>> good evening welcome to the wednesday, april 27, 2016, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals the presiding officer this evening commissioner honda he's joined

by commissioner ann lazarus. >> commissioner wilson commissioner fung will be here momentumly and commissioner swig will be absent to my left is tom a city attorney and provide legal advice at the controls it did legal assistant gary and i'm cynthia goldstein the board's executive director. we have also joined by representatives from the we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. sitting at the table in the front is scott sanchez the zoning administrator and also here representing the planning department and planning commission and we should be joined by senior builder inspector the please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other 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 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 we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv.

thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. please note: any of the members may speak without taking you. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> okay. thank you very much item number one is general public comment this is an if you wanted for anyone to address the board on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but not on tonight calendar money here to speak under general public comment okay. seeing none item 2 is commissioners questions or

>> pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. madam director i have a prior engagement i'd like leave at 7:30 what that means we're missing one commissioner commissioner swig is absent we'll try to get through everyone's cases prior to that we may are a quorum issue any other commissioners questions or comments. >> any public comment on this item? seen item 3 the boards consideration and possible adaptation of the minutes of the boards meeting of april 20, 2016. >> any additions, deletions, or changes from the three of us move adoption the minutes. >> i do. >> okay any public comment on is minutes seeing none, then 53 we have a commission to adopt the minutes commissioner fung is absent

commissioner honda and commissioner wilson that that motion carries and at this time then commissioner honda. >> i belief we'll have a slight pause to have a commissioner show up. >> if you want i can read the next item and . >> item 4 is jurisdiction request the subject property on florida after the board received a letter if ken and dennis and dan and t.j. and charlotte and others requesters asking the board take jurisdiction over the case which was issued on october 21st, 2015, by the department of building inspection the appeal period end in 2015 and this jurisdiction

request was filed in 2016 the permit holder is urban design here to remove one story sheriff's deputy and replace the stars and one-half bath with stairs to yard the public hearings was was held in 2016 and continued to allow time for the department of building inspection to research and report to the board any neighborhood notification was required for the permit and if so whether such notice was issued okay. >> he's parked his vehicle. >> so commissioner fung should be here within a moment or two. >> i wish to disclose i've hired and retained reuben, junius & rose their representation and entity will not have any effect on any decision today. >> so we will wait for a few

minutes until vice president is here. >> he'll be out of breath but will be here. >> i apologize for the delay

people. >> okay. so we have our vice president has joined us we're ready to start with item 4 which has ban called i believe the president is agreed we should hear from inspector duffy if you could step forward. >> i apologize for being late. >> good evening commissioners joe duffy dbi and ucsf last week he needed to, back to dbi and

check we did the proper notification for structural work and we did indeed do the structural add notice that was sent out if i could have the overhead this is a printout of a characterizations from our permit tracking system this is an internal thing i checked generally have this with me doesn't have this last week. >> let's see there it is on the bottom it says structural notification yes, so- it was done and then we have a copy of the letter that was sent to the appellants by dbi overhead again

are we done. >> face it in the same direction you'll look at it there we go. >> is that better yeah. this is a typical letter the data of letter on 21st of october 2015 we sent out 11 letters to different buildings around the property where the work was done so i got this in the central permit bureau i'm happy to report that was done and other thing i did a site visit this morning and all of the work seems to be as we normally see in a concrete foundation in sections looks to be done presidential from what i rectified our inspectors are up to date on the project i'm available to answer any questions. >> did you view any issues i guess the appellant was indicating there was - >> you can't tell about the issues but a foundation on the

property line i think that was mostly what it was about. >> okay. >> thank you so commissioners unless you have questions for the other parties we can take public comment and then move into deliberations any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> no questions no comments? >> submitted. >> yep it it does i mean - the questions we had the reason we continued it at least for myself was to hear

from the departments the concern was that the proper notification was not issued although the work had been done already i wanted to know if this proper notification had been given out at this point, because it had although i think the neighbors have concerned i'll be concerned if i was a neighbor seeing the dig out or evacuation to the property - i feel the city departments have not erred and that the proper disclosure and notification was right and the - it is correct excuse me - >> okay. this is just a reminder f this is a jurisdiction request so the question is. >> did the city cause a late filing i don't find it

did authoritative i'll not support the jurisdiction request. >> make a motion. >> move to deny the jurisdiction request on the basis the city did not cause the late filing. >> okay commissioner fung that motion to deny the request commissioner lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson okay commissioners that that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero the next item item 5 appeal maria versus the department of building inspection with planning department approval the property on ma drone avenue appealing the issuance on march 3 of an alteration internal remodel of kitchen on main level and bathroom and launders and foundation replacement at grade

excelsior patio good evening would you accept some photos and sketches. >> have they been supplied to the permit holder. >> no, but i have a separate. >> in your - i can use the overhead we'll see that way. >> okay. that's good. >> my name is mar, i live on ma drone the property adjacent i have serious concerns the construction and therefore request the commissioners to deny the permit request my reasons are state and federal while the permit the city agencies didn't investigate the soil and not take into consideration the environmental

impact of the neighboring houses and number 2 the code violations by the respondent and her contractor is a keemgs of complete error and it opens the door for easy conversion to a secondary unit for future homeowners and the current zoning duo don't permit a secondary units in an rh1 i want to extend these by adding the construction first neighborhood was built by cut into united states existing hill to - i provided i didn't provide but will put on the overhead a picture dated 1919 that is a large - >> okay. thank you very much the picture is from 1919 when the west portal tunnel fierce

opened my property is marked and that is the magnum the first three houses and 68 and 72 addresses 68 ma drone 4 houses is on stilts their renovating the foundation over the years the soil pushed the house away from the hill downhill basically this el nino season pushed the house to a point they had to completely renovate and doing many to the tune of 200 and $50,000 my home ann had an inspection in on a had the inspector said the hill has separated from the foundation substantial falling concrete with the retaining wall

st. paul the deterioration or flaking of concrete at that point, i had an engineer and foundation engineer inspect my house he recommended if we couldn't afford to completely replace the foundation he recommended the drain along the perimeter of the house we did and since then no water intrusion and even the home inspector tell them the house didn't sflt settle it was in good condition except for the foundation it will increase the flow of water and the water might flood any basement and bedroom second the construction the retaining wall will need american people evacuation the removal of that soil will

unsettle the foundation and the proposed evacuation will be sustainable 20 feet wide and standing the whole length of my property line my current retaining wall is on the - removal of architecture can damage the wall they foundation could result in ultimately the requirement of replacing the whole foundation thirdly, the construction of a 5 foot cement wall 3 feet from any basement bedroom window will deprive any northern exposure of the daytime and enter personnel to enter my downstairs bedroom i wanted to show you first - yeah. first a sketch this is from the

appraisal on any house as you can see the sketch lanltd first floor that is the permitted bedroom and isn't it a fact my daughter is finishing her master's degree and moving home this space will be used the on egress from that bedroom is one window and he will show you that window next as you can see can you see that oh, i think this is how it is; right? >> you see the bedroom there is a window underground this is my bedroom window the proposed wall should urban design 5 feet tall in front of the front you

know - this one that's already not my property 2 feet is all i have on that does the proposed wall will be 5 feet tall and will channel all the water and run off into this space between my property foundation and the wall because it remains ungraded also i'm worried about 0 o the egress from my bremd bedroom if there's as wall no or nothing at all it is so the space is take a look two people cannot move through that let me talk about the report for it was - the inspector didn't do any soil investigation he looked at the side yard and said in his

opinion nothing bad will happen to my property on february 22nd he somehow observed water pooling and declared the property was built on a sandy fill everything will be okay and at the end no responsibility for his opinion nor does i have any warrant on his work. >> your time is up. >> >> i received the last report on 5:00 p.m. with 3 business days i did contact a republicable firmer and spoke with the owner he looked at. >> i think you can finish the rest on rebuttal. >> you'll have rebuttal. >> okay may i and we're on a tight schedule so stay one. >> it was important what the

engineer said. >> you'll have time on rebuttal. >> okay. >> ongoing we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> >> i wanted to say that the downstairs and patio are design of that was in part from my ex-husband and my aging parents and family he has a condition that means he is several years hopefully more but we designed this downstairs space when we can't take care of himself he'll more often and i'll take care of him here so the patio was designed to put in a temporary ramp come into

the french doors i'm going to turn it over to my attorney. >> good evening commissioners mr. gladstone i'm glad she gave me this report we've been asking for it for months and saw it tonight approximately the inspector maintained with a refinance or something and i could comment how it but not had time to review is it a little bit of prospective by showing you a photograph first it is lined up. >> overhead please. overhead. >> what i want you to see if i can expand to the property thank you the property in question my clients property is right here 34 dr requester is here at 38 you'll notice the distance

between the two houses is greater than go anything on the block that is fortunate for both of them we learned get a letter yesterday that is a dazzles filed with the - they have a setback of 12 feet and 4 feet at that point but the bigger setback is here with the appellants and if you look at a close-up you see the setback closer this is our building and this is appellants building and even closer you see this again, our building and appellants building and the biggest concern of the appellant we understand why in this yard area 15 to 20 feet between appellant and our client is

response time on the property and it is falling down a good i think four or five feet from the property line that is about here what's being done to make it simple is this is at evacuation that will be done the back of my clients property is here and the front of my clients property it here this is a brick garden wall appellants property is represented by the line in the backward what my client does digs down 4 feet and a foot slab and by deciding down right here but we don't understand the

remark the appellant the appellant saying we're filling up against this window she points out we're actually going down not up this is at window and we're building down what is created is a retaining wall parallel to this wall only my clients property here that will serve as a wall of the patio that is going in and the patio is going in from here to where my clients building starts over here it will not come near this retaining wall and i'm glad that appellant showed you that report because the report from our own inspector said st. paul concrete we know that note a structural defeat mentioned the vertical graph and says in his report

over and over the settling of homes is to be expected we worried about that appellant had hired a consultant my client hired 3 they're all 3 here a civil engineer and soil engineer and structural engineer along with the architect to answer any questions they've taken this seriously hired all 3 ask them to be here tonight and further they went to the department of building inspection of building department and met with willie you don't know he's one of the strictest and most detailed of the people that plan check and really asked to see a across section of what was going on with the patio i was made aware the appellants wall is crumbling by appellant when he talked about a bunch of times to the

appellant willie asked for the drawing that was the second meeting and willie approved that drawing in front of you again to take all precautions this was done properly my client is concerned this is done properly and appellant mentioned stain glassed window that is the plastic of the front room of my clients residence this is of great value and wants to make sure this is dysfunction absolutely right and she's gone to the best professionals to make sure that happens as to the alleged illegal evacuation illegal work the building department came out and looked to see from the allegation of the logically removal or addition of a window was true they find it was an additional excuse me - removal not an additional no violation issues they came out and saw

that the demolition for the destruction of the lower level was a little bit too wide in the wall and in one area suggested a permit obtain for destruction and which was obtained and no notice of violation. >> thank you. >> mr. gladstone. >> yes. >> the sketch you showed the section you had that in your brief give us the distance that is there. >> sure i'll take out another drawing to do that. >> heros a close-up i can show you in the bigger plans but it will be hard to read and perhaps

john can correct me excuse me - scott. >> mr. gladstone where in your brief. >> excuse me - sure. >> that would be - one part is on exhibit g and that's from one direction from another direction from birds and view i'll locate the page it is a little bit clearer it's on this page so if you look at on page exhibit h the second page in exhibit h you'll see the patio from a birds and view it is on the overhead scott with the

explain oh, it's on the plans this is the page showing the distances scott would you like to show him. >> scott would you come to the micro. >> i'm the architect of record on the project it is 19 foot 3 wide so it wasn't along the whole propelling as stated and i'm interested in the driechlts. >> from the face of her building to our response time is approximately 3 foot 10 inches i have a section on that. >> the section was in g. >> so - >> as you can see this is 3

feet 10 inches and based on the survey we commissions her home is one foot 10 from the property line so as you can see this section also shows the wall is actually sunken into the ground we're not building up to block that window. >> less be clear i want to be clear their luke steps and rear. >> correct it is an up slope lot from the drone to the back of the property what you're looking is steps to the backyard that's - >> that will not be assessable. >> is that your answer. >> not yet the section you showed earlier was a longitudinal it was parallel to the property line. >> that's correct. >> i thought from the

presentation you said that was the section between the two properties it didn't look right. >> i meant longitude my fault. >> thank you. >> okay we'll hear from the department now. >> mr. duffy. >> it's right there inspector duffy right tell you okay. okay (laughter). >> it didn't look right (laughter) commissioners joe duffy dbi the building permit under this was a form 3 permit which means taken in and reviewed by planning department, planning department actually looks like

it was over-the-counter dbi looks like it took it in and reviewed it as an intact permit and probably because of the amount of work that was proposed but think plan it was what we needed to give it more review so as you've heard that was plan checked by one of the dbi engineers and the are two other building permits around the same time one for explore try it costs 15 hundreds that recent in october 2015 and then there was another one in october 2015 for an interior remodel of upper

bathrooms and waiting through the brief and looking at the all the notes and they like whenever we come across an sexual abused we take them seriously the department and it was reviewed by one of the engineers i state looks like they addressed the water it was important and the appellant brought that up she was concerned of water into her property we have that it is done incorrectly without a permit from what i'm reading it has been dealt with we hope the work goes ahead in accordance with the plan and overseen by the

architect or an engineer so - there are special inspectors a third party inspector as well as from the for the placement of concrete and the foundations and the wood framing so that's another lay out of inspectors on the project on the complaint issue we did receive complaints our builder inspector went out there asked them to obtain another permit that was of the color try permit and coffer yourself and get another permit it didn't resulted in a stop order or a notice of violation apart from that there is nothing

else but if you guys are questions i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> the permit holder brief referred a geotech report was that submitted to the building department for review or - >> that's a great question i saw that note i don't know that will warrant for this type of project to be honest geotech report they come in but i don't think this in this case that was warranted we may have asked for the letter the other thing during the project if it goes ahead from the neighbors have concerns it could be speaking that the inspector can ask we get some for scrutiny from geotech but i don't know, there was a type report that's not something we see documented in

any of our systems it is done by plan check and the engineer address that later but i don't have any information. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department just to be brief the subject property within the rh1 or limited to a single-family they're proposing rooms on the ground floor that is complying to the not the separate they're allowed to have a wet bar or a full bath given their connection to the street and to the floor above so it complies and not credit card a separately residential unit. >> so it's not in regards to

the wet bar. >> with direct access to the street it is for the wet bar so in this case they've chosen not to have a wet bar but a full bath and that's our approval well. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll start our rebuttal. >> oh, there's public comment please step forward feel free to step forward. >> i'm gary live on this street and a homeowners on this side the property ♪ direction first of all, let me show you we did not receive any formal notification or plans of foundation work evacuation i don't know if we're supposed to but seen nothing sent to us

concerning what they'll do as a homeowner of thirty ma drone 34 we my wife and i we support of the request for denial we've lived there for on ma drone this is the first house we bought and only house we've owned it is over 90 years old so we're concerned that the proposed foundation work that includes evaluating the lastly we're talking about talking about my side not marys it is a concern because the separation along the room will

be to your knowledge is only 40 feet the property line is 3 feet into theirs that's 12 inches there and going down you know i'm not an expert but going down 5 to 6 feet in a small area assuming we had access to my property to the slope and the way i see the water flow the houses behind us are higher than us we're on a hill i don't know if you know the neighborhood you know our concern is this work would exacerbate the downhill settling and the soil compact to potentially lead to our foundation weakening and

potentially major damage we will and not allow to have access to our property unless an individual good lost or serious - we only will allow assess for insurance policy or whatever >> sincerely can you repeat what you said about the distance between our home and this home. >> our house half the distance is driveway is unique we have a driveway in san francisco that holds 3 cars but from they're back you know

the house against and between that's the room where you know the halfback of my house is 3 feet, 4 feet from theirs. >> in the back. >> yeah. that's. >> how about in the front. >> in the front. >> you said tlbs there's a driveway. >> when you pull in there's a driveway that separates our houses my house extends north to 4 feet of their house halfway and the property line is 3 feet beyond that of the 4 feet so in other words, you know that is a foot behind a foot on their survey oversees because i appreciate i did enough. >> thank you

uh-huh. >> thank you any other. >> hi, i'm tomas i live across the street from the project my reason for coming here a neighborhood density we've owned our home since the 1980s and seen an uptick and renting out basement and renting out rooms illegally recently high next door took up a argument and where the police had been called and partygoers more logically construction is up the street the neighborhood is already decreased by airbnb i'm not accusing the owner of a rental i know once unit with a separate

entrance not for families to rent it out perhaps the reason for the rooms to increase the value of the property to be sold so if so the new owners will have not alliance and create a rental unit i share that with other neighbors that couldn't be here today. >> is there any additional public comment? >> seeing none, we'll take our rebuttal. >> would like to call your attention to this drawing from the architectural plans by the architects attorney the window initially took out a permit to remodel two upstairs bombards and the demolition downstairs began they came in the department and said that there be an colory - i

watched a western edition climb up the deck and cut out with a power tool an illegal window it is right here i submitted pictures of that window so you can see where it is it was never a place there so when the department of building inspection came over i don't know how he can see how to remove it i'm troubled i think there is a coverup he verified that there was never a window and say it with my own icy i want to talk about the soil inspection so i contacted the what is is it the engineers i think and the guy told me the rule of thump if you're near the foundation for every 2 feet

separation one foot down they're digging 3 feet 10 inches in front of any house with you know two the foundation of my home and built 5 to 6 feet he also said the water flow of the underground streets and that might wash my foundation out it has to be mapped before you do dig because of the loss of feet also ms. kern is saying she'll build this apartment for her husband i understand it'll i sympathize but looking at the proposed plan she is going to build so many stairs because she's going to sink the patio and the whore will not be able to pass to the house through the house outside of the house to

the backyard there are only two steps it is very assessable to wheelchair she is going to put french doors next to another door instead of that why not enlarge that and make that ada compliant the purchase of building her apartment is not to accommodate her oiling husband. >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> i said inform mr. duffy was no soil report but exhibit j i pointed out that to mr. duffy i believe is that right mr. duffy and i wanted to point out that there will be a section a 32

notification people forgot i remind my clients they have to provide a thirty day notification when they do evacuation as little as three or four feet and as much as three or four feet from someone's property it provides the neighbor has a right to thirty days to come in and inspect and have their own consultants and has the right to the neighbor to do the work themselves and not do - it will have a notice closer to evacuation that is the as a matter of law and my client will put on the records on the side where they'll do everything by. (show of hands) tools want to make sure no reversions we can't speak to our

foundation we know there is an inspector that observed her foundation and maybe when they moved on not recently and said it could be fragile but those cracks are consistent with what goes on around the city and said nothing more on the uphill side mr. sebastian miss states his property no evacuation only an additional wall being put inside of our clients exist lower level here is mr. is a shuns home and this is the reasoning the wall it looks like it may not be a great wall he's on this replacing between here and here

in evacuation going on outside of this property and look at the huge distance finally i'd like to suggest that the board if it has the power to recommend there be consultants to do a survey both using lazer and photographs of both homes to make sure any problems during the evacuation is caught when it happens before you go too far although we don't think we needed one but if a party makes a complaint for cracks and so forth we have a record thank you >> thank you. >> you talked about interior lazerably and interior photos would be best anything further from the department mr. duffy.

>> on the notification we require a notification in the previous case that was issue last week dbi didn't do a structural notification maybe it should you have been down or done we request the civil code that requirement be done which mr. gladstone addresses i ask them to do a start work inspection with dbi so we can look at the conditions we still may have concerns regarding the sequence of evacuation of the property lines all the things we do in the field and it should be covered under the design and i did see the report and read it their encouraged in the report to hire that company during construction and hopefully that

will happen regarding the ladies comments on the cover up i'm not sure what that meant i'm the actual builder inspector supervisor i'll encourage her to contact me if she thinks someone is not doing their job especially the building inspectors. >> i'm sorry you can't speak. >> follow-up with dbi and if there is something with the windows that shown incorrectly or something that has been done we are happy to look at that. >> can you address her comment about how dope the dig will be. >> i don't see the structural drawings there is architectural plans so there's different depths of that but that is all part of design i said that along commissioner wilson we do those are licensed professionals their

reviewed by dbi engineers their supposed to be meet all it structural code for water and loads for - so we'll expect it is designed to comply with the codes and it is just a typical thing we've seen many projects i tell people i know their nervous but the code addresses that a in regards to the notifications, the design the waterproof all the things we can't have water running off your property and intruding others that should be incorporated into the plan i saw the drainage the code that's what it is there for . >> does the offer to do that with hand tools does that help.

>> yeah. that's possibly somewhere i - to get it done that is some go that monitored closely during the work as part of special inspections it is done a lot it depends on the soil conditions and the thing about those projects until i get into them you don't know sometimes that's when they need to stop and do a start work inspection inspection and have it monitored i know i hope to improve on that with the neighbors i expect those issues are heard with the board decisions with made during the process of the project that that's what you have dbi for they're there for that we can put to it on thele to give us some additional like

requirements from the geotech it is not unusual to ask for something else during construction based on someone's concerns. >> thank you so mr. duffy the - they're required the permit holder are required to collect water on the surfaces especially surfaces they've created and disturbed how about on vertical surfaces of the retaining wall they show a fabric. >> they don't show it going and connecting anywhere. >> it is supposed to have a drainage blow the retaining wall we gravel and supposed to be different designs as you may know there's a way to design that and that we'll expect that

is done there is a waterproofing on the drawing. >> they don't show the the vertical. >> this is a required. >> it will be exactly yes and any water going down a retaining wall has to be built 13w09s design they have an engineer here maybe they can address that but definitely something i didn't see the structural drawings i imagine there is i'm not sure that's the whole set of plans i didn't see city stamps on the plans so - >> i will have a look at the plans and see that there is anything on them. >> as part of inspections that's the part we'll ask for as well so h. >> maybe they can.

>> commissioners unless questions. >> they can address my last i don't see any drainage. >> there are - there is an engineer or engineer some of the drainages are shown and on the drawings he's not yet done. >> can you describe that for one minute and as mentioned drained to the public sincere underneath the patio as required by law if you want us to put hand tools on the revised drawings i'll be happy to do that. >> we've been a round of applause to provide a drainage my intent to take all the surface and sub surface of the retaining wall and collect those and turn the water from the surface and sub surface and

eventually a sewer to collect that to the city's system so - >> okay. >> simple as that my questions. >> commissioners. >> i have one more question for the appellant. >> step forward. >> you know nobody can force you to allow them to go inside our house one of the simpler ways for sflt to allow monument to be placed on the faces on the interior to manager the evacuation. >> commissioner fung i tried to negotiate with my income tax neighbor and keep our

relationship neighborly i property to her and also to the architect as several requirements one of them will the the indemnity policy i would be happy to open my doors to the interprets knowing they'll protect me none of them after i spoke with an architect he said let me speak to my folks and didn't hear from him and my goal was not to deny this permits at all at first. >> all right. >> circumstances make me do that she had to do survey of the land 3 times i spoke with the third surveyor and said he didn't know they did something illegal. >> thank you so the survey and the bound lines survey.

>> i don't expert - trust the expert. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> the question is whether the amount of evacuation for both of the foundation and the patio are excess and require more stringent determinations whether it is structural or waterproof it would be nice if at the have arrived at some type of agreement like the documents of

existing conditions because for both of them down the line to become litigation is extremely difficult to determine who is right or wrong i see no basis to either condition or to revoke this permit. >> i concur i heard a lot of auditoriums on speculation that might happen in terms of the use of room i don't think that is relevant thought issuance of the permit. >> agreed. >> i concur we are not going to alter the permit or condition it strongly recommend the appellants allow some type of monitoring so that you guys are not in courts 4 years down the road probably our best size. >> move to deny the appeal and

grant the permit on the basis it was properly issued. >> thank you. we have a motion to deny the appeal uphold the permit it was properly issued. >> commissioner lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson okay commissioner swig is absent that motion carries with a votes of 4 to zero thank you. >> move on to item number 6 case victor and robert and others versus the department of building inspection with the planning department approval property on twiblth street appealing the issuance on february 29, 2016, of on alteration permit for the garage and firefighter to have family room and second story and dining room and kitchen and third floor

more and replace the enter stairs appellate court. >> i need to make a disclose seems there's a lot of reuben, junius & rose cases i retained the counsel reuben, junius & rose and their representations of appearing before this board are will not have an effect on any decision. >> you have 7 minutes you can begin. >> okay. thank you very much hello commissioner honda and members of the board i'm a resident of 3800 21st street one of the appellants i'm here representing the residents vourd or surroundings the property on 21 street we are appealing this issuance and the developer tells you he's dropped the project at the february 10th preapplication

he's on this preceding with the original dbi project here you see are the dbi permits we've reviewed our presentation demonstrates this should go to the process significant impact the proposed project effects the privacy allotting and noise number two interrupt the design elements are incomparable with the residential design guidelines and the historic character and 3 it doubles the size of the home and qualities for planning review due to the scope and size of demolition i'll begin with the impacts on the neighbors the plans filed with dbi has a

significant impact on privacy and light and air and the gentleman is correct many of the properties have wooden decks none the anderson homes have a roof deck or decks above the main floor the proposed roof deck willful length rear yards windows is invades the neighbors privacy this is a direct view of my became in any home just adjacent those looking north see through the bedroom windows of our neighbors 32 feet away my became is 4 feet away also plans for additional roof

deck is in the plans given the small size of the lot noise will carry across the mid block open space to the adjacent neighbors they have decks off their main floor and placement is a better choose is takes care of the privacy issue and number two the windows the proposed windows face east with a view into the 38 hundred street office during the april merging with the developer we requested redesign of the asked adding obscure glass we're highlighting those two changes as examples of impacts on the neighbors and the character of the houses you can cite any examples to the planning department thank you. >> hi my name is a victor i reside at

776 noah street i'll talk about the second reason for the project frankly the project doubles the size of the home and qualities for a planning review the property per the information database of the city is a three story basement plus two floors single-family home with 1784 square feet of habitual living space with the size slopes this project proposes massive changes it adds two new floors and rebltsz the existing floors the lowest level will be excavated -

this raise via donor a windows to create a new fourth floor all the existing floors are gutted and rebuilt to a new floor plan the plan exterior are being reconstructed with new window designs all across every floor and the rear the size of the house will double the estimate cost is list on the permit at a staggering one million dollars it is unbelievable that all of those changes were approved as one alteration given the massive scale and scope and the demolition and reconstruction it requires we ask the city if they reviewed the calculations with the plan what is the total percentage of the demolition does that meet the threshold this morning he spoke with a dbi

representative tells me the structural engineering report is no it in the file so that critical information is missing it project effects everyone where people resides and individual neighbors the large roof deck and the three story balcony effect light and air and noise of the eastern block see of the block we all agree on that we understand the board of appeals is not the appropriate place to raise those issues we have no other forum at the moment we wish to discuss that with the developer and city planning by having an alteration permit we're deprived of our procedural rights to add interest to the project our request is simply be sensitive to the neighbors and

for those historic homes by roving the roof deck and the protection of privacy and light and require the city plan review we ask you as board members to direct this the san francisco planning department for a full review thanks. >> thank you, sir. >> good evening board members tom reuben, junius & rose on behalf of the permit holders mr. neil i'd like to first address a couple of the comments raised and then i'd like to talk about how this project was submit and

promoted and reviewed and i submit that we followed all applicable requirements in the planning code and building code as to privacy and light and air impacts we met with the appellants on april 20th and we made proposal for reasonable modifications to the project that would address those concerns we can talk about those increasing the habitable floor areas of the home didn't trigger any neighborhood notification or planning review on its own this project has been reviewed and determined in compliance with the planning code and building code in august 2015 the gentleman submitted an environmental application due to the evacuation proposed and the exterior changes to the building planning reviewed that

application and determined no significant impacts they determined that all of the proposed modifications, in fact, restored and enhanced the historic character of this home the accordingly redemption determination was issued no october and in november the gentleman filed for a building permit for his alterations that permit was approved in a couple of weeks and at that point having an approved permit the gentleman came up with the idea of some additions to the original parolee could have pulled that permit at that point and let the appeal period inspire and talk with the neighbors about the proposed addition but in the interest of full disclosure he filed for - he sent out a notice for a

preapplication meeting with the neighborhoods to discuss with them having gotten their feedback on the additions he decided to hold-off on the addition and move forward with the full permit and pull the permit and appeal ensued we had our meeting on april 20th at that meeting we proposed changes to bro both the roof deck we could protect the privacy of the lady the neighbor to the east and we would obscure the windows and the dormers also to enhance the privacy we're willing to make those changes with me tonight i have the gentleman our architect bill eagle on and partner we're available to answer any questions you may have and thank you for your time and consideration. >> sir how old is that

building. >> i believe 1926. >> thank you 1904. >> thank you we'll hear from the department now. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department so to clarify for the record the planning department has reviewed this project as said and we completed that environmental review and issued the determinations and substantially they sought a building permit application reviewed by the staff over-the-counter the scope of the work generally reduces elements of the building and envelopes except for the dormers that is a neighborhood notification under zoning administrator interpretations dating back to a decade now and

donor merry windows that are. >> can i speak laboratory louder we've revised it to make it more restrictive over the last couple of years but this complies with the stricter requirements the donor merry windows are exempt from neighborhood notification the property roof deck that was created by cutting back the building envelope didn't require a notice itself decks are triggering notice within the buildable area and not triggering neighborhood notification so other project was properly reviewed and approved the plans don't come near the 317 calculations to be

triggering the review under 317 and bans our records and assessors oversee office since 1907 and i think that is all to say it is a code compliant project i'm available to answer any questions what's the hr e analysis. >> it is of the an hr e that was required the building given it's age was listed as a historic resource now known as a historic resource and given the fact the work with generally at the rear the building and that the work proposed for the front generally improves the building closer to the secretary of interior standards no additional part so the initial review i don't think a full hr was required nicole. >> i thought they provided hr e for 35.

>> it depends on given the dormers are set back 3 feet and rear it was reviewed and approved by the senior preservation team that resolves those and is confident the proposal is compliant with the secretary of interior standards with our preservation and our requirements. >> just a question aside you know what a cricket is. >> i didn't look for them. >> you call it a donor merry, huh? what will trigger and 317 notification and the 317 neighborhood notification is generally an expansion of the building envelope but exemptions to that for example, from the permit obstruction like bay windows if it meets the neighborhoods notification and further certain things under

section including donor merry windows meets certain requirements those are outlined and provided by the permit holder in this case but generally that expansion except for minor physical expansion like donor merry windows, etc. >> okay. thank you. >> anything mr. mr. duffy. >> joe duffy dbi i didn't hear many building code issues brought up it seems to go from 3 stories with no basement and 4 stories with a basement 5 levels that triggers a strictly requirement noted on the building permit we did provide the structural at

notice to the neighbors so that was done and i don't see anything else on the belief for the building code issues unless anyone has any questions. >> how so the building department look it it. >> how does we look at it. >> does that become a 5 story building. >> the basement is - and four and one we call it 3 and 4 and zero to one it is a 4 level. >> and the basement though with a structural work would have triggered a notice to the adjacent neighbors; right? >> that was done the structural notification was done according to what i read in the tracking system. >> that should have been done at the issuance of the permit. >> thank you mr. duffy. >> and will have to be careful

with evacuation adjacent to the property line but it is important. >> thank you any public comment on this item? please step forward and madam director keep the public comment to 2 minutes per speaker we're losing our quorum. >> my name is robert i live on nov street i want to speak to additions that effects the character the whole neighborhood and visual as far away as market street? the proposed roof deck most rear yards are visual on by a few neighbors but that is not the case here i have a couple of postcards part of exhibit i'll put them here i'm trying to save times now i have 2 minutes

it shows 21 street from the market and castro area. >> overhead please. i'm sorry oh, no please continue. >> and this shows a smooth lines of peak hours jefferson sloping i think the hill and to lob off one of the peaks will dramatically change the character and the beauty of line of homes from near and far and this view like this that makes san francisco so unique and this beautiful city we love from the purchase of the roof deck can is spectacular view it can be viewed from any window in the purpose of did deck to provide a space for gathering it is had a lovely backyard to provide a very cozy respite from

the cold winds that come into our neighborhood from twin peaks i've been there 3 seven years believe me few people use their decks so i believe whoever will be living in that building misinformed can thor enjoy their view without disfiguring the peaked homes please don't allow the rear of this home to be fattened keep the peak thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is mr. henry on nov street next door to one of the appellant's first i need you want to add this if i may in the discussion so far i've not heard a good description how the interior of this 1904 is

changing two things you've heard about the roof deck and the house nothing off the back making it flat when i picture a dormer i see it setting on the side the road the back of the highway right now is a 1904 victorian typical noah valley the windows have taken out and their replaced with four floors sliding glass doors few windows all doors that's the way it appears might may that interest this house is visual from my home and my backyard second briefly i heard that i'm sure it is important i heard several times that the changes are not visible they're in the back and, in

fact, the changes are visible up close by pedestrians in the corner of noah and 21st street the pedestrians casca see this chopped off with those too big boxed sitting there this is briefly a section of the residential residential design guidelines section 7 i'll request this bill be considered under section 7 it is listed as 1977 architectural survey and listed in here today my understanding section 7 is that these are two qualifications qualifying surveys for this building to get the additional - >> it is a historical research thank you. >> sir. >> one more thing can i enter documentation into the record here's the copies of the surveys. >> give to did clerk.

>> when you researched the 1976 survey how was the building rated they have different ratings. >> i have a copy if you care to look at it go yeah. a whole series of ratings and there is a copy i could put it here. >> that's okay. i can ask the officer. >> i think the highest rating was a 3 and i believe the 3 was on its contribution general contribution to the neighborhood thank you. >> and exhibit has a picture of those real houses. >> thank you. >> any 0 other public comment. >> hello commissioner honda's and members of the board i'm carolyn kennedy i think or live on 21st street i chair the planning for the delores heights improvement club an association

with the properties for over 40 years i attended the preapplication meeting and the april 20th meeting with the gentleman and would like to address the statement that the appeal to the neighbors simply about the part of plans that have been withdrawn suggest to the discussion of the preapplication that's not true we have been clear throughout the issue the original dbi approved project is two large to go to the over-the-counter permit process the size and scale the process requires greater review two reasons why one the project was issued a permit for conditions and alterations a complete we build not a set of resolution the plans we got last week despite the statement will the projects

are double the size of the home adding two floors and squattiexg below - reconstruction for the fda facade to increase the number of windows and total we build no size and the over-the-counter review was insufficient had there been site visits the planning department and other departments would have identified the errors in the testimony in light of the time limitations i'm going to cut to the chase and ask tell you we'll have more questions than answers and we will ask that did you commissioner honda and the members of the board in addition to the full planning review delay this permit until we get

the answers to the issues we raised and resolved thank you for your time and consideration. >> any other public comment. >> i'm a plea bargain the delores heights club i live on 21st street about three quarters a block away i attended that meeting on the 20th of february also, we thought that was going to be a route get together with the neighbors together and we appreciated that was as open conversation we were surprised it is revealed there was a plan already approved seemed to be approved not clear whether that was approved or not we've been trying for the last for two months to get the details on this plan we wanted to work with the neighbors from the builders we

wanted to support the neighbors in working with the billiard now we're here not asking you to decide whether this permit should go forward or not we're not asking you to contribute to the size whether it entrudz on the neighbors view all were asking you give us more time to work with the builder no time to work that them this is the large project shouldn't have been over-the-counter it is a very large project we need to set policy to force those projects to go through the neighborhood review we need to participate in that thank you very much. >> thank you any other. >> hello, i'm jan. >> bring the mike down. >> i'm jan an obtainer and a couple of comments i heard was

that the property is resource b or something like that but heard the comments from something else that the property is then here today my understanding an preservation building 16 is that on the second there are a number of potential reasons why a copy maybe clarified as a resource a that property appears here today and/or the architectural resources i know in 16 is states that the property is here today it is one of the criterias for being a historic resource and go to sfgovtv.org planning department and the property map it shows up as property b's i was wondering if perhaps this property should be taken into

consideration that is a property historically. >> any other public comment. >> seeing none, then we'll move into rebuttal starting with the appellants 3 minutes. >> the overhead please. okay folks the first one we wanted to show you is the regular corner where we are this is the permit holders. >> move the microphone. >> thought permit holder property are here and this is where we live we are nested and mr. egan on spoke with the - he has this large building we're tucked away in under and they're doing this rebuilding here but if he had a larger piece of

property remember the back of the building is 32 feet away from the property and if he puts the deck on top it goes into my bedroom window into any kitchen and deck and into my yard if you look at this way here all those homes are one hundred feet from the front of the building to the back a one hundred to one hundred and 50 feet he would have been better off to build one of those buildings i want refer to the rear yard to minimize the impact to light and air and privacy the administration can help to reduce the impacts and make the building compatible with the neighborhood so once again if you look at the distance between this permit holder home and my home and compare to what

everyone is a unique property. >> i'd like to add to what plans said about the decks outside the envelope yes, their staying within the building envelope but only one deck currently adrc 3 additional will be changing everyone o everything else for the neighbors and they want to add one deck to the shut out not in the plan but won their adding in the future - currently the plans will be doing the feud with wood paneling that didn't go help with the historical character every single vic victorian on

that side back to do overhead you look at over our garage from the student and finally with the addition of the garage they will have to take out the street trees this is part of our argument how this community-based organizations through so quickly without looking all the factors thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. tuney. >> thank you i just have 3 points i'd like to make percentage as to the historic issue it is a historic value of the residents is not in question this is has been considered a potential historic resource and that's true under it is here rating today as well as it's age what matters is what is property and changes to the residents and

planning reviewed that and determined it didn't trigger any additional environmental review. >> the zoning administrator can explain that further if necessary as to the roof deck and first of all, there are not 3 roof decks a reference to what is proposed and considered but not part of the approved permit the roof deck was an attempt by the permit holder to minimize the intrustness of that project and cut into the attic space within deck if they put a deck and extended out from the building we will have complaints about looking into the windows of adjacent homes we're willing to take measures to protect the privacy of the

adjacent neighbors and as to the rear architect you are that's a question of taste this is a delipidated home we greatly enhance by the new designs there is new glass in the back and the roof design will be cleaned up it is a worthy project for the neighborhood thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez anything further. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department not too much to add only the phone on the architectural survey report looking at again, it is listed in our records as b which is that has not been finally determined to be a right away rows we're have abc and listed in here today and 1936 survey it

is rated looking at the details between zero and 3 it is noted a unique visible feature received a it out of 5 for roofs stepping up the hill that is maintained because the proposed arms are subject from the front wall and in terms of the being sfroishl from a public right-of-way from the corner and so i can pull it up on google street view if i can have the overhead please so this the subject property that element will be visible from the public right-of-way i can confirm with the preservation staff that was not an issue primarily viewable it is this is from the corner

around the corner yeah. >> excuse me - >> so i can review that with our - but in terms of the character of the block and anguish i think there's a fairly strong argument other decks and i think the photo was stone of shown of other buildings on the blocks and other decks found on other buildings at the rear not 3 decks on the subject proposed there is the proposed upper level at the attic now habitable space under the proposal and now a landing which they'll remain and keep as a smaller deck owe lower level and the proposed patio at grade

so wrrt. >> mr. sanchez looking at a small lot could the project sponsor are they maxed out. >> they're close to the maximum rear yard will be yes. i think likely any expansion at the rear triggers a variance. >> the second thing has anyone filed a b b n pull that up here if not explain what that is. >> i don't see that is a block of the notification someone would file with an notice of reviews by the planning department and good for one year it is only $26 that trirgdz the

b b n notice because it was reviewed by the planning department. >> okay. thank you i thought i saw one reference to a three story deck. >> is that what was removed there's saying only two decks one on the roof and one at the bottom a cover up. >> a second story projection into the rear which didn't have a roof deck proposed over that that progression would be within the required rear yard and adding a deck triggers notification that would have been part of the previous proposal but not part of that proposal they have is a eureka valley yet railing to give but didn't provide access to that area nor a roof deck.

>> let's go back to 1976 survey can you repeat again what you indicated you were talking about both the hero today and that together i thought. >> yes. it goes on the 1976 survey which was here today 1976 is here today same survey. >> but one time. >> 1976 survey the junior league survey that was referred to the 1976 survey they're one and the same i believe. >> (inaudible). >> okay. >> certainly. >> so i'm putting on the overhead the actual survey form from 1976 listed as a summary of

two out of 5 would be the highest ratings the fact that something has a survey the 1976 survey didn't mean we find it to be a historic resource today certainly changes since that time the surveys we're not conducted staff perhaps - >> an argument made by permit expediting. >> but it is one obviously. >> (laughter). one by your staff >> i understand i heard - consistently as a point to approach greater analyze analysis. >> and because something is not in a 1976 survey is not a resource we have this

information. >> i understand the point. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thanks. >> mr. duffy anything further. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> you know, i was going to raise with the va it has not happened that often we've had had cases with respect to dormers the addition of dormers to create a greater habitable space you know and obviously my memory is not as good as it used to be but in general recall that the planning department has always been built to be strong in terms of the to those projects and how they crafted their dormers in this particular case i don't

see any craft man of dormers you know - it would have appeared to me if one wanted to create reasonable space and maintain the existing building to a certain extent you know one would have provided dormers on both sides to create the habitable space and create an architecture all that is more compatible with the existing but i'm not trying to get down on planning but there is an element my mind of a consistency how far they take their analysis i don't think i say that here and will say that my initial opinion i don't find that the dormers will quite match the type of analysis

that would have occurred based on its rating and not that the rating was - it would have triggered some greater analysis. >> so what are you recommending. >> where does that take us. >> i'm not in favor of this. >> so in my shorts 3 and a half years we've seen lots of folks get free space through the dormers not seeing a large process and the same things we spoken about on this board quite often is the outdoor space should be included as habitable space the city departments have not so i'm interested in hearing

what the commissioner fung is - >> proposing. >> not quite sure i was looking at the documents in light of a different thought than when i reviewed it previously at issue is - their issue even with the dormers their approaching a clearance inside the attic space that is a little bit police have what is code required and i think there is an issue there in terms of how they would normally locate and size the dormer because the attic space and therefore create a habitable space within that would - what is more difficult

at a minimum not the dormer to approach the roof. >> i do have a question for i'm not sure if it is dbi or planning in regards to the access to the attic i nodded a spiral staircase is that code compliant. >> i guess. >> it is from the radius is large enough. >> thank you mr. duffy. >> thank you commissioner honda. >> yes. spiral stairs are allowed. >> from the radius is large. >> yeah. a code there's not effected by the shop and haven't came into many problems their difficult sometimes to you know like get from level to level are you part of the code.

>> i've not seen many come before me. >> there's a space safer in a house like this doesn't take up up as much space. >> back to you commissioner honda. >> i thought i'll add one more point people are wondering what the illegal i'm talking about a circuit even though is where you have two sloping surfaces come together not at a right angle or wolfed and 80 degree angle therefore it creates when a traditional dormer has a sloping roof on the dormer like a shed so as the sloping roof of the dormer then engages the slope of the dormer roof is created a

circuit even though. >> you learn something everyday. >> you know i hate to totally reject a permit without letting the permit holder have an opportunity to respond to our comments and the question is whether it is our comments are consistent throughout the entire board i would ask them to come back to us and see what they they would propose any modifications. >> shall i continue it. >> i am. >> okay oh, my god okay with that. >> i can live with that. >> okay. >> madam director i'd like to

move to continue this let's find on appropriate date for the parties whether they want to create any modifications or whether their schedules will permit what would you suggest. >> perhaps depending on how much time may 11 or 18 are meetings for the boards than the june. >> is that - it the 18 available for both sides. >> of may. >> may. >> does that give you enough time. >> counselor come - >> whether you want to address some of our comments. >> could you clarify what are modifications and the dormers to your proposing i think you

should revisit it. >> it's on ouyour table. >> we'll submit something by the thursday prior to that to the 18; is that right? >> would you want additional plans. >> only if you so choose to submit it i'll accept it at the last minute possible. >> we'll need them the thursday prior to get them to the board in the packet. >> right he can do that sorry if you need to speak. >> the appellant should address. >> the appellant should address. >> one is the availability. >> i'm going to be out of town and june 15th is best for me.

>> no meeting. >> well, what close to june 15th do you have. >> we don't. >> june 8th? >> we're not going to be here. >> you know i'm not going to look for the most convenient valuable time. >> well, i would love to accommodate everyone but i paid tickets and so forth i'm not trying intentionally to do that. >> you're not here the 18. >> i'll be here june 18th. >> may. >> i'd rather do that june 18th. >> is it suffice to have other appellants in may.

>> or counselor are you under any schedule pressures with this? may 18 works >> no, if we put it off to the end of june is that okay. >> that seems like a long time to the ended of june. >> that's not fair to the permit holder. >> what is the 22 we have so many academy of arts. >> oh, yeah. yeah don't touch that and also a medical cannabis dispensary. >> oh, i thought we- >> how about may 11. >> may 11. >> please step forward to the microphone. >> are we creating the

schedule over the negotiations of the dormers. >> that's one of the issues the question whether we have issues this is the question. >> okay. >> i don't. >> commissioner wilson. >> i think the party should be free to account any issues they have. >> we'll try. >> we'll try. >> at the boards request in particular. >> the board is opening it up to all new york city. >> i'd like to say that last week's meeting we proposed a - and the question your availability. >> if nothing happens. >> we'll make that happen thank you. >> may 11? >> may 18. >> i'm trying to work with you

folks counselor. >> one more clarification about the order for the motion did you suggest that dormers on the other side were a good idea. >> i was making an architectural comment. >> so i will leave it up to you what you folks can live with and not to do and look at it and see what this board wants to do. >> do we assume that planning looks at those also. >> planning should. >> planning is shaking their heads yes. >> okay may 18 then. >> thank you so commissioner fung the motion to continue this to may 18th to allow time for the parties to discuss a redesign of the dormers and any other issues they want to engage in; is that

correct and simulate or submit a redesign submit revised plans there are prior but no other briefing that's your motion. >> on that motion commissioner lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson. >> okay to that motion to continue this does carry a vote of 4 to zero we'll more often move on to item with the on ninth street to for a, llc of an alteration remove the doorways and changes as required by code sir please step forward. >> is the permit holder here and i believe see.

>> i didn't hand in a brief sorry about that i saw the other side didn't hand in a brief i filed at suspension of the notice of violation because without a twenty-four hour notice the management company the people working for the line up on the screen side of the room were tearing out my door while i was in fwherpdz because of these and many notices on any door they never showed up so i don't know what you call it they came to do work without a twenty-four hour and don't show up whether when this is a twenty-four hour notice a lawyer told me it have them andrew's i didn't want to go to that esteem and the way they were going about could go business in the

this i think he or they were oblivious to peepholes and doors to see who is on the other side of the door we really needs people in our building because the managements is no longer at the front deck checking people in and out and so - this overhead it is work very good this shows the license to practice in the state of california is suspended the company vera text the company that puts twenty-four hour noticed on boards and the same company doing the work throughout the building i don't think i need 7 minutes i have

pictures and can waste time on the details my lawyer said this might be outside the scope and this is a way to stop them from doing illegal things such as i'm in bed asleep and cracking on any doors and no notice in advance and i'm awe woolen to someone breaking down any doors i opened the door and said what are you doing we're replacing your door without a notice is that how you on that is done. >> we gave you a notice 3 weeks ago for one day between a few hours and never gave me a twenty-four hour and a lot of people let them in and do the work but twenty-four hour is not enough time to you know if they

want to replace the door 6 hours to work on that the peep has to be considered and the threshold to be saviors that inconvenience for the tenants they didn't have a permit whether i first got the twenty-four hour notice they were going to change the notice they didn't have a permit 33 doors i'm not trying to stand in the way of legitimate alterations and reasonable requests but those particularly people are doing things not reasonable and unsafe not continuing - we have asbestos problem in the building the it highest hive the previous

landlords tore out the hallways without preliminary and we found out it was asbestos they tore out the aesthetical ceiling where the dust accumulated and a lot of it was on the floor i don't see any filter and vacuum cleaners just sweeping and a lot of time not doing that so and like i said this is for essential can you see the details on the thing on the overhead. >> i can't i'd like to see them up close so this is current but on the internet for everyone to see thank you. >> i was you know that's a liquidity reason for stopping them not having a license and

this is my first time doing the board of appeals. >> are you finished this is interesting and yep. >> do i get to rebut something. >> go ahead with the permit holder. >> how's it going i'm representative of the owner that's not the right vera text property there is a company that didn't have that might not true but not true i'm with the property management they provide a twenty-four hour notice and is general contractor was hired we purchased the property with 7 notices of violation and abatements and issues we had dbi and hours and electrical fire inspectors over 12 times sins we purchased the property we conform with the professionally

managed property with vera text and as far as the notice goes overhead please when we purchased the property there's you can see in some of those on all the doors i want to go through this quickly. >> the doors don't have colorers not fire rates many of the fireplaces were off and the department of building inspection asked us to open up a fire deer permit we accident immediately, the next day those are the fire rated doors and those doors except for the one after the permit was stopped we didn't have peepholes all the doorways have peepholes and automatic closerers that was in

serious disrepair and to create a fire barrier between the second doors that was dienld so that's all been replaced and electrical inspectors have been there and building inspectors and the department of building inspection has been through maximums and plumbing many times we've conformed with every order and every question they've asked that's it. >> thank you did you say what you folks the year you purchased it. >> december 22nd of 2015 about 4 months we've owned the property. >> okay we'll hear from the department now. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi the building permit under appeal to rove the doors in 33 rooms

and change to commercial fire rated doors by code the building permit was a over-the-counter permit filed on the first of march issued on the first ever march and suspended on the 9 of march by the board of appeals request the contractor is construction and there was a complaint filed on the 26 of 2016 clanking all the doors in 32 rooms with permits the placement was unanimous we're showing the complaint is open there's not really didn't say the inspector ordered them to get the permit it sounds like that is what happened and not documented in the tracking system the complaint is open pending the approval of the permit and the

work we'll close the complaint there are other complaints as well and i will agree with the gentleman it looks like their cooperating with the department and trying to get a deadbolts only doors the house inspector went out there at the time of the inspection all the work to install the dead bolts can continue the permit is not required so it looks like a good permit it is putting in fire rated doors that's a good thing and i'm available for any questions. >> just to clarify the complaints was opened because the complaint was appealed. >> the inspection has not gotten around to close it. >> probably a technology cattle. >> there are exemption in the

codes you can replace a door but except a fire rated door those need a permit and taken off the hinges and replacing the doorsz those doors are fire rates they require a placement because of smoke and gas those things we need to check but if it was a regular door in the house not a fire door you don't need a permit. >> who's the inspector. >> the builder inspector is jeff barns. >> thank you any public comment on this item? seeing none, sir, you have your 3 minutes of rebuttal. >> after i got the notice twenty-four hour notice to enter february 26th i did call to see

if they had a permit to do the work i'm the unanimous party will i'm not against fire safety doors but against people abusing not giving tow truck drivers notices and turning up to people's homes i found out today, i was seeing the fire alarm was dysfunctional making a troubled sound for of hours yesterday and the manager the building one of the managers tell them you need to call 9-1-1 we don't have a fire alarm system there is a bit of mismanagement not against progress and safety but not taking care of certain things

necessary there's was a fire from the building a few years back and underneath any unit sheetrock fell and it was the building on 9th street and howard they never replaced the sheet rescue rocking no barrier between the club i can see the club through the cracks in my floor i thought that would have been on the list of things to do properly and definitely needed a fire alarm system abuse of twenty-four hour notices when i don't get them they show up i understand some sort of game or harassment to drive people out of the building to make for money. >> so how long have the lived on the prop at 3 years. >> you filed a complaint regarding the replacement of the

door when they were lifting up the asbestos tile did you file a complaint i was there when inspector showed up he said wow, that is bad and david. >> since those people vucht took over the property in confess if any memory serves me a foreclosed property they seem to be making major improvements to the property. >> their improving well, actually some of the people think they're not i mean, i think their some cosmetic without a fire alarm system that is pretty bad. >> and that's been making bizarre sounds for the last year so certain things we have our different priorities and fire safety i have a concern i've

been through a couple of fires. >> they've had the properties for 6 months and working as fast as at the. >> i'm for the building getting better but not for the tenants getting abused with the lady there lead there is ways to deal with dust. >> thank you very much thank you. >> okay rebuttal from the permit holder if there is anything further. >> we've had a fire system replaced with the sprinkler and the fire panel with all the smoke many times. >> we've gotten that that's one the notifications of violations in order to have that cleared we had it inspected and tested that's been addressed. >> has any other tenant complained they get a notice and someone didn't show up. >> there are 33 units we did the

notices in wafsz there is a chance that the knowledge or building is very difficult 1907 construction and many things a good chance it didn't make it to his room or did make it and started at 7 o'clock and went to the next one we've gotten afternoon notices and mr. murphy didn't answer those we tried we tried many, many, many times i think 6 times in total trying to get an hour after hours or late we tried a good chance they especially\show up. >> and a gas station blow up. >> isn't our building leaning. >> excuse me - >> leaning. >> i don't believe so i hope not. >> it is sawyer. >> anything further mr. duffy

commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i think the appellant knows some of the issues are not handled here the permit is for those doors and life safety i think they were appropriately issued and therefore i will deny the appeal. >> i also concur i mean new owners i think there are a few tenant issues but going going in the right direction so would you like to make a motion. >> move to deny the appeal the permit was properly issued. >> on that motion from the vice president to deny the appeal on that basis it was properly 0 issued

commissioner lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson okay skiing absent that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero. >> would you mind i'll leave to get a break. >> a 5 minute break. >> okay. >> i have to loaf at 7:30. >> we'll take the last case after the break okay. >> working with to the wednesday, april 27, 2016, meeting the san francisco board of appeals calling item 8 potrero boosters neighborhood versus the planning department on protesting the issuance to martin building company of a lack of foundation land use and transportation to allow a 5 story building with units with the exceptions for a rear yard

pursuant to code and dwelling unit to sfgh loading for the planning code and mix pursuant to 2076 start with the appellant you have 7 minutes. >> thank you. i'm j wanting boosters neighborhood association a point of order we've been in discussion over the bacteria and twiven given two members the board absent we'll to request a may 18 date if possible. >> we'll agree to that continuance. >> so commissioners, i know the normal practice it you will typical continue the cases if a

anything's commissioners vote might make a difference. >> since about parties want to continue unless you feel this is on the 18 is difficult i can tell you to continued cases on that night and - 5 additional matters. >> personally i don't have a problem with continuing it. >> i don't either i think both of them. >> both you know. >> through the chair i'll grant a continuance. >> take public comment. >> so is there pigmented on the issue the continuance only.

>> the limited to whether or not the issue should be continued. >> it was confusing on the website so i wanted to know can the members of the public submit letters or something you know that basically, the record didn't close and members of the public can submit written comments at any time >> the week before is just for the parties. >> there are different deadlines the turns thursday for the public to have the material in the packet otherwise the night of hearing. >> would you care to state your name sorry okay and other public comment? >> my name is silvia johnson. and i would like for this supervisors to hear marry hear

been is continuance of this hearing you can is not you can necessary in saving their lives what they're doing is literally trying to make things for difficult because the world does not you know shafrt by leading us with the root of money i'm telling you this needs to be changed if they're not cooperated and trying to feel better you know, i could a continuance on this matter because right now, we're trying to get a job with the city and this ordinance and approximately going the

wrong way but i think i can exactly how it gets there and stay up for 3 days on the contracts with the health department and contracts the task force and the police department and you know, i have already a book i got here in planning commission he needed to redo it so i'm trying to do it faster i can with this and you know i'm turning into the health department and police department and the task force contracts and i will you know tonight - i think i need more time you know my office is - thank you.

>> is there any additional public comment? >> okay. seeing none a motion from commissioner fung to continue this matter until the 18 i'm sorry please stewardship. >> i believe all 5 commissioners a schedule. >> not correct 4 commissioners. >> okay i'll call the motion to continue this to the 18 of may commissioner lazarus president absent commissioner wilson and commissioner swig is absent that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero and vice president. >> there's no further business. >> thank you and this meeting is adjourned

>> good morning and welcome to the monthly meeting of transportation authority i'm chair mar item one commissioner avalos commissioner breed commissioner campos absent commissioner cohen commissioner farrell absent commissioner kim absent commissioner mar commissioner peskin commissioner tang absent commissioner weiner

commissioner yee we have quorum thank you i want to thank sfgovtv for broadcasting today's hearing charles kremack and leo and can i have a motion to excuse commissioner farrell who by seconded by commissioner cohen and can we please call the roll or without objection without objection commissioner farrell is excused item 2. >> chair's report on information item. >> okay. colleagues this month the transportation authority participated in several rail system planning efforts including testifying at the high speed rail authority hearing on the craft 2016 high speed rail business plan and monitoring a plan for the transbay crossing the high speed ra