at the >> good evening, and welcome to the san francisco board of appeals. wednesday, july 6, 2016, meeting of the san francisco general hospital the presiding officer is commissioner president honda and commissioner fung and commissioner lazarus and commissioner swig commissioner bobby wilson will be absent to my left is thomas owen for legal

advice provide the board with legal advice and gary the boards legal assistants joined by we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. who will sitting at the table is scott sanchez the zoning administrator and here representing the planning department and planning commission and we'll be joined shortly by joe duffy department of building inspection and chris buck urban forest with the the phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. please carry on conversations out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the

minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do.

please note: any of the members may speak without taking so raise your hand solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you so item one is general public comment this is an opportunity for people to speak to the board within the subject matter and jurisdiction on an item not on tonight's agenda any general public comment this evening seeing none, item 2 is commissioners questions or comments commissioners anything there nothing okay item 3 is the boards consideration of the minutes of the meeting of june 22, 2016. >> commissioners, do we have

any additions, deletions, or changes a motion. >> thank you any public comment on the minutes sienna motion from commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes commissioner fung and commissioner bobbie wilson is absent that vote is 4 to zero the minutes are adopted we'll move on to item 4 though i don't see chris buck in the room anyone representing the commission so commissioner honda i'm sure the department will be here shortly continue the calendars. >> okay joe duffy is not here either we're two efficient tonight i

guess. >> wow. really? >> oh, if the zoning administrator returns to the room we can take item 7 thousand i'm not sure the counsel for - >> okay ok okay. >> let's move to the next item. >> item 7 all the parties are here for i building. >> commissioner honda call that item the zoning administrator. >> yes. correct. >> letter of determination. >> with icing to those who are here for earlier items are you ready to move forward you have your client here okay. i'll call that item so moving to item 7 stephen

gains versus the zoning administrator for brandon the issuance of a letter of determination regardin the second pole was converted to the subject of s l i that prohibits general office use we'll start with the appellant you have 7 minutes. >> good morning, good afternoon, commissioners overhead. >> state your name for the record please. >> there we go. >> good evening. i'm steve gains the member of the california's a family owned partnership my father and his partner bought this and resident ownership for the communities following the rules of the city and being a good left hand we've

not kicked out a tenant for financial gains and as needs in exhibit e we have the episcopal homeless shelter with the below-market-rate and consistently to improve their premises we consistently give permit and when and where to get change of use permits on the ground floor and objected permits for parapet upgrades and fire sprinkler installations and lighting and ada and for improving the city sidewalk where one didn't exist over one indicates the office space neither dbi or planning questioned this for the past thirty years relied on contractors to help us to maintain and upgrade the

property with the permitted by planning and we never considered a planning with any of the second story this was give further support when the district attorney rented the office the district attorney the real estate division the zoo rectified this lease that was approved by the board of supervisors by authorizing this tenancy we assumed the city agreed the second story was continued to be used for office space we've understood it is the central permit bureau role to point out a potential issue with the uses on the permit and route to planning for a change of use we're not routed 0 for the da use and not so assume that is not approved and not a reason to seek a change of use we have adequate documentation startling the second story was permitted

for office space in the letter of determination the da is distorting the issues for example, in exhibit g december 29, 1987, the wrote a bureau had the transit fee and the permits were organized by the building department all 9 properties were non-office space no a coincides we must assume little indulgence by the bureau to insure the information was accurately described not to the tsif it was a preexisting legal use no expansion was proposed because of that the tdif had likely been purchased by the argument from a preexisting non-conforming to the s l i the

zoning administrator seems to acknowledge this space was used and a as office during a period of time it was permit in the building and in 1995 it was relented and the business services was a coming from use we didn't apply for a change of use the space was used for editorial and advertising not production by any owners we're not aware of the newspaper offices and general offices unfortunately, neither did the plan checkers that the problem with the system as owners we're familiar with the tenants and buildings nor our skyline professionals know there was designation with great coincide we understand that dbi is not responsible for identifying the uses but the planning department had informed the consumers 20 years ago from a office space was a change of use this problem

could video been yield if our agents were aware tdif was a building use and not an office they could route that to mr. haney they didn't give the changes in the city most are not wildly known the lord's are in the dark from renting to particular tenants which may result in losing the broader use if the future i can't thinks we're forced for 9 months i appreciate the fact that planning department's has to be routine by the planning commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote agenda to stop deliberate and illegal use of properties i'm glad they're trying to stop the property owners that gain the system we're not one of those property owners the financial coincides in this case our tablet can't move from san francisco because this case hangs over us this is an unfair

burden it operationally is unable to have the space opt out and the rent paid the most frustrating the central soma was approved this wouldn't be an issue it rezoned to pertaining permit the office space as the zoning administrator to this board a few weeks ago the zoning will be in place this spring making it mute the fact every migrants is not a violation but to have us at fault and not look at the history the use of spice for nearly thirty years is office and we hope you'll agree with you in this matter. >> good evening eileen from mary tell on behalf of the

plaintiff i want to during this trial down on the 1987 permit that hesitate the impact fee and the 199 did permit we included in our brief as well that was legal or concerned with legal office space i know i'm running out of time i'll pick up on will rebuttal. >> ms. president i neglected to identify the conflict i have a conflict as i have used broad and mary tell in the past but none will have an impact on any judgment i'm sorry. >> ms. dick

the 1999 permit was land use was it officer. >> as far as you're concerned the way the it was written on the face of the permit by the planner talked about no change in office space no change in office use. >> overhead please. i'm sorry that office use would have been preexisting and coming up by planning seem like it is hard to august not a legal use and the s r index in use that has to think preexisting and even a change of use for the non-office use a change that office use remained under the building and planning didn't take the opportunity the planner had the opportunity to question that she didn't do that and ask.

a change of use it was approved as it was >> you wrote that in your brief is there a question when you put warehouse slash office the warehouse was an accessory. >> you're asking commissioner fung and it was accessory use we didn't look at the plans i'm not sure there were plans for this permit rather so hard to say it may not have been and what we're 0 discovering on the violations the difficulties in concerning the last legal use as you may know the plans radio missing you can't necessarily link together all the substantial events to make that determination easily. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. sanchez.

>> thank you scott sanchez planning department. so the subject property was built in 1924 for the manufacturing warehouse use and the seeing and hearing none oversee office what the industrial building that past records that was recently in 1983 the permit was by the current owners for printing use and the subject property the permit referenced in 1987 allowed the existing use as office didn't actually authorize a change of use at that time that would have been allowed in the zoning but wards to the tdif it would have been assessed by a change of use this is a continuous this is why those were assessed the issue the permit was not properly

identifying the proposed use but no permit on file that could a locate that change of use in this case if the use today is not permitted had not been permit and general office use in this property since it was zoned s l i in 1990 i've noted in my letter of determination if there had been a general office use that was prior to the rezoning in 1990 it would be a normal thereafter between 1990 and 1997 they have sf weekly a newspaper in that location that was the service that specifically included the office of newspapers not a general office use that didn't allow for tech offices or office used to be located in the business service a service that serves a need for

businesses in the community and not a general office use it is clear if you current code that is the issue in regards to the zoning or rezoning that was on 660 third street the plan was downtown and likely to be downtown next year and likely to allow for offices of principle permitted use we don't know the final details like the details the possibility that it will require the retention of pdr uses that's one of the things that is being discussed so i think this is a little bit did the to say that will be moved because of a pending rezoning changes but a possibility in the future to legalize the office use of the subject property i mean, that's the point we

wanted to raise i think looking at the permit his not as if we're talking about questions and permits that are 40 or 50 years old those are permits in the last 20 or thirty years and it was clear our records indicate that is legally an industrial use for the permit in 1999 the planning review and was crossed out and instead a change of use slash office changing that work to telecommunications facility it didn't involve the second story the letter of determination sought that determining on the use of second story whether that was legal in regards to our review we look at all the information and the records and look at the argument that the project sponsor put

forward and couldn't find enough evidence or support they request that be a legal office use and that's all i have to say i'm available to answer any questions. >> i have a couple of questions let's take it as angle example the 1999 permit does your staff look at drawings so you can say 100 percent sure that it is recommended to the ground floor. >> so the description you can't tell that. >> i can look and see if i can find that information i believe the issue is the scope of work was limited to the ground floor not the upper levels this case we're relying an the existing legal descriptions so you know we had put a lot of stock in what the project sponsors say is legal use in the

permit but in this case they requested we review the records and couldn't find a change of use for the second story. >> i know before your time in 1990 when the zoning district changed the s l i was there a process similar to what occurred in recent times one can designate the previous use as being maintained. >> no, it was unique with the eastern neighborhoods a legitimate proposals and someone piloted after the use name aware of a process that was established when they adopt the south of market use district but an existing legal use have that under the non-conforming and wooth looking at even if there was a legal use it wouldn't have happened. >> i have a question mr.

sanchez. >> how did that get in front of of the zoning enforcement was there a complaint. >> i believe one of the issues was how they describe it questions being asked at the counter and staff was censured about the questions and staff was asked questions about why not the legal use and someone might be shirt the rules so the staff generated the complaint that's how it got on the property case. >> from the counter. >> right the questions that were being asked and clear whoever was asking that the zoning doesn't allow office and there were concerned to or concerns to make sure it was documented for other staff.

>> okay. thank you. >> okay any public comment on item this item. >> seeing none, we'll have our rebuttal then. >> commissioners and commissioner honda i want to constrain on the equality and tee off on this we shout the dbi web page that this as a stellar owners by the rules and kind of frightening at this point with the public policy their enas a matter in one issue that is difficult to get out somebody went to the counter and the staff they were in contractor to lease the premises and low and behold the notice of enforcement you know that space

can't be leased with the pending violations and it is going back and mr. gains referred to this the difficult difficulty as a property owner and looking at the plans what you are looking for the criteria not a lot of clarity and a certain depends about those 20 or thirty years old permit it is the weight point planning department has given to it i'm concerned about the tdif permit has meaning in the sense the tdif was asked for collected at the time, no office building and wouldn't have been collected if not a preexisting whether it was the detection by the puc who was responsible for administering the defied i tdif there is not not a preexisting office use it would have been if

the work was done prior to the cf c there has to be a give in the interpretation so is that shines light on the fact there was preexisting office use we have to give way in terms of the l o d and the 1999 permit the planner looks at the entire or outlet and the planners have an obligation he or she can rays in to the permit make maybe a change of use and the expectation the owners have planning staff to advise them or the building department to advise them what to do that's not happened in any of the permits that were so you get by the owners or the tenants for either of the residents for the last years of ownership that

9 permit as relevance and shouldn't be dismissed out-of-pocket at the end of the day i disagree with the zoning administrator with regards to the location o d he abused his discretion i think the s l i zoning or the rezoning under this area plan has to do with when that happens this will be mute i would like you to take into consideration if you would thank you. >> ms. dick. >> if you're brief you didn't provide us with the plans perhaps would reflect the some type of designation of the use. >> what did the plan say on the 1999 permit. >> we looked at those plans that the building department and

showed work on ground floor. >> the reason we didn't provide the plans it would take over thirty days to get the plans from the planning department's the process for the architects so because we had a short period of time to get the hearing done didn't have time to order the plans. >> 0 do you dispute the permit was work on the empowering and no i believe the way the approval was written on the back of the permit by the planner and the acknowledgement no change of use she was wells fargo aware of the office use why would she it is not relevant there is some material connection between the two. >> any further questions. >> no. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. sanchez.

>> thank you scott sanchez planning department. going back to the 1997 permit i i mean, i really my recollection of the process at mta went through they looked at the scope to determine if the permit triggered the tdif and in this case given it listed the office for the proposed office no apparent office size and they would have relied on this had they relied on something else to determine there was legal office use i assume the pardon can replicate and i believe they relied on that was listed on the permit we don't have evidence this was converted to lightwell general office use to what is going on elsewhere in the

building and certainly we take into account all the materials and you know listen to the argument that the project sponsor put forward but kind of further concerned and convinced by the fact that it was clear in their letter sf weekly opted out it for almost a decade seven years and that is sawyer within the definition of the planning code that is allowed not considered general office use if this is the letter of determination held that to be a strong argument had they have an exist legal non-conforming office use that would have been abandoned at the time and with regards to the realization on the planning department it was complicated not the last can say brought before you i unfortunately feel are many to

come and their decision and if we don't take that the property owners have to make the decisions and in this case had been concern we expressed by the department sometime this was not new as the letter of determination is going on last year they were negotiating to have this leased out and aware felt zoning has taken a while to get to this resolution and the resolution they brought forth through this process but i feel that given the materials that were submitted we made the appropriate decision based on the facts as we have them. >> i think that's all i wanted to say and i'm available to answer any questions. >> mr. sanchez is it possible that the - since your l o d weighs heavy on the evidence by

the sf weekly tenant is it possible they had both the pdrs function and an office function. >> the definition of business service is very clear and i think very broadly including the aspects of the newspaper business based on the use was represented in the letter of determination request about how sf weekly - felt there was appropriately and skaurl in the business category that was even that argument that abandoned the use is based on i think a belief i'll have to make the office permit in 1987 actually allowed the change of use and assume we were going to exercise a lot of

discretion and say that was legally a general office use that was pretty clear-cut the fact it will be opted out as a business service not a general office use. >> 1997 was sf weekly and then the u.s. district attorney an did the due diligence they'll not rent a space not qualified for them to inhabitant how do you explain. >> general office are general public offices. >> that's a different. >> yes. and you know we're not a little consulted up front in the process when outlet city agencies go to use land but that

wouldn't in my opinion go established the principles or re-established the general office use at that property. >> was that usage legal according to our definition. >> i'll need to review the zoning how itself public use was treated i'll do that. >> the reason why eventually the the office of the small business commission has a department of real estate and researched prior to occupying that space and granted only there for a year but that determines some usage. >> yes. again, it not a general office use but a public service use we're not saying that somehow this action that the city opted out the band the general office use i think i understand the argument they felt they were i want to say mislead but in the city

misrepresented the outcome would have been with the city offers not aware that terminates the use this is not the case the office use was abandoned to rent it to a use in the rezoning and the sf weekly the occupancy by the da is not relevant to the case because it didn't - we're not relying on it in our determination. >> okay. >> so could you check back and get back to me whether this is legally permitted. >> yes. i'm going to pull it up now it's pertaining permitted. >> it would be pertaining permitted okay. thank you. >> yeah. i don't know if i have a question

but i get xhavnl confused how we and i'm a common sense guy how we get constantly confused about the the a.m. input of those items when we - here the stank is happening i can't recall how we finished i didn't have time. >> december. >> yeah. it was continued but we have - it's not like those buildings have been hiding somewhere and responsible owners of the buildings have been doing covert activities awhile including their businesses there

is an ongoing process of permitting they're clearly legal they're trying to be responsible, they're seeking the support of licensed professionals architect and contractors to advise them accordingly and the assumption all parties as offices or use for sf weekly or offices use for the determining there is an office in this case and then suddenly something through these up the red flag after 40 years that's not right is it so i have a hard time with that and it's bizarre we punish really good legacy landowners that are trying to be responsible and get botched on one person's have you there is a

history of good behavior and offices nicole offices and offices the office of sf weekly and the office of district attorney and now a new office but they don't match the other offices what's the difference within a mad arrested and swan they - >> it's the planning code the san francisco planning code we started in 1921 with 6 zoning district one was undistrict and now more than one hundred couldn't give you the exact number of the clafrpgsz that is ever increasing nor specific more specialized every year and this is the result of the

process we have done this to ourselves as a city agency we're doing our best to implement and there are very valid goals that led to this and i mean in some cases thing were more specialized and taylored for specific uses and generally nicole to preserve and try to protect some of the more industrial oriented use in the timing district and that's why we have the south of market zoning district in 1990 and general office is not permitted even when you have that you have special possibilities to do the undermining zoning you can't you have uses that appear like the office service it is a big issue in the late 1990s whether or not the.com and media offices were a general office that was

permitted as a service because what the nature of the use and there were determinations saying this was an office use and it was classified and the decision of business service i mean it is not without it's challenges i present and understand the concerns and issues that property owners have where you know didn't seem like a big deal from one business to the next they're not making any improvements; right? maybe doing floors but no physical changes but the fact is we have classified the change of use under the planning code and it is something we do our best to regulate i think we're better at it an than in the past because of the information when your reviewing a permit at the counter you don't go into the computer and not google and look

and see what the past uses were we didn't have a permit tracking system we're catching more because of the information available to us we're doing our best to review those and they come in as complains as the staff catches at the counter or from the public and do our best to review those. >> it is difficult because of a series of permits and nothing is red flagged to say oh, illegal use and one day someone walks up to the counter and continues a legacy without a history of we've seen a lot of bad stuff here and without any bad stuff whatsoever and suddenly out of whether you you're illegal that's weird that's the hard part for me

that's all i understand the permit the building code is changing and evolving and maybe not you know one ahead of the other as far as realty thank you for your explanation i appreciate it. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i guess there are two thoughts i'm having on this one is that the complexity of planning code is gone from was it used to, not greater length of time to something that extremely difficult to diverse and not taking away from the

accuracy with respect to ban time or non-conforming use i'm not sure property owners understand that so well and so the thought that is concurring to me is the question of whether the accountability as the determination by city staff on the 1999 permits the official use was or warehouse slash office if one accepts that denominators in my mind in terms of a simple logic the clock starts then from that point in time the use was office i understand the problems that the da is having we know that

there are especially in certain districts probably far ranking non-compliant use we see that all the time in this particular case it was different from the other case we had the permit history is absent clear not consistent but it is clearer and i probably leon in saying that i don't think that the da abused the discretion. >> i'll agree with you. >> care to make a motion vice president. >> or is that your motion. >> i'll move to grant the appeal on the basis that the da

erred in determining that the 1999 permit was not representative of an office use. >> thank you community college we have a motion to grant the appeal and overturn the letter of determination that the zoning administrator erred in determining the 1999 permit was not reflective of an office use commissioner lazarus no. >> commissioner honda. >> and commissioner swig. >> okay. so that motion failed because we need 4 votes to overturn the zoning administrator. >> move to continue to allow the fifth member to act on this

case. >> okay. >> and shall we pick a date for the continuance. >> what you would suggest madam director. >> ended of july. >> yes. >> i think the 20th or the 27 would work but actually, the 27 is much better for the board. >> is the appellant available move to continue to july 27th to allow the fifth member to vote on that motion to the 27th of july to allow the missing board member to participate commissioner lazarus commissioner honda and commissioner swig

okay that motion carries and this item will be continued for the purpose of allowing the missing board member to participate no additional briefing on this matter or necessarily any additional argument unless the board has a question commissioner honda the board should decide whether to call item 4 i've not seen mr. buck and not gotten a response from him shouldn't wait any longer than to hear it or continue it. >> why not go ahead and hear it. >> i'll call item 4 david versus the department of public works and the urban forestry this is a 2534 fillmore street for bob removal of two

frees with one 24 replacement tree and denial that or of one good box tree and one replacement tree we'll start with the appellant. >> my name is david i'm representing the owner of property it named bob those stare we are appealing the public works denied the removal of one tree they grant the removal of two trees for the ficus are not by the city and additionally said we're not allowed to replace the third tree by allowing one tree to be put back so the appeal to allow to be - allows u allow us to remove a large box tree on fillmore and respective the third tree the owner bob oyster.

>> thank you for hearing me can you hear me. >> uh-huh. >> i bought the building late last year and when i bought it i realized the sidewalk search warrants pretty broken up and will require replacing the sidewalk and ultimately replacing the trees with someone that wouldn't break up the sidewalk actually, the in the meanwhile i get cited for a broken sidewalk i've replaced but when they issued the tree permits like dave said said i could take 2 of the 3 out all 3 were breaking up the sidewalk but felt i could make a bigger box when they removed the sidewalk that was

not possible the roots are largely to the tree we left the tree we would like to take it down and put one that the roots are not going to break the sidewalk my leader said one one or two years at the most the sidewalk will be breaking because of that tree the tree that we're not allowed to replace was a very large tree blocking the street light which was main reason they didn't want to replaced and our intention is so replace it with the same one their allowing a much smaller tree and smaller roots and would not grow as at all but most importantly as far as keeping the sidewalk lit and save we

have lighting and now we're improving the building completely and for safety sake and for liability putting better lighting on the building so my request is to allow me to replace the third tree and leave the square opening in the sidewalk with one that is proper with the proper trunk and root construction if that's what it is called and remove the other trees so it didn't break up the sidewalk and replace it also with the same so all 3 trees very attractive i i did not want to take any out only put the right ones in anything else david. >> the department was saying

they were not allowing the third intro to be replaced of the two, that were removed because of the lighting of sidewalk, however, it is street lighting that is aimed towards the street the sidewalk is lit very well by lighting at the on the building itself which gives more sufficient light the street lighting or the street. >> i think you misunderstood a what they're saying you can put one back because of the proximity distance to the light southern city requirements and i want to add when i was here originally they didn't say anything about that that was on the initial report it didn't say i couldn't reor replace but remove two trees that's my

request and then at the hearing oh, by the way, a last minute you can't put that one back because of the lighting, however, that is based on fact that the tree was a large ficus what so big it obtaining occurred the light for the sidewalk that was the argument at the time of the hearing i want to emphasize the fact it none said anything about that prior to the hearing. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so with none here for public works any. okay. you can have a seat >> thank you commissioners do you have imagine to say. >> i want to add one thing the owner bob wants to improving the building and putting a lot of

money into this property to make it more attractive is it is been in disrepair and put a lot of money into it and continues to improve that and additional work to the front and put 3 trees that match that accent and emphasis the beauty of building it is a nice looking building and not allow him to put 3 trees similar does that make sense you does have one tree remaining and not not cuisine and a blank square because of the the street lighting didn't mange so 3 trees that are similar that will not cause problems to the sidewalk and that the building lighting will provide adequate and sufficient light to the sidewalk for pedestrian traffic that's the goal and that's his

intention. >> thank you thank you. >> commissioners as a point of reference that was rescheduled a couple of times because of cancelled board moseying that's why mr. buck got it. >> i don't have an issue with taking down the tree they want but a requirement as you say i first thought that was a health issue but not a distance in the sidewalk from the street light. >> that's what i thought. >> yeah. >> i just don't have a problem with the removal can we allow a tree in the department says it didn't allow it we have no department here. >> and if there is an issue

with the third tree to close to the street lamb can the two trees that are approved to be replanted can we be replanted appointing to fill the space adequately and to be planned in the exact same spot. >> that's maybe a question for others appellant it sounds like they're trying to put it into the spots they left it. >> exactly. >> that's where i'm confused. >> if the desire the commission to allow them to remove all of the existing trees you can condition in the replacement in terms of number and the location based on the finalized discussions with the species. >> no problem with that. >> nor do i.

>> make a motion. >> you said it so well. >> move to grant the appeal and condition the removed permit to allow the removal of the last tree and to have the location and spacing and number and species of trees could be determined and final communication with the u m. >> okay let's see if i got this a motion by the vice

president to grant the appeal and overturn the department to allow the removal of 3 tree on the location spacing number and species of the respective trees be in communication with the department is that okay. >> on that motion commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner honda and commissioner swig okay with a vote of 4 to zero with commissioner wilson a little bit that that motion carries. >> thank you and moving on to item number 5 this is appeal number 16 danish 53 patrick mulligan with the department of building inspection the property online street appealing the issuance on april 2016, llc of an alteration permit alterations to an existing restaurant bar with two parapet units damaged by the fire and upgrade to have the changes of the layout to the

residential units and lowered to the main in charge flooring and lowered to meet the storage space. >> prior to starting reuben, julius & rose on a reuben, junius & rose representation as an entity before the board will not have an effect on my decision. vote. >> thank you. we'll start with the appellant. >> my name is patrick mulligan and my remarks are written i own the building next the subject property on hines street since september of 1975 and lived there 8 years and want to make this presentation to the members tonight dear commissioners, i hope to persuade you this permit showcase withdrawn why? because

it is fraudulent and contains material facts not true the subject property not been preempted as a restaurants the permitting failed to recognize this important material item i contend the permit shall be rescinded no where any city documents authorizing a use they simply represented they were one in the process failed in notice exposing this characterization after any train wreck they look at the process and the what and if and the histories thereof it is tsf that the process failed on all fronts regarding this property we're concerned that by allowing this process it being gains once again and regarding the process san francisco planning requires a dr to be filed before a permit is issued but the san francisco building

department and an appeal has to be filed that favors the appellant but mid-market as noticed on their application that by eliminating decks the applicant wanted to avoids eliminations by the architect to the plans when the plans were submitted san francisco fire department subscribes in their fire report the fire damage to the earn wall the subject property no where in the plans is any additional attention district to this area and the kitchen firewalls are not evident and the city is dazzled, however, i'm convinced that only by lowering the

illegal setback that i have any assurance this weakened area will be and the roar restoring this space will not be troubling in the future and the separation of a come dear by the expansion the whole block concentration was only prevented one one firefighters that condemned the examinations it is dangerous and limit to their firefighting capacities the project sponsor was never pulled a permit in 25 years although the construction frequently happens there and indeed our discovery shows the kitchen was upgraded in 2013 but no permit was ever pulled their fire suppression system was not up to code and therefore by maintenance and city alike but

dully certified aspirational the health department made it number 8 obama on the overhead the thirds worst offenders signed off on work on plans supposed to be enforcing look at this where it is signed off the restaurant over necessarily retail use was 55 percent and 4 grand monthly salary square footage a discounted average of $3,000 afro-for rents between them and mine will enhance the property owners collect rents by an additional go one million dollars for the illegal operations the upstairs lease clear shows they violated the rent control laws by converting

to office all denied in the permit for all those reasons we ask you to uphold our appeal and deny the permit thank you. >> and commissioners my name is melissa representing the moo began and asking for you to deny this for the health and safety that culminate in a fire that destroyed the building first get a change in use for restaurants before this approval and september out a notice as you can see on the exhibit on the overhead the permits over the years multiple permits were an attempt to change to a restaurant they've been cancelled or withdrawn and none of themd the process that mr. sanchez can confirm the policy the planning department

that you must file a building permit for the proposed use and the legal use and have an indication that the alterations permit is for a change of use and have that signed by the planning, and, secondly, restore the structure it allows the post fire rebuild under a non-conforming structure this not non-conforming the planning code defined it is it as lawfully existing and not the scope of the plan and applicant expanded it 25 percent larger than it was here as you can see the permit indicated the 200 and 50 foot expansion and the plans show the lightwell remain on the clients property and boarded up the window to cover the lot and

relocated without the permits and placing the stoves against the moo begans property and - the building must be rebuilt to the codes at a minimum of restoring the lightwell between the properties where the fire started and easy to restore during the rebuild. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit holders now. >> good evening board members roorgz and our project architect

will speak briefly as well this project the permit before you the process was not initiate by any particular desire the property owner but as a result of a damaging fire in april of 2015 and anyone that has suffered that property damage the process of rebuilding the property has been as superficially and taxing and did the for the property owner not made easier by the appellant property owner and his family owned the property for 45 years and care deeply about the property and its future and his approach to this rebuild has been a simple and responsible it is simple he's seek to restore the property to the previous dimensions before the fire that were laugh and the use are residential above commercial

which in this district is preferentially and residential uses are encouraged and been responsible in that the eenlt will explain met with planning and buildings the planning preapplication to the smiling submittal of the submittal it come applies with all the requirements the - the mechanical structural and health codes the appellant cited other violations of property but no complaints and violations over that period of time exist for the property this prompting project will be subject to additional review as noticed on the permit plans will be submitted for the restaurant and those are reviewed by the

health department and fire department make sure that they require with all comply where all applicable fire and health and mechanical codes we urge you to support this permit to approve the permit as submitted and deny its appeal with that, i'm going to turn it over to our project architect and the gentleman thank you. >> good evening commissioners i'm michael the architect for the subject property we had a meeting with the preapplication with the fire and met with building and planning and all appropriate parties to determine the best possible way to rebuild the building and restore to it's previous use in occupancy and in our determination of what needed to be done in looking at

the structural damage to the building itself we felt that was prudent to renovate, upgrade the building seismically to make sure that the walls and roof and the rest of the safety features are counterfeited that will house the occupants in a safe manner to improve the buildings to have another 40 years of ownership it was really a straightforwardly process we meet with all the appropriate requests of the building department and the planning department we feel this application was a prudent response to the fire and fixing the property mark. >> good evening commissioner honda and fellow commissioners i'm mark i'm a member of the, llc

that owns the property along with my brothers the property the assets has been in our family over 40 years we're the legacy owners and inherited the, llc inherited from our parents we are stakeholders in the community and san franciscans and reside in san francisco and we're trying to do the best we possibly can to that is extent we're careful in hiring the best possible licensed professionals to take every step to the rebuilding of the property we didn't seek to demolish the building or seek to do anything outside of the foot and reinvent the wheel only to rebuild a fire damaged property and despite our

good faith of moving o moving we're in this for 14 months the delays are devastating to my brothers and i the one thing i'll assure you have they're continuing to have a current basically deteriorating property and as a matter of public policy responsible owners such as ourselves should be encouraged to rebuild our building and based on the foregoing i'll urge you to overturn the appeal thank you very much. >> thank you thank you. >> are you finished. >> i have two questions. >> one of your our belief one of you're very early uses of this report indicate that it was

lunch what does that mean. >> please address the microphone to answer that question. >> fountain lunch that one some sorts of food service even perhaps bar use. >> the other question relates to the drawings that of provided is there a broken line around the floor plan it it the property line and the property is a complete rectangle i think that the area of construction was shown with the dotted line to show the outline of the property i'm not sure what our looking there i'll be happy to - and the example any of the plans you have the second story plan a

broken line is that is property line. >> no. >> no the property line is the straight rectangle it didn't have an indigeent where the. >> there's to property line line here the fourth page a-1 want 2. >> this is a straight rectangle i don't understand the question perhaps. >> well the broken line is that the property line. >> yes, sir. >> okay. >> the on the first story construction plan the rear

portion you are portrayed is the portion that is reflective in the photos and in your belief you indicated that the roof has been removed. >> the portion that was against the travel lodge. >> yes. yes. >> which portion of the roof was removed. >> the photo shows a roof across the entire space there. >> there were two separate permits eyed or initialed on this property it was the permit to rebuild the property and a second permit within the corner from us the traffic lodge online street there was a non-conforming structure that was built by our attendants without our knowledge and approve that sat on property owned by the travel long as long

as i had knowledge of that i reached out to the owner the travel lodge and asked if he would coordinate with us in removing this non-conforming structure. >> i read that in your belief. >> okay. >> further questions when you look at the photo that is included somewhere in the packet with the ground floor where the flags stonewall and the travel lodge and indicated that portions of revolver have been removed which portions. >> portions of second floor on the southern portion of the property i guess the - yeah. >> eastern. >> eastern portion. >> i'm a little bit confused one of t one of the photos there's been a

rear yard and no rear yard then you have windows on the property line. >> we have in the existing windows of the property line. >> okay. >> thank you. >> can i ask a question, please the issue of the let that was converted for kitchen equipment was that the action of the owner or the action of tenant. >> i have no knowledge. >> what's the issue point of privilege that was the tenant but regardless that was an expansion that was since 1976 permit in the expansion in the rear that the permit authorized

an expansion to the property line at the ground floor and so we're not sure about the lightwell there is a lightwell on the appellants property in the middle of the property that is still there, there was always we didn't - never had a match lightwell on our building that was always filled in but in the rear the expansion that happens there was a lightwells on their property we're not sure that extension was authorized and build out and a certificate of final completion was given. >> where are we're going to get clarification from the departments. >> we'll contrary that up, i believe the zoning administrator and the department of building inspection clarify that. >> okay. we can hear in the

zoning administrator now. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. the publicity property within the nct two constructed in 1914 as residential this was constructed brag we had zo- it didn't allow the used from 1920 to 1960 and mixed use as residential and c-2 from 1960 to 198 that and now in the c-2 zoning district no notification was required until 2000 and began to accept the planning

code in the nct there is no rear yard reminders at the gron ground floor a ground level commercial use so no coverage at the ground level and have a permit from 1923 that authorized a sun porch an extension at the second story that allowed living area for the dwelling units up and 197 of a permit to do ground floor that made the building for the lot to cover the ground floor and that permit pertains it was very small let that was not scaled the appellant was describing but i have the approved plans if i can have the overhead. >> let's see. >> can you zoom out a little

bit. >> sure. >> so this is the proposed ground floor expansion coming to the property line at all the sides and retaining a small 3 foot 4 by maybe a 3 foot lightwell here it was for lot coverage at the basement level and the basement here that was the full lot coverage and at the ground story that was a small lightwell and it is indicating there are in that location and showing the rear of the building let's see you can see where the previous structure was there the porch that was previously approved and

but seems to be properly constructed i reviewed the aerial maps back to 1938 and the porch was on the 1938 aerial map and consistent from 1923 so, i mean there is a structure there that structure my only concern in terms of the expansion will be whether or not that when this lightwell was removed and not shown on the plans at the ground level they're not keeping any lightwell under the planning codes they could expand it and then actually wouldn't need a notice there the planning codes if there's no window blocking i did late late today asked the

appellant if they have any evidence of their, e being a window and mentioned in the the brief and oral arguments i look at their brief and not seeing the photos there was a window it showed from the appellants property looking through the subject property shows the wall framing no actual opening that it would have been a prelg window anyway prosecute because there is no setback any indications that for the additional information for the building inspector and in regards to the use it is pertaining permitted last case the issues with the permitting and what is or isn't legal it was built and commercial with no commercial use listed i can't find a permit to change to

anything but goes back to 1960 showing you bars and restaurants uses and at that time, up to 1987 bar and restaurants were in the same category not into the weeds an authorization to change the bar and restaurants only in 1987 with the nct controls talent differentiated if the appellants issue we have not received a complaint that is operating for decades and not a complaint inform notice is required and pertaining allowed this permit is before the board if you wanted us to do notice on the use thought that existed for a couple of decades to have a discretionary review we'll do that but i think in our review and kind of our discretion of

the permits i don't see an issue with the use it is principally permitted and we have approved permits at this location for decades including health preliminaries so with that, i'm available to answer any questions i think the main issue perhaps will be the whether or not there was a window blocked that was being protected by the lightwell. >> would you. >> that main issue with planning whether or not there was a window that was being protected that is not blocked as a result of the loss of the lightwell from 1977, 76. >> but that's a property line window not electricity correct and yes, that's correct. >> i mean it's - yeah. >> mr. sanchez they referenced

some type of illegal roof that was removed do you know where that was. >> mines a portion of building is extend over the propelling that has been separately addressed maybe mr. duffy can address that on the plans they initially submitted i'll put on the overhead there are plans that the issue that i'm assuming our staff caught in the areas adjacent to the - there we go.

>> so this is at the rear the very rear corner so one of either side of building adjacent to the living room this is extension into the rear yard but based the photos it is illegal and under the planning code they can build a non-complying but the roof area that was roof above the ground floor did goes to the side property line and initially proposed to have this a roof deck that would have been potentially allowed in the planning code but would have required the 10 day notice for a non-complying part of building. >> the illegal if you look at the appellants brief exhibit i

what our saying the second story popped out into the rear property line but that the where they now show a deck on both sides at one time was open. >> no so the plans back to the - i know this would be helpful to look at can i have the overhead thank you. >> okay. >> so this the the roof plan of the building from the 1976 permit is it so showing that the portion here- my fingers is so big this portion is the second story residential sun porch and

shown is actually built up roof that's the floor blow it the ground floor this is a full will the coverage with the only portion that is not developed is the small lightwell here that is 3 by that. >> what was the roof they referenced done by the tenants they ripped out. >> it extended over the property line and the travel lodge i understand that that i has been separately addressed to my understanding. >> thank you. >> okay. we'll hear from mr. duffy then. >> good evening commissioners joe duffy dbi

so on the brimentd a form 3 we took it into for review it was basically for fire damage and seismic upgrade to the building a refurnish time of the two with the residential units on the second story the building is a wood-framed the e building with two stories in the basement unifying you've heard the use the restaurant and the residential and that is a fire damage repair and separate permits will be required for the restaurants i don't see anything on the plans that would allow them to put in anything in the restaurants yet would you tell us a separate building permit no restroom

plans nothing for mechanical equipment or any sort of system the type 1 for the routine will be under a separate permit as any fire suppression system that will be done under separately on a future permit may be getting the building ready and a tenants will come in and do that is what we typically see so some of the issues in the belief were construction and the ducking for the hood that has to be done with the plan and one shaft or a wrap around the duck to protect the building and the neighboring buildings and then there will be a requirement for the determination of the - away from the property line 4 feet and needs to be designed and

drawn and permitted the one construction on the property line will be limiting which will be type 5 sheetrock on the existing wall we'll get that as well as in this work i did not see any we have the briefs to get a set of plans it helps us to i don't see any wall type of for that but we'll through the inspections not something we will generally call out one thing that was not done the notification for the structural work given by dbi i did address that today with our plan check staff and the bureaucra and something we should do the section of the civil cod applies for the basement so the neighbors will have to be given

a 10 day notice they be evaluate any impact to the building with the evacuation there is evacuation on property line and actually, i noticed drainage that is on over property line i need to speak with the architect and one thing that is anything's a site plan i don't know if we can get that into the drawings commissioner fung caught it unfortunately, it was not done here we can still get the claims of the illegal construction i had a visit today from the attorney for the appellant and we the open a complaint at dbi i'll look at that and agree with mr. sanchez i do think this is regarding the lightwell area in the middle are back from the rear property line we need to see that the part of

1976 permit even though we signed it off we can revisit that and see if we missed that at that time, it is not two late to look at that we need to do and address this is not something that is ahead of them i've explained that to the project sponsors attorney and took the complaint this morning and sends it to an inspector to look at if it that's the case it what about done on a revision permit we got complaints over the last couple of years on the property obviously we got one on the fire and kept the fire department to call us and that's outstanding and get a permit for repair of fire damages and on the june 15th for construction

on a fire building and we closed that and the inspector the owner said he was waiting for the insurance adjustors and only the complaint was closed the day after that was issued in june of 2015 and i'm available to answer any questions. >> i have one sirens speaking of complaint any on record or any novs prior to the fire. >> not that i can say on this two complaints. >> so the claim by the appellant with regards to the 40 some odd thousand dollar improvements and which i guess is the kitchen improvement it is is significant improvement do you have a record. >> we don't have the complaint

are a record. >> so in fact, an improvement is significance could be done to the restaurant and they kind of forgot to get a permit for it. >> yep. yep we didn't get dbi was not informed if he did we would have been on site. >> this is the old question that was raised before if 0 something gets away with it i guess they get away with that we have not totaled and . >> if you're a neighbor and concerned let us know we - i don't think i couldn't find any complaints for that time i saw it in accident brief something people you put in new equipment the equipment are not getting a permit to be honest and if you're buying a new stove

and sinks some people think that is on this equipment i don't need a permit but he need plumbing permits for employee areas are district in the code for the americans with disabilities act so we need to see that but if it gets done and people do it all the time unfortunately. >> what is concerning to me in indeed you know we're making the assumption that truth being told by the appellant i guess i could ask the business owner the question we're assuming the appellant was speaking truthfully and the improvements was made and the improvements changed a configuration within the restaurants so that a stove was placed next to a wall that might not been fire ratdz as it

should be and therefore creating a risk i mean am i - my line of thinking correct. >> it would be possible if not permit not designed sometimes and maybe the company did it didn't know what they were doing that's why we have the fire department reviewed and the building inspection and the inspectors with the health department and building inspection we do hoods inspections all the time they're a type 1 hood with the greece you have to get a it right and other companies- there's a lot of work certain types of things you don't meet a building permits i know we have exemption in the code maybe they can answer that question. >> but the plans look like a

good set of drawings but overall good to have the drawings. >> mr. duffy. >> yes. >> the c i package porsche has the kitchen. >> yes. >> the other concerns relate to noise visitation from the equipment the location of the. >> - all for things but the health department are tough on restaurants with the nice limits i heard one restaurant that opened and 5 o'clock and i close it down there were a couple decimals over the noise level when you open i believe they're there right away and it needs to

be designed with the vibration is not on the permit and need to be on the permit when they operate a restaurant what we're approving today or if we deny the appeal what we're approving today is the building out of a shell only a shell and so anything therefore once the building owner finds another restaurants tenants or commercial tenants then whatever they put in there will be the subject to another series of permit that will be reviewed heavy yourselves to make sure it is appropriate all we're doing is considering a shell. >> that's how i look at the plans even to the permit says this permit is altercation to a

different restaurant and bar it didn't such as it is shell in the plans so not the in alignment and they'll acknowledge that even though it says that they're not doing the work to the restaurants that will be on a future permit and if they starting to work we'll stop it right away they don't have plans. >> it is important when they come up for rebuttal their clear this is is shell they're building not a restaurants. >> you don't know what someone will do no point in them doing it, it is a shell a shell and leave it like that and get the tenant and decide what they want to do their accessibility upgrades but not them all they'll have to do that are

there's no drawing of the bar and seismic upgrades and the upgrade of the residential unit and during which they get the shell done in the restaurant we ask them to have foyer protection for the adjacent buildings the attendants improvements comes in quickly i imagine this has done one and maybe they can address that two. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> sir. >> okay public comment on this item can we can see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak. under. please step forward >> good evening exemplary commissioner honda and commissioners i'm tommy i've submitted and letter in support of the issuance ever this permit what we have is reduced to its

fruits and vegetables a responsible property owner taking a fire damaged property and trying to put it into condition to be used not applying for a permit to put in a restaurant yet as commissioner swig mentioned it is to bring to a shell condition and i think as a property owner in san francisco we should encourage everybody to follow the rules which they have done in every case they've gotten the appropriate departments in advance gotten the risk sit and due diligence and- your be

punishing someone that wants to be a good citizen and improve and upgrade not outside of it's exciting use but following the rules i volunteering urge you to reject the appeal thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> from my perspective a win no complaint we've heard from the city this was lawful to have a business and restaurants all the time to thirty years the owner never filed a complaint no complaint and unsubstantial allegations but the long and short it is a win for the city we want to encourage the owners like mark to come forward and it

will bring the property into full compliance not disputed we want residential units and a couple of residential units the restaurant has been said it lawful and there before and the same dimension and the same building envelopes that is the same seismic upgrades that will happen it is been approved bits health department and the fire department so the fire and safety no basis for that and an opportunity as said even with the mr. duffy the this is common to come in with this once they go to the next step whatever restaurant they'll come back to the city nothing unusual about that you you know it is just with the fact that clearly been shown the testimony from the city the use that was there

before is approved the allege that the restaurants is unlawful is not true i urge you to uphold the issuance of permit and deny the appeal thank you very much. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment seeing none, we'll have our rebuttal starting with the appellants 3 minutes. >> overhead this here is a permit that is the original permit to there was a between there prior it is a permit post fire 1914 to the rest of the structure and

shows the use of the structure that was approved at that time, as a apartment and store two apartments and store that is the use that was established at the time the property was built to change that under the planning code policy for many years requires as we heard in the pressure hearing item no. 7 requires a present and proposed use on a permit not an issue the notice but establishing the legal use and some format it is the way you established what is legal use is and the health and safety the issue is really public safety we'll not be here except for the fire that fire started workplace the lightwell it was started behind an

illegally installed broiler that didn't have a permit if permitted dbi might have realized it was without permits no foyer walls were placed between the ma gunman's property - much illegal work and instead of filing the permits the client choose to write letters to the neighbor and this may be unusual in 2, 3, 4 day and age people will not call the city and file a complaint but certain people in certain eras will go to work with the tenant and pertaining to resolve those issues the code may have allowed that is not the issue it was signed off on and the permit that was an expansion

of the 2 a hundred and 50 square feet is he built a significant 20 percent larger than museum u amount as you can see on the plans thankfully mr. sanchez was able to pull we don't have the authority to do sos there was a lightwell remaining and they were not approved to fill in that lightwell whether or not the code will permit it didn't maple they were illegally permitted not to do so it was another example of illegal work and building - build back as legally built the proper materials and the size and this is simply not the case they've not limited to the illegal building with the restaurant use and numerous newcomers issues of

illegal activity when you dig into the permit history and the property owner whether the tenant did the work the property owner should have known it was the same tenants. >> have a question where did you get our information about the 4 by 4 lightwell. >> from the client and the plans there before and viewed the plans and dbi we're not able to get a copy but based on also the 200 and 50 feet. >> the department showed the map that indicated a 3 by 3 lightwell. >> it was burn that but, yes smaller than 4 by 12 we had an architect review the plan and did dpraurz that's where that came from in addition to coming up with the you know where you get to the 200 and 50 square

feet. >> you've answered my question thank you. >> any other questions. >> yeah. >> i like to ask counsel and question may be answered by yourself so in the previous conversation with dbi when i asked whereas iowa's there a permit for the assuming your client was telling the truth and there was illegal additions made or significant renovations that included equipment and therefore, the placement of that configuration your client lives next door. >> uh-huh. >> why did our client not at that time, file a complaint that would created a notice of violation. >> you want to answer.

>> definitely i live next door through was four feet by 12 feet. >> no, no. >> why. >> i wrote that you try to work with individual he came to me saying i have a permit to file. >> that's not my question. >> i'm talking about your comment related to the and my discussion with dbi about the addition a renovation and the addition of equipment that may or may not was installed without a permit and what it takes a concerned citizen if they they see it to call that to the attention of dbi and create a notice of violation why you live next door if it you see major

renovation and your questioning no permit why not call dbi. >> i understand that you're asking me about the 2013. >> yes. >> expansion. >> no, i didn't live next door we only discovered that recently in our lawsuit so then the installer said we supplied the equipment but in install it who installed it it was snaulthd incorrectly and that's the reason that caused the fire. >> thank you that was my question. >> i can't say answer all the questions about the gentleman's shed if you're inclined. >> be brief. >> the overhead shows you the

place they enclosed the motel wall the right one and the red one and the odds they filled in that was the motel space and if you look at this way there was 4 feet by 12 feet if you accountability the 76 permit 200 and 50 feet 12 feet deep the lot size is 12 feet they filled in 25 by telephone that is three hundred feet if at the did not and left me 4 feet setback between the buildings that would be exactly 200 and 50 feet a simple matter of math what was there period and look out the window of the apartment below and look at it mr. sanchez map is great look further you'll see that was a work station that was

populated to be expanded if you look at the sheet my drawings look at further on his map and see exactly what it says here and we have a petition here from 14 people saying don't make is another restaurants. >> thank you. i think you've answered any question. >> but this is my map look at mr. sanchez map you'll see what is going on remodeling the existing. >> sir you've answered the question, sir. >> thank you. >> ongoing rebuttal from the permit holder. >> a couple of quick points

the restaurants use it legally con formed and no past violations at the property concerning the restaurants use the whole point of that application i think this is skwlaer to bring this property into compliance a shell building permit at this point and we fully expect to submit tenants improvements plans for a potential restaurant and those are approved we'll apply with all applicable codes thank you. >> may i ask your client i want to ask you the question of the intuitively renovations or expansion or the reconfiguration and the addition of equipment is ultimately seemed to contributed to the fire was he aware that this work was

done without a permit. >> he was not aware no. >> so our clients care at that time. >> so, yeah. >> all right. that's an issue okay thanks >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> mr. duffy anything further commissioner unless you have questions commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i have a question for mr. duffy. >> i know there is still some questions as to the scope of that permit that allowed the extension you know and whether it is only that small lightwell from the original 76 or something more do you have any sight into that.

>> well, we're aware i read it in the brief but the attorney came in and we received a letter around 4:00 p.m. explaining what their concerns were we opened a complaint and investigate it we always go off of approves plans how their supposed to be built the plan was signed off and a civil right of completion and got filled in avenue sign off people make changes as soon as we leave but we will lubricates look out that and try - we'll compare them to what was submitted over the years if

there is any permits since 76 and the permits under appeal tonight if that lightwell needs to be restored we'll take care of that. >> here's the issue i have tonight. >> okay. >> this permit is for an extended what they indicated was originally there. >> uh-huh. >> what was originally there was a little bit in doubt if we approve this permit then it indicates that basically, we're saying everything that was reflected in those plans was before the prefire. >> that's true and the - >> or you're saying i can handle it through the appeal process and possibly a recession

permit or the ti permit. >> i was speaking to the attorneys the appellants attorney first and told her what to do and poke to the permit holders attorney he agreed if there was an issue that dbi about deal with it as a in violation on a recession to realize to a permit or a separate permit they'll have to, no other way to do this. >> i want clarity not anything that comes back 20 years from now what was there before. >> i will be more concerned if we received the complaint and missed something again think others complaint and said but - so we did received a complaint today and it is my intention to open a complaint and get it a number and get it assigned to

someone maybe by the attorney i got the letter today at 4 o'clock after meeting with her today but it takes it will take us over a month to get to the bottom you have to look at the plans and got out there and figure out what went on it will take a month to do that so - >> there's an active complaint that gives us the mechanism. >> okay. >> all right. >> thank you. >> so i think that it's imperative to for the benefit of the neighborhood to get this building back in service and functioning and remove it from

being blighted as long as the building is built back to its original condition and original shape in agreement with commissioner fung what - so i'm pleased to hear it is only a shell we are approving so that's what will be built what originally was built there in the first place what is concerning like crying over spilled milk that the business owner was not responsible to the community and to the neighborhood and put the neighborhood at the risk by not overseeing their tenants and turning a blind eye to improvements that puts the

neighborhood in which i live at risk a bad tragedy that wiped-out out the entire block the business owner brace was not exactly responsible in making sure that any improvements that any and outline improvements students building were not properly permitted and licensed that's crying over spilled milk for this case as long as the building is returned to its original configuration and permitted size and shape i think that is important to do and we'll deal with the maybe if it is filled the secondary permits of whatever they choose to put in the shell. >> i think we're may i. >> basically going down the

same packet good feel the history is relevant to us as a permit to build a building maybe a minor issue about the lightwell that will be handled separate and from everything i've seen this permit is appropriately approved with that minor expectation. >> is that your motion. >> i move to deny the appeal it was appropriately issued and any remaining matters will be countered separately by dbi. >> okay. >> thank you so we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was appropriately issued and also that the remaining matters will be countered separately by dbi commissioner fung

commissioner honda commissioner swig that motion carries with a vote of 3 to zero and we'll move to the last item. >> madam director two minutes. >> yes. >> welcome back to the wednesday, july 6, 2016, board of appeals onion item of the last item on the calendar olivia versus the department of building inspection with the approval on hate street with the issuance to dennis of an alteration with the notice of violation building settlement on the building in disrepair and the level building for

unsatisfactory continues and remodeling the light court with the building utilities and removal and replace the wood windows in kind and start with the appellants. >> good evening my name is ranch i'm here on behalf of the appellants it has been 11 years since i've first come before the board regarding the earlier the first wave of permits issued in 2005 and we're here again for some of the same reasons to preserve affordable housing even though the permit holder states the units will remain affordable despite rent control under the costa-hawkins once the units are vacant they

can be rented market-rate so people that were living in those building in 2005 two units war intermit and 10 we are occupied you'll hear if the tenants the permit holders that has pushed out the others tenants by harassment that includes forcing the tenants to get rid of of their planets and she's been there for many years singles 1984 and take planet out of her home and others tenants were foirsz to remove pets and we'll hear the gentleman has interrogated her parents and questioned why you're here and how long you can't have them here and no key you'll hear in detail getting to this permit a

definite need to address the building settlement we're not disputing and agree with service upgrade and so the work the problem like the gentleman's son he puts in a permit that is necessary and added other words like a 12 car garage and claims he's not trying to do that there is a overhead please. we need the overhead. >> yes. please. thank you. >> you'll see a trillion permit it is including in the moving papers was it suggests the work it is proposed is at

proposed work is a new car garage door parking at the basement level on both sides so this is our concern that the seismic retrofit is setting the wheels in motion for his garage since 2005 we are asking this be conditioned and my clients will speak now. >> thank you good evening, commissioners my name is olivia i'm a tenant in the building since 1984 your information i'm a senior retired living on a fixed income because i've lived in the building so long i know most of former tenants and now my one and only neighbor and in and out

of the apartment in the building since i've arrived and i can attest that the apartments until 2004 were in excellent condition and lived in and maintained by the tenants and until much later when the apartment westbound two of the apartments were vacate in the others followed the deterioration in our building materially took place i think that is important to note the atmosphere began to deteriorate rapidly in 1993 with the present owner denied all the tenants certain things for example, as mentioned planets there were animals and in my case patio planets and for things like visits from people

that were interrogated my family were interrogated how long were they there and people identified themselves it was very, very urban pleasant i mention this this is instrumental in the beginning of a loss of trust and faith in the landowners attitude towards us i think that is in 2004 and 5 two of the oh, okay - >> sorry sighed. >> i've lived in the building at lovingly 66 since 1998 and agree with everything that olivia shared since i moved in the gentleman didn't have our

best interests at front it seems like he didn't want the tenants to live and rent in the building every sense we've moved in i agree we want the work and life safety issues to be addressed but we agree there is an official mistrust generated from the landlord sing we been living in the building and materialized with him harassing any brothers and parents and interrogating any visitor and making them uncomfortably and the overall lack of upkeep in the building he was paint the building ones since i've moved in 18 years ago and not up kept the building when people moved out he does demolition and never kept them up that's what a lot of the

photos show in the belief thank you. >> thank you. >> so ms. fox are you finished a question for you permit holders perceive has the acceptance points should we deny our appeal they're in agreement with all the things you've listed. >> you, you i saw he is claim with no current permit to do the parking but not withdrawn triage. >> he indicated in his brief he'll do. >> i'm showing you as of today this is overhead please - this is still valid not been

withdrawn. >> okay. all right. >> we'll deal with that. >> okay. >> thank you okay we'll hear from the permit holders now. >> good evening. i'm the architect on the project mr. mccartney approached me three or four years about dealing with the notice of violation that was issued been the building the notice of violation was the fact that building stepchild in the northeast corner and settled in this was documented by mr. pallet prior to my involvement settled 8 to 10 inches in the northeast corner and in disrepair built in 1906 with the major improvements not made and

over galvanized pipes with one hundred galvanized pipes and the gas are galvanized pipes with co-sponsrrosion i've stucco is pelosi off the wall the lightwell and other conditions you see the windows have settled you can see t piping is the bias is cracking go right here from settlement you can see the windows with

leaning the window does go to the head there is cracking throughout the building this is kind of a dangerous undertaking in the building will be raised and all the utilities have to be severed and all the amenities have to be upgraded then is seismically to retrofit the building with ukdz and replacement of windows do whatever it necessary to renovate, upgrade the units have additions in the units into the rear 13w09s lightwell we've take care of the lightwell issues i submitted the permit for a garage we submitted a letter about a month ago to dbi

acceptance to those who handles the clerical work on the removal of that and went to the planning department because we want to submit in permit over-the-counter and arrived there was a block and couldn't move forward we submitted the submission to david lindsey and basically what happened we're not recommend the garage don't want the transit first policy no. garages and encroachment etc., etc. and basically, that's taken off the process for doing the garage through the planning department not us and come back to rehabilitate the entire building with a full building mr. patrick can speak on behalf of. >> i apologize this building has been in this condition for 10 years i'm aau gassed floors

are settling the only way to fix this building is mark had beenable it needs to whip up this building guess so don't settle like a square box that floor a all over the place when you level the floor to make it habitable you'll crack all the floors and the gas lines and is sewer lines and crack the electrical lines none can be in the building when this is lifted to be able to lift it you'll have to redo every part time and fix that is sdaem exactly what he is suggesting no way to get them on line without doing the work i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> mr. boskovich you're telling me that when a property is settle no way the property is lift without breaking services. >> at this level of success

you don't, yes. >> can you explain how much is it lions share. >> it's in the brief we did a survey a decade ago it is not a straight line you've got settlements within the floors so there very isolated where a settlement collapses if you'll lift this up you'll crack walls and lift a building with two wires and cast iron and . >> the question roughly how much from one side of the building to another. >> not the total settlement but within the individual areas. >> couple of areas of settlement between 10 or 20 feet you can't do that without damaging the plasters and taking a risk with electric and gas

lines, etc. >> thank you. >> good evening board president and others i'm dennis the owner of the building located at 1166, yaiflth since 1993 my presentation will be short and not going to repeat what i've submitted i want to completely renovate my building and bring it up to code i can't but want to get my 10 vacant units better late than never back it on the market to have the rental stock the tenants will be welcomeed

back and a permit of occupancy is issued please deny the appeal and allow me to move forward with the renovation of my building. >> anything else i apologize for interrupting our time i apologize for that. >> thank you, mr. honda i don't on the issue is the leveling and settlement the co-rotation of the building one section was built in 1906 and the others in 1918 no upgrades to the building mr. ma kathy is genuine to rehabilitate

this building and skewer for the tenants coming back and there is asbestos and hazardous material if someone stays in the building during the construction you can't tell thank you. >> i have a couple of questions so there's only i couldn't figure out in the brief two properties occupied and what is for the vacancy of the other tenants. >> it various over the last 10 years i'm not sure i think that mr. mccartney pulled out the 56 permits and once he started

investigating the renovation and understanding the severe damage didn't go forward and basically stopped and didn't want to realize this until he rachlt the building as a whole. >> thank you the other question i lost any track of thought i'm waiting until rebuttal. >> thank you mr. sanchez - mr. duffy. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi the permit brought to his attention to comply with the in violation with the kwarnt building and upgrading the building for unsafe with 12 units and expands 6 units units with the upgrading the piping and restore and replace the

notice of violation was issued by dbi on the fourth of june 2009 and san bruno 07 preliminary from the structure engineers both recognize the urban safe condition on hate street a report frpat and on th shoring plans for the rehab of the structure and additional permits for electrical and plumbing maybe required the building is a 3 story with 12 rirlz you've heard and the previous permit history actually had a look at is this i read the brief and spoke to the architect at the dbi and basically, we've got a lot of permits in the file

status and inspired what a permit is filed or xiertsdz on the first permit that permit needs to be withdrawn and the architect thought that the empowering at the dbi do that but navigate the 5 floor that would happen tomorrow morning dimension it's not going forward and in the customers system we a don't have it in our system that is in the system but no plans for dbi easy enough to take that permit away the permits expired for the remodeled for the kitchen not done these need to be cancelled to cleans up up the histories a question on the filing of a permit was the work done or not did you go ahead i'm

happy to work with them to get them to that point that excludes the parking issue with the garage so that will go away i could have done that today, i think if we do something the appeal looks like our doing you know doing something i advised them to leave that after the appeal actually. >> mr. duffy's u mr. duffy what is a trielgd permit you get trielgd you've not seen anyone but this permit is showing that it got logged in and from the planning they reviewed it but not approved it but the intact it is in the waiting room to be seen hopefully, your not

seriously injured. >> it is a 5 permit but not gone make sure triage - you've not been reviewed not looked at. >> the nov has not gone to enforcement. >> no, it got held back but not sure and talked to the intersection and explained the condition they are in didn't go to code enforcement no. >> so can you refresher refresh my memory in the case one of my concerns obviously is

the low income housing we had the discussions a building owner offers compensation to move a tenant out and while during that period they can do the renovation safely and responsible and move the tenant back in what's the sense of responsibility of the building owner to compensate a displaced tenants. >> i don't know the answer to that. >> who will i ask the question maybe the attorney. >> the city will have it. >> mr. sanchez and the attorney for the appellants may have that. >> it is an important discussion nicole.

>> just for disclosure purposes okay thanks. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll have our rebuttal starting with the appellant. >> thank you i want to point out that there are two separate permits for the garage one was the 2008 this is overhead please - >> in one here is the 2008 a i'm sorry you'll have to speak into the micro. >> this is a 2008 that was one withdrawn after that one was withdrawn the second one that is trielgd can be processed through

the system that's our concern we were not asking that the permit be revoked by modified to include some of the cosmetic work as much as expanding 6 of the units not necessary and it will cause the capital improvements to explorer or increase now if many ma can get wants to suspect we'll accept if secondly, what is given for relocation 5 thousand 8 hundred and some dollars to someone like leah not disabled senior to senior olivia she'll get the 6,000 and change plus another 3 thousand and change for being a senior that money is supposed to carry a tenant for the 90 day

periods now the run forward they'll have to go there they're seeking a one year period those other issues can be and the like the spimgsdz or conditions starting with no garage permits being applied for the triage one is withdrawn that, in fact, the work that is being recommended is, in fact, the schematic retrofit and the building settlement and now wramgsz renovations to the other unions and occasion in place and two there is not an attempt to permanently evict the tenants by the evoking the ellis act he's had years to do the work and

chosen to get a permit for the garbage that's why there is further deterioration to the building that's it thank you. >> i have a question mr. many fox as an owner move-in been performed. >> no. >> voluntarily. >> yes. pushed out. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay rebuttal from the appellant. >> i just want to put the garage permit to rest this is in discussion with planning i think for over one year and a half and initial when we wanted to do the garage we thought that would be successful they have a block notion on the boxes any permit for a garage will be looked at by building department to washington both basically just

supporting the fact that no garage it is transit first policy city we don't want a garage and improvements no neighborhood pattern in other words, to successfully do the garage we say so raise the 18 inches to do that garage issue is an non-issue we'll not get in through planning mr. sanchez is a verify that to the staff and you know 0 removing this permit we could a have a problem stipulating the garage will not be there as far as the attendance mr. mccartney with to that. >> every tenants that moved out i got it a notice we're leaving. >> so if they know different they don't say that.

>> are you done, sir. >> are you finished. >> yeah. >> i have a question if you don't mind so the appellant courts have said that - do you live in the building yourself. >> no. >> their guests have been has and their guests can you address that. >> thank you. >> anything further from dbi no commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> what do you think. >> i've been here for long i remembered the case when it was first heard. >> 11 years ago 11. >> anyway you have the history. >> yes. please.

you have the institutional memory. >> you have to recall it never went through the full hearing because of certain actions that occurred but it was difficult then as difficult now you know although the issue is i can't say that that is less difficult only two tenants versus 10 i don't think that is quite what i'm trying to say on the other hand, he understand that the property owner has a building that needs to be fixed he's willing to fix and has a rights unfortunately where i'm at i don't think there is any stripgz we can put on what the earn can and cannot do needs to be other laws like ellis act.

>> didn't apply. >> it is relevant might be on the garage permit they're claiming has moved i don't know mr. sanchez would you mind do you have any knowledge. >> nothing in the code that explicit prohibits the garage any addition will have to be compatible with the building there was a permit from 2005 that sought the addition of a 12 car garage with a 10 day notice at that time the dr was filed and the project was withdrawn i didn't confirm with the departments position i'll assume in the project sponsor is stating we didn't support the permit at that time that was in fact the case and the reason for their withdrawing the permit the 2013 permit has essentially been

on ice t since this was submited one that was with the applicant not routed internally but you know they can apply for that and you know we'll review it and under the laws and policies and procedures there's currently a d b m if we move forward that will be the notice of that but i can't speculate. >> i have a question i'll accept an oral separation he'll withdraw that permit based on what inspector duffy. >> you're not comfortable conditioning it. >> i don't think i don't feel comfortable conditioning it. >> city attorney. >> a question.

>> the the are permit holder a they'll not go forward with the addition of a 12 car garage do we have the ability to condition it to no garage. >> we the ability to revoke the application. >> that could come back to us. >> you don't, don't have the authority to impose not to apply for one act under the permit that is not before you. >> sorry another question for mr. sanchez. >> regarding the parking if you had a new building only a certain percentage for a unit does that only have has to do with with new conduct construction.

>> some have parking maximizing they get their 12 units one to one parking ♪ location and the donning zoning will allow that mr. duffy a great idea not showing as withdrawn but the rehearing period during that time it can confirm and can refile subsequent to that withdraw their rehearing request but a consultant to get something done torment the appellant are have the ability to do that. >> you're standing up. >> i want to add if you want more quality that permit transitioned from an over-the-counter permit into the planning department staff we used a sole member and we looked at the and said you know, i want to submit a new permits we let

that die. >> commissioner fung are you comfortable making an oral submission saying out not pursue a garage. >> i don't have a problem. >> ask your client. >> are you okay with that you don't need a garage. >> plus the full seismic upgrade and adding two units that can make up for that but that's not where he wants to pursue. >> last comment mr. duffy. >> sorry i feel somewhat responsibly that is not withdrawn he was on his way to dbi but didn't think that was right to do it at the appeal so i told him to do it tomorrow i'm shocked it will not be withdrawn

by the close of tomorrow it is a simple process. >> thank you for hearing that. >> what's wrong with the phase. >> you have to into the microphone. >> i agree with commissioner honda more than a withdrawal but an agreement they'll not. >> we're not willing to go there at this point. >> well move to deny the appeal on the basis the permit was properly issued. >> okay we have a motion then if commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal and uphold the appeal on the basis it was properly issued commissioner fung commissioner honda and commissioner swig that motion carries 4 to zero