessary to issue the 3-r report right now that follow-up discretionary review hearing is scheduled for april at the planning commission there was mentioned that permit should have been reviewed by the planning department the possibility of the determining the number of units on a property is with the department of building inspection not the planning department when a permit a administrative one dollar correct the record issue on those planning didn't sign off we shouldn't have signed off on any permit i'm available to answer any questions. >> would you say it is regionally procedural.

>> yes. >> the further denial was not appealed. >> you can't appeal a discretionary review the appeal will be through the building permit. >> i have a question so looking at the structure mr. patterson stated this was original a two unit building from earlier or was this a additional unit added. >> i don't know when the unit was added i know that the documentation that was provided showed it was a legal units and for whatever reason that record was changed over time that's why it went though the process of a merger of the two units. >> your department saying that's was a original two united in 19 hundred. >> i don't know about 19 hundred but took a position that that between whenever the

illegal unit had been adams and it came before the department that unit was not there without a permit to remove that. >> was this a single-family that a second units was added and then again trying to remove overflow room a two unit building. >> i don't know from the original construction was a two unit construction. >> okay. thank you. >> inspector duffy. >> good evening, commissioners joe duffy dbi i want to talk about the language on the permit you have as well but it is for the purposes only to document the use of building of a 72 hour in a two residential unit it was based on the water department records and a sand born maps and

permits the permit was issued off ramp on the 24th of november 2014 and we actually had as i understand off on the permit and issued the cf c we didn't put it because the permit was superintendant before that happened so this is process is part of unit clarification process and in this case when the planning department as you've heard has a 3-r that is going through and a status an the 3-r they want to get it fixed they sometimes refer the customers to dbi and put there through the clarification i've been familiar with r this prompt 6r79 years and get a deprecation of a single-family home i couldn't so i do agree with some of what mr.

patterson saying the permitted is only a document the configuration of the property you know you can move from it's not two distinct unit so probably anything to put a door i don't know when this permit gets issued maybe something needs to be done the permit was down to get the 3-r report changed we don't normally route those through planning we get those from the - got the old permits or whatever the history of the building we can get we make that determination loochltd there is a site visit because i've been in the property i knew that as two units and mr. williams came to see me i saw it

there were instructed it seems like the right thing to do it get mr. parenting sons point i've spoken to him maybe it needs to be a two unit building and through definition used completely they're saying it is all on paper and got a permit but never be used as two units so - that's my thoughts i just wanted to say i'm available to answer any questions is. >> is that relevant to thirty this permit you did the count to approve that permit; correct? >> yep. >> you didn't condition it from dbi prospective in putting in a door or something else. >> notice we didn't at the time we were only trying to change the status on the 3-r report it is a building permits

it as legal departments we're saying someone can make the points we're saying something that is not actually what is there physically and i think this is point they're making i don't - because on on the other hand, there is another permit is saying it's going back going to an two unit building the agreement will they ever do this even though they have is the permits and a huge job they'll make the building and two units on paper how will they do that that's the problem that the appellant has as the permits we do a lot of those permits sometimes a sites visit is necessary. >> so are you so the act of combine those

units several years ago would you characterization that as illegal and it's been a long time ago. >> bottom line it was illegal so let's say that it is still remained as two units legally today, if a building owner wanted to come in and retain two units but move one units to a completely side of the building with a different entrance it would still would that - they apply for a permit and would you exterminate that permit if everybody everything was in code if it were a two unit building. >> we do that because some people you see smaller apartment may not as big.

>> that will be through planning before building that would be something they'll look at. >> my point would be that if this - the first act was illegal period but - if the second unit was appearing in a completely different location it would be a legal code compliant unit the plans were according to code. >> i'm not sure who did the them work not the people that do the condos. >> i'm not characterizing it the records shows it is two units for a long time and it is - but they have this permit and another permit to make it two units if i saw that to happen that's the concern of the apartment. >> same question to you mr.

duffy was that originally since you've landmarked the sand born maps was that original a two unit building in 19 hundred. >> if we say that it is shown as two units. and the water department i here we go so mr. patterson's son on the overhead >> wow. you've gotten all kinds of help. >> it should happen for often. >> so as you can see on the overhead this is the water department record in a two family dwelling in 1891 to family and then we have more overhead here 1891 water connection and foundation work two family 1950 sand born map and some brichlts in 1996 so there's a lot of

stuff it shows you that. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay that i am on this >> hello my name is silvia johnson. and the efficiency no doors should be you know founded on the side of the - this is where a lot of the extends with that

repairs and design that were - you think it is not you know really the design for you know i've heard public view trying it relieve the depression on the center of the ryan it can be in at a different way with the house has been before that we have been able to do gift of not following up with the organization but i've learned all about how to get the organization a building and looking at the procedures of trying to do that part right now and i've got the paperwork to go

ahead and go interest and having doctor's appointment keeping me from going to the train department but i'll go there tomorrow i have schooling at 3 o'clock a 6 hour review that it was - trying to go there and find out what the hours are and in that department you know so learning more so file out the paperwork and do - more delays open our juvenile departments and feeling a lot better because

going back is really what i had in mind i'll do better than and it will be a whole lot more working in process by doing okay heavy loads and making sure i'm able - >> any other. seeing none, we'll have the rebuttal starting with the appellants. >> thank you ryan patterson for the appellant commissioners the city clearly needs more ways to guarantee this separate units is restored shall be conditioned overseeing issues are relevant to it permit not for future permits the c s t is issued on that permit we

cannot wait. later some other application that may or may not go through the permit holder bought it as a two family between as i mentioned two meters there was an address they had their handy man leukemia look at it they not limited to at the removed the unites on the record at the planning commission the issue of having one year to come back with new plans for a project that is not right the planning commission waved a bar against coming back with a new application they, came back tomorrow or a year and a half this didn't change that it if delay the project either i think the gentleman suggested house to restore a kitchen it is a single-family dwelling of $2

i'll try to squeeze a few moments from the gentleman the pending proposal doesn't roar or restore to the original configuration i think that further into the basement so this is not restoring the unit to the same qualify quality which is one of the qualities in those affordable housing so normally when dbi issues those types of permit my understanding the second unit exists and they don't know it is less usual a you are be rather unusual the record is saying speaking doesn't exist in a building and one last thing i'll add this was the permitted for foundation work with the permit holder did this you'll note to the unit counts says two and it

is swachd out and says one on overhead please. thank you >> and scratched it out and says one clearly someone knew what was going on. >> mr. boskovich i'll be quick everyone wants the units steve and planning and building and ryan and i we all want to back cf c is a powerful document the unit was removed without a permit do not coincidence the mess this is one hundred exploring part that resfauldz europe can you finish the comment. >> it is a $600 appliance the they'll sell it or move it and do their work everybody will be

happy. >> mr. kim's williams. >> steve williams what you hear a more attempts to delay the matter these unfortunate homeowners who relied on city documents when they bought this property have done exactly what we were told to do when they found out it was a two illegal unit they so you get to have a two unit project go ahead at the can't go ahead as well as the 3-r it has to say one or two units that was orchard to change the unknown on the 3-r report to two units it is procedural administrative and procedural it they were going to continue to use it as as single-family home they'll stay there and use

it is as a single-family they'll or this year's whether it need to change the 3-r so the place spell needs to be remodeled the building has not been remodeled before with we have the plans the plan have been signed off the plans show two units the new unit is slightly smaller it is 87 percent of or more it is downstairs where the garage is again, this is a one small addition fates not will in front of the you that is to planning and they've given that the blessing to go forward in april this is the way to establish the units count and then build the project it a that's all the folks are doing they've accepted that didn't appeal the denial of the merger and we're go forward

with it as two units the city said it has to be two units this is a shock to the people having children and family there for more than 10 years so they accepted that with grace i thought and went forward with the code allows a much, much larger project that is an incredibly modest i'm trying to go right ahead with this and hopefully, you'll see this appeal is nothing more than a delay to cloud this property thank you. >> corey anything further mr. duffy no. >> actually, i have a question for corey. >> to follow up what commissioner swig asked earlier we see a lot are two united

buildings that are evenly matched unit a much large units is being created and a smaller unit is that legal. >> i would the code independence a merger as a straight up merger if one unit is expanding at the extension of another one to the point the one unit is living more 25 the area it is researched not the case what is proposed and going to the planning commission negative impact april that's how we determine even though it is two units you're not technically merging those but you essentially change the units expand one to a concern decree you have to community based to the process. >> thank you for that information. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted.

>> want to go a second time. >> laughter you know - >> i better. >> yep. >> not say what i was going to say but the fact is this not a single-family home it has to be a two unit this area is zoned up to two units whether they choose to build or not this is not inbunted on the permit in fact they create the units is entirely up to them they can live there inside a two units building i'm not prepared to support this. >> i concur. >> i concur.

>> move to deny the appeal and on the basis? >> permit was properly issued. >> okay. so we have a motion by commissioner vice president fung to deny the appeal on the basis it was properly issued commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda commissioner swig that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero and shall we move on to item number 9. >> you want to finish or take a break. >> okay. let's go through. >> okay great on to item 9 stephen versus the department of building inspection with planning department approval for the property protesting the issuance on december 7th of

avenue altercation permit to comply with the complaint revision to have the application - existing floor plans to reflect the existing condition and remove the structure between the second and third floor and walls between the dinner at two or three floor for the unit 4402 we'll start with the appellant sir, you have 7 minutes. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioner president honda and commissioners and staff gary can you turn this on. >> there we go it's on. >> okay. this is a history of the permits in this case i'll run through if quickly i have it from the brief too in july there was a plumbing permit taken out to add a

bathroom but it turns out that was the bathroom, they repaired a stairway they in filled the stairway no inspectors made at that bathroom installation no access was allowed then in august a permit was taken out the first permit in questioning e in question to address 3 ground level bedrooms and bathrooms on the upper floor that permit had newcomers misrepresentations on the plans and no inspections were made except one on the ground floor units were bruno inspectors on the upper floors we registered a complaint an september 28th about that and happened to walk by the buildings and noticed a wall between the lingering and dining how the it was odd we want went to the building

department and found out this was an existing wall that starts the process we made a lot of visits to the dbi and the planning department to ask questions we didn't get anything so we electrified i filed a jurisdiction appeal we lost we lost that because the commission felt we hadn't proven that the planning department had done anything to prevent us from filing a timely appeal but it you turn out a couple of days before that a new permit was issued that permit addressed some of the issues in our jurisdiction appeal one of them the planning department if notice that that stairway had been in filed and had they noticed that the reason it was not shown on the plans no description of that stairway on those original plans so it was not that they

overlooked something they were not aware it existed in a sense that jurisdiction appeal should have been waved because of the new plan so this kind of brings us to today, the new plans address some of the issues at the jurisdiction appeals scott sanchez said the dpivens group housing is a gray within it is cloudy and should be addressed by the planning department we agree this occupancy meets group housing it provides lodging space not defined as dwelling unit it says such group housing shall include but included but not limited to it is a dwelling unit is a occupied by one family doing its own cooking and whatnot the 3

bedrooms and barometers is the general thinks that is where an expanding family makes accommodation for additional children not rental units so we feel that is a good group housing arrangement and one of the individuals sharing a common abandonment the ground floor rooms are not in-law units but adams bedrooms with separate bathrooms so the design of the remodels stone suggests that the plans supports group housing the planning department noted that the front rooms the flat are labeled as dinging and lingering, however, the plan outlines not only a dividing room the pass through the in the kitchen and doors were added to the lingering and dining we

don't know whether or not there was locks put on the doors we believe that if locks were pit on the doors that's an argument for a group housing argument so there are now on the top floor 33 bathrooms with two rooms identified as bedrooms the esthetics bathroom, on the first floor supports the argument of group housing we don't know into there are any locks on the doors i don't know that dbi knows i don't know if anyone has done inspections in regard to the plans are currently before the planning department there is a large circular elevation two elevations shown thought plan none of them show the duck it is

urge it in a few months had been uglier when that rusts the structural floor where the stairway was rrpdz i believe this is a structural no structural drawings in fact, those drawings don't have a professional name i don't know who did those drawings but unless maybe the owner is an architect you probably remember that we spoke to many people at the planning department but there is then no explanation by the owner why those plans were intentionally misrepresented after that no - they've not been able to inspect the property as far as the students that came up the rebuttal student housing by it's nature is a month to a few

years this is a benefit to the owner by avoiding major rent-controlled unit but to the neighborhood a huge issue that students renting rooms have less attachment to the community i'm running out of time we strongly urge to to grant 24 appeal and recommend it be classified as conditional use and ask you as commission and residents of san francisco if you'll not feel as strongly this permit history if it played out in our neighborhood we have been victimized by the planning code definition. >> thank you we'll hear from

the appellant now. >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> now. >> hello commission ooimentd my name is eric lee i'm here to represent my parents so mr. mcdonald second appeal we applied to correct the adversaries issues and he has acknowledged it addresses the issues in his first appeal but a few weeks ago later, he appeals to stop it correcting those issues he complained about the second appeal is for the permits mcdonald didn't he uses the same list of complaint he used for the old permit and the board already denied his request for that permit and on extremely short notice we opened our doors to inspector

duffy we will talked about 4:00 p.m. and today he came over we have not have done everything right but we'll be happy to work with the city officials to follow the code because we were told to halt our construction so a lot of the things were not done according to the second permit still a door deny the dining and lincoln and a lot of the things we could fix the gentleman repeatedly said this is turning into group housing with the definition we don't see where we fit in we don't provide meals to the renters they have access to the kitchen like a family, we don't renter to the short time renter and the common areas the kitchen and laundry on the third floor a student moved into the living

room but the 8 students living there consider it their home we contacted the register board and asked if so it legal who live the living room my colleagues and i in college slept in the living room i'm sure a lot of students are sleeping in rooms not bedrooms so all group housing we contacted san francisco's zoning department and rent board and spoke in their opinions not group housing we vivid the law office of a bay area real estate lawyer and presented him with the appeal letters he didn't think that was group housing and some claims

are misleading the parking is considerable but only 4 of our students own cars the other 4 take transportation we rent to larger families and buses to downtowns are steps away from the duplex we included photos we took of the parking on the street to slowing to there is plenty of parking and another example of the erroneous logic why did they feel the need to misrepresent after they told them no jurisdiction with the original construction we didn't know about the construction after we bought up the list of complaint we get emigrate a second permit and during this process jennifer told us we had

the right to rents our duplex about mr. mcdonald reversed the the elements you used a third thing that would mislead - a no inspectors were dunn done we found this this year we had an inspections done up fill we were told to halt construction by the inspectors and me might could potentially show up in mr. mcdonald brief with the selling of a design for airbnb use but at the last hearing we were informed did board we plan to keep the duplex only long term and last time commissioner president honda asked about the

possibility of too much garbage our students eat at school and trash has not been a problem the garage company said no problem with garbage over fleeing and pg&e said this is blow average so we have a letter from our form neighbors testifying that my parents have been good neighbors they've been neighbors for 15 years in mr. mcdonald's brief he notes the potential for adding adult student renters has serious implication as more transient and less neighborly we believe that the neighborhood should be diverse in students live in a house it automatically does not turn or turn into a transient

neighborhood and less neighborly we should discriminate because their students and it maybe easy for us to get into the repeated ends we can rent to the families and in today's housing crisis students go - and respectfully simple their adult students residents we will, based who they are that is not fair for the students so finally we urge the board to deny 9 appeal based on one in his appeal he actually exclaims about the old permit that was denied he actively wants to stop the appeal differentiation we two we have not yielded turned the duplex

into group housing and 3 prejudice against students that should be discouraged and focused our permit today and - mainly the gentleman has a problem how we're renting renting over duplex. >> i'm sorry your time is up. >> you'll have time in rebuttal i do have a question i'm not sure if i asked this did you currently live on the property. >> no, i live in a different city. >> no. >> but they plan to move in. >> we'll hear from the department now. >> hello corey planning staff yeah, the issue of group housing can be complex we can shed more light on that today, the first point i want to make the plans that were approved by the planning department and in front of the you purely from a code

prospective was predicament for the planning department to approve they were not commit in area and concerns about the number of bedrooms in one of the units or totally in the building and at this point no criteria the planning code relayed you know putting a cap on the number of bedrooms in a building and also no guidelines or further guidance by the city or the board of supervisors or the planning commission to provide combines on this situation so we have no basis for denying a permit simply because of the number of bedrooms having said that, the issue of group housing can be collection complex one the physical design the space and the second part how so that space being used i i

mean when you see a lot of bedrooms in a space in a building you're going to say this is not a family maybe a large family maybe not or people that don't know each at the same time, a modest three bedrooms house that has bunk beds and sierra club for group housing but so that's the key i want to if i can get the overhead i want to point out some definitions in the planning code that provides some guidance the definition of group housing the thing i want to point out so it is clear shared facilities but the highlighted portions is that in a space not defined in this code and and group housing if you're a monday, november 9,

2015, it is not giving up in a dwelling unit is a residential unit a residential use of a room two or three or occupied by one family one dwelling unit one family so the definitions of fascinate the planning code is based on case law it is long and complex that the will proponent that is relative a family can be a group of non-related by guardianship unless an contribute that entails multiple things for all those that are pointed out towards fraternities and such but the point is up to 5 unrelated people people and considered a family by definition this is not uncommon in san francisco and regardless of size of the units this is

where the issue the design of the unit is one aspect how other unit is being used you can have a small unit and leased out to modern 5 upcoming related people regardless that is group housing so the case in front of us the plans were permitted the design for space meets the planning code there are two separate dwelling units that were retaining two parking spaces not making changes that will be inconsistent with the planning code, however, if both of the units are used in a way that will not be defined as between then group housing and the way they're using one of the units can be in violation of the code and enforcement to the action it is important to keep those things in mind there are two

separate issues there was some question as to why or how the planning request that a door be provided between the dining room and listener and the door was requested to be taken away our creditor has discretion to ask for revision if some aspects it will not, used as a dwelling unit 0 it was done we didn't ask for the dining room and listener more open rooms and the brief and somewhat in the testimony there was concerned or concerns of our short-term rentals it is a difficult issue to address it is legal to do short-term rentals in san francisco as long as you meet the provisions of the short-term rentals ordinance so

whether this units or home the type of units doesn't matter you can use is for short-term rentals within the confines of this ordinance the rent controls is not something we gage something like that every units can be used for short-term rentals within the perimeter of the program i'm available to answer any questions you may have. >> so the keyword to me was family and you know a commune it was common the 60s and 50s. >> there is a head of family i heard that the permit holder the owner the thought building he didn't live there or his wife arson it seems to me that you have to have a head of the family i heard was that from the

permit holders that there were lots of students that live there unrelated to each other so that to me would not make that a single-family dwelling unit. >> two separate issues the definition of family didn't require a head of family figure we can't address that and specifically states you can have up to 5 totally unrelated people living as roommates if you're doing that you're a family for the planning code this is obviously for legal land use purposes and not as a traditional family for for the purposes someone can legally do more than 5 unrelated persons in one of the units now or the future that is a group housing that will require a conditional

use authorization if they want to longer-term. >> now there are two separate units occupied and divided by whatever and but it seems that the whole building really is even though this is literally that means we had a conversation about a two unit house not a two unit house i'll interpret this two unit building not not a two unit building even though it as two units building and therefore it seems to be occupied but for a single person this is to house student house students in multiples beyond 5 so you know when does something become

really a use not meant for . >> sure i think that goes into the difficulty in a situation line because those are two separate units two legally separate units with disconnected with each other and easily ca could be used as two units as opposed to unrelated persons this is how the house is used we're atlanta this as each individual units how it is used and as long as each independent unit is used within the perimeters of a definition of a between they're not in violation of a planning code. >> even though their using it like a rental. >> you can have to up to 5 unrelated we don't get out of this in terms of code compliant

we're going by that from the planning code. >> corey last time when this came up i seem to recall we talked about interest were some other planning code sections that dealt with rentals for students. >> you can have student housing a specific existence the educational san francisco public utilities commission is the master lease holder a situation their basking serving almost like a not like and dormitory but you providing student housing. >> i was referring to you thought at one time the code had something related to every i had a single-family home you could rent to a student it is possible he shouldn't to research that i'm not aware off the top of my head but and i'm

not positive but gun the definition of family in the planning code has changed. >> i remember that was changed it is not a planning code but a different change. >> so thank you. >> sure. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi so the building permits under appeal they come filed with the revision to the building permit operation to reflect the existing condition remove and in foil the stairwell between points second and third story continue the living room and dinging at second and third floor and add a roof deck as well so we did receive a complaint last i think that was august and it wasn't until we

got the appeal i got involved when i look at stupefy of stuff we had the mode was the district inspecting had requested to get assess the incarcerating was to contact them to set of uh-huh up a meeting that never happened and the gentleman was ass at the building department but after that we knew before we got into the building that only happened today actually, i brought the senior building inspector we looked at property end i'll be happy to some of the things we saw today and dbi will have issues with the plan that is under appeal bans some conditions we saw today if i could put the drawings on

this overhead if this helps i'm not sure if the big violations but issues that need to be addressed if you don't mind i'll show you them. >> so the building the existing building would have been a 3 stories we would have had - existing plan garage with the laundry and the storage area and the bathroom, and then a stair leading up another stair going on the fronted hallway so upstairs on the second story a too well 20 two bedroom apartment. >> a dinging area and another stairway the middle of the building and on the third floor almost just identical dwelling

unit typical bedroom and the open plan back to back units the proposed plan they added in i'll go through the we walked through the building from the ground floor to the top conditions are okay they've added a new bedroom on the ground floor the hallway and added a bathroom in that bedroom as well you go down another new bremd bedroom with a bathroom and the back a new bedroom and bathroom one thing that was we will need to document on a notice of violation in the bedrooms here sorry - just plans are big the bedroom area when you come

through the doorway or door this was marked as receptacle and if that bedroom behind that another one same thing and this bedroom those are actually upper cabinets with a sink and getting set up for a refrigerator or we can't wet bar that needs to be go through the- i explained that there are locks on the doorways every door last a lock that was that floor let me move up to the next floor. >> so on the second story that

was mostly existing the back bedrooms are still the same only a bedroom here and a bedroom again each door has a lock on the door into the bedrooms and we saw some of the people living there their young people identifiable they've got their own rooms i explained to the property owners this dinging area some mattresses been used a bedroom and this lincoln was not that lingering the second story is still a dining and saw the mattresses and so then nothing else the bathrooms are all remodeled and upstairs and upstairs we the same thing the dining room is a bedroom and the

lingering on the third story is a bedroom and on the back that was existing with a new bathroom one thing they did on the permit of permitted and they addressed it they actually created a in fil filled the door another bathroom we don't have structural that allows for that floor i think that was missed by the dbi plan checker but we'll be asking for that. >> and no, i think 10 bedrooms and 8 bathrooms the building so again dbi there was some inspections but as you can see i actually didn't see that together but there was some electrical and plumbing inspectors and others inspectors

when they had an active permit and one inspectors for one bathroom, i didn't have time to get that done but that's where it is at we'll give them a few corrections that is something that is definitely it happens on projects and they're aware we haven't met with them yet i'm available to answer any questions. >> mr. duffy counts vii bedrooms. >> i count xi total one dinging and one lincoln not use as a bedroom. >> i was only going by the number of rooms i thought i counted you may be right. >> i counted. >> yeah. there is bedrooms being used for not for purposes so tyler not used for their intended purposes the dining

room is a bedroom each space has to be a designated use that may meet the requirement of a bedroom go head and do that but planning maybe not having inside a building someone space lingering and dining people gather to watch tv or whatever that then will - those beds need to be removed and the room needs to be used for the intended use or change the use to a bedroom. >> i have a couple of questions. >> on the ground level garage on the existing storage laundry i guess they're using it as rooms but the first room if have a window that is closest to the garage. >> sorry on the proposed plan. >> on your inspectors today

was that set up as a bedroom as well. >> we're talking about the one the ambulances the proposed first floor plan a window on the site and actually it is pretty -- on the avenue there and kind of set up for i wouldn't say that is on the street it is a corner building but on the side. >> and the other question was the second stairs demoed between the second and third floor yeah, they create a bathroom a. >> because the stairs end. >> exactly they put in a floor it was open to the sky and put in a - it was what it was you know i don't know if it was inside the building i'm not sure that planning will have - >> and the last question i

have to today was our first site visit to the property had the department married prior site shiefts visits. >> not that i'm aware of we want to get in there and they were okay with us in there i explained that is was students we walk through buildings and whether it is a code violation that makes that better i can say i took photos if so fine. >> thank you, thank you. >> can i see by a show of hands how many people are intended to speak on this item. >> okay. thank you. >> so we'll take the first speaker and given the hour and the matters we still have to deal with the president said two

minutes per speaker if you can hand a speaker before and after this is helpful. >> i'm paul i'm part owner the building and you know. >> i'm sorry mr. brady our part owner of the building before, which. >> next door with the complaint anyway you know it you were saying two maintained garages garages that work and put a car in that there is i heard that anyway, i noticed that is different and it is i just said it quite a bit different than that was so here on behalf of the appellant. >> that's all i really have to say thank you. >> thank you. >> if you plan on speaking on

this matter can you line up on the side so we can speed the process through. >> i'll be really brief i have a support letter i have 3 concerns zoning and safety and parking for zoning this is a two unit flat they took everything that is was no a bathroom and made that a bedroom there is 11 bedrooms and i don't know how many bathrooms the contractor said he is a exaggerate so who did the plumbing who did the wiring who ran the gas lines when pg&e comes to safeties when pg&e filed a complaint they went to hook up the gas at the filed a complaint for an improperly installed gas line what else has

happened mr. duffy this is his first visit i'd like to see more inspections and parking they removed inform off-street parking spaces they're introducing at least 8 by their admission boarders pea parking is square everywhere i don't care what you say i want to request that the appeal be upheld and not beginning students under those a process if this is not you to want to do it as called >> and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. >> hugh 28 avenue. >> next speaker, please. >> >> my name is tom i'm a neighbor i'll try not to repeat this building inspection a soft story buildings on a corner and

on the one side adjacent to a single building not adjacent to any other buildings so, now we have 11 bedrooms and 8 bathrooms and on a schematic strengthening ♪ building we've lost two parking spaces i don't see how that happened without a neighborhood hearing thank you >> next speaker, please. >> next item, please. >> step forward. >> good evening. i'm one of the neighbors on the avenue paul i'm also the roll call retired police chief when i header about this project two things came to mind when i heard how many bedrooms were going in involved human trafficking the other one was animal house being a long term 31 year policeman the last 28 years in the system i know how policies

operate i've got two of my own we've had problems the past with the parties parking i'm even going to boshth it is a problem the parties add it it just the safety concerns surrounding this at complaints are major, major issues and i'll leave it at that. >> are you referencing parties and complaints. >> regarding college parties not on the prompts literally on the same block. >> but not associated was that this. >> not yet it is a big concern and scares everyone. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i don't see that - >> i question the 11 bedrooms those are students students are

roommates and potential of 22 people there and even at half of them have cars their adrc 5 new cars to the neighborhood also the garage has eliminated as two parking spaces there seems to me a leverage for students i don't like them or hate them i know them for years. >> and so you don't know students until you call the register and ask for the enrollment they issue itself for students they don't take them back all they have to do is erase them in the computer the card a useful useless on campus to say you have students you may or may not and do you care to state and spell your name for

record. >> i'm ownership a house on the 43 avenue. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening my name is peter young i live on 48 avenue have enjoyed living there are inform 4 two years and hope to enjoy mire home in retirement we have 4200 with a four bedrooms totaled get xefrd to rent-controlled units this is san francisco you can't see this in san francisco because of remain zoning law as respect of who lives there students or whomever and the present he and converted 11 room prompt can have an adverse effect on the

neighborhoods good evening to be too many units for the size of building and this residential zoning thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is silvia johnson. i built a building that take advantages i think this is where more issues is being a student and where worst than reconstruction i think that on this building that have students process it can be you know a whole lot more in the areas where the bedrooms are that they can, be deeper on

the bathroom, area he would have been concerned a whole lot different and stairways and down on right-hand side where a student wherever that builds and the last one i done when what you call dolths fees it was two houses in one i was trying i know i should separate that where you understand that a little bit more i'm sorry, i didn't appeal on that but i will look at this better and understand exactly what being appeals and the formula i was talking about

issues and so i got to speak this card and xhefrs has a inspectors on a lot of these equipment and building authorizations for san francisco and i think this is you know been you know already pulled off office space so many times this - >> should be a little bit bettered. >> thank you any public comment okay. we'll move into rebuttal mr. mcdonald 3 additional minutes. >> how many 3. >> first to address what mr. lee said they're ready to work with dbi i definitely sgraur ask you welcome others accepts i met with john ramming i annoyed i

filled out a complaint which is the record i told him that well 33 he told me in inspectors were called for he filed a couple of letters with the builder but ever since then the office of the city administrator only inspectors was at ground floor inspectors so i begged to differ with inspector duffy the building inspection were - when the owner said they're ready to come will i with this i don't believe that is true their plying i'm a the cause of revisions none of them having has nothing to do with i simply pointed out to the building inspection if you compare the drawings with the existing conditions that their plans were misrepresentations

and why were they misrepresented i believe they wanted 0 avoid neighborhood notification and cu authorization the building code is different for me to interpret it but i'll say from the rule is 5 unlightwell people can live in a units the lower unit as 5 bedrooms and inspector duffy said one of the rooms is a defrng used as a bedroom that is a violation, however, didn't that mean the future that who is to monitor how many students are living in those units is that the neighbors i actually meeting met what katie tang she said you if allows you'll have to monitored that on is september 28th i made a complaint not an e-mail or phone

call no responses at all to our complaints that's why we filed a jurisdictions appeal i can't believe that at this point wear listening to a debate over the very minimum technicalities each room a rental unit the locks for privacy for people that are renting those rooms i find this that developer has chosen to bystander the absolute maximum number of rental units for the purpose of i don't know just maximizing prophet profit that is an abuse of this neighborhood and find it hard to believe this board will agree with that. >> thank you we'll hear from

the permit holder now. >> with 3 minutes of rebuttal. >> this is to address some the accusations number one no inspections sb have been done by dbi actually we're here saying the inspectors westbound done. >> plumbing and even though electrical frame and installation we met with mr. duffy on a short notice he called us yesterday he came over today we policemen planning probation officer work with dbi we didn't know the definition of giving up but 8 people will be living their we'll follow more than 5 upcoming related people in each units and the garage eliminations we didn't eliminate any garage space in our building parking elimination i'm not sure only 4 people are directive if we incidents to two families it

can be 4 people that drive i think most of the xramsz about the students were about kind of a studio type i'll not take anywhere of your time. >> i have a question. >> yes. >> you have 3 levels of occupancy and the maximum is 5 by count our middle and bottom i'll counting 6 bedrooms right now. >> 7. >> 7. >> should be 77 bedrooms if you can only have 5 people why is interest 7. >> my parents wanted to move. >> it is a 5 dwelling unit. >> i know, but the become floor and the middle floor is considered one unit; correct?

>> not necessarily. >> maybe a clarification from - we didn't know the rules but i'm sure the gentleman will be mofrpt we'll not be breaking the law. >> okay. but you're saying the garage is excuse me. >> the garage is rented out. >> no, no the garage is not rented out not use he didn't eliminate the garage it is under construction but all construction a halted because the second permit it from appeal so nothing in the garage he it is still there. >> but bedrooms behind the garage. >> dollars bedrooms behind the graurg corey hello to clarify the most recently point the existing lower units is the garage level and the level above

combined as shown existing in the plans the garage level and has from bedrooms laundry and two designated bedrooms on the second story the proposed proposal basically those 3 laundry and storage will be converted to bedrooms and so that unit will be have 5 designated bedrooms now obviously if they use the dining and lincoln as bedrooms they're in a way not consistent in terms of the units there are 5 bedrooms and similarly the upstairs unit has two bedrooms existing and proposed just want to make a couple of quick points obviously mr. duffy addressed issues of inaccuracy on the plan upstairs that a concern for the planning department a those are determined to exist we will work

with dbi to make sure we go down the right packet to go make sure their accurate plans with the planning department as well and there was a question about the ground floor mr. duffy talked about his inspectors the wet bars may be added that is something we have a zoning administrator rules in down how you can develop our ground floor space and it is trying limit a way that makes it easily or easier to create unauthorized units and? an area not permitted for wet bars not shown the plans but if the proposals can't be submitted forcible the zoning administrator bullet so there was a question about the third story at the stairs to cap the stairs and put in a bathroom,

that work will actually be seen as beneficial from the planning codes prospective that removes the connection between the two units we're by the time into how their functioning you don't need the stairways to provide did connection we'll not have a problem and didn't have a problem on the plans the other thing i want to go back to it is important for the use versus design the part time didn't authorize group housing lease the permit before you authorized in an altercation of a two unit building if it is being used as group housing that is an enrollments issue we'll definitely have to deal with and based on that significant inspectors that is likely we'll have angle enforcement case and it sounds like that used by more

than 5 unrelated persons in the unions but the permit itself has issued was not issued to allow them to do group housing that would require continual use authorization will be other code requirement that go along these with the group housing that needs to be followed to be issued so again, i just wanted to make that point between the design and the physical nature of what is proposed on the plan and how it is being used i'm available to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you inspector duffy. >> commissioner joe duffy dbi just to address some of the comments that i heard from some of the speakers obtain on the electrical and plumbing inspectors i'll recommend that the gentleman contact excessive plumbing inspectors and

excessive inspector ron at dbi to look at the records and see what question inspected for plumbing i did look online it looks like electrical says all framework and then the plunge seems to be one mrumgs inspectors on this on the bathroom, permit not for all the bathrooms that is something they should look at it and again, we're concerned about electric and gas lines and plumbing and all that stuff it is would be definitely there are many ways to file a complaint at dbi based on the inspection today we've not had a chance to sewed sit down but in all likelihood we'll document this on a notice of

violation not many things but a correction and a notice of violation it is really direct what necessary need to do for the wet bars and the rooms that are used today for the as their intended use will have been be domdz some maybe needing a permit and some beds out of the dining room area and everything is designated they've added three bedrooms so not but the issue they're not doing that this is where we're having problems with the neighbors none trusts them that is the feminine e theme of the night but but the notification wouldn't been any at dbi notification didn't require that mr. mcdonald was the building

inspection i met him a couple of times patrick was the chief special circumstances i was confront as long as i get in there before the hearing he was off lake but dbi will do what it is supposed to do not part the plans as i say a violation and look at the inspection lift. >> so mr. duffy yes. >> it seems like i don't know maybe you know seems like a lot barometer and permit issued for that a bathroom, and then a lot more bathrooms than permitted is that possible. >> the bathrooms are permitted and the permits for the rooms

down and converting the bathrooms. >> so you can reconcile every bathroom, to a permit. >> i believe so. >> and an inspection. >> that i can't say not yet. >> i'll need to look at that. >> now to the electrical and safety. >> yes. >> i'm not an electrician i've built a few buildings if you put too much load if a building is meant it have 4 or 5 people and not matter but 12 or 14 or 15 in mrulth units those people especially they have computers and clock radios, etc. the load on those panels. >> sub panels. >> at the get a little bit large and again, i'm not an

electrician contribute to a fire safety initial because of a global panel so who's can there been reconciliation or has there been reconciliation to electrical permitted to insure that that is not an unsafe situation. >> in answer he can go off the the inspection on the permits we could look at it with an electrical inspection for a inspector to double check the electrical installation is enough to cover what we have in the building as i said when you look at the building the electrical certify they had it will only been for the extra bathrooms and the rooms i'm not yes. you probably have to renovate, upgrade and it will have exempted that would b have

been done but bridge the chief electrical inspector i'm not electrical is not my expertise but that's what i hope to hear i'll definitely think that anybody that has concerns some follow-up i'm surprised the gentleman has done that already but for me x when i come here i seen documentation of the inspections but look at it further and indeed was there an improperly installed gas line how not that i'm aware of not that i'm aware of i didn't see an nov. >> with all due respect to planning and going by the spreadsheet what is a family and not a family it would be horrible with people living in the building with illegal not

enough electrical service and a bunch of people got killed not mention related to the neighborhoods. >> i have a question. >> i'll bring that back to the department i would ask question whether the inspections had been done. >> i agree with you. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> sorry. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i'm not quite sure what to do it is passes a passing a smell test. >> there is a - there are multiple questions if one only looks at at the 7 designated bedrooms and if one only look at a planning code 5 upcoming

related people in one monday, november 9, 2015, for a total of 10 those numbers are not too far off from two dwelling units in any reasonably sized family's so the question is then not the number so much but the fact their unrelated which then creates an spiraling different situation and based on what was heard i think i'm correct mr. duffy is not just a night mistrust but every night we're here i'll say that mistrust leads to not only one to think of over capacity on the bedrooms but potentially into the other rooms

you know one solution maybe more than just the doors it planning said to be removed but take the lingering and dinging back to the original position of being completely open and therefore the possibility of these adrc four additional rooms is eliminated to some degree but i would share there that is some disconfront between the nature of rental housing. >> i think we heard there was issues with the permit the inspector said that i don't how to uphold the permit. >> the permit itself and it is owner builder you know which we know we see commonly but with this amount of

work i don't think i want to ask the permit holder some plumbing questions i think this would be embarrassing any recommendations. >> i like the idea to put that together. >> i don't know how much disconfront we have with the land use contract. >> well, just opening and having the dinging dining and living as the inspector said as he visited the property there was a bed in there are they're aware of the situations and dpooed what they should be doing the enforcement didn't occur quickly in any of the departments i mean there maybe a compromise

the department will take care of thick not done credulous on their own brown whether a notice of violation or enforcements actions they want to take our compromise is perhaps for them to say that listener and dining room to prevent them from becoming bedrooms the wall that were installed removed and returned to the previous open condition. >> original as it is. >> a compromise. >> i'll support that. >> i'm going to move the grant the appeal and condition the permit on the basis that the second and third floor walls enclosing the listener and dining be removed back to the

original continue condition. >> scomplung is that the exist plans on the floors. >> it is reflected the drawings that is shows the existing conditions existing second and third story. >> all right. do you have a basis for your motion action one less comment from mr. duffy. >> sorry commissioners on that as well there are no doors into the listener and dinner on the plan the walls and keeping the doors it looks like there is a walk through on the 72 hour and third story going if the hallway and into the kitchen. >> another divided space. >> i was looking at the promoted plan that shows the

doors were removed. >> not quite sure i thought you want it back the way it was before existing. >> yeah. >> that's an easier thing the doors no doors so. >> i was going been the drawings. >> would that will simpler to say your conditioning the permits so that the - >> it rlths the. >> original condition of the listener and dining room and second third story. >> can you add with our permission condition and intention i don't - >> i'm sorry, i understand. >> well, if the doors if there is a door missing to the kitchen you have a dining room and a

connecting door to the kitchen it is tied up to be a dinging so is that redundant. >> okay. he think i think so but it is okay. >> can you repeat that. >> just to add did words and intention after the words condition grants the appeal and grants the appeal on the intention is that what you're asking and yes. >> that the second story and third story lifr and dining plan reflected the original condition. >> the second condition. >> the intention goes after the last. >> and intention goes after the second use of the word condition in the motion. >> so you're saying that the permit will be conditioned so

that the second and third floor life in prison and dining room plagues reflected the original condition and intention of the design. >> use. >> the existing if so too complicated i'll withdraw did you see where i'm going. >> mr. duffy. >> inspectors commissioners, i used joe duffy dbi we'll ask the existing conditions to remain that's what you normally say. >> that's fine. >> okay. >> but in this case mr. duffy the existing conditions are the new conditions. >> existing conditions as the

plan. >> okay is that clear. >> i'm read it back and need a basis if you stated one i was busy writing and on the basis that some of the work was done without permit. >> good one. >> okay so the motion is 0 grant the appeal and uphold that on the condition that the second story third story and dining and lincoln plans rehabilitate the existing conditions in the second story and third story listener and dining room remain as existing is that right how soon revert back to original

condition. >> yes. >> revert to original condition? >> is that what you said. >> prior to construction if you want us to - >> commissioner vice president fung did that work with the condition prior to construction you. >> if you want to be exact i'll offer we could state that the condition will be about the 72 hour lynching and dining room be reverted to the exist condition on the permit that seems like that is the existing condition that everyone is referring to as shown on the plans. >> on the second story and third story blowing both commissioner vice president fung again, i'm going to ask if if is acceptable that the position to

uphold the second story and third story listener aving room dining room. >> that's acceptable on that motion commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner president honda. >> commissioner swig okay. that that motion carries and thank you for your help with articulating that. >> so shall we move on to the last item. >> i need one minute okay. >> don't could a don't go anywhereo.

>> one more for the road. >> let's go okay. we're returning to the wednesday, february 10, 2016, merging of the intrldz and calling item 11 ben benefit the property is think collins street protesting the altercation of a permit to comply about the containment to legalize the change of attic space to a habitable space with the permit and finalized in 19 the 3 and appellant. >> i'm benefit my wife and four children we live there and purchased the property in the

spring of 2014 after buying the house we get auto permitted work with remove windows and such such we got a containment. >> overhead please. >> the bottom left a sales picture when we purchased the house this was the existing space it exist for almost 33 years and will be dug through the directors with the help of do i that was built from a reroofing permit but again, all approved and so being the facts with dbi we needed a permit for the application to make the attic usable we were rejected we're looking at the facts we - there was a complaint saying we were

building a third story we have letters of support it is a the house from the outside is looking exactly as 33 years we're in definition keeping with the neighborhood i didn't quite follow there was an amount complaint you wanted went to dbi this is our contract. >> on i'm the contractor what it was we were starting at 8 o'clock an hour after one of the neighbors surveying. starting to early and he wanted to sleep in we wrote an amount complaint dot dbi we're building an illegal third story it was actually done if 1983 and so we're basically here to appeal to the board to add that back

into a habitable or legalize it as space. >> i thought you said dbi told you to get the permit. >> we consulted we allegation were not building a third story the. >> they turned down this permit. >> want to understand. >> we're discussing that -- excuse me. i'm frederick. >> please speak into the microphone. >> i'm the designer for the interior work that they've done and in this process so in consultation many meetings with dbi tyler reams recommendations to submit plans of the existing conditions when fwhe purchased the house a with the understanding we would receive a

disapproval that will essentially be our ticket to be able to appeal the disapproval in order to have the attic signed off by dbi in 1983 made illegal as i think habitual space. >> there are certain things the department does we can't do. >> so nothing further. >> okay i want to thank you for your patience this as. >> you as well. >> you got a tour of what we do every week. >> inspector duffy. >> before you start the complainant did not show. >> unanimous. >> i thought you said that was a neighbor automotive's an name neighbor ok

okay. >> yes this is a strange one by i remember speaking to someone maybe last year that was patrick reardon was saying you think you've seep it all there was a permit back the 80s and a bring to your attention went out he signed off on that and, in fact, an extension of the roof got raised but then the new owners took over and maybe started earlier and something know something for 40 something years and made a complaint way look at this and said you're right this thing has been like

this 0 we recommended they do this process to get the board of appeals to agree to this one thing i'll brought up might be the architect can speak to it goes to 4 levels and you know sometimes that triggers the sprinklers on one level that maybe something they'll have to do probably. >> this is relatively easy they can run that off deposition water electricity garage. >> they're going to be a certificate of final completion that wants not legal before it has been over thirty years and so the brief there is festivities the rest of the buildings it is pop up and people did stuff like this i don't think we see much of that anywhere by it happens and some

people got away with it and some if. >> the sprinklers adds cost and an annual service fee. >> i'm not sure how that works. >> if you connect it to the fire line oh. okay. okay. >> they don't require a fire line be installed. >> not necessarily depends on things. >> i think that planning were involved with the discussions with the planning they're getting it hard to be be able to do this with the process as you know we want to see that legalized in some form. >> you mentioned that the roof was raised are you sure of that or attic space. >> my understanding i'll use the brief photograph here

yeah, so my understanding is that this building that's the height of the roof at the line and then this part up here on a placement why we didn't get a complaint at that time, i don't know by the way, by the way, we're talking about this. >> 32 years ago and those guys bought the property and something happened to the neighbor and something said the complaint statistics there was a condition without the permit over thirty years ago. >> it could be two blocks away on iris street. >> better to get the whole thing legalized. >> (laughter). so the appeal against dbi and your supporting their appeal >> r.