>> >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the regular meeting of the board of appeals before we begin is vicky young in the audience interpreter the board president is about presiding officer and commissioner president honda and to my left is thomas owen provide the board with legal advise sgimdz we're joined we're joined by representatives from

the city departments that have cases before this board. or joined by them shortly and joe duffy to be here and representing the department of building inspection and zoning administrator also known as who will be representing the planning department and planning commission and chris buck from the san francisco public works bureau of electronic devices are prohibited. 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.

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 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. the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> okay. thank you we will start with item number one general public comment this is an opportunity for anyone here to speak on a matter within the subject matter and jurisdiction not on tonight calendar seeing none, commissioners questions or comments commissioners anything. >> strength in numbers. >> okay. and we'll move on to item 3 the boards krfrths minutes of march any addition or corrects. >> a motion by commissioner

fung to adopt the minutes any public comment on the minutes seeing none, on that motion commissioner lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig okay. that that motion carries with a vote of 5 to zero. >> item 4 is a jurisdiction request the subject property on florida avenue from ken and dennis and dan and t.j. and charlotte and jennifer and greg and daniel kim and others requesters to take jurisdiction over the application which was issued on october 21st by the department of building inspection that appeal ends anticipate a jurisdiction filed on march 17, 2016.

>> permit holder is here and a one story shed and replace the - study and one full bath and roof deck with stairs to rear yard and commissioner honda we're not grazed with the presence of our representatives from the city department so i'm not sure it make sense to hear this item quite yet. >> what else do we have to go over they don't need the presence. >> we have a public works represent on the project although i don't think mr. buck is here yet okay. >> mop from that department here. >> there is someone from public works not from the bureau of urban forestry mr. buck will

refer to the other representative we can move forward and hear that case so we'll hold off think item 4 and then move on to item 5 appeal sunset neighborhood association versus the san francisco public works of urban forestry appealing the issuance of a tree removal of 33 street trees with replacement of 77 palm trees as part of urban streetscape project and the hearing on that was held only matrix 9 and on for future consideration it was continued to allow time for a meeting to be convened if additional agreement can be agreed on for a specie to recommend non-palm trees species with the president's consent

first if public works and report back on their efforts and whatever recommendations to the board step favored mr. weaver 3 minutes. >> we've heard a prior before so it is just - >> why not go to the podium and pass that up and the board has to agree to accept those documents you might want to explain what they are. >> thank you my name is mike project manager are san francisco public works the urban streetscape project i'm going to glow a quick presentation with my 3 minutes and try to get it all through

just a reminder the urban from 19th avenue to 27th avenue through the process we had our board of appeals hearing an march 9 that was continues to allow us to do further public outreach public works staff project team met with the bureaucracy of urban forestry to review the traditional canopy trees for the public's consideration we set a public hearing dates in 2016 an jefferson elementary school an urban street and tonight we'll present the finding from there so the meeting was held on april 6th we had 77 attendees sign in we received 90 votes at

that merging we sent out mailers to 17 hundred project areas between lincoln and n judah and 19th avenue and 28 avenue so 17 hundred residential addresses we sent the marital and gave residents the option to mail in their vote if they couldn't make the meeting on the slide here on the left is an example of the marital and on the right we have postings on poles throughout the corridor we advertised the meeting this slide shows an example of the ballot that we presented 4 trees available for selection by the county those were select by the project team with the urban forestry staff and chosen to do the availability to handle the

likelihood of establishment we received 200 and telephone votes and 90 at the meeting and one hundred and 20 mailed in the results here in terms of number one choice for the street tree that was 52 percent 36 palm and 5 percent oaks when we looked at a different one one block in each direction off the corridor number one choice 52 - 8 percent olive and the merchants on irving streets they're number one choice for the street tree overall was excuse me. 76 percent wind mall palm and

down from there a couple of more slides. >> just continue. >> so basically, the results of that vote we found the community preferred this the merchant preferred the wind mall palm that met the upper storage and long term maintenance awhile also addressing the neighborhood canopy tree question we assessed it to reach a party agreement and proposed for the palm in certain place in their place incorporating this. >> so for your approval asking that the board of appeals uphold public works with the promoted provisions the revision will be that a recommendation to approve

the removal of 33 street trees and approve the planting of 48 percent winld mill palms and other trees i have plans of where we're proposing those trees to get to you a copy of the revised order recommendation. >> can you show that plan on the overhead so everyone can see that, please. >> their copies are available if you want them passed out it is kind of small. >> let the public view. >> sure. >> so i'll try to show 4 different sheelts since an 8 block corridor. >> you can pull the mike over. >> and scroll up the view

finder so we can help pull out the view. >> there we go. >> thank you here 27th avenue to mid block the overall in the mid block location remove the windmill palms and replace them the overall behind did concept there were a handful of merchants that prefered one over another we tried to prioritize and working to develop some reasoning behind where they're located so the tra sustain from the ned h north side from block by block. >> have you provided those

documents. >> i e-mailed them. >> did you receive. >> you can see on that reddish the trees with the green circle is the tra sustain as a one for one removal of windmill palms with tra sustain as. >> could you refreshing refresh our memories. >> there are 3 weeping wool brush in front of the the san francisco credit union and law school trees at 21st avenue and two other species of trees actually that the bureau of urban forest denied for removal i don't know the specifics species of those trees one in

front of the goodwill and another one on 23 on the south side not sure of the distance there. >> thank you. >> can we hear in mr. buckeye know you indicated you wouldn't have comments but do you have anything to say. >> i participated in the community meeting a great turnout we received a lot of great feedback there was a lot of interest in the tra sustain a we also received a lot of preference for the windmill palm by the merchant so trying to

balance that sort of split interest as best as possible my sense this is a pretty good compromise by adding a number of tra sustain trees i'm feeling pretty good about the process we spent the extra time it was have well that attended and got a lot of feedback that's all the feedback i have. >> what do you on about the collage of species. >> not a major problem for me it is done a lot in streetscape architecture i reaction to what exists and the aircraft's make the design it is done quite a bit and sometimes every other tree and sometimes in groupings within the palate of design that

exists in an urban forest to do those kinds of mixing and matching i have no problem it is reasonable and hard to come up with a perfect compromise but in this case it is based on the amount of feedback for both the windmill palms and tra sustain a reasonable design. >> and mr. buck how many of the corridor have sustainable tree replacements we're going from right now. >> in terms of the trees permitted for removal part of project. >> right. >> it is pretty in the low 30s. >> what others kind of corridors such the irving tree corridor there is a number of different

sites i will say for irving the deter of commonplace cover is not able a lot of trees but not a lot of commonplace removlot o- it is a pretty i mean, i don't think the removal no debate about in we're trying to remove the trees in poor condition work out a doubt a number of projects but. >> my question was initially when it came before the board the windmill palms people of the pushed on with the selection and the question is that in further merchant corridors noah valley

and others is this process going to effect how the university treats those corridors coming up. >> it didn't fact those we have no agenda to keep the passages i'm excited to see some of the tra sustain come into the plan. >> thank you very much. >> sure. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the appellant now. >> good evening, everybody and thank you, again, for giving our community this opportunity we took this involuntary seriously and work hard to

organize the turnout was closed to one hundred people and 200 and 12 votes were collected this shows our community does care and time our voices to be heard and credit card the canopy trees got 65 of respondents ranked that as the number one choice smaller tra sustain is a small leadership and 52 respondents prefer this tree people are asked to rank their choices this was at total points that each species received is the important number to look at. >> i don't mean to interrupt you, we gave extra time to the department you'll have it,too. >> sorry to interrupt. >> so if you look at the total points statistics again, it the

interesting with the leader of the points are frustrateless olive and the palm is third received third place so in general when looking at the ratio the canopy is a 4 to one ratio when looking at the number one rank it is a 2 to one in favor of the canopy they're an overwhelmsing support but at the community meeting we one or two trees will be selected then sustain and olive from the look at the ranking vote the voters lead to believe that will determine what trees to be planted, however, the proposal is to plant that only 20 canopy trees out of 68 only 29 percent of canopy that is in contrast it

they have 79 percent and 69 percent of the voters want canopy trees it is not very clear how the number of canopy trees was derived and not a fair compromise not in line with the vote the continuity and consistency is not clear regards to the compromise the plan has vary amounts the trees and varying amount of canopy trees per block that was substantive you know and also not going to be consistent to have all canopy trees that would be a very unified look for the neighborhood regarding the viability of shop signs they have a canopy spread and it is a 10 to 15 feet as opposed to the regular palm 10 feet a similar spread and sum up we understand

the concerns and open to a compromise but we want to stress that compromise should be in line with the votes because the community came out and expressed their opinion and everyone has equal weight again, we hope you consider all the numbers considered and the community wishes and make it in favor the canopy trees or a fair ratios between canopy and the other palm trees. >> wyoming you propose. >> well, you know if we go by what we were told and everyone thought that would be you know the top 2 trees that won the vote if you go gi by total points this should be true for the olive tree we look at the merchants and the merchants

overwhelmingly supported the palm then why not go by the some sort of ratio between canopy trees and pages and that's a 4 to one ratio we have a - so it is either you know it depends on how you looked at the never mind if you go by the one vote and canopy more dick. >> i'm asking you what you propose. >> all canopy trees or if you go by 79 to 21 percent palms then this will amount to 14 palms and 15 canopy trees we've discussed this plan okay. >> this. >> that's okay. >> 14 palms and 44 tra sustain

we spoke with tom the architect and one of the ideas for example. >> thank you i wanted to get a sense. >> basically. >> okay. yeah. >> thank you. >> okay. >> commissioners we can take public comment then can we can see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak under public comment? okay. great so if you could sorry - >> okay. we'll give 2 minutes given the number of people here the first person and line up on the far side of the room if you haven't fill out a speaker card or give a speaker card to the gentleman pest. >> i'm bill the president of the outer sunset we had our

merchant meetings on april 6th on 19th avenue happy to report we had a good turnout and civilized four and a half years ago we had a meeting in the same locations, in fact, 3 times in dpw got the blue chips and the community got involved as you may know this involves the merchant and people living on 19th avenue and 27 directing your attention my associate has 11 meetings and dpw has been out to the meetings several times to belief us i thought everything was fine until i got a call from dpw the association was protest they were going to be totally surprise that's four and a half years they were aware, in fact, we know for 40 years the vp has

been in contract contact with us i wanted to get this resolved after 4 nature years one thing i've learned i didn't know what the word arborist meant after four and a half years i'm the representative northbound golden gate heats. >> thank you, bill next item, please. >> good afternoon. i'm on 26 avenue i shop and walk an iving several times visually everyday i advocate for the planting of the trees and voted for the tra sustain i took note of the prospective of the merchants that maintenance of the more desire trees milestone miter be a burden that attacks the bottom line the reality of the

contention we want to commend californian state i and many other members of the i'veing street community m many of whom i spoke with volunteer our services free of charge to help to maintain those in cooperation with the organizations in closing the merchant vote reflects a business oriented location and ignores the deceptively making the entire block especially attractive place to shop and stroll and as a result is satisfied customers who want to return and shop here property owners and residents happy to live here and more revenue and repeat business for all the merchants thank you thank you. next speaker. >> good evening commissioner i'm thomas i'm with the sunset

residents association i'll also an architect of 4 decades experience and done retail projects and urban design projects similar to this we've heard dpw indicates that their would be a proposal for a mix of trees the problem with a mix of trees there's a large difference between the palms species and the common place trees the community has stolen that they prefer the common place tree and if you add the percentages that increases if 52 to 64 percent now at approximately 2:00 p.m. this afternoon we received the plans from the dpw and we were able to go through this one the questions you asked was what would you propose we would propose so work on this plan together with dpw

but the percentages that dpw expressed the tra sustain represents about 29th percentile should be the percentage that a palm would be given in this strip so we- the important thing the overall concept has to work we want a rent-controlled place to come to as a community and be inviting so the city's priority to get us out of our cars and go to a place that is inviting so what we propose we work on this plan but the percentages that the vote represents ♪ plan thank you >> thank you next item, please. >> hi good evening kathleen part

of sundown association i'm here to support what was said precisely we can have all canopys and properly represent what the community voted, and, secondly, there was an boundary that limited did voting we thought that was arbitrary from listening to n judah and didn't include kirkland and shopped an iving street that whole time we don't understand the procedures people didn't. could the meeting and the other folks did and thirdly, with all due respect to the merchant shouldn't receive priority we deserve a place to go and shop the merchant will not be there without us they come and go we

live there we have some written letters of support for the canopy trees from the certification and on independent saucer supporting the canopy trees overwhelmingly thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> can i get some help to plug into the overhead actually it is - is it here.

>> this is website for pg&e they take special issue with palm trees that is called the right tree in the right place here's a illustration of the kinds of palm trees that pg&e recommends windmill palm is not on that list if you see here it says palm tree hazards that is a windmill

palm it is the bad boy on pg&e website let me read what that says palm prongs are a cause of power outages they're caused blocks away when prongs are carried by high wind we have high winds that barrel down the street sometimes that get up to 70 are miles per hour palm tree growth be can't be directed away from wires they require the trees to be maintained a safe distance from the wires trees in close prompt must be eventually removed to

require the safe distance i'm not sure the merchant understand that the cost of removal will be born by them and i happen to know that is around $10,000 to remove a palm tree all right. i'll go to another page here i'm sorry your time. >> thank you very much. would you care to state your name my name is judy j hypothetically worthy live two blocks if i'veing >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. >> could you speak into the meeting sorry. >> good afternoon commissioner

honda and dwishtd members of this board my name is benny yee i'm a long time director and a past president of the outer sunset merchant and professional association i'm sure many of you commissioners understand this is the oldest establishment in the sunset district now because of these tree issue and we are thankful to the department of public works and we had many, many reading together with them and along with all the residents and merchant alike if that corridor by the way, my office at the corner of 22 and i'veing right in the center

so i have 7 tenants downstairs and they are very concerned what kind of tree will be planted there they all besides but not everyone understands once the department of public works turns overall the trees to us after the condition of planting and then the property owner or the store owner will take care of the those plants under many discussions with the professional who knows the tree well and they all recommend that the windmill palm will be ideal if in that location because the palm can trotter wind and salt and also lack of water still can

survive. >> and so therefore maintenance part i'm sure he knows that is easier than the others so. >> i'm sorry mr. yee your time is up. >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi my name is calvin young i'm a store manager of walgreens and here to support we're a member of the outer sunset merchant association and here to support the windmill palm trees was betting i didn't mention a palm on the street we get a lot of traffic and people kind of make a mess sometimes an iving street we need something to withstand the wind and as

merchant with trees surrounding our business area we want to make sure that is low maintenance it is something we can make sure it is looking good and everyone that passes by an ivirving street. >> i own a business on 20th and i'veing we supporving we su tree didn't block the view of the stores and didn't shed leaves we have food services leave is going to go inside who will clean it will take a lot of

time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> madam director. >> i'm not sure. >> are you part of the. >> oh, i can't speak as an appellant. >> you're one of the appellants mr. hill; right? >> yeah. your shane hill you're not a member under that item no. >> thank you anyone wish to comment to speak please step forward and ma'am, if you have time to fill out a speaker card. >> you want me to fill out - >> after you speak. >> i'm diana i live irving street not a member of the board and i am close to the community on the neighborhood because i shop there a lot i kind of know

what the shopkeepers think and worried about in the neighborhood improvements and second their business and one of the things that effected the tree it is important awhile we beautify the neighborhood we were not upsetting their business so can't be a big tree i have printed pictures of the windmill palm i'm not sure you know what it say can you i with only have 5 copies. >> put it on the overhead we'll view it if there overhead please. >> can't see it two well that is a close-up the tree as you can see the leefsz are lost this is good the business signs will not be blocked blocked and this top one can i give them copies so they. >> that's probably the best

process. >> only 5 copies you guys have to share so. >> we'll put it into the record. >> i passed by this tree house this is i happy to pass by and saw this same windmill palm therapy quite novice looking i mean only 3 of them and thought hey, if it can survive with that weather with the wind more fog and more of a dramatic weather i think that will survive on this street. this tree brings agree hint of sunshine it is mostly in a sunshine area when fog >> i'm sorry your time is up. >> it is commissioner honda. >> is there any additional

public comment? >> okay. i live in. >> i'm sorry can you speak into the mike, sir. >> and he live in 1498 two blocks away from irving street so the community has spoken both residents and merchant and their say is vote should be respected all replaced by those who voted i know the support and the fair outcome to either pick the top one or two or three trees that have a selection of representative of the board of the voting results 49 percent and - >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted.

>> who wants to go out on a limb. >> i'll start so my backward basically is small business in the sunset for a number of years i had a corner location with four very large trees he maintained on a regular regular basis personally i prefer a bigger tree i think if you look at the very nice trees we have shop wise some of the large tree shops are groceries at the same time i understand from the merchants prospective the maintenance that is required for some of those trees and their concern that once those trees are planted it is going to be the concern of the business owners and everyone said that's what it's all about they're willing

to participate and how does 3 work two or three or 45 years i was on that corner for over 16 years and if you go according to the vote i agree that there was an open forum and a lot of participation we would like to see what participation and more participation from the neighborhood the percentage of large trees yes does out weigh the palms but at the same time the percentage of the people that are actively having to maintain the trees are not high so for me, i'm leaning towards upholding the departments recommendations on the plantings i feel that trees don't necessarily have to be the same all the way down i building

etch shop has its own personality and reflected in the trees before that that's the position i'm leaning commissioners. >> i think i would frame my own decision in the following way one is that as and discussed last time i don't considerable this is as a number game if it was we would have accepted the departments voting on the previous public hearings which i'm going to overwhelmingly supported the palms, and, secondly, not a question for me to impose my own personal opinion what we tried to do was

in gender further discussion that represented a larger sampling than what we saw in previous i think we've accomplished that i'm not prepared to go either way to either support my personal and prepared to accept the departments recommendations as as am i. >> as am i. >> i resistantly. >> adapting would you care to make a motion. >> move to grant the appeal and to condition the appeal on the revision of the design and number of trees as present by

dpw. >> another motion to grant the appeal on the condition it be revised to rehabilitate the plans by the department and commissioner fung the basis for that? >> the appropriateness for the neighborhood. >> i think that the concept that they proposed is more appropriate that is that the canopy trees in the more mid block and the lesser canopy on the corner is a very appropriate. >> soak so would that basis be the revised design is more appropriate is think outside the

box an predicament restatement. >> thank you. >> okay. >> so on that motion on that basis commissioner lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig that motion carries with a 4 to zero thank you, commissioners. >> so commissioner honda shall we return to the item we continued. >> number 4. >> yes. back to number 4 and we have called that item already so we can start with the requester who can step forward and have 3 minutes to present they are request to the board this is the jurisdiction request on 19 florida avenue.

>> is she speaking okay. well yes. you first. >> madam director. >> yes. i'm sorry. >> since shouldn't we hear in the department first a. >> on the jurisdiction usually hear in the requester first. >> okay then i think a conditioned case. >> yes. >> thank you for your patience prior to you guys starting i'd like to wish to disclose that i have retained the firm reorganizing on a project reuben, junius & rose representation before this board will not have any effect on the decision i make today.

>> you can begin please speak into microphone. >> i'm an owner of florida street adjacent to street construction that is considered today first of all, the question is what prevents us from filing within the 15 days the fourth of november i'll tell you what prevented us the permit was filed and according to what we know about construction as lay people everything was okay in the lass late november things happening like our houses is sinking and nails popped out and doors and then the noise was extremely

loud and the jack hammering was basically shavrlt our houses and the neighbors contained now you asking who prevents me from filing any appeal before the construction begins and i tell you why as a layperson i had no prior knowledge that recfiguring the lower floor which is put in their permit equalities to magnificent x situation the "ex vacation - soil sample i have no prior knowledge 75 percent of wall roefrment will trigger the

notification finally i didn't know that the developers in the mission district can hire the architect that goes planner shopping in which case the over-the-counter will be granted to this developer because the employee apartment planner might not be knowledgeable or have time to look at the whole project so the predicament was granted that's why i couldn't appeal before. >> can i say something. >> have you thirty seconds we ended up going to the neighborhood and the department of building inspection and all this time we didn't know anything about the court of appeals i said you gave me half of the equation i don't know if you're talking the board of appeals i had to do that made 5

visits to the board of appeals to get this going and had to check on things the planner didn't do. >> go ahead. >> he's the one that gave us the information about what was - this project needed to be the neighborhood notification that's why we get everyone in the neighborhood involved and - >> okay. thank you your time is up. >> but i have a question actually in this process how many neighborhood outreach meetings did you attend or invited to from the project sponsor did you get an invitation or notification. >> we talked that he was ready to fix our property but we had not come to an agreement his third party engineer said hey none of your business that was a after we were given an agreement

it never happened i explained i met him a second time with more damage and said now we're going to go to our bonding agency we remember nice he's a nice fellow i said hey. >> okay. >> it looks like. >> i have another question so when you met with him one-on-one or in a meeting with other neighbors in attendance. >> yes. an engineer his engineer. >> okay things like that and other people looking at the ground but the main thing that was ongoing for months and i even - that was. >> i understand but your time is up. >> at this point commissioner. >> i want a clarification question you want to make that clear what i want to ask prior to this project starting

did you receive any notification on this project in was there the ability was there any greater neighborhood notification about this project. >> no. >> no. >> we got involved with the owners. >> i understand. >> i understand that and any point was there as the project became something that was grander than expected based on our testimony the amount of the changing the wall all that stuff was there any attempt before i the project sponsor that do a general neighborhood meeting the project sponsor that's the builder. >> the builder no. nothing at a all. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit

holder now. >> your time is up. >> the permit holder. >> no rebuttal. >> no rebuttal thank you. >> okay. >> dear commissioner honda and commissioners, thank you for being here so late in the day and listening to us i've been is owners on florida we purchased the property last june our permit was issued in 2015 the window appeal periods ends and the work started over the appeal period we are surprised that the gentleman i couldn't do for this hearing he never expressed that his problem was the extended of the work all that time we were undermining his foundation we have been working on this

project for almost 6 months and in communication during that time and nothing else from the neighborhood none complained we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars the entire foundation work was completed and rough mruvenlg is underway when we purchased the properties we introduced ourselves we're going to be doing work he asked us to use his driveway he said yet the architecture drawings took us a long time we visit the planning considerate multiple times and incorporated the feedback into the plan this powell allegation it was only approved by a junior is incorrect the plans were seen and reviewed by the edgar and jenny and sdrooegz they give us feedback and went back to the

drawing board and shared our plans with the neighbors and asked to in fill our side of lightwell they said no, they don't like our plans we changed our plans again moving back with a new lay out went back to the planning department and didn't in fill as soon as the work started we were told by the gentleman your ex vacation was wrong we hired an engineer and found no impact to his foundation he asked for a technical report we did that all good he asked us for another print we ordered surveys no impact on his foundation still the inspection visited and had to opine and issued the reports all the work was according to

standards all the work we've down according to plans we give enough notice to the people because of the notice of 15 day we waited the 15 day win respectfully ask you to deny the request thank you. >> thank you. i have a question the same question i scalped r asked the appellants how many neighborhood meetings sponsored meetings with the neighbors regarding our project. >> nun our project was that inside the wall the notice was sent by the planning department and there was an active cb n he know the neighbors received it none complained thank you. >> thank you there's an active b b n someone requested to know what the percipient with about and

received it. >> okay we'll hear from the department now. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department apologizes for being late it is a bit of a holiday out there. (laughter) in regards to this matter a couple of items to raise no community outreach requirement for the subject property given the scope is reduces the envelope and the community requirement for when there is more than an item late or more than 10 foot expansion of the building that's not the case, no community requirement outreach under our policies and procedures under planning that's correct >> so other items it is correct that the permit as issued should have received some notification not the b b n the b b n was actually filed after the issuance of this permit this is not the issue here but the

permit that was issued does have more than 75 percent of the interior walls that is on the calendar that requires the section 317 notification we discovered during the course of the jurisdiction request and communicated that to say to the project sponsor the scope of the work is primary the foundation work percentage didn't require a notice they've not and provided not removed all the interior walls and their proposal to submitted a reconfiguration of the walls such that the neighborhood notification is not required if we went through the process we'll not have an issue and it will be code compliant this is for the interior but not exterior work it is reducing the

envelope of the building in regards to the staff we can't fault the staff we have a difficult job and errors get made in this case there are discrepancy in the plan between the demolition showing the walls and of us look at the plan the wall remain some of the walls will remain on the demolition actually are gone on the proposed plan i think that could have contributed to the staffs notification of requirement in effect they can correct and go introduce the process now they require environmental review for an excavation at the rear and that will be due process the b b n it operationally is that place eve a 317 is to the required the b b n request will be given that 10 day notice and the process will continue that's all thank you. >> you mentioned there was an

excavation that requires an viral. >> that's correct it was - under the review procedures if you're in an area like this more than 3 feet of excavation need an environmental review the work was done on the provisions permit they'll correct that it was in an architectural sensitive area not joern public information because there are certain issues we don't want to identify your sensitive area throughout the city's they could, vandalized and ransacked what have you we'll have that pubically available into the 3 feet into the rear yard may not be an issue - >> so what if any triggers 311

it didn't require a 311 notification. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> mr. duffy. >> google commissioners joe duffy dbi the building permits under the request is a building permit that was approved by planning by building dpw mechanical plan check it was issued on the 21st of october 2015 it was started the process in september so took five story weeks to walk through the divisions as part of the just reading the brief today and speaking to the district inspector i checked it

we have a 4 reimbursement stations by the district inspector he told me they were doing it was familiar with the complaint from the requesters and there was a few vieftsz to the site the complaint came in on the 30th of november and it was regarding concerns about the amount of dirt exceeded to possibly could be some fear but it was compromising the neighbors foundation so speaking to the building inspector today, i was saying they have good meeting the contractor was cooperate i believe they came down to the office and met there was reports that the was no damage to either property or there was no compromising i did

hear that people speak tonight about that they would need to submit a report to us like their own consultant or engineer and i'm not sure if that was done or not but currently the state of refers from the dbi the project is moving along obviously the neighbors are not happy we have a good inspection history i'm not sure if dbi did the required for the "x" vacation so it would have been something required on the property line i didn't look at that today so i'm not sure if that was done or not so probably the neighbors probably would super gotten a letter from dbi i'm not sure they did or not something we need to be

concerned about but i don't have good drawings to show the "x" vacation was enough to create it that's the problem with some of the requests i wasn't sure this was going to be brought up or not so - but could be an issue. >> we don't have any drawings we have no permit to see any of the points made and exactly. >> is there an issue for adjacent neighbors when there is structural work. >> traditionally this is. >> is there a notice. >> yes. supposed to be noticed by dbi as required i'm not sure that was done in this case the only thing that the good thing about this it seems to me that whether it was done or not we're now far enough along with

the foundation and unless those people next door produce a report we cannot take action they claim there is damage but i have no report we'll even take action, an is notice of violation or stop work order and can't do work on their property and cause damage next door by the way, we ask if you claim there is damage we need to physically see it or a report if an engineer to see the details i didn't see one in the brief the special circumstances indicated that report from the neighbors was never received i'm not sure if they want to dispute that. >> you mentioned and senior builder inspector went out. >> that's correct.

>> these people dispute that but if this is something i've missed i don't know why the engineers report to say their property was compromised. >> okay. i mean that's to a certain extent a slightly different issue in terms of jurisdiction request. >> yes. >> for the engineers for the structural work was that notice given i don't think you've fully talked about that wrornd. >> that was not part of the brief a 311 wasn't when you're getting your permit reviewed by the dbi the plan checker with

the bureau if they sea excavation adjacent to a property line dbi must notify you give that person 10 days a object object to see what is actually going to be done next door it is only fair i don't think if this was required us. >> is that notice by the department or the permit holder interesting a that's a good question two requirement one from dbi and then under the cattle civil code there is number one none notification only to the neighbor as well what they want to do we have it in the building code injure for the purposes of explaining it as well to the permit applicants and the neighbors we had put a

lot of this board action we see that we are palm avenue that was similar but i'm sorry i don't have the information that dbi did or did not do the notification i don't have enough without plans it's hard to tell i don't know if we can continue i'm not sure that is possible but that would be something might be - >> so - >> okay. >> thank you any public comment on this item? step forward commissioner honda you want to stick with the two minutes. >> are you their consultant. >> that is public. >> anyone that is part of your team considered - >> (inaudible).

>> hired by the other team. >> excuse me - we'll deal with that no one not affiliated with my thought parties seems not so commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> unless you have questions for the parties. >> i'll let them provide information whether notice was given on a structural basis but due to building department requirements. >> yeah. >> just to that question, please. >> you have to come to the microphone please thank you. >> yeah. my name is mark you work with the jerseys i've been an engineer 31 years this is a minor job and called to assist and making sure that the plans and specifications were adhered to amend and i met with the neighbors pretty much within a

few days or maybe a week or two after the construction thirp they were fully aware of the work. >> not my question was notice given as required by in terms of a structural addition. >> i have no - >> you didn't do that just to that question, please. >> i believe what came across from the builder inspector he didn't know if there's a need for a notification depending on the "x" vacation we have the plans with us if you like to look he's able to assess whether or not it was if necessary we know that the builder inspector who reports to him came several times i think they're there and never stopped the work to receive the notifications and we also have the plans on us if you

want to consult them on the dbi side not an issue to be notified only it is planning side. >> we understand that thank you. >> thank you, thank you. >> hold on please please. are you. >> we gave them a second opportunities please come to the mike. >> number one if you're going to s.p.c.a. into the microphone. >> the gentleman stated. >> okay. you don't have the opportunities you can respond you don't have the opportunity to repeat our case. >> no, no this is very important he is stating before the construction or after the construction is not correct a month ahead and second go what

the gentleman is saying. >> please stop please stop that's not the question that commissioner honda asked they the question we're addressing at this point your time is up. >> and we'll settle this amongst the board at this time. >> thank you. >> you can take a seat the board will deliberate and make a decision no rebuttal under this jurisdiction request. >> so mr. duffey. >> i wanted to deter to your staff or want to look at their drawings. >> if there's a way to continue this so i can look at it i think that is important for me to report to the board if dbi in do something required that

may or may not effect the decision on whether or not to grant the jurisdiction go am i; correct. >> your; correct. >> not 100 percent percent sure that dbi needed to do a notification and if so, did we do the notification i'd like to look swog that and report back if this is you want me, too or we can decide and dbi g will look at if and take the new action probably require them to do something they shove done in the first place but - if someone comes in so the dbi tomorrow morning and saying their excavating we'll go out and we'll look at it the plans we would see if we made a mistake and probably stop the work and say okay. you shove given these

guys a chance to look at the plan so, please stop and get together and figure out that in this case it is difficult because it appears that the work was done that was inspected and the contractor from all i've been told is cooperative but if there was any mistake it was a notification not the work and these people next door if their damage to your property and get it noted by an engineer bring to dbi we need to see that report did we get a report i was told we didn't i'm going over a lot of things that is reflected in the request i suppose. >> this concern that i look at looking at the picture that was submitted in the brief it looks like the "x" vacation seems

fairly subsequent at this point and whether the work is complete i mean nicely or complete the question whether that was due process overlooked by the next door neighbors arrest the appellant not having the opportunities to have that process. >> yeah. and then i agree but then at this point what does that accomplish you know eve it wasn't done and the work maybe in a way it could be a civil forum. >> we don't know one way or another. >> from the notice was given. >> just pure con jurassic. >> if it was required. >> just looking at it but i'll need to see whether the "x"

vacation and deep and in connection to the other property. >> there were inspectors out there; right? >> building inspectors i'm not sure it is typically done building inspectors don't get both this is all out the way by the time we get there and everyone is on board and away you go and sometimes no problem problems but the intishgs e building inspector was not up to him to check the depends on our experience and certainly something allison park aware of when i go out they ask for them but not all inspections inspections are the same. >> we're not making a judgment purely a question whether procedure was followed. >> absolutely i can't answer

that. >> whether there is a basis. >> something that planning missed it is an issue. >> may i ask you were praise worthy of everyone contractors the job was well done it is acknowledged that certainly somebody was upset while the job was going on and that may or may not been this not properly notified if we look at the i didn't know and yank and the proper procedure was not followed by the job was done well and didn't deeight from the plan and i mean other than

saying there symshould have been procedures the job was done right your happy with the result and the contractor behaved them it seems to me there needs to be a project sponsor not hoodwinking anyone but, yeah procedure there was a procedure here so why should we move further on this other issues. >> yeah. >> the one thing commissioner commissioner swig if we had something from the next door neighbor to say there was damage this is what you're avoiding will this impact me it impacted them and where's the report from the engineer that said it did that might make a difference i was told by dbi today, we didn't get that these people may tells

us something different but that's the answer to your question. >> we're not hearing the case we don't know all the facts and the original thing that at this point, i'm going on that you look at the written description and what you tell me the lack of is a certainty whether it has been damaged or notification or not then either we continue or grant the jurisdiction. >> just to the point of clarification the computerized version is in the packet. >> both the complaints. >> i saw the complaints. >> no the permit. >> the complaint section. >> i think i'm use to that piece of paper they write exactly what they'll be doing.

>> a different formulate is the printed format but much of the same information on that. >> so it seems to me there is a double champion i didn't between planning and dand dbi. >> now it triggers a notice it could well be appealed again my question is given the admission that the city should have required the permit required the notice in the first place does that fall under the city

inadvertently or the jurisdiction or to the permit not being appealed in a timely fashion does that question make sense. >> the board can find that is a reason to grant jurisdiction i think you could look at whether or not this was de facto notice if not a technical notice. >> again, i'm cognizant of the fact it will come back. >> potentially you said their reexamining or redoing the plan to not hit the 75 percent threshold that requires the 311 so do we have a basis for jurisdiction and i think commissioner fung said it those are her two choices. >> potentially to continue it

for a week. >> i think so and allow mr. duffy to report back. >> i think i mean to allow that the process has been handled correctly by this department that is probably prudent. >> i move to continue to for one week to allow the department of building inspection to report on that process for this permit. >> can i confirm one thing commissioner mr. duffy one week is enough time. >> okay. so we have a motion it commissioner lazarus to continue this to april 27th to allow times for dbi to research and report back to the board on whether or not the notice was required and if so whether that that was given; is that correct. >> commissioner fung

commissioner honda commissioner wilson to continue this matter. >> yes. >> yes and commissioner swig okay. that that motion carries 5 to zero and commissioner honda i'm thinking taking 9 out ever order commissioner honda i think we should perhaps take 9 out of order because of the translator. >> we'll call item 9 this is at item that is being translated so, please do that service now in the the person versus the board of appeals of alteration permit and notice of violation legalization construction of a rear wooden deck off the second

story and start with the appellant please step forward and her comments will be translated we'll double the time you have 14 minutes total. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> please speak into the microphone speeding i live on 63 avenue >> (speaking foreign language.) >> the structure on the street.

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> many of my neighbors and you are concerned about structure that has been viewed on geneva street >> (speaking foreign language.) >> and also, we filed a complaint about legal construction. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> many labors are concerned about the height of the structure neighbors are concerned. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> and how close to the neighbor's house. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> this is encourage built to the roof of the neighbor's home. >> (speaking foreign language.)

>> because of ceiling of the neighbors we feel the construction effects the peace fell and quality of life of the entire neighborhood. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> since my bedroom faces the structure and that will be built. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> it have a direct negative effect to my quality of life. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> semester we have a small backyard. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> this structure has a great impact to a large and also the new door and deck is at the same

level with my bedroom. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> and really close enough. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> and you can directly see into my bedroom. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> self-defense has a huge effect on any privacy. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> since the deck is built i have no feel comfortable opening any windows. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> cutting off any entrance to sunshine and sunlight and fresh air into my own home. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> effecting my health and my spirit. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> as my right of privacy

having been stolen by this structure and i have. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> okay. and including the demonstrating the size of the illegal structure speeding i does not understood why the structure is necessary. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> okay since ore home similar we all have exit to our backyard to the inside of the homes speeding i feel this house can

do the same and not compact. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> office of the city administrator and not the feeling and safety in my neighborhood with this illegal and construction i hope that you not approve the permits additional required for the property owner for when we move the illegal building structure thank you. >> that's it thank you. >> ms. chiu i have a question. >> please stay he has questions. >> ms. chiu lives in the building directly from the back you said she faces this.

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> my the structure faces any bedroom. >> okay. so he's on the oppositeshe's on the opposite street. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> so, yeah it is connected and then when they built up the structure. >> i understand so did yards are connected okay roughly how far from her window is this deck. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i think maybe a couple of yards or something i don't this is really close.

>> maybe we'll get clarification from the department. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> my name is heidi lamp the permit holder or the agent a karen he's my aunt we had a family emergency she flew back to asia she's asking if the case for continuance to hear from her side commissioners, i received a request on saturday from the ms.

lamb i approached the appellant she disagreed but ask for a continuance ms. lamb kill get an architect or something else on behalf of the parties. >> why not hear probable should have come up before we started the case. >> i know i am sorry. >> are you able to represent our aunt. >> no, i'm not two. >> you have no one else here. >> she only told me to come here. >> why do you mind if we hear from the department and maybe we can - >> i might want to hear this case anyway. >> okay commissioners

okay. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department unfortunately, i can't add much to anyone's understanding of the project the permit holder has not submitted a brief we could a have the plans i don't know about the photos don't show on the back of the permit form the deck rear less than 10 feet from grade and without retaining a 22 foot rear yard and any encroachment requires a variance i look at aerial photos of deck it is structured illegally and i would question whether or not within the required rear yard it is does seem to be potentially one 22 feet of the rear property

line that will necessity a variance and has a large privacy screen that seems a firewall we'll typically require notice i don't know what necessary described in their approval is not was it there now from what i see so i don't have enough information to say this is code compliant a sandborn map on your ipad. >> i have a printout. >> the question how far don't the deck protrude from the rear of the property your estimation and seems like 6 to 8 feet from the rear building on the overhead if i can have that, please the property oh, covered by the letters

- that sorry is the subject property 25 percent rear yard requirements a quarter of the property seems like that rear wall is close to be the rear yard line i don't know if staff seems to approve something based on the prescription i don't know and can't confirm what is in the photo is what they're trying to legalize not enough information full board to be determined code compliant. >> that a front yard setback the sanborn maps are not the best in terms of the lot configurations but yet there is a small front the lots are 87 and change in lot and debt. >> just to be clear the appellant - >> absolutely on the house across the way probably these

are one hundred foot or one hundred and 25. >> their 50 feet. >> excuse me - commissioners, i want to make sure the interpreter is translating this, please make sure the lady understands what is said. >> i can't say that is code compliant. >> okay. thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> sorry commissioners joe duffy dbi the prosecuted came to dbi on monday and i'll agree to a continuance i 2er8d to go to the

board of appeals that's not up to me but she did explain she's out of the country so i wanted to add that that was my first introduction to this one so the building permit assaults to comply that the in violation 2015 for a wooden deck and off the second story it was approved over-the-counter by building and planning the the building permits is signed off as complete but senior builder inspector better known i didn't by bernie i don't have drawings in the package she said she didn't meet ore deadline she wanted for time and helped with the drawings on this

one i did have a few concerns on the photos in the brief the location according to the property line i didn't get a chance to talk to senior inspection but certainly a new connect needs a firewall set in 3 feet didn't require a firewall may or may not be an issue only the photos on the back of the brief and the railings i'll not be too not up to code so some sort of plastic in front of it is spaced too far apart i may have issues with that to be honest it is one of the ones i'll probably want to do a site visit and report to the board on what it entails so

that's where i'm at did the permit holder you had conversation when she'll return. >> a couple of weeks i think. >> a point of clarification this is the permit holders agent. >> mr. duffy what triggered the nov. >> sorry yes, he didn't rewrite it we got a complaint it was received on august 25, 2015, and owner built the deck with stairs without a permit the deck is blocking the complanlts view and noting notice not to the neighbors with the additional deck the building inspector that respond inspector watching on the notice of violation go basically, he cited them for building the deck and stairs without the benefit of a permit and not to code the stairs and

deck are guess dangerous to use it was built as a ground floor and turned into on unauthorized unit not sure what that means the building permits to. >> either legalize the deck and stairs or legalize the ground floor units we cited them that's the reason why the deck but i don't know. i haven't been out there and no drawings. >> there was a stair. >> there's a new door and stair off the deck the plans i showdown mr. sanchez for a permit in 2010 or 2011 for rooms on the building they development a ground floor and put in family room and bathroom and as we call is that built has the size of the lot so maybe mr. sanchez will give you more information

but that permit was signed off on the cf c and it was issued that is work in addition that was done originally without a permit we cited them with a notice of violation and not sure if everything is okay with the deck as i see that. >> but the rooms were signed off and done wherewith a permit. >> now an allegation that was converted into an illegal unit in the addressed on the permit. >> we don't allow in san francisco. >> okay as you can see two doors on the photos on the bottom line from both floors. >> thank you. >> sure commissioners do you want to take public comment before you hear from mr. sanchez practical preceded with that hearing. >> okay. so. >> i mean, we want to continue

till been a continuance request. >> yes. there has. >> we should determine yes or no before we go further with this. >> i'm inclined to continue. >> i'm inclined to continue with the public that came out to speak on behalf of or against if we continue. >> we'll need to take public comment on the issuance of the continuance we can do that if there is anyone that want to speak mr. public comment whether or not the matter is continued this is your opportunities. >> whether or not this matter thereby continued the board will be happy to continue. >> we're leaning towards continuing because we don't have enough information to give a proper judgment so you, you want

to come to the my wife and i and speak whether or not you want it to be continued. >> good evening, commissioners my name is jason i'm my family live on 71 navaho two houses away from the property in question and our backyard is looking over to their stairs it did not effect me directly because we're like two houses away but for me it is to me i would be very, very upset if that happened to be cross from me or. >> what we're hearing sir, we're potentially going to continue this hearing for more information so the question is

do you have an opinion to be continued or not to be continued. >> if you don't have enough information obviously continue but would be like to have the permit repealed he did the structure removed. >> thank you very much thank you. >> is there any additional public comment on the question of the continuance okay seeing none, then do you want to hear from mr. sanchez regarding the plans or what to go forward. >> go forward with the continuance. >> i don't think we have enough information. >> the question how far to continue it down because the permit holder is eventually out of the country the agency. >> the person with the question, please come forward. >> we should ask both sides.

>> 11 or june 8th? >> we're trying to get our doctor to give you experience hopefully you'll know when you're aunt is back. >> sorry she is back on april 29th. >> okay. >> so she returns april 29th. >> yes. she - >> probably needs additional minded after that questions. >> june 8th. >> could mrs. chiu come to the podium please.

so, please translate to her this is periodically about thank you for having me r continuing this and now suggested ise continui now suggested iscontinuing this now suggested is june 8th. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> why you guys need to postpone the case. >> we don't have enough information to continue this case. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> okay. so actually, the inspector come twice to come

with us and then the owner not on the door. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> this is so - the only question is june 8th going to be okay for her that's the date we chosen at this point speeding i need to ask my member of the business. >> that's fine okay june 8th. >> thank you, thank you. >> so is that motion from you commissioner fung. >> move to continue this to june 8th. >> do you want to allow the permit holder to submit documents or the deadline for submittal is past so be allowed

to do it. >> we didn't get anything. >> prior to the hearing 8 days. >> we didn't get it before she left why are we giving her special treatment. >> i'm raising that you didn't have the documents you were asking for if you don't want it that's fine it is up to you. >> let's restates. >> it is more of a she doesn't submit that she waited to the last minute and allow her to submit the documents it is unfair we're inconveniently those people. >> let me back up they need to submit a set of plans to us. >> okay. >> that's all i need. >> vice president thank you. >> okay. so then the motion

but is vice president is so continue the appeal to june 8, 2016, and this is to allow time for the permit holder to participate in the appeal and also for the permit holders to submit plans to the boards and to the appellant commissioner lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson commissioner swig no that that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero. >> 4 to one my apologies. >> you can abstain you didn't and couldn't now item 6 this is the appeal co-william third and victor and william louis versus the department of building inspection on 26 street

appealing the issuance on 2016 to martha of on petitioner remodeling the units modifying walls and adding laundry and relocation of kitchen and electrical and plumbing on separate permits that was heard on march thirty and on for further consideration this continued the matter to determine whether less than 75 percent of the walls are removed and identify significant dividends between the revision permit only march 30th 2016 tsf continued to allow time for the departments we'll have them come up first starting with mr. sanchez anticipate with the president's agreement each party 3 minutes. >> i'd like to thank everyone for their patience this is been a link evening more than we thought that would be thank you. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department some of the staff reviewed the cumulative plans for the project and have

determined that the project is not resulting in more than 75 percent of the wall interiors didn't require for this permit or the permit in hold so we have confirmed that it is compliant with planning code paw what percentage have you does our department estimate sorry to interrupt. >> it seems to be the staff said close to 75 percent but less than other units overall this was around 60 something percent for the overall this that triggered this compromise. >> thank you mr. duffy. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi just on that one the issue for

was the attorney mr. simon brought it up i want to thank him for the egress going into the bedroom and like a closet and on to the fire escape different from the existing condition the kitchen pany area the codes not like not really silent on that type of egress with only you can't exits from a closet it make sense it looks like shell and it looks like a closet not labeled as a closet we'll take the best guess you can't do that so we'll ask that the two things that there's no lock on the bedroom door there wouldn't be anything to stop

them from undergo the bedroom it is only a two bedrooms or four-bedroom apartment so based on the code you can travel through an intervening room in the san francisco building code talks about the fascinate we interrupt interpreted within an individual dwelling unit that means in essential the occupants of that individual dwelling unit know that is not like having strangers we own our homes if you need to get out into e glow the bedroom and through the fire skyline the code says you can't go through the closet we want the package no locking hardware and want that area not to be a closet which gets you assess the fire escape that's at condition i want on a permit from a dbi

point of view so that's that's all i have to request. >> how do you enforce. >> i believe the board whether will condition the permit. >> yeah. actually mr. simon asked me that that is the only thing we can do to make sure during the final inspectors we know people change things we don't allow a keyed lock on the inside of any door but people do it we don't look at people door hardware. >> it just part of permit and at this point that is inspected but for someone to change it afterward it wouldn't be a good idea but not a way to stop that that happens all the time okay. and i have inspected this kind of thing and said you can't put a lock it is not a good idea

to have a locked door on a door that leads to a fire same place a if you're a guest don't know. >> the fire is not in the front. >> that's the same as anywhere like a hotel room it is good to familiarize yourself with the exits it is just an individual dwelling unit we're talking about here and it is just something we'll ask it didn't specify or pointed out on the plans originally i did check with dbi plan check before the hearing they said no, they don't usually it is okay. so you know thank you. >> okay. he think we'll call

up the permit holder now. >> yep. >> good afternoon, commissioners alexander behavior the permit holder with me presents in the room is the and the actual permit holder i want to point out within our previous hearing we've heard from dbi that the can be addressed and it is important to keep in mind that the property is opted out and intended to be reopted out by the same tenants after the construction the control of the issue of the door will be within the people point of view of the permit holder will not reside they property there is no -

there are tenants and they're for the appeal. >> no further comment. >> i have a question counselor so you know, i look at this not only as a commissioner but as a landowner and landlord and developer why would our client do this why invest on a unit only to have them move back in. >> this is not a selected unit to do it to that it shacks things up a plan for the entire building was brought up in shape this is actual with the units in our previous hearing the department of building inspection already had a chance to address the work being done on the first stool and have plans to show the scope of work

on the other too floors it is done within the same bathroom and agenda and same also i believe one of the last exhibits on my brief shows a picture of the exterior view as you can see when there was windows in place for the - >> the other question would be so i believe you went over this but i can't remember the tenants that were there in the other units are me back being so that unit. >> i have no personal information on the units not mr. my client was here. >> go ahead he can ask him or you can ask him. >> good evening. >> so the question stands that the question is that you know your nicely remodeling for the tenants and he did tenants there previously are they back residing into those unions.

>> the taunts tenants. >> the other - those these tenants moved out before we start. >> so moved out voluntarily during or before. >> during the ownership. >> thank you and there's a comment if we can have the gentleman who as a owner the properties. >> that was actually. >> (multiple voices). >> counselor. >> can we we'll hear from the

appellant now. >> - if you'll bring back the tenants that are paying in the range of 25 hundred under rent control were you present to the other two units there were tenants in those unite one of the tenants been there for 40 years in the unit prior to the building being purchased by the current owners they were convinced to take a buy out the tenants in both units not offered any indication to move on and based on contrary intentions to sell those units that's what we expect to happen that's why we brought this challenge and asserted and recertify this project is inconsistent with the priority guidelines it is clearly going to reduce the amount of

affordable housing the question about this secondary egress is not simply with all due respect those same tenants will move on we don't expect them to, permitted to move on some senate effort the dreams of this project is realized by selling the unit but the responsibility of this city not just to protect the current residents those buildings will be here for decades it is simple to change a doorknob that was designed the secondary ego was assessable without having to enter through in any doorway that's why it off the kitchen it going to the kitchen that is assessable to the mean hallway and exit the secondary egress into the backward it as three story unit a fire in any units those folks

will have to pass to trip the risk after a fire they'll have to get out of the unit and as the front stairs are blocked for a myriad of reasons the second egress will pass through a bedroom created from a current kitchen putting an unlocking door nobody someone can change and frankly in the future residents wants to have privacy a upper necessary modification that is safer you're putting the next residents and others at risk to allow this to occur they deny the secondary egress of escaping fire or other emergencies. >> anyone wish to comment on this item seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> you know the question here

is not primarily directed towards existing i believe that the building department has planet of ability to mandate the appropriate type of rated enclosure for an exit whether that effects the floor plan or not the question posed by the appellant is one we've seen now quite a few times with the board dealing with either owner induced novs related to unit that are probably not permitted

by code or that are distinguish or dish in some manner or allow the units are being upgraded and therefore some type of issue that is done by the and the by the policymakers both parties are rights that i'm looking at what is been brought forgot to what the argument is against this particular permits i don't think so that the existing is the primary issue that can't be. >> i'll concur no way to speculate the matter is before us the permit and the proper

permit will now send that back to as far as i'm concerned the permit is appropriate. >> i also agree at the same time we equivalent know as the commissioner alluded to we're not going to be the last place to visit the board of appeals unfortunately is not the venue that solves this issue that will probably go further on on a personal level i don't particularly find this nice on a personal level but as far as procedure regarding the permit i agree with my fellow commissioners. >> care to make a motion. >> i'll move move to deny the appeal on the basis the permit was appropriately issued. >> okay. thank you on that

motion by commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal and uphold the permit that is predicament. >> commissioner fung commissioner honda no commissioner wilson no commissioner swig okay. that that motion carries with a vote of 3 to 2 and . >> do you mind madam director if we. >> all right. here we go welcome back to the wednesday, april 20, 2016, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals we're on item 7 appeal joseph versus the department of building inspection with planning department approval the property an jackson street appealing the issuance on january 2016 to doug of an alteration permit to a revision

permit updating the measurement of a deck to legalize the conditions we'll start with the appellant 7 minutes to present the case. >> and actually, i want to ask if that on on behalf of the permit holder excellent. thank you. >> good evening can you hear me all right there we go. >> i'm joe a 42 year residents of 3232 jackson street thank you for hearing this matter tonight you don't think i don't plan to repeat appellants brief i'm knowledgeable about the subject deck i filed angle earlier permit in 2015 about the

east he said the deck being too close to my property line and the in the case negative effects of the noise and barbecue postponing to me and others around me in the process of going through the appeal i learned in the discussion with the architect emphasis that the deck was not big enough to generated noise on this 4 feet deep it is characterized a as a person not a party deck go when they constructed the deck that which is thirty percent deeper shown on the drawings we were given i filed a complaint because based on the drawings i was provided the deeper deck encroached and required a rear yard setback and expand for a greater disturbance i spoke to

inspectors gwendolyn after the inspection and confirmed the deck was larger than oriental approved that was now a matter that was appeal able to planning where in his words retired or made legal the reason he signed the appellants brief a setback violation involved and a greater potential for negative effects on neighbors while i was preparing for today's hearing he was confused about the inconsistent with the submits and city documents as they lead to different conclusions about the extent of the encroachment into the setbacks first, the site plan approved by the city on october go 15, 2015 a 35 foot 11 inch and 4 inch deck the site plan approved in 2016 shows a 37 foot setback and

a 5 foot 3 inch deck the extra size of deck and third the alterations preempt that was prepared by the department of building inspection dated january 28th of this year shows a 31 foot 7 inch setback in the comments by the planning commission. >> so i respectfully i have a photo of these that can be used on the projector if necessary i respect ask the board to clarify the multiple setback measurements and return the deck to its original dimensions thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> gary.

>> hello good evening my name is peter i'm the attorney for the permit holder 3 basic issues to go to what i think that is easier if people know where we're going first give you a little bit of background second two arguments to why the appeal to be denied and 3 other issues the commissioners should think about first of all, the background that had been confirmed by mr. sanchez today is that on january 27, 2016, permit was filed with dbi for revision to the permit that approved the deck updated the measurement and following and compromise by the appellant on january 29th the

permit was approved and february 22nd of this year, the department of building inspection came out and inspected and give the final approval for this beginning e dbi found it met the setback requirements that's the background two argument this appeal should be depend first everything is approved by the city on the up-and-up mr. sanchez will back up that and second the appellant has not presented any evidence that the deck is within the setback no engineering report no measurements work or, no anything other than he's saying this is within the 25 percent setback requirements so the only evidence actually before the commissioners here is the approval by dbi finally the third thing i want to address briefly under another

issues would be the fact the setback is from the rear of the yard and the appellant is the next door neighbor so the setback requirement even though there was a violation and no severed not set up for the adjacent landowner but the owner behind not the case of appellant this second sorts of other issue is that the potential disturbance from a barbecue or noise is unrelated to the setback requirement for that the same reason it is setback approximately thirty feet from the back property owner not the next door neighbor he's next door so eve the setback was violated wouldn't make a different with regards to smell or enjoys the same distance were with that, i'll leave this up to

commissioners to decide but again, i think that dbi and the planning department will support the finding that everything was on the up-and-up. >> so that's the width of the deck. >> the length of the deck or the width. >> the narrow dimension. >> how far back it is i believe 5 foot 3 inches or 63 inches. >> i saw the dimension but it pertains to. >> 5 foot 3 inches, sir. >> out to out then. >> yes. only goes back 5 feet from the property not really a party deck. >> the question i have counselor you said that once negotiations have been reached the settlement been reached you submitted as per that

settlement. >> you mean settlement. >> with your client as well the next door neighbor it is what you said i believe; right? >> reached the architecture and went to dbi with the plans according to that did i hear that wrong. >> illness what you're asking me. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the department now. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department over the past year or so a handout of permits for the subject permit some interior renovations and in august they submitted a permit to add a dpw deck at the rear subsequent there was a permit to

reduce the deck but then maybe substantially perhaps not reduced and a notice of violation in response to that they submitted the permit before you on appeal and that's the permit updating the measurement and based on reviewing the permits that be on appeal that is code compliant their maintaining a 25 percent rear yard that is based on is assumption the health as the correct dimensions and i on the plan and according to the plan they required up to 25 percent rear yard the deck is maintaining that the scope and size didn't trigger the neighborhood notification so the permit was properly reviewed and approved and perhaps issues and concerns relate to the deck been proposed and the deck size is

reduced and the deck size increased why we're here with that appeal tonight as a shown on the plan before you it is code compliant and a foyer amount of deck appeals that is getting an is smaller size of decks we've seen recently but appears to be code compliant. >> thank you. >> so mr. sanchez, the - when you make the statement is appears to conform to the 25 percent then you only checked the the line of the dimensions to arrive at that conclusion. >> i looked at the overall debt of one and 27 and half feet calculating the rear yard 31 feet 7 inches and including the

numbers don't quite a few add up exactly they have where they're showing 37 feet and one inch from the rear building wall to the neighbor prime minister and 4 foot 3 deck and 37 remains they're a couple of inches off. >> but 2 inches. >> the project is code compliant and so the margin of error at least being less of an improvement. >> you don't require a survey to establish the building corners. >> no, we don't require surveys with in the case of new construction or major alterations we felt that would be necessary and helpful. >> thanks. >> thank you mr. duffy anything?

>> commissioners joe duffy dbi i don't have too much many report a revisions to a permit tool update the measurement of deck as you can see the builder inspector was noticed it or told about it by the neighbor and instructed them to get the permit that is issued he correctly over-the-counter and the indeed the permit had a final inspection on february 16th it was substantially suspected because of the appeal on the 19 of february we've signed off on the work with the appeal i'm available to answer any questions a separate permit required for the gas heart what's for the heart above. >> the gas heart if it is supplied from the gas from the house would be required to have

a plumbing permit. >> for the electrical. >> should have been that go might have been. >> thank you mr. duffy. >> just to refreshing my memory the setback of the side of deck different from looking at. >> 3 feet for a single-family and 4 feet as you what's the new code that came out. >> it has changed in the last few years it is hard in san francisco because of the zero lot lions but a multiple they see require 5 feet but only 3 feet for a single-family home or. >> okay public comment on this item anyone here seen we'll have

rebuttal sir, you have 3 minutes. >> very briefly as far as the arguments from the permittees to create sift it between the residents on - it creates a barrier for open space for the purposes of comfortable living is very important i don't think that setbacks while they're in may be one direction towards the rear have no purpose when it

comes to the adjacent units it may be true that potential noise or disturbances not the basis for setback but setbacks are a way of creating certain barrier to too much over lapsing between people and results perhaps an anular purchase there but the the setback 35 or 37 that's the thing it seems to me that is the answer because everything that was predicted was on the setback of 35 feet thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> okay rebuttal from the permit

holder. >> if you have anything okay okay. anything from the departments no? so >> the parapet asked a question i think you kind of explained that mr. sanchez but maybe just put a period on that. >> you know part of this is a question of the accuracy of the plans and even on the plans before you on the existing site plan they're showing the building setback 35, 11 in which case a 35 foot deck impostures into the rear yard by the way, they're showing here they are setting on the plans and the plans are stamped and signed by a licensed architect the correct dimension is setback further mr. irrationally more space it is convenient it allows them to legalize the deck but their

stating the dimensions of the prophet. >> you noticed the architect didn't draw it. >> yes. which was. >> adjacent to the dimensions. >> that was i don't know who this that but the plans yeah. i mean that's a little bit unusual. >> okay. >> thank you commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> the appellants argument hinges on whether it conforms to the required setback based on all of the detailed information from t drawings and from what the planning department said no basis to dispute that the spends

extends into the rear yard setback. >> can i make a motion. >> powerful to deny the appeal on the basis that the rear deck conforms to the required rear yard setback. >> thank you. we have a motion if commissioner fung's to continue did the appeal and uphold on the basis the roof deck is okay. >> commissioner lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson commissioner swig that motion carries with a vote of 5 to zero and we'll call the last item on tonight calendar christopher versus the department of

building inspection the property at 407 mississippi street protesting the issuance on 2016 to anton and others of alteration permit - replace the cuisine see yard and before we begin i want to conform theres someone here on behalf of the permit holder yes great we'll given you have 7 minutes. >> i'm sorry. i'm a bit hard of hearing i don't know. i was being addressed. >> if you're the appellant court on behalf of the appellant you have 7 minutes. >> thank you, very much. commission i appreciated you're hearing this appeal okay. i with my wife are the

owners ever this cottage on potrero hill only 8 hundred and 50 square feet the dispute is with the neighbor to the left on the screen in the greenhouse that is a 72 hour ours with first story our house has two virtues one 3 and soon hopefully four grandchildren living within 10 minutes walk, and, secondly, it has a gorgeous view sitting as it does on a bedrock doom of the bay with the ships that anchor and the east bay house windows gleaming into the sunset so -

i'll fast forward we - the neighbors built this fence they did that without all opposed by the same sign us and consulting us we knew a fence needed to be replaced or redone of the two events were bolted together and i had asked specifically that when that came time to build a fence we would work on it together but, in fact, over in the late summer or early fall we were absent for a long period they went ahead and built this post this fence - and in the process their contractor forcing fathom boards between the fence to pour a concrete wall broke all the bolts and

your fence started to stop he will in ward and in essence i should say and simply want to get back to where we were and the kind of fence arrangement for three or four years the fact this fence i think the permit was granted with respect to this high section i don't know if this will work the high section - no, that has absolutely no effect

- i mean a larry's pointer essentially the permit was granted because this fence is about 8 feet they need a permit for that they first inspector came by and said that fence is under 6 feet it is fine and he recommend that it get a permit for this extension this higher fence but i had invited him to come on my side of the fence and inspect the concrete wall that they had poured which was about 4 feet high so 4 feet plus 8 feet is 12 feet and significantly changed the character of our backyard it is basically so load by too high walls on - so i'm sorry - i

think i need - a number 3 if we can find it yes here it is that's fine basically, the building of that high portion of wall had this effect on our living room light and on the deck on the light on our deck in the afternoon. >> and i think it diminishes the valve our property and diminishes the environment sitting on the deck or even the living room in the late afternoon that said if we can go back to

this shot we were in terms of claiming this portion is too high and this portions is pushed out four or five feet now gumz good news the opposing a party have not not file a brief and not chosen to appear so i was contacted just last week after preparing this long and boring power point presentation to i was approached by an agent they have retained who essentially agreed to most of our demands he recognizes that the fence is too long since

that pro told us impostures on the downhill neighbors property to the extent at least 5 feet and he also says they're willing to drop the high fence level that you see there down to the level of the not very good looking firewall portion and that is an acceptable agreement for us but i have two questions that i would address to the gentleman if we agree with the boards approval to enter into this deal does that mean that we have no further recourse to this

board for enforcement because the neighbor on the other side of our neighbor had the same problem reached a private agreement, received a promise they'll remeet and had to wait two years for them to move on the remediation i don't want to be in that position does 86 do any of the city agencies if we answer such an agreement do the city agencies retain the ability to enforce compliance, and, secondly, we will need to build a fence of rebuilt the fence that was toppled and like to cover that unsightly employee plied

firewall that requires a fence rising 8 feet and i'll have to apply for a permit and hate to lose - i hate to have that permit denied which i suppose he could appeal then but i'm wondering if there is some way to be guaranteed i'll be able to build a fence to a coffer that firewall from our side those are the questions and thank you very much for listening. >> have done. >> i am. >> okay. >> he, he is the last case and patient i'm a lawyer and past life i know nothing of construction law i prepared this long boring

power point presentation i wonder if i can speed limit it into the record. >> give it to gary. >> yes. thank you very much. >> that's satisfies me and i believe that the departments will speak after you and probably answer some of the questions and i have questions when you come back. >> i have a question now excuse me, sir to be clear when you referred the firewall the portion with the plywood and the portion up above with the exposeed stud it they're willing to remove >> yes. we firmly believe that will restore light to the living room and deck. >> thank you. okay so we'll

we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> representative. >> uh-huh. >> good evening, commissioners my name is neeley run a drafting service and the homeowners contacted me about on friday about a week ago and i visited them and the site and talked with them they're two career driven people in their 40s and busy and traffic a lot and wanted to resolve this issue and have an amicable ripper relationship with their neighbor i wrote a plan a standard site plan and construction details and sections and stuff like that i've shared that with mr. wilson this evening we'll use that to

submit for a fence permit and it looks like mr. wilson is in agreement what i proposed he know my clients are also so it sounds like we have a substantial agreement on resolving this situation. >> i have a photo you if not to see what the backyard looks at from the other side if you're interested at all. >> go ahead and place that on the overhead and place that as if you're looking at it. >> and so the upper left i'm sorry it looks dark just be looking at east out over the bay and the wall is the subject wall

to the south fence line and that elevated section part we are proposing to lower for a length of 15 and a half feet and then that should fall within the requirements of the firewall that is required by the building code lower left photo is a picture from the back property line looking at the house and the lower right picture is also a picture of the south fence line. >> so i don't have anything else to say other than the relief the board innovative the dbi of a release so we can go ahead and file argue plan and

get a building permit for that fence. >> are you done, sir. >> yes. >> do you have a timeline or plan of when you'll do this. >> the plan was finished today so we're ready right away and i understand that my client is busy they didn't act in a this fashion over a year and a half but probably everyone is motivated to take care of this now thank you. >> any questions. >> no, thank you. >> you're welcome. >> okay we'll hear from the department now. >> mr. sanchez. >> somebody. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department the permit was issued in error the permit should be denied and thai should be forced to refile the permit

didn't have plans with that was not quite meeting what they described up to 10 feet can be allowed by the height of the fenced is code compliant i was concerned about the materials in the appellants brief it showed that is expending over the rear property line and also concerns about given the typography of the site the roof deck complies with the planning code that may not be allowed a deck 3 feet above grade but it was added and exceeds that but seems to be on the neighbors property so a lot of issues they need to resolve with proper plans and permitting and you know in regards to the appellants question about the height of the fence they can have it up to 10 feet not a proper to cover the urban

sightly wall but other concerns perhaps about the work that was done would you the benefit of a permit or plan but i think they need to go through the proper process and as quickly as possible. >> question mr. sanchez. >> how do you determine the in fill that was done. >> i mean, i on the photos that the appellant had were instructive in showing basically rubble the best of your ability of the property we have historic aerial photos we have access to that show a little bit more but using the improvement for extending further back i don't know how the downhill property owner feels their, their encroaching on their property that should be addressed through proper permits and maybe representatively some of what they constructed. >> refresh any memory the

native soil as disturbed. >> it should be 10 feet above the natural grade of the property would be they seem to have done some typography in the back but maybe over the height of the fence a little bit but given the typography of the subject property is upheld so take into account but. >> the measurement is from one property side. >> correct on the subject property line. >> from the nature up to the top. >> correct. >> the maximum. >> correct. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi

yeah, i'm somewhat familiar with that says case i was contacted by the appellant the officer about this case and i did tell them we'll send a brifshgs i'm not sure what happened with the fir builder inspector look it from both sides we did eventually get out there i sent in festivities or photos that was replacing in kind backyard only and side yard and compliant with the complaint now on the face of it you on that is a fence in the backyard nobody can see it, it is less than 10 foot planning don't care but issued with the plans and didn't it was

stripping and then so for that reason alone you'll deny the permit not post depth or elevation nothing that on there it was a mistake shouldn't have about think by dbi and following the complaint with the neighbor and the appellant we issued and notice of violation i'll read that a complained investigation work with the permit stole alternated retaining wall and adding 4 feet of height on top of original retaining wall making it 6 feet in height the retaining wall is located at the rear site adjacent to 511 mississippi street a wall has been constructed on top of the retaining wall ranging from 6 to 4 feet in height go approximately 40 fight in lethal and two platforms exceeding work

and it was placed without beginning inspections and obtain a plan and plans should provide the details of elevation, grade from existing and the original grade from top of wall and require the inspections to have the notice of violation and this permit must be received by the planning department prior to issuance and i want to show you some photographs if we can get the overhead this is the fence ranging in 6 to 9 foot 5 or 6 issued without plans and even see the concrete there is the old retaining wall the new wall, without poured without inspection and into the

rear yard a deck coming off the back of the house i don't think it is thirty inches or less not requiring a permit more than thirty inches it does and this is a more of the fence here again, all this work was done on that over-the-counter with no plans then sorry i have to turn this one. >> this deck here is we're going towards the rear the property line so the deck goes it is a pretty big landscaping project so we have had the fake

grease this deck here is this is the rear property line exceeds it it needs to be addressed in the future permit so as i said we have a notice of violation there was a 9 times penalty on 33 thousands of work that penalty will have to be paid but all this needs to be addressed and obviously where the planning code was taken in regards to the setbacks i'm not sure they'll be able to keep that thirty inches are less from grade didn't require a permit that is overflow room agreed so we'll need commissioner honda brought that up this is a change in those cases where is the original grade we have to go back and try to figure out that that's the the case we're

dealing with so again i'm sorry this photographs shows you one of the streets behind so there's a quite a fall off as you can see i'm not sure what was done but looks like the backyard i might have alternated to get that level they have a challenge i wish them them the best laughter. >> might be a notification all the stuff we didn't get in 0 the cases i'm glad they have someone on board and requires a full set of plans and conditions proposed what you want to do and allowed to do with the codes the building department will require some x-ray of the walls to make sure the rebar was put in size and stuff like that so they'll be a amount of work but

certainly the permit is not worthy keeping it should be denied. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? >> hello, my name is silvia johnson. i do had voted on a lot of papers this not here at that point, they have to have license and have to re - know city policies on this and - this should be you know also put - built you know, i had some pictures of some buildings i put

together with the common areas of new construction with the beanpoles that would help shafrt for a new area district i don't have that with me but i do you know on the day - it has an infection and can try i still

have the i wanted to get it dimensional but time went by too fast there is time for me to of course i've seen doctors i went to general and they are telling me about you know the nursing they don't do nursing so that's probable what is wrong because and was given prayers and calling other people about and i did not realize time went by fast i came here and went to my - because i've been missing - >> and missing because someone hit me like a rock and really

was ill i've come out of it and still here and make sure the plan stays you know - and better ideas and buildings that - thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> seeing none, then we'll have rebuttal if you have anything further to say mr. wilson you have a chance. >> okay anything from the permit holders agent. >> yes. as the agent for the owners of 507 they've hired me to do the permit expediting and i can see that we're going to have a couple of pages of drawings to fulfill the dbi

they've retained me as the go between to get the construction on that ends i think that mr. wilson can be assured the project will move forward and no delays thank you very much. >> thank you anything further from the department so commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> the departments don't want us to condition those permits. >> yeah. >> i think they're asking for or revocation. >> i think i'm in agreement one thing to the permit god bless go back for going on 5 grandkids if san francisco to deny the appeal and it didn't conform to the planning san fr

deny the appeal and it didn't conform to the planning n san f deny the appeal and it didn't conform to the planning code. >> a motion to deny the permit on the basis it didn't conform to the planning code. >> commissioner lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson commissioner swig that motion carries with a vote of 5 to zero and. >> there's no further business. >>test.

>> >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the regular meeting of the