earthquake authority but we'll talk about >> good evening and wifrt wednesday, september 21, 2016, san francisco board of appeals dpoils and joined by vice president commissioner fung commissioner lazarus and commissioner swig commissioner wilson will be absent this evening to my left is the legal assistant at the controls gary the boards legal assistant we're joined by

representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. sitting at the table on the far side of room bernie senior building inspector representing the building department and scott sanchez planning department. and representing the planning department and planning commission and raul with the public utilities commission street please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. 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 please stand now raise your hand do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> okay. thank you we'll start with item no non-general public comment this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction none here wishing to speak under general public comment seeing none, we'll go to item 2 commissioners questions or comments commissioners. >> sure i'd like to start first of all, i'd like to apologize for reading off any prepared notes and express my heartfelt good-bye to rose not

much that i can say whether you hate loved or feared her, she was a true form every conversation brought up maximum mediation and share a quick story 4 years ago i was undergoing chemo rose asked me to join her on a trip to asia i leaped at the opportunity and we scheduled that trip between my chemo visits we got to spend 3 full days with rose in her hometown and she showed us her farther places to eat and her favorite spots it was truly amazing to watchful the excitement as she visited those places in april of this year we again visited rose in china she

was rover from a recent medical procedure we enjoyed awesome conversation and meals she was like she looked fantastic and was in excellent spirit answer that looking forward to her quick return to san francisco i think i'll miss rose non-stop lecturing with my public casting me off from public outings it good evening look forward to seeing her, her berating me was her form of affection beneath

the hard facade she presented was a warm and sweet individual i think overall not only the asian community has lost is champion but our city has lost a tremendous voice in advocacy the tuesday good news will be felt for years to come and in closing recognition was infamous for dropping f bombs i apologize this is for you rose why did you f'ing have to die thank you. >> thank you. >> any other commissioner comments any puc public comment on item 2. >> seeing we'll that move on to the third item which is the boards consideration of september 14th minutes. >> unless any additions, deletions, or changes may i have a motion to move those forward.

>> thank you any public comment on the minutes. >> seeing a motion if commissioner swig to adopt the minutes commissioner fung commissioner lazarus and commissioner president honda okay commissioner yee-riley that absence that vote carries with a vote 4 to zero and moving on to item 4 appeal number - guy versus the public utilities commission of mapping the property at 900 market street for the denial on june 2016 of a food facility permitted because the property locations not underserved and - to operate between january 15th permitted and we'll start with the appellant is the appellanis the?

anyone here representing the appellant >> we'll put number four on hold and item 5 market and chris versus the zoning administrator with the property on broderick to harvey to construct a 2 story vertical addition they rear of 2 story building this matter was heard in july and continued to allow time for the parties to discuss settle with the view to the south west to accommodate the appellant at the north and we'll have the parties explain

what they did in the intern start with the appellant we'll give each side 3 minutes. >> that's fine come on up welcome and good evening. >> good evening i'm steve i didn't i live on broderick so since our last the hearing we made attempts to make a solution we met at the property to see the mock ups and met that scott office and went back and forth's with e-mails and stopped hearing back altogether from the gentlemen and my husband kept on following up with e-mails and finally

finally we got a response saying they're working on updated plans and they'll get back to us in a week and we didn't hear anything two weeks later aid the gentleman requested a meeting at the property we have updated plans that were related to what we talked about in the last meeting the gentleman said he wanted to discuss his mother and instead, he said that he basically just wanted to tell us he's not willing to pursue a compromise and not only that he had presented sort of a modified plan at the last hearing was not willing to do that and wanted to go ahead with the original approved variance which has been

put you see the impact. >> overhead please. on our home so we laid auto last time the last time we were here why the project didn't meet the 5 criteria for its variance for the overwhelming and overhead please sorry. >> opposition to the neighbors across the street the cal hallowed association all opposed this plan and given the decision of an unanimous vote of this board at the last hearing to ask for a compromise that toward expanding our view it seems like he's proposing to reduce that view i hope you'll deny the variance. >> thank you. >> okay. we'll hear in the

variance holder. >> good evening and welcome. >> good evening my name is resident the owner of the property. >> so our original goal that property belongs to any elderly mother that the plan and entire goal for her to move into this property ones the second story with any sister on the bottom floor i've explained that to the neighbors and met with them numerous times i wanted to share

the number of meetings we've had one second - sorry. >> overhead please. >> see that? >> overhead please. >> so prior to the board of appeals meeting he met with the lady and the schiffer's and did a site visit to get their point of view what their precisely talking about as far as the expansion goes that meeting precluded with me inviting them to lunch i know they'll be neighbors with any mother and want to bring in my grandkids at

a time i reviewed the plans what we're trying to do they shared their point of view from their house i looked from the schiffer's and took pictures with them of their particular goal in picture as you can see this area with the cardboard which i'll get into in a second they rejected those plans it's later than you think we went to the location i had full-cut out boards printed and took them there to view what this looks like that's the picture i shared with you they rejected that plan also and

wanted further accommodations then we met at the schiffer's mr. sanchez office at the board to propose additional plans. >> i'm going to allow you one more minute. >> it was rejected also and again my goal was to have a good relationship with them, met with them last friday and drove down and talked with them about the plans and for them to look at those modest examinations on the rear of the property thank you. >> question, sir since the last time before this board has to say tripled with meetings or.

>> i have the dates of meetings after the meeting he met with them. >> that was after the board - and correct i went down with there with the architect we had full-cut others to give them a visible and see what will work for the property with both neighbors before we even met that scott sanchez and that was rejected. >> okay. thank you thank you. >> can i ask a question we heard from the appellant and she indicated that she - that you did fairly negotiate and there was a move forward and they were optimistic that something what about reached and suddenly the door slammed what's your view of the same situation

was there an option that you presented they were almost happy with. >> correct that's right fairly accurate assessment we moved closely to this property my mother is going to be living there we conceptually talked about the plan we got her version a 45 verse in the corner of unoccupied buildings to the cut not only on the floor the deck and the bottom floor and top floor i don't see any building with a 45 degree angle with an expansion not appealing to her aesthetically. >> so i didn't get any question answered when i heard from the appellant you fairly and remarkably all got together and they felt that they did compromise was in the offering and in respect a solution and

after a period of silence from yourself suddenly, the offer and potential solution went back to where you all started from, no compromise at all so what was - that level of compromise that they seemed to almost be able to accept. >> the lovely of compromise was they printout for the building and the reduction in space but in in addition they minded other alternatives to the deck as a spiral staircase that is not legal i had to do any due diligence and they talked about a reduction in the steps this is my elderly mother who's 80 years old cannot walk down a skinny

stall that's correct we were moving the right direction for a compromise but each time we had a compromise that i showed you them they either agreed on a certain section but in addition wanted additional concessions. >> thank you. >> we can hear in the zoning administrator now. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. at the previous appeal hearing in the permit holders brief they submitted a compromise i'll put on the overhead to refresh our memory can i have the overhead please overhead there we go. >> so the main initial this is the rear yard variance the issue of the proposed roof deck this

is an existing roof deck question the reality is not frimentd they're going to rebuild expand the structure but rebuild the deck the same today in the materials they proposed a compromise they did a cut at the corner to provide light and air to the appellants property on broderick and a correction from the hearing the board had more discerns about the light and air on the adjacent property on broderick to the north of the subject property and wanted to see what compromises can be worked out and this is a starting point given the permit holders submittal for the first hearing the board asked i be involved in the discussions with the party we met on august 3rd there were multiple discussions i tried to you know articulate what what i understood the

concerns that is the impacts on the property on broderick what had ultimately come around i can't say as a compromise but the idea we wanted to this 45 degree angle will be retained and in this triangle area will be removed so the parties discussed barely there was a lot of goodwill in the room met previous and the permit holder had gone through the property and mocked up what their compromise was they had in the appeal so this is what they had been initially proposed and the rault compromise that was discussed is a cut off this angle here i expressed most of concern was the lower level whether or not

this was tempered wavpd issues that was a bit open and but to be clear the permit holder didn't agree to 3 time to check with their mother and needed the appellant said they'll support that at the meeting after the meeting the appellant did say they met and conferred and agreed with the provision a few more moments to recap and sent an e-mail to the permit holder and appreciate our willingness to come up with a ambulance we met after the meeting and agreed in concept to modify the deck and the lower deck to the 45 degree and was

move forward this is acceptable to you, we need to move forward there was an e-mail from her, she addressed the concerns the stairs and one of the things we discussed can i have the overhead again, the stairs here and the questions that is put forward in the e-mail whether or not those stairs what about reduced so the approach to the rear would be less so any projection has a more impact towards her so that wasn't a question that went to the project manager i can't were a recall a response this was generally how it was left we're here today and no agreement so i don't know exactly what happened in the interim but didn't work well with the

meeting he thought that was good but i understand today no compromise not a compromise that was proposed previous hearing and the permit holders brief remains viable with that, i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> can you repeat what that compromise is it is cutting off the portion of room underneath the deck at a 45 degree am the corresponding deck is cut off 45 degree matching the wall location? >> what about the deck above that. >> i believe it was going to be basically that whole corner will come off the building that was the compromise it will allow the light and air for the adjacent property to the north and reduce the impact on her property to the west that was my -

>> let's talk about i don't recall any discussion on the stairs her property face the mid block open space. >> yes. >> how does the stair impact her. >> the thought if the depths of the stair were reduced in some way the encroachment into the rear yard by reducing that that the overall deck structure could be reluctance but - i was trying to be clear i understand your concern was the notch and dealing with the property to the north not the projection into the rear that's how it was left a question to the architect could the stairs be reduced i don't recall that response was received on that. >> okay. >> then last question will be

so what would i suggest if both parties are not happy. >> certainly i feel the proposal that i was thinking they were going towards august 3rd would be acceptable and i can agree that i don't think that is a terribly attractive aesthetic either i mean, i granted the conditional use authorization for the project i don't change my opinion in that seeking they were working together towards compromise it is just unclear going back to one of them proposed is now no longer on the table but, yeah - i feel it seems everyone had an agreement relative i don't know if the subsequent e-mail about the stairs was a stronger e-mail too

far but certainly felt leaving the meeting some good progress but just to be clear the permit holder was current not out right eyes and ears i understand his mother has responded that's not a mr. teague design alternative for her. >> question acknowledging the stairs may or may not be in play a comment the staircase will not be legal. >> that's up to the department of building inspection but it is a 3 unit building maybe the case given that i have to defer to the department of building inspection. >> so again, the official departments position mr. sanchez. >> we have the variance decision letter he authorized and i feel this is supportive for the findings in that decision letter 24 matter is a hearing before this board for

this board to make the appropriate findings whether there's some other compromise alternative i from the only facts have changed since i reviewed the application no opposition from the property to the north was in the process of being sold shortly therefore the hearing but - >> the other question there was a question about the legality of the decks do you have myriad how those existing decks were on the property. >> given the age and the degradation maybe. >> thirty or 40 years. >> thirty or 40 years. >> thank you mr. sanchez potentially asked it an uninformed question or that level of thought that came up for me in the past in my mind

i'll verbalize that we have the cal hallow association and neighborhood group their potentially strong cal hallow a strong neighborhood an embedded neighborhood not wish i didn't washy my wife will be there long after i'm gone they're a cohesive in their attempt to sustain their neighborhood integrity and they have very, very clear guidelines that are public and made available to anybody that buys a house in cal hallow if they do their due diligence it is public and so and in our briefs there is it talks about what some of the guidelines are and in my view this plan expansion might

breach some of the guidelines if inner a member of the cal hallow association and lived there a acting like a new i didn't i might feel that way because of the strong guidelines and look at it finding 4 and 5 and which talks about the public welfare and material injurious to the property and that's fine and the granting in 5 the granting of the variance will be in harmony of this code and will not adversely fact the plan what about - the associations all about it they have guidelines what about their code, what about their guidelines? what about that certainly it might be

interpreted in 4 and 5 those are might be bound to be so their injurious or against the plan the neighborhood general plan what are the teeth that a cal hallow association has here or some protective association in any neighborhood that tries to maintain the integrity of this neighborhood >> that's a great question. >> pardon the speech. >> it was beautiful thank you there are a range of neighborhood groups in the city some are well established and some less you know not every neighborhood group necessarily has the same representation cal hallow has strong representation there are guidelines developed and they were adopted

in part by the planning commission we we do implement the design guidelines for cal hallow not in the full extent of the guidelines they didn't adopt the whole document that is something our staff reviews as part of project review so in addition to the residential design guidelines they'll apply the cal hallow design guidelines and that went to the 311 and no drs during the thirty day notification that goes to the neighborhood association, etc. so he i mean but it is - i'll review we found to to be overall compatible with the residential design guidelines and it is a rarity in western park and cal hallow that has design guidelines adopted by the commission in variance forms and

the goes up have delores special use district and bernal heights special use district a higher level with codification and bernal heights. >> bernal east especially. >> it is there's a range we do implement the design guidelines. >> so not today but is this a rehearing or an upgrade. >> a continued case. >> time for the board to make the decision. >> it carries over from the last time; right? we heard the last time i bought my house we did the research and we research and found this area that had is an open space and was we were assured that that open space will still be there and that's

why we bought our house that's the testimony and part of that there's a cal hallow association that says that's protected in the documents so is it not injurious when someone comes in and - how should we consider that when someone builds off the back of their house in any situation like this into an area with a definition of open space how should we deal with that generically. >> i don't recall the appellants testimony but i will note that their property under the previous property owner the one that sold it received a variance from a for a rear yard with a deck in the required rear yard so because of fact a

variance didn't mean is automatically anoinon-compliant the south lot we felt it was compatible given there was a structure existing for decades without any apparent adverse impact or complaints we felt it was an appropriate project it is i believe if i recall 3 units it is an rh2 zoning district - two unit building sorry the addition was the additional guest room at the lower level not of the unit but adding additional oh, my god

space to accommodate the needs of family and felt it was overall appropriate project. >> thanks very much. >> but the matter is fully before the board at the hearing. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> any public comment on this item? seeing public comment commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> sorry plans one last question. >> so the stair is part of a variance. >> yes. it is portion of it is, yes. >> i guess where we left it

the appellant has a key lot therefore she's looking at the pretty solid building fronting the entire length of her rear yard which is ms. recognizing o recognize tons building we felt an ability to create a sliver of light at the corner that perhaps you you know there can be some level of accommodation given the fact a variance is not a right it is why it was done its too bad they can't arrive at the accommodation i'm hesitant to impose my own solutions in some sense in this particular case but i will say this as i'm

thinking about this i'm not fully supportive of the variance in its entirety i don't know the whole criteria necessarily - but i'm also not supportive of trying to create things on a adjacent properties when one purchases one one knows the condition it is in there is a limitation of views into the mid block open space in this particular case per let me think about, about it a little bit further. >> i'm my thoughts are similar i was hoping by allowing the additional time the appellant and permit holder would come to a solution as mr. sanchez said earlier i think the staircase it is straw that broke the camels back. >> looking at it i agree with

commissioner fung and the fact that i don't think i'm in the position or would modified the building to have that 45 along the full side of property there the property owner has looked at the deck for thirty years at this point and some impact already there already and the in fill if in the bottom if they put a 45 would be great and the permit holders was willing to do that 0 at one time so i'm a little bit on the fence that's where i'm leon. >> i'm along with you all i'm not sure that all that question or - all the items really fulfilled i'm sorry they were

and wish a compromise in the some way you gentlemen chatted about it forces us in baseball win or lose this is unfortunately by the way, now we have to make someone unhappy and i'm not sure who that will be yet but it would be nice to find a compromise that allows the project to go on without making one party really unhappy. >> and again i don't think all the items were met to justify a variance. >> perhaps i could share from the last reading and were reaching towards the end of the hearing and they were there was

some discussion of a compromise the thought that occurred to me perhaps taking a vertical slice not a 45 degree but you establish a line from the 45 degree to the edge of where the addition was and take it perpendicular back to the wall you take out that piece and take out similar pieces on the deck the variance holder gets some expansion of the room legalize the deck, the schiffer's get a sliver of the view but sharing that thought that occurred to me we were including that hearing. >> i don't know if i'll be fully supportive of that some degree in the lower section is

architectural the decks are there personally. >> a couple of you said not sure the variance were met i'm wondering that is the fundamental issue. >> welcome to be honest the 56 findings truly don't find every variance coming before us fulfilling that either the lesser of two evils and unfortunately it is nicer when both parties leave a little bit unhappy but someone will not be happy at all. >> you want to try to take a stab at it commissioner fung. >> looter i'll stack a stab at it i'll move to grant the appeal

and condition the variance on the condition that the ground floor space be reduced a the 45 degree angle and similarly the two decks. >> that's not what you - that's what we've been talking about but not what you came as an idea at the end of first hearing; correct? >> that's right but one that both parties has had some familiar outlet with - we don't know what additional requests but if they're closed at this point. >> commissioner fung i assume on the north side of property

you're talking about i'm sorry, go ahead we need a basis for that red cross in the 5 finding. >> mr. sanchez a thought. >> scott sanchez planning department. if i can show on the plan the section i think you said a ground level i want to make sure can i have the overhead please? so the ground level has the guest room the most of decision as referred to the first story and having the charge ofer the 45 would be at the ground and first story and then. >> is that the second story. >> i don't have the full plans but the project architect can say but call it the ground.

>> my reference was to the level above the ground. >> okay. >> at the 2 levels the rearmost of unoccupied buildingss. >> the second level. >> so it will not impact it will remain the same. >> we're talking about both decks. >> so the decks at both levels as well as the building at the first story above grade but the ground story will remain not at a 45 degree angle. >> that's correct. >> okay. >> and then we're back to needing a basis that it would be this modification would satisfy the 5 finding. >> right i think that makes

sense. >> building department have anything to say? >> okay. so let me see if i have this accurately and mr. sanchez listen to make sure this will instruct our department as to what is required in the permit that would be helpful the motion from the vice president to grant the appeal and condition the variance to require that the first story above grade and the two decks be reduced at a 45 degree angle on the north side and that is on the basis this modification will allow the variance to satisfy the 5 findings required under the planning code. >> good. >> on that motion commissioner lazarus commissioner honda. >> no and commissioner swig okay. so that motion requires 4 votes therefore that motion fails unless another motion.

>> i like to present another motion again the finding - >> before you go both into that we have an unofficial policy that if the fifth vote can effect the decision we - >> we should wait and any guilty opportunity for the appellant and the permit holder to continue their conversation and we have that fifth vote nothing to vote about. >> is that a possibility. >> ma'am, secretary sorry for rushing. >> i'm going to move to continue this case.

>> yes, he, move to the 19 it will be a long night for the board but i think all of this will take a short hearing. >> october 19th work for both parties? >> i'm sorry can you step forward to the platform please. yeah. sorry the 19 of october does not work for me. >> the next available is november 9th. >> okay. >> okay. >> so did that work for both the appellant? >> my motion to continue this to november 9th a okay all right. we have a motion to

continue this matter until november 9th to allow the commissioners to participate in the vote on that motion commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda and commissioner swig okay. that that motion carries and that item will be continued until november 9th commissioner president honda shall we go back to item 4. >> we can find out is the appellant here versus public works. >> yes. okay. >> are the appellant for this item. >> yes. okay. we called the item earlier so, please step forward and present our item for the board we're returning to item 4. >> welcome good evening. >> hi my name is assad i represent san

francisco permit number 1 m m f 048 on market street we were one of the first carts that started serving the city of san francisco after the ordinance for the facilities and one of the few remaining in business we're successful reserve the best food in the city and adopted to the needs of neighbors and customers we've been getting a lot of requests we open in this area and finally decided to expand after going through the primary process we knew it was a busy location we were about to apply had to find a perfect spot not adding to the congestion and block entrance to the bart after hard work we found a location between trees

that were used most of the time if you look at the pictures - here's where we would be parking and if you look at on the right-hand side this is the congested ear area we're away from that here is a imagery red line created by the trees and everyone pretty much walks on the other side of the trees we're in a place where it is between trees and not a lot of pedestrian walk here. >> similarly here we are going to be parked and here's the

imagery line the google picture everyone is walking on the other side we're facing the back of the bart entrance and not in front of the mall we'll be operating 3 days on this side and 3 on the other because of dpw restrictions we will bring our own garbage bags to the commissary and clean the area every few hours we don't create a lot of trash and no reason for this by the way, we have 3 years we've been running on market street and as you may know there are tens of thousand of visits maybe over one thousand everyday in local visit for this area and our cart provides consensus and

resting opportunities for them hotdog carts have been procreating and one hundred people will get food from our cart some will be needing hotdogs and the mall is not as convenient and some people will not go outside waiting for muni some of those folks are our customers come to first street and market for lunch we're planning to serve until late unite and early morning 2:00 a.m. on the weekends the mall doesn't offer but more importantly people love our consciouslyer food we think this

will add to the diversity in san francisco. >> we'll hear in publifrom pu works. >> welcome. >> hi and good evening, commissioners and board members. >> my name is brent cohen representing the department of public works and i'll give a brief sorry i'll present a brief overview the food application process for sf guys permit - pr and the reasons why the department denied the permit it

was on september 2, 2016, public works reviewed the proposed location and determined them in general conformation with the section of article public works code the section for the specified section for the multiple location on march 29, 2016 public works preceded with the public notification pursuant to section - of our public works code during the thirty day notification public works got 5 objections for the market street location and two objections for sorry market street location public works scheduled a public hearing or a dpw hearing held 2016 there were 5 testimonies in

opposition of the mobile food facility during the hearing a few of the points made were not unrestricted area and trash and maintenance by the property high vehicle accident rates on the market street area market street is very congested, negative impact to local restaurants and visible blight on market street and high crime in the area and too much food carts in the area as well the appellant didn't attend the public works hearing and to respond to the public comment. following the hearing on june 30th, 2016, public works director denied the primary application with dpw order

exit in the brief. >> the denial was based on the following finding the code effects article 5.8 this legislation attempts to provide and expand the range of convenient and consumption opportunity for the dollar served and in congested areas at different times of day and evening they're not under served as on market street in front of a mall with a food court on the lower level the second planning on both sides of market between 5 and 4 have high congestion with tourism and shopping and impartially and muni light rail and restaurants the findings 3 there are 3 artists permitted to

operate at the proposed location in front of market street 2345u7b8 between november 15th to january 15th by the san francisco arts commission based on the present information the decision made was to deny the application on 865 market street thank you i'm available to answer any questions. >> i have a question and uh-huh. >> in our brief exhibit d one a yelp appoint out i'll not consider the food court to be nearby way north of market street for far south of market street am i supposed to conclude a number of opportunities in the

area. >> the yelp is for 9:00 p.m. i heard in the meantime nearby is substantive. >> well the question is do have a map of other carts in this area because didn't we have a case on the north side of market but a little bit further west i think - >> one on both sides. >> wasn't a hotdogs. >> public works on the 965 block i believe it is one of the blocks that is split up with one of the smaller streets in between. >> i believe that one was it was different from this location it was much further away from the plaza and separated by

another intersection and also this fronting property was vacant at a time and not opportunities in that location. >> understand you how many carts are there go around in this area. >> 7 permitted carts. >> do you have a diagram. >> overhead please. and many of the carts here have been from 2011 or older. >> and just to make sure i know the location 865 is the star. >> yes. yes. >> and the other ones across the street further west; right? >> the dots are on the parcels their actual locations on one of the sidewalk frontals it is hard to tell.

>> the star may not be exactly where it is. >> the star is google i'm sorry not google but gi s where 865 market street is. >> what are the difference continue the black dots and the handprint for this. >> i was counting which ones were valid. >> the black dots represent - >> the permit numbers are there but hard it is. >> those are the address where the carts are at if you look at the location theaters a hat place and caramel corn next to it. >> i see they're using the address of the center of the building. >> it it it would be nice to see the actual location of cart exists going faster. >> we don't say a diagram like

that sorry. >> thank you okay. we can take public comment on this item. >> welcome. >> my name is anthony representing san francisco mall the owners of the property on 865 market street. >> well expressing opposition for the primaermit on market st - this effects the cafe serving the dental food and the this is a collision prone area where trollies and bicyclists converge this should be disapproved with restaurants within a half of block that includes the food

court so close to the entrance is literally uses our address the largest impact for the tenants located is the as one hundred feet it is not a convenience issue in particular this permit will have a small family business serving food and this is off the draw of west feed and philosopher off customers and westerfield will be forced to deal with the mess generated by patrons they'll be bringing the food into the food courts and raising our cost as well approval of the applications reduce replacement outside the

busiest entrance next to the bart station i'm there everyday there is no such thing the sidewalk is not busy interesting to the area must navigate through 9 retail stores and the tourists and adding the footd food cart and generating lines of customers will flufrt block the congestion and a it is grandchildren 10 feet and not able to support the congestion and the permit should be denied due to traffic safety within a cord ifd as vision zero policy as having collisions occurred i have a - this a contributing cause to signed viability and have the technical study of pedestrian circulation

transportation authority the study sidewalk obstacles like ranks and a food cart will be a greater obstacle but the public safety issues placing the food in this area the sidewalk is crowded - >> go ahead. >> the sidewalk is cross-out for people coming and going outside of westerfield it effects a small business and it is not temporarily limit as the cart will procreate 12 hours a day 3 days a week for this reason we ask you deny. >> i have a question how many that employees. >> how many employees. >> hundreds hundred and 20, 200 and 20. >> depends on the time of the year i don't have an exact number but ranges from 2 to 3

thousand a year. >> without specifically what's the cost per square feet. >> okay. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good evening. i'm representing the union square it is a collection of property owners in you can see question represent 5 hundred parallels and 12 hundred businesses i've spoken to this body on a similar issue we hope the commission didn't approve this permit but deny the permit one of them is article 5.8 it is clear in supervisor wiener's legislation the city must address the appropriate locations for mobile food facilities to minimize the pedestrian conflicts and

movement of customers we believe this meets that criteria in an article in the carpenter 2013 it says we'll have a difficult permitting process and making it difficult to do business in union square and we don't agree let me show you pictures to illustrate the fact overhead please. this didn't capture all the block this is the block that - and speak into the mike. >> this would be about right here there are people walking through the rows of trees this was a year and a half ago we have a pedestrian counter on the building we see to one hundred thousand pedestrians it is a

very, very congested sidewalk this guess what we currently have this is the city's artist program this is where sf hallow would like to location san francisco police department they approved is a shoe place this is a fixer from sf hallow you began to see the cluster and commemorating that creates here's allocate shot you see the distance is extremely narrow for the space we have open the block we have plenty other obstacles on market street here's another shot of the corn vendor we would have opposed if we knew about it right next to the turn around it

is junky not the image that union square will like to denote to the visitors around the world and here's another example this is actually sf cart in the fine arts district they tied to a tree and left it offer night another example this is their operation. >> you want to finish since our your time is up. >> we ask you deny the permit for the congestion and aesthetics and the image in union square. >> how many agencies are issued permits for sidewalk carts and equipment? >> we're aware of bureau street map and usage dpw for mobile food facilities that's cart and food trucks and we're aware of sfpd for peddlers

shoeshine operators, etc. >> and the arts commission. >> the arts commission and further vendor what we call plaza. >> is there any additional public comment? >> seeing none, rebuttal from the appellants and the appellants agent. >> 3 minutes. >> a couple of things i guess from some of the pictures just now and there were people walking that is the only picture and the rest of picture doesn't have anything walking that was intended to use when we serve that place people don't walk in the area we understand there are kit he will corny saw some of

the pictures but couldn't see clearly we have the cart tied to the tree and that was a one time where we had problems with the cart and so we already have fixed that we don't do that anymore and public works knows that coming back to similar restaurants inside the mall again, we think that a more restaurant cafe is which was mentioned they offered mediation food not the same it is a big memo and they're completely different inside the mall so i think that is pillow different food it is middle eastern we offer chicken over religious with a specific sauce and other dishes with a specific sauce when i look at their memo they

don't have this type of food so i think we're different and theirs nothing that says in the ordinance we shouldn't have similar food even if it was the sidewalk with - when we looked at the it believe 18 foot so i don't know if this is mentioned earlier and in the 7 carts we saw there none of them provide full food something you can say i had lunch or diner they're pretty much hotdogs or kettle corn things like that we're offering something different they've been mentioned they're there for years 10 years or more maybe it is time we bring this here. >> and he i think the

department of public works can talk about our cleanliness we're our health score is over 90 and everybody is happy with us the people that scomplan about our original location they're our customers we promised we're offering to work here at nights on the weekends which nobody offers that's another thing we do. >> sir i believe as part of your submittal passage showing the size of your equipment do you have that can you show us that. >> we don't - we haven't built the cart once we get the permit we have months to build the cart we have a diagram how much space that will take. i think 5 by 8 that is in - >> 5 by 8 is the cart size.

>> in the total space when you go with 5 by 7 with one food extra place. >> do you have other exterminate required for the operation. >> we don't have to have any other equipment all has to be attached like carols we're not allowed to so no. >> we don't need anything else except people working and i have a question the department mentioned you didn't attend the hearing is there a reason why not. >> i was not originally going to attend this meeting mohammed who had applied under his name actually, i had confusion over what days to go and for this meeting he is overseas his son

passed away i'm here for him but i think he will know exactly what happened why he couldn't attend. >> is it your cart or mohammed's cart. >> we're partners the department of public works needs one person to political under their name. >> any rebuttal from the department, sir. >> i wanted to address that can't clarify confirm if the cart on market street was the one that the person said had issued a violation or citation to the cart for leaving it on

the sidewalk so and in regards to the not attending the hearing as an exhibit c e-mail confirmation of the date for them to attend the hearing. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i guess i'm not convinced it is underserved. >> i agree i'm not supportive of appeal several reasons pedestrian safety although the pictures showed not many people that is a congested area for san franciscans that guess where the guys met to play chest that was removed for the service of the pedestrians so that didn't clog and also as commissioner fung mentioned it is direct

comprehension. >> i'll say one additional thing that is the widest sidewalk in the city. >> there's been a lot of those carts put in narrow sidewalks. >> pretty soon no cars on that streets moniker to make a motion. >> move to deny the appeal that the department correctly drermd this area is not underserved. >> there's a motion from the vice president to deny the appeal and uphold it on the basis it the department of public works correctly determined the area is not underserved. >> commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner president honda. >> commissioner swig

that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero. >> move on to item number 6 which is appeal sandra and mona versus the department of public works with the planning department approval on anza protesting the issuance to luis with a site permit two story addition and third floor with mechanical penthouse and basement and facade and interior rooms we'll start with the appellant 7 minutes to present. >> good evening my name is sandy i live in one of the houses adjacent to the construction site i've the there for 4 seven years. >> i'm not here to be adversarial i want to correct what is a clerical error when the notification of structure addition what sent to me and the other adjacent property owner it

was apparently, there was a mistake in the description of the structural addition being approved it described in part a new third floor is mezzanine and penthouse the description for that of the original application and not approved by the stir but signed off by both owners and 6 city departments i immediately contacted the planning department dpw and permit will department as well as the 6 department persons that signed off i was informed there was no documentation from the owners or the representatives that was an error mona the owner of the other adjacent house sent her representative to accompany me in person when we went to the planning department and dbi on 7716 we had this original

notification was dated 6:30 we received no feedback and were advised to file angle appeal we did on that day any lead if the project sponsor for the construction the new construction she contacted my son andrew - as per city regulars an opportunity for homeowners to review and discuss 91 new construction within a proximity it meetings were scheduled and the city encourages communication andy and her opposition described the

a. >> for mentioned i don't think that is an assertion we're here in good faith as a participant in this process out of concern for our homes and neighborhood in go closing i'd like to thank you for the opportunity to state the following i have been in contact with my own structural engineer with the concerns of the new construction a common foundation at the center of the two houses and because of this he feels the rear foundation should also be checked i have expressed to the architect and the engineer that there is a possibility of a common foundation at the rear of the properties this will require additional safeguards if it is proven to be a fact we're built on the ridge of a steep hill on sand and there is a retaining wall at the rear of my property

to protect homes below this situation is part of a plans for a city and it attempts to provide safety in the plans it approves i hope that concern is addressed i'm get it on the record and hope that is included thank you. >> ma'am. >> there was a series of applications the design was presented did you receive both sets of drawings that related to the two different designs. >> the first ones we received that was the one of the city denied the application; right? >> did you receive the last one. >> well, we saw them and had a little meeting that in front of the house and saw them outside and received something by e-mail

but it was - we also had a meeting in last year in november discretionary review and which actually was not accepted the discretionary review but at the end it said in writing that that penthouse and other parts of it were not accepted and that it would go with the last drawings which didn't include that which the city accepted. >> hope you understand me because this is complicated. >> we'll deal with this. >> thank you. >> have any other - >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit holders now. >> good evening welcome.

>> good evening, commissioners good evening commissioner president honda and board members i'm amy lee represented michelle no relation of anza street and to respond to the permit this is a site permit that coffees a room of a single-family home to add approximately, one thousand square feet of living space i want to apologize its opinion a frustrating and long process as we continue to make examinations and work with the neighborhood they still don't want to hear what we're hearing unfortunately my response was a little bit frustrating i apologize and want to give a brief history ms. lee purchased the home in 2011 to make this to accommodate her future family and aging parents she has every intention of being

a good neighbor anticipate has communication with the neighbors as fully transparent throughout the project from the initial meeting of july 2012 and worked with 3 manners and under gotten review by residential design guidelines teams and that amount support to decline to take discretionary review she has encouraged unnecessary expenses and permitted to working with all agencies and compliance with all relating codes and regulations to get her site permit 2, 3, 4 conformance with the planning code the current plant - this rooms will - accused her bending the rules for profit and the neighborhood has past rooms not following the

planning code nothing in the facts records or documents give validation to the concerns raised at the planning commission this project didn't address occupancy the footprint is the same to the south and the height mass to the anza with the east of the the subject property this renovation will add square footage to a single-family to be a permanent home and in addition to providing a comfortable home for parents with limited mobility she's a u.s. citizen emigrated over 32 years and went to the uc berkley 9 appellants description is not - this portion of outer richmond or richmond is two family units located on many corners which

the report further added quote the the subject property is one of the smallest structures ones the block the dr is non-conforming addition located in the setback and rear yard unquote overall the past renovation didn't follow the planning code and frankly we didn't want to mention this and haven't but at that point is very frustrating the properties immediately adjacent to the property anza have not benefited from the planning process the appellants highlight the plans that were approved this is a single-family home that had an existing square footage of 2721 is garage and storage with one thousand square feet inclusive of a garage and previous plans may have added to the confusion with the reflected open space

this renovation includes a master bedroom and new kitchen and additional storage and roof deck ms. lee as made numerous changes to comply with the building regulations we understand the concern from the appellant regarding the foundation, however, we're just at the site permit and the foundation details that are worked on will be submitted for approval this will be in complete compliance the architect has worked with the planning department to get final approval of the revised plan as approved at the planning commission he's not permitted nor his responsibility to make any changes as it relates to the building nor could we just want the condition this was explained to the appellants and their children we notified is them we corrected the description and went to the planning department easy contacted planning but the

board of appeals all activities is suspend we don't have authority it was explained that nothing in the plans have changed when this was approved at the planning commission in november 2016 sorry 2015 we were surprised they moved moved over the past 4 years ms. lee as had significant unnecessary costs and has tried to cooperate she is frustrated with the appellants denial of facts and false complaints with the additional parties that need to be brought up to speed they reach out directly to our architect and engineer we respectfully request the board of appeals deny the appeal as denied can be moved forward as we continue to drafts addendum that will have full details and fully a compliant to the codes thank you. >> thank you, ms. lee.

>> the drawings in your brief reflect the latest site permit package. >> yes. >> there are a couple of other draurlgz i'm assuming the previous ones. >> we had. >> let me finish the question those show something like an additional on top of. >> the original plan. >> ; is that correct? >> yes. but the more recent ones. >> what you have in our brief. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. the the subject property was submitted at the end of 2012 in the section notification in the summer of last year there was a discretionary review filed and the commission heard that on november last year the planning commission unanimously all 7 of them voted

to deny the discretionary review request and approve as proposed what we have an mess understanding a clerical error when the project was filed it had a different project description on the permit application when the building inspector creates the electronic record they use that as it is created day one subsequent to the intact and review the project the project was revised the rooftop was removed based on the plans with the brief which was approved in the plans reflect when the planning commission reviewed to what the planning department reviewed and approved but there is a dick between what is in the project system and the scope

that has been revised and the actual scope of work should be changed to reflect what is on the plans so i would defer to the department of building inspection how best to deal with the correction clerical error to match the plan it sounds like there is an understanding maybe the appellant doesn't quite look at that position but that is the case that is project is completely code compliant and not heard anything that self-go with the residential design guidelines and the planning commission unanimously approved this last year thank you. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> inspector curiosity. >> welcome inspector curiosity. >> good evening department of building inspection as mr.

sanchez state it is properly i don't say a clerical error but the process it couldn't be changed until something is approved so in most cases the changes might not be as substantial as in this case, the plans that have been submitted are significantly different in other skies you'll not change the depiction still an additional the rear of the building or whatever the changes are sixth enough here when they do get approval it will be a matter of an administrator permit to correctly describe the project and with all the present changes. >> thank you. is that it. >> a simple question the neighbors concerns in regards to the maybe shared affirmation will be and the through the

process; correct? >> yes. for sure it happens i wouldn't say a lot but in that area a shared foundation and methods to rick if i it. >> okay any public comment on this item? step forward, please and i'm scott i represent we own the property next door and representing one of the appellants. >> no next door neighbor we own the property. >> instead of under public comment you need to speak as a party if no other public comment any other public comment? we can start rebuttal 3 minutes of rebuttal for all of the appellants so you need to share this time with the lady >> 3 minutes that will be - we went to the planning commission they approved this revised plan

and it was simple we walked away they won they have built the house i talked with 89 general contractor and called him bill what happened he said i made a mistake the inspector said the mistake is pretty big and you know a licensed architect in california they don't make big mistakes so this is a big problem those people won but because of your mistake is egregious in the eyes of the architect licensing board this is in such for him to lose his license for it guy not to dot all the i's and cross the t's i was thinking what needs to happen right now we don't know there's a third plan that came in that's can the building department got and fair play was

not - i'm sure he's not here i think we should going to a square one and figure out what are we build the planning commission approved the plan that didn't get into the hands of the building department to my feeling let's see start in the beginning and find out what our building and take a look at and have fair play this alleged was not following the rules i hate to be like that it's not our fault that is being built after the planning commission offered their victory we walked away and said fine we can live with that third floor but were we can't live when they changed the plan after the commission has already approved that the handwriting is on the wall it is a serious matter there were issues about the foundation building a huge

building on sand no architecture plan it is a serious issue but the rules have to be followed and the architect knows better so you know, i think that i would disallow this whole thing and come up with a better straightforward approach to this that's all i have to say. >> thank you. >> okay. then we can take rebuttal. >> 30 seconds. >> would you like to use that 30 seconds? >> yes. >> i don't think we have 30 seconds on the which can. >> give them a minute you have 30 seconds. >> first of all, thank you to the planning department for clarifying that the main reason i'm here because you know, i

received this report that had the wrong information that's right what i'm hoping will be taken care of i was not part of any - i never discussions foreign nationality so the boise and noted backward knowing they're in the neighborhoods anyway thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> orchestra o okay ms. lee 3 minutes. >> i wanted to make a quick introduction michelle is here with her mom and dad and also the architect bill is here as well he can answer any questions once again what bill has told the appellants there was an error not that he made the error he didn't have the control when

we realized that was brought to your attention we didn't know what was approved after recently in june and are after 2015 we told them this was an error by the system and reached out to the building and told an administrator permit but everyone in the department were afraid this preliminary was under the board of appeals and suspend for any activity so we you know once again we can talk to bill and to assert he has professional shortcomings because of this issue is really i think insulting because bills working hard and our second architect and working hard to make sure this project was compliant and the problem that different neighbors and different sons and children keep an reaching out without not that

i'm aware of ms. lee and incurring costs bringing them up to speed and adrc to the confusion bill would the plans submitted in june were identical it was was approved in november and the plans were revisions as san francisco changed activity from submission to approve thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. for everyone will rest assured knowing the plan has not changed the property owner has submitted in their april brief the actual approved stamp of approval they match the plan by the planning commission no changes to the

project unfortunately, the issue about the changes and the project description is not uncommon to this project or other promotions projects needs to be changed over the course of their review once it is as senior building inspector curry said this is challenging to change the 34r579 cannot change it we cannot change that that requires the project sponsor to go to the department of building inspection to make those changes and that is something that can be changed we appreciate to the appellant brought to your attention and i don't don't get involved in the he said she said but report to the board had was in the discretionary review application that startsdz the

foreign national should not by a preponderance the rules to make a profit in regards to one of the vbtsdz in the proposed project with respond to the concerns basically about exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and that was as i understand by mona in an affidavit and they unanimously rejected the application there are other issues outlined but didn't want to highlight that note part of application thank you. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> inspector. >> yeah. bernie once again a site permit none of the structural descriptions or means r or methods have been approved yet so eir regardless of the

description on the pink sheet though that may not be completely accurate the building will have to be built according to the approved plans that were put forth from the planning department the planning commission so even if this somehow slipped through with no changes in the pink sheet after approved they didn't do a administrative permit it still has to be built according to the plans that have been approved any questions. >> a new computer system. >> don't talk about that i'm ready to go back to pencil and paper thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> my only question do we need to - do they need an administrative permit or how does that work. >> if you wish to you could

rice the scope of work or leave it alone if you're inclined to rely on the approved plans it is up to you. >> i would be inclined to do that so the neighbors will have an understanding of what the scope is besides looking at the drawings. >> so inclined to. >> plan b to - grant the appeal and condition the permit on the basis this the description be changed so actively reflect what the scope is at this point. >> i'll go along with that. >> and until the appeal is lifted you can't look at any of the structural aspects of it so - >> they can't move forward. >> that's - >> that was one of the concerns for some of the structural design that is all

addressed under - >> the department will assisted in dealing with that. >> correct. correct. >> so who's motion is this commissioner. >> it can be yours. >> (laughter). >> no point. >> sure. >> okay. so commissioner lazarus motion and to grants the appeal and condition. >> i'm sorry we're closed for public comment already at this point thank you. >> to condition the permit so that 9 scope of work is changed to reflect what is in the approved plans is that - >> the approved plans by dbi and planning. >> so if you don't mind. >> not at all. >> a team effort. >> the planning commission, the planning commission. >> on that motion then from

commissioner lazarus commissioner fung and then commissioner president honda all over the place commissioner swig. >> that motion then passes a vote of 4 to zero. >> okay. >> welcome back to the board of appeals we're on item 7 appeal marilyn versus the zoning administrator the property on 1948 pacific avenue protesting july 11th to john duffey of a rear yard variance for a second story deck above and exterior stairs on a single-family dwelling that is within the rear yard and start with the appellant ms. reilly 7 minutes.

>> good evening and welcome. >> i owned this home for 3 seven years and seen neighbors come and go and happy with the deck in the rear yard was taken out i was told they couldn't rebuilt in the rear yard setback that has as recently to mr. law passing away we passed attend of 2013 i believe this property was purchased in 2014 on, on june 30th the people took possession and the first one they said to me the brother he said this is an $18 million house i said really he would we'll put the last thing and build a deck on the 36r and

build a garage i said okay that's wonderful i said i don't know. i, build that deck on the second story he started a number it is a 4 floor house not a 3 floor fib look at the building department a family room and kitchen with a poured room and going up three or four bedrooms top floor is wide open up there the mr. law lived there they were lots of children some of its step children and the bells have 3 about his they use the deck most of time we have a lot of parks around pacific avenue we never had a problem with two many things except with mr. law

married a new wife i should say she decided to decorate at the decks she basically took down except one stick on the deck he appraised that until the deck was torn down he said about the next year or six or eight months all of a sudden mr. law hauled in 3 feet of dirt about the last 26 or 24 feet then betsy carmichael a deck topping was 3 feet i came in for the second appeal and stood before a pane of 5 people and only 3 had to agree mr. law had not taken out a permit for that deck he did it they said you can't alter the

backyard their particularly looking over her property they made him take it down the new people that came in they start diego outburst the lot and first to take out the family room and a lot of dirt gets dropped down through the street it is fine sands it goes into any drain i put in $13,000 i ask had had building department to correct it my toilets in the lower unit i have 4 floors you saw in the diagram of any pictures that's clogged that that twice in the last 4 weeks and the plumber told me i may have to blow it out with water - i told you

that to the believable mr. reardon and the builder inspector got anger at me i tell him i think that things are going back and people are not looking at the project they let the project go and pretty soon they're digging out there the house they start in the rear yard setback and the rear yard setback when i bought any house a long time dianne feinstein wanted this to be a city of gardens i made mine is beautiful garden and enjoyed it never had a beautiful gardens on mr. laws problem a total mess with the deck that is falling down nobody kept that up and nobody planned trees or anything back there anyway twhen i went

to the second hearing the department here they tell him you have to take down the deck but cannot put a stairway next to her property it is an innovation of her profess a blind wall on the west call that is where the staircase should go i'm happy to show you all the pictures we've had neighbors complained it destroys they're sleeping they'll explain it it you here and the last thing on there a findings 5 they have a historical house and they've claimed it is 18 i guess early 19 hundreds i don't know if this is the case my house was built in 1865 the theatre - she wrote a book about a wonderful house the kitchen downstairs and the

chinese hook that chewed parsley she asked him how he got the parcel so, anyway the history of the house is pretty much that and there is a parking pad the existing house was seven hundred plus that's a footprint now the planning department has allowed these people to not only dig out the backyard to build in at rear yard setback without a permit and any of the permits for a deck approved deck they applied for the rear yard setback two days after i took the picture into the deputy superintendant department of building inspection and the plumbing pipe was stepping back out those people are doing with that someone i don't know why you'll spend the expense to did he give

out the dirt if you didn't know you'll get it approved that's right what happened i don't want a third deck above me looking into any bedroom windows. >> please finish up you'll have time in rebuttal. >> thank you. okay we'll hear from the variance holder. >> good evening john rochelle's on behalf of the - >> please stop for a second i did not realize that's a reuben, junius & rose hold on one second. >> if you haven't please the time. >> reuben, julius & rose on a reuben, junius & rose representation as an entity before the board will not have an effect on my decision. i apologize for the late

disclosure. >> i'm here on behalf of the project sponsor they purchased the house in 2014 to accommodate their greek family while trying to stay in san francisco i want to ask fiona. >> my name is fiona my husband and i own this we have four children that love to play we've been looking forward to reversing this and living in it when we purchased 22 and a half years ago we love san francisco and lived her for 25 years many of our close friends having had children live in the east bay so we're in a sense two san franciscans and are determined to remain in the 71 we've moved

twice and our children want to know if we're ready to move into the new house findings a house was no easy task but with the rental market etch month we're detailed is a greater and greater financial burden with replacement having a deck off the kitchen addresses a safety concern for me since it is the natural spotted i can be close enough to make sure the kids don't get hurt we have a envisioned a larger deck than the previous owner but we commodity and made it smaller and adhered to the planning process and licensed to the neighbors and accepted occupying owl u all nct my husband and i have elderly window odd mothers it spend a couple of months our

kids love to extend time with their aunts and ushldz i ask you to approve this so we can make lovely futures for our kids thank you for your time. >> thank you, john so the project proposes to modernize and kruth a 16 rear expansion of the first story floors if you can get the overhead leave it an here's a rear view here's the bottom floor the upper first story and the deck on top of this will create play area for the four children and a modern deck the variance was required the expansion go encroaches onto the rear yard, however, the proposed expansion is consistent and sensitive to the homes on

the adjacent property an existing two tiered deck on the property this is the yellow area is where it covered so it was - removed in 2012 boo the previous owner did a dry rot and expands the width of the property and covers nearly the whole rear yard and no decks and a rear deck will require a variance here's another quick picture of the existing deck essentially the rear lot line and again another view basically accompanying the rear yard the expansion are sensitive to the neighboring buildings the first story are setback 15 feet on a 35 foot loot here's a close-up to the deck it is a

further setback essentially half the lot setback when you actually get to the where the deck starts the deck is 9 same height as the neighbors deck and immediately to a blank wall no impacts there again, if you look at the site map the west neighbors is essentially not providing any rear yard we're providing for rear yard than them and the deck expands four feet past where the deck felt appellants deck and the rear yard and i think this consistent with the appropriation of the transition one building further out and one closer this is kind of a transition deny the two buildings. >> now should be made clear

the proposed deck is significantly smaller than all of the rear decks of the adjacent property ours is 20060 square feet if i look at the west neighbor they have 8 hundred and a 98 square feet of deck area the appellant has 18 hundred plus in the broadway neighbors have a combined 13 hundred plus modest in the context and not suitable for families space outside there is concerns this neighbor as noise complaints not a party deck we have support from the west side neighbor the owner and others tenant and have support from a neighbor across the street on pacific and at the corner of

pacific and octavia 1998 pacific unfortunately, we have not been successful in getting in touch with the appellants but we are willing to make further accommodations if there's a true concern for privacy we can do one easy way providing a tall wall or a screening wall at the side of staircase as our quacking up the establish no site view so the board is interested from exploring that we'll work with ms. reilly not the last chance to avoid this in closing they have - the proposed deck did significantly smaller than the decks of the

neighborhoods and willing to make further concession we or less ask the board to deny. >> can you - everything this is in the document the entire size of the size of expansion. >> commissioners like i can come back on a rebuttal. >> how much their adrc to the size of house. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> scott sanchez planning department. this is within an rh2 this is a historical resource this is 32

and a half feet wide and it is by a large citations single-family dwelling that is in excess of the square feet and a has a setback of 15 square feet given the historic resource it has limitations on the front of the property open march 23 of this year this was not an easy decision i struggled when a variance application was submitted to make an already very large building larger i have problems with that and denied variances in case when i found compelling quite frankly the deck those are assessable from the main living place and went along with that and

provided a reasonable size deck to enjoy and there is a bit of a change disputes how much and how much has changed it is down sloping and the rear of the property line is lower than the property i felt the argument for having a deck at that main living level was something that quite frankly is reasonable to have and would be in my opinion a hardship to not have a deck or assess usable deck and assess to the backyard i didn't find the original application supportive and had to talk with the project sponsor to bring it up to the property line the appellant was clear at the hearing they have concerns about privacy and concerns raised about scope of work that had been done and completed the active building

permits before issuing a decision letter he consulted with the senior building inspector reardon that had the builder inspector recorded to us at that time, in april the project was in compliance with the issued plans pr there was substantial work done under the issued plans the existing building encroaches the rear yard as it is and they were sx the have and have not's for the living space i think - a lot of excavation they'll build out that was not a factor i had the main changes to the project come before with the

appellants property their - i did not feel that is is an alternative in my opinion roughly not had that effect in terms of the project with the variance before you there is a building permit for the promotion work the 311 has not been performed depend on the outcome of this hearing a neighborhood notification that can go to a discretionary review and the matter decision upholding this variance the planning commission could be more restrictive and reduce the project further and, of course, could be back before you on an appeal. >> you're suggesting we'll see this again. >> no, not at all but time to make sure you understood the process in that this can be the last stop depending on the decision of board and the

previous appeals a 1993 building permit the permit was upheld not a condition in it i'll read that the granted permission that the lattice be insulated so the plans can breath that's the boards decision at a time but didn't include it is a new project. >> did you have that report. >> i don't think so it is mentioned in 1993. >> so those are the - that was the rational again not an easy decision but i don't know how else to allow the deck i mean otherwise we're looking at having a deck it is going to be

on both goes down to rear yard if we didn't have an expansion of the building as well that's the only preliminary concern that needs to allow access to a open space that's not as clear but my thoughts on that. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> one question educate me about the historic resources so this is not a historic resource what are the limits placed on a house for expansion or alternatives. >> it depends on what the declaration of independence impacts of the scope entails if so is an expansion that the rear the building preliminary when it is a historic resource you know typically in this case we're building we're concerned with the fabric of the front of the

building and the public right-of-way and so it did limit the ability to make modifications to the front of the building we don't want them to o comblalt the front of unoccupied buildings to allow the facade to be the primary part not to say changes can't be made but it could interrogate the needs for an eir to determine what extent it impacts the resources it gets into different levels depending on the scope of the work and the impacts of the resource. >> so you're saying that is all about the facade which is exposed to the public largely as opposed to to the rear of the house that is only closed to a limited amount of viewers the

neighbors on both sides and for simplifying it thank you but, yes. >> i keep it simple. >> that's an accurate representation of how in particular this project will be reviewed. >> isn't the historic preservation building on jackson one or two blocks. >> it's a preservation building. >> yeah. no house is on franklin. >> mr. sanchez can you gaebt a little bit further i understand you made the issue about the deck what was your thought on the habitable space in the lower ended. >> to me that was not a compelling argument - the

extent of those rooms i mean underneath - part of it underneath the existing building they have a media room, the wine room under the existing building and under the proposed addition and sitting room and kind of a wet bar, half bath and large windows that open up into the rear yard this is a nice space to help you enjoy the required rear yard and the floor above that within that a bedroom and an office and project room and open play area i mean, i didn't finds those to be like particularly compelling and not justifies the variance in my mind but the deck that sits above those that's why setback significantly from the property line to try to is where it relate to the adjacent way in

setting off the stairs as an issue in other cases setting off the stairs from the property line having it windup in a way less inner truthful to the neighbor. >> the demolition of deck and portions of the wall what is the permit history recent permit history. >> i can look at that a little bit more we riled on the department of building inspection to make sure that was done with the permits and relied on that one issue. >> i know an environmental review for the scope of the work that was completed in 2014. >> a question mravnz will you concur there might be additional changes that addressing adds to

the level of privacy this alone might be built up a little bit. >> i'll have concerns about the wall on the property line it come down to what is a compromise for the parties i mean if that is something the appellant will find as desirable personally owe wouldn't find a large wall on the property line to be desirable the stairs are offset from the property line to deal with the the privacy issues that come with the stairs and the main issue of privacy the deck that is setback from the property line to make sure there is a pretty wide area there between the two that properties. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> commissioner fung did you want to hear if the builder

inspector. >> will the building department have the fox on the current permits here. >> there are actually 5 active permits and most of those are around earthwork to facilitate the new foundation shoring demolition of finishes to probable get a work or safety net drawings for their conception we've been doing inspections since october of 2014 mostly rebar and things like that to facilitate the shoring installation the last visit was 7, 2016 by

district inspector robert he found all the work being done according to the approved programs two complaints one in that 2015 for work beyond the scope moving dirt in the backyard and tom the district inspector at the time the case was continues that's part of what is addressed in some of this addendum work that is going on here and the lastly one a 2016 violation for dirt spilling into the neighbors driveway and the builder inspector closed the case and didn't see any problems with what was going on. >> these 5 preempts are individual permits there's no site permit. >> no. those are individual

permits they go back 2014, first rove the kitchen cabinets, etc. >> next one - let's say is a 2014 permit it's partial foundation replacement. >> all of the permits since then have been revisions to that foundation replacement shoring description or structural modifications in the foundation itself. >> so as far as you can tell nothing that yields with the implementation of their overall improvements to the building. >> no. >> thank you.

>> we can take public comment now, please step forward. >> good evening my name is rita i'm the owner on broadway the property directly north to the construction and the executive director i reside in the building since 1988 when a construction site was owned by arey was as long as i've been there concerns over the rear property for years including broken brought in dirt to raise the grade and placing the deck the issue of the height of the deck has always been a concern and one is really not being addressed by the folks the depth

is addressed by the height is ignored in my opinion for various reason for privacy issues the deck that arey built was removed appealed and such and the deck was rebuilt it is because of my efforts in looking at this deck for so long that they removed that it was collapsing and great concern over the fact it will come down into the retaining wall the folks purchased it in april and may of 2017 the contractors with the use of a small architecture mover dug out another level of property my oven research showed no permit i'm not a professional i couldn't find permits what you described as a third floor

property is 5 stories not 3 stories and all the photos because of fifth floor created by dunking out because the property didn't go back that is necessary want to bring it out towards the property line and create an exception that is two stories so the ground level a level that existed where arne was a basement he had a gym and then the third floor kitchen and bedroom. >> call it loft at the top ambassador by bringing out the property the 16 feet it is a permanent structure where overflow room a deck below my eye site level i have to look at losing persists my bedroom look at the deck area and as much as i like this pro is to be

completed been an eyesore every day he look at it we need to discuss the height of this deck now 18 feet from the new fwrard and directly 9 feet higher than the existing deck that was originally there and now the folks will be able to look subordinate any bedroom i have a very earnest issue the noise is an issue the property is at the center of a big square of broadway and goff and pathetic in the center on the highest. >> i'm sorry your time is up. >> at this time. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is cynthia hoourns own 1855 condo unit below where

rita lives and i'll echo many of ritas comments and focus on 3 items the issue of privacy we've been talking about the deck and its effect on the property to the east but we're on the north side so the deck is being pushed out towards our property line and so that's a real issue in terms of noise and privacy the deck they've referred to on the west side a zero lot line there forever and a source of noise for as long as we've lived there 9 years incredibly loud i have again mooufrns have concerns and the excavation it is commodity 9 dignity of the retaining wall i haven't formally complained i

appreciate all individual property rights and they've spent a lot of that money on expansion it is not appropriate that her dream the dream house they're talking about will ingress the neighbors that have lived there a very long time. >> can you ask you a question. >> here existing deck does it have the same sightlines. >> not from my site we're below a hill from any perspective the site line not an issue but certainly is for the two units above us the jenkins and the unit above them. >> the noise and also the privacy in terms of them being like on the other side of the fence line it is on the north side versus the east side you

were talking about earlier. >> thank you, thank you any other public comment. >> okay. seeing none we'll start your rebuttal you have 3 minutes. >> on my east side of my property there are 6 decks as you can see in the pictures that deck is so high you notice he did the drawings he didn't put the windows on my house you see the two-by-four that's in line with any bedroom window and you know i've water 36 years for this day and so disappointed so disappointed in the neighbors and wished i mean i've been a good persona bum in the backyard the guy that lived on the deck saw me taking pictures said there is a bum in the back and

told the guy he was in the 1948 it looks abandoned i asked them to turn the trees everything is coming into any backyard you saw concrete and dirt up there my fence is now at the because of fence they piled up this dirt against my fence we have a foot and a half they went against my fence it is leon like this from the weight of the dirt and have to reconstruct a new fence those people are not good the architect wanted to meet me in the street any husband went to medical he's probable in hospice anyway, we came over with the caregiver and the architect said if 24 thing goes to a heather that's public knowledge he said

probably is he said you don't have a two unit building i have all the outlined permits from 367 years ago he said you're renting our lower units this is illegal i said it is a legal apartment i don't rent it out for thirty days and have children some live in seattle and some live in the east coast we are visitors all the time they stair there this is a property i take care of this is a wonderful house and i kept the original floor plan and try to keep it up it looks like a mess you can't walk back their walkway because of the bushes hitting they're not trimmed one thing or thing on my side of property nothing. >> thank you. >> okay. we can take

rebuttal. >> thank you, commissioners commissioner swig to your question the addition is roughly 8 hundred square feet and but in talking with fiona their point this is also less about the addition and the habitable space but having that you know reasonable sized deck at a liveable level there is a level below where it is now if the garage level so this the level you have our kitchen and dining room about getting the deck that works for this home they thought about putting it on on posts not a great design but again goes to the idea this is about the technical and a reasonable size want to go to some of the issues again with the privacy and speaking of the building often broadway if i can get the

overhead again you guys have a monitor is it me 0 not blocked from view the distance into the back of the deck to the favorites point is 35 feet one of the speakers mentioned that building is not really it is roughly at grade not popping above the rear yard not a seat issue be when it comes to the neighbor here's the lower roof this is a full 53 separation from the deck from those windows we're getting into the size of a medium size street a significant distance and again, they both they face this direction as well we're starting to get into the reasonable

privacy in a dense obviously the privacy come the other way in hearing many reilly speak i think there needs to be trust has not happened in the years leading up i say sincerely again commissioner lazarus if the lot line fence didn't work the other thought having a you know kind of a screening wall walking up the steps you'll not see if that direction and we, have planters mr. sanchez and i have said we have a planning commission before we can get back here one of the goals to rebuild the trust and speak to the profess concerns she's getting at i'm comment to work with her on and

avoiding coming back here if we have the opportunities. >> commissioner. >> do you have a landscape plan. >> we don't have a landscape plan. >> this is a - the diaphragm we showed for illustrate active purposes and we don't have that landscaped right now. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. he guess first with regards to the number of stories the assessors office states 3 stories that is above the garage and 3 stories above that note a 5 story building but certainly a

4 story with a garage being a way of describing that and in regards to the previous deck was removed in 2012 with a permit can i have the overhead this is the resolution would be here's an aerial photo from 2011 and see this the deck at the time was at the lower level alleged the previous owner built up the deck and appealed to the board of appeals now the deck is begun but had stairs coming down roughly in the center to the property down to the deck the proposal will be to have the deck at the higher level of the the second

story often on the permit holders this is part of variance with the decision letter having that we didn't hear concerns from other neighbors regarding the privacy at the previous hearing being 20 or 25 or 26 feet from the building to the rear property line and does maybe seen in the aerial photos this might not are terribly helpful but this is the adjacent property with the upper and lower deck and the the subject property the proposed deck will in the expand roughly this lien where my finger are and those are the adjacent properties below i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> commissioners, the matter

is submitted. >> thinking for the variance any thoughts points made today are necessarily related to the evaporates this is since i feel that the variances somewhat justified you know the pattern within the pacific heights area is not a very organized pattern buildings go all over the place you see that here you see that that the rights that the people have had to expand beyond what

is the rear yard is also reflective the question is really if they're going through their final design and permitting i would think they'll time to have a better relationship and the question that come down to my mind is their can be minor modifications to the evaporates that go under the review of the zoning administrator i'm wondering where they need to get to a point where it is really the last items that they can't agree upon at this point it is wide open so many things they've not - i'm wondering where they shouldn't give them more time. >> i can live with that.

>> you're suggesting continue this. >> it's up to the both parties but if they like time to arithmetic otherwise we can make a decision. >> i say the messaging here i don't have any problem i agree with mr. sanchezs. >> privately that is a good design and alleviate the past problems with the deck that might fall down and that there's

0 so many open wounds in the plan and in the psyche it might serve better to continue this a little bit and so both some of the open wounds can be having save on them a sochlts this message goes out to someone who is thinking of appealing or building we hear a lot of things that can go better people had been more conscious of their neighbors, had they i'm not faulting anything they did but it is how they did it cleaning of dirt and conscious of landscaping and conscious of

noise and introducing themselves to their neighbors and being social to disengage any potential or did you have fuss issues we had a comment goesing neighbors we had two examples it is a good idea to allow more healing and reconvening maybe prevent something from happening in the future so - >> i concur whether we make a decision this evening or not a lot of process still heads of this particular

project so we're not trying to heal anything but you're our neighbors and the planning commission and is dr hearing a lot of times for everybody so if you sit and chat with the neighbors we are known as a boards two years people not talking about to each other you have to we'll had had same thing i personally live in a home 3 up and two down line of sight and the site line i see down they see up we live in san francisco it is part of life here i'm completely concur with commissioner fung if allowing more time whether we give you the time now it will happen here so vice president would you like to make a motion. >> yeah. he would you know a

continuance will not do anything because permits have not been issued for the project. >> october and november and december are busy. >> if you're looking to continue i suggest the 19 as a possibility of october. >> october or i don't think that is enough time. >> okay. >> want to check. >> with ms. reilly. >> i'm attempting to continue this case until october 19th are both parties available? >> wednesday.

>> always wednesday. >> wednesday. >> that's our motion vice president. >> that's my motion to continue this until october 19th see where that falls. >> so the motion then to continue this to october 19th to allow the parties to discuss the settlement commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda and commissioner swig that that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero. >> we'll call the last item item 8 mark versus the city administrative on miguel avenue with the issuance of a notice of violation and penalty regarding the the subject property being used as an entertainment for private for non-association members in the rh1 b zoning

district we'll wait for the wanting to return to the room. >> okay. we're ready for the appellant counsel. >> thank you before we begin procedural matter we would like to request if the boards allows to continue this to the next meeting with commissioner wilson will be able to participant it is controversial in the neighborhood i expect the 5 conversion will be necessary if

that's innovate agreeable to the board in lui the directions be continued even if they be continues until the next meeting with commissioner wilson is here. >> want to give - i think that mr. patterson understand to continue the matter where there is likely the possibility that the commissioners decision might make a difference if you're interested in hearing that request consider it or precede it is up to you. >> we have enough commissioners here to make a decision precede. >> okay. >> thank you and then we'll request a swearing in one witness to who were not here

before. >> commissioner president honda. >> sure that's fine people were not here when the meeting began please stand and raise your hand or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you very much. >> please begin. >> thank you very much for the preliminaries. >> commissioner lazarus and commissioners bryan patterson on behalf of the forest hill association this is a case regarding the forest hill clubhouse a neighborhood clubhouse beautiful structure built in 1919 designed by bernard who arena that same time depressed the structure of fine arts it is open constantly as a

community venue with mooefshgz and parties for the inward for the west twin peaks and the larger area outside that is open to members as well as members sponsored events and individuals this is a practice alu you're probably familiar with the nonprofit clibz do similar activities rent out in they're free time to outside events on the overhead this is the kweflts club website. >> overhead please. in recent years the clubhouse is needed repairs. >> old on one or one second are you referencing something on the overhead please thank you.

>> thank you. >> in recent years the clubhouse needs renovations the brokering borrowed $900,000 and invested into the clubhouse those renovations turned out great the clubhouse pop outlet came up and those fees are not-for-profit but maintenance of the clubhouse and thanks to the success of this rooms those fees will pay off the loan sooner than expected and pay for deferred maintenance significant maintenance still needed unfortunately, several neighbors that live around the clubhouse have complained about the use those i recognizing include the former board members for the

ones that pushed for the large loan to be paid for with renovated newly energized be rentals so the question in this appeal what is the clibz use status and can they continue to rent for outside events there are several legal possibilities here and because the clubhouse predates the planning code the original zip code code it could fit into several possible categories but the over riding picture is this is grandfathered use dating back from the original construction to today, you'll hear from witnesses as well as in the papers. >> could be deemed a permitted conditional use because it was lawful at the time of construction permitted and later that use became not allowed in

the residential neighborhood it could be deemed a lawful non-conforming use under the planning code and it could be considered a conditional use interestingly the planning department seems to think a conditional use permit issued at sometime and e-mails exhibits k or e to the patterson declaration but the planning department cannot find that probably in the whole document if any the neighbors argued the outside rental that the clubhouse constitute for profit is not an enterprise but as a matter of fact is not true a use that continues always and the money coming in from the rental fees will pay for maintenance at the clubhouse this money is reinvested into the clubhouse

not going into certainly not members pockets or going into directors pockets but the clubhouse maintenance and even if it were a commercial enterprise that the grandfathered that same use predates the planning code in the limited time remaining i want to get into the conditional use for the details but i'm going to turn it over to mark the president to speak about a few of the particulars. >> the celeb a beautiful structure includes a bunch of gardens lots and very, very expensive structure every time basically, we spent $800,000 on a kitchen and bathroom and the building didn't have earthquake safety needs adu's and the garages are falling down the

reason it needed $900,000 worth of work no one wanted to maintain it we need outside rent-controlled units to cover the cost of clubhouse not to be a burden on the neighborhood we like to use our member dues to beautify the landscape thank you. >> thank you. >> and we'll introduce a noise consultant that's one the main complaint from the neighborhoods recently those are the results. >> thank you, commissioners thank you for the opportunity to present to you. >> my name is eric i'm the county treasurer of the association i've been for the last 4 years ever since we decided to do this rooms i was involved in getting the loan directly and signing the first

bank during the process that started with the neighborhood complaint we needed to have somebody to take charge of the major obstacle that is how to measure noise and control that it was the basic impairment and by the way, i'll agree with the complarment and the board agreed that was too loud i'm going to schaffer with you a timeline. >> do you want to finish that time your time is up. >> at this time and i'll go to rebuttal thank you. >> thank you. >> i'll be back. >> mr. sanchez. >> good evening scott sanchez planning department. so the the subject property on

ma geology in rh1 b this our residential detached single-family home in character the building was constructed in 1919 according to the city records and designs by - and known as is forest hill clubhouse it came to our attention this last summer and august 18th of last year, we received correspondence from the entertainment commission a whatever from concerned neighborhoods dated june 1st with the probation of the use and substantially the enforcement case and georgia began to talk about that first and foremost a negative impact on the neighbors and a public nuisance but the allegations uses as a commercial venture not

allowed in the rh1 district during this time there was progress on the part of board to develop measures that addresses some of the concerns based on how the nightclubs will conduct the operations out of the the subject property but it continued to see the violations and ultimately of the violations we issued a notice of violation penalty at the end of last year the request for the zoning administrator hearing was reviewed by the fire department and held a hearing march of this year and the main fact that we put forward a compelling in my opinion by the neighbors in terms of what is implicit in the records clearly recommended by the nonother than the forest hill associations how the building is used if i can have the overhead of a march 6,

letter they're addressing the letters to the planning commission it is small but- we'd like to emphasis the forest hill clubhouse is not a public place private neefgs are accepted in 1966 and in 1967 seeking preempt from the police department to allow activity this is how it was recommend our clubhouse used for general membership and parties and also available to any member not the general public to cover the costs under the contract we have renewed permits under the authority first, the police department and substantial 2009 entertainment commission and we have accessory

to the use as a association meeting place and continued use and then later more recently that was dated 1967. and 1990 we approved the events only as accessory use >> mr. sanchez sorry to interrupt can you explain the use of veery use. >> it is incidental and subordinate to a greater use so the clubhouse was for the use of forest hill association as a whole so we saw this is a minor incidental use this was how it was represented to us certainly history of you know forest hill association board of directors meeting and garden club meeting

and wedding representation and documents from 1986 member events to reservation by a member of association that is repeated throughout the hefty of their the and the goal end goal to share assure the use is compatible with the helpful used of the prompt their clear they serve the immediate community it is true that the association has done a good job of maintaining the building the building is a historic reimburse it is not yet a landmark but has been on the departments or on the departments program for quite a few of the but wouldn't have the resources to landmark this but underwent changes more recently when they as you can tell to

upgrade it and put half a a mental illness into the upgrading of the building but avenue it reopened prior to the those we look at the events between 1993 and 2012 information for all the years except for 2007 and the number of uses from 60 to tie in 2015 to one and 10 so 83 percent increase and non-member which based on the representation that they've made in several letters to the city their should be no member use between 93 and 2012 that was an average of 23 went to 63 in 2015 so a substantial increase we're looking how to find out who to make that use compatible and revert back to what was previously there in our

opinion and would only be used for member events so repeated those documents and resubmitted by one of the neighbors and i think that is clear that has been the historic use of properties so i think those are the - oh, i'll note with an enforcement process is there is a potentiju in any and we had a hearing - they can't quite manage the use in a way not negatively impacting the neighbors the neighbors are here and can talk about that but i was persuaded

and the testimony they gave not only on the fact that the history of this it is not for public use based on the number of letters we have from the associationists buses also from testimony that they grateful that was clear this is not properly maintained and not significant oversight and a negatively impacting to the neighborhoods i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> so having been at the venue that house for parties over the last thirty years and weddings and permit so say i worked for the city and county and live on lopez and a member of the hoa and want to have a party of three hundred of my closet friends what's the definition of parties everyone that shows up there needs to live in an hoa. >> nohow the representatives

in 1956 as much as wedding recommendation but a member of the association it not that everyone attends has to be a member only the person that is seeking to use it the preliminary renter of the space is a member of the association. >> that's all it is represented to us over the years directly from the associationists that's how the use is run but we've seen in recent years not the case but significant number of nonmember use for the wedding venues and people from anywhere can rent it we don't think this is compatible request the history nor the zoning. >> you're fine as long as a member rents it and put their name do you think that's sufficient. >> it is a slippery slope

request with that people selling out their reservations. >> that's what i'm trying to get where do you draw that line for example, the company i work with we have several certificate parties people live in the neighborhood and it was under that several people in the room i see a couple people he attended parties with how do you determine. >> that's consistent with you shouldn't be able to if you you know you live in la you say i want to wedding in san francisco i go on the wednesday night and find the forest club celeb that's not the intent of the celeb but serving those in the community a plays to hosting

their functions. >> so basically you can't advertise it as a venue for hire. >> it should be utilized by those who are residents and members of the association if i'm a member of the vocabulary or association and want to have a birthday party there i can do see but if you know a friend of mine has wants to have a birthday party i make a reservation for him and not show up that's not property the people that are making the reservation it is better than what has gone on. >> i'm trying to figure out how you'll control versus what you're asking for . >> it is challenging i mean but to be blunt the reason we're

here the association has not properly managed it they're trying to protect the neighbors i think the neighbors can testify to that it is not properly managed the main problem the impact on the neighbors that's the main concern we have we hope the board can help us. >> so commissioner president honda lives in the forest hill has the party how do you control the other issues the noise, the food trucks, etc., etc. >> i mean, i think there have been anecdotal complaint some of the loudest are by the member because the member didn't mean it's a going to be okay but regulating the number of events a high turnover it is a popular venue i mean physical they have

one and 10 events in 2015 every 3 days a events i think that is about having appropriate cap on the number of events and looking historically at a number of event that has been there it is about compromise and we've seen cases tonight it is about i think if the association can properly exteriors its own rules not terribly successful unfortunately, if they can do that that will address did issues that the neighbors have this was not meant to be a wedding everyone couple of days. >> a side question mr. sanchez how is then alcohol handled. >> typically they'll seek authority from abc catering

permit. >> the indicatorer will have to supply the liquor license. >> that's that's my understanding. >> i have another question it is hemorrhaging around the commercial use of this space and there seems like to be good evidences over the years churches or whatever used it my name is you're allowing a nonprofit go up to use the space is that a valid approach from allison park brefsh. >> we want to be reasonable and assure the use if it is a you know a girl scouts and boy scouts in 1956 can be assessable but when it is for more doesn't

even uses but a venue people can go and preserve it as a venue use i mean so we pay to have a wedding at the location it is something there needs to be a distinction between those uses would be member sponsored they have kids in boy or girl scouts but. other nonprofits or serving uses i don't think that will be a great concern the southern is the larger anywhere else disruptive uses during which the quality of life uses >> and the more commercial use. >> yeah. that's how we been seeing that and the neighbors can testify to the impacts but the weddings the number one citation. >> so i'm in this business you know in the hotel restaurant

catering business for a along the good news for the when he read all the stuff i love to hire the guy is created all the success did did a good job but probably in the wrong space and you know this situation is not unusual it happens at country clubs and hotels this is a perfect way to reyet. >> something that is a neighborhoods or city jewel you know a great plan wrong place but what i'm scratching my head it is clearly there have been weddings easy bar miftsz how many laws what is scaring me the

laws are broken innocently or without their knowledge i mean when you bring in a educator are with a liquor license that's a commercial renter and if - and if something were to happen as a result of liquor in and something like that where it is not appropriate to serve liquor historically or i don't see anything about liquor in any historical document it puts the association and building at horrible horrible risk you open to the public and it has become a public vaun if you're advertising on the website and you're open to anybody i just got sued on an adu violation in

a hotel not a nice person but it was not appropriate but if you're ada the entire association is suddenly at risk you don't have the right sized toilets or the right sized anything i think there a great - it a very, very big issue beyond certainly it's noise and appropriated use but the association also should look and see whether they're now putting themselves at risk through the uses that are clearly been practiced i would worry about for them sixth can it be managed - i had a question what about

ada it becomes a public venue and therefore it has to rise to a public federal status not to mention federal and state status allow dots planning commission and is dbi do it as mr. waiting said they have is issues how do you deal with that it is a public venue >> the planning department doesn't implement the ada that's a matter for the department of building inspection whether or not 2 will trigger a compliance with ada by lawsuits filed you know easy on that matter. >> but should 24 be a concern of this commission because if we approve the continues use as it is clearly a public venue now

sold to the public without consideration of whether media friend on lopez street wants to sponsor me or not even though he live somewhere else is it not an roefk use and that's extremely an important point but august they historically have been this use and challenges on the oozing of ada they'll have to be able to be responsible for defending them he can't speak more intellectually about the ada provision by basically the post-office box on it. >> you're not approving my hotels commercial office buildings or other commercial buildings without attention deficit disorder compliance are

you. >> that's what the department of building inspection would look at. >> i want to ask some questions without getting. >> don't leave yet scott. >> have you or your staff seen the original permits. >> i didn't believe see no. >> you know those days we went through that with our predecessor on the auditorium the original preempt had in there what was allowable usage they did have clafshsz for certain things i understand that you know the planning code came much later and the zoning district came later we argued

about that the definition for fraternal for masonic was clear in the preempt not in substantive documentation. >> no, i mean that's an excellent point everything the neighbors have done a research i mean, the ability of the association to request that information or dbi as well and the petitioner has gathered that has certainly we can request from dbi but relying on the recommendations made by the association numerous times and how they portrayed it from the city they were getting the permits and only vertebral to the members of the association multiple times. >> i think i'd like to see something that is more

deforgiven departments - a dance hall permits was issued by the police department didn't mean they respect through any type of process. >> public comment can we can see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak for this item. >> commissioners. >> just to address commissioner swig's inquiry about ada stuff as part of their permitting they're required to spend 20 percent of the budget an ada they did do 2013, two ada

restrooms how much is ada compliant but made to conform with that. >> so for public comment if you can line up on the far see of the room that will help to move the process the first person can come up if you haven't filed out a speaker card that would be great okay. >> so let us begin. >> first person come to the podium. >> good evening commissioner honda and members of the board i'm david a landlords with the law enforcement office i'm here representing bruce both he and i submitted the opposition papers

we address the arguments in the appellants brief are dental to the appellants presentation we believe our papers addressed every argument brought already this evening so i'll limit any 3 minutes addressing how the decision by the zoning administrator is valid under the review remember this is a abuse of standard not on the rules here so what matters to the decision support by the finding and the evidence in the record and it is clear that the finding here he'll boil them down to two used to be a non-commercial neighborhood use now a commercial use those two finding are supported you see the stack of this record is a fairly large within and throughout the records are the neighbors sited the evidence and the evidence even mr. sanchez has evidence

supporting those two it was not commercial before and definitely commercial now and even if it were considered a non-conforming use it is the problem we're not here because the cancelled cancelled 2 changed as mr. sanchez said from the the association use to the party that's why the neighbors are upset and the reason this decision was orientated that's why we're here that's essentially the neighbors will discuss primarily how it effected them but one final point there's someone said we can have non-conforming use or conditional use in our brief we

say that the current use didn't meet those definitions not fitting here and not belonging here and should going go back to where it didn't cause those particular problems that's essentially with the decision says and a monitoring for the next 12 months to make sure the appeal must be denied it was well thoults. >> do you represent the gentleman. >> yes. he represent the gentleman. >> next speaker sorry good evening. >> thank you my name is philly live on the avenue with my wife 15 years and it is right next door to the forest hill the wall of our house is 15 feet from the dance floor

unbelievably the forest hill association was main purpose to protect the quality of life that's the main thing in 2015 did association launched an accelerated campaign they achieved a 58 percent by the focusing on weddings 60 person percent of the rental were to non-members of the association in media letter he sent to the board owe noted a number of unprecedented consequences of the rentals including vandalism and innovation of privacy and unrule i didn't crowds here's an aggressive program that will effect the nearby neighbors not once did the directors explain or discuss the

impact an us with in their plans now the foefrtsd hill association is telling us things are improved they say loud music is turned down and nuisance like overdue food preparation has been fixed, however, since april of this year, the zoning administrator absorbed the leshs a law compiled cracked thirty events 11 were problematic they included loud crowd noise, loud music and drinking and partying beyond the grounds and food handled hinder the clubhouse despite the claims the only because of the outlined ways of doing business continued but one not able improvement that was equivalent because they were told to do so by the

planning commission the association curtailed the non-member events the reduction in the sheer number of events improved of question of of the neighbors it is in hits appeal the association in effect is asking for permission to presume to non-member and promise to control crowds their records shows a promise they may not be able to keep. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is christine he live hidden the clubhouse 3450ur7bs wanted to live in the city in a community that had a smaller feeling so the celeb we of the was this is great we'll meet other families our children

burglary meet in any friends in 2015 a huge turning point as people mentions over one hundred plus events those events are typically 8 hours along in the fall typically two to three over a course of a weekends friday night and saturday and sunday and then we see multiple events directing one day those are loud events so for example, in my home despite my doors and windows shut i can hear the microscopic inside my house it is extremely frustrating i put my two-year-old to bed we started conversations with the board over a year and a half ago and basically, all of your attempts were in vain the boards basically treat me like i'm a

complainer i'm the person that has the problem extremely fourth amendment current next to the celeb he live in fear of every single weekends it is extremely fourth amendment friday night there will be a loud event my bedroom window is 30 feet from the celeb i can't get away into 2 it is frustrating that the neighbors the people on the board don't care it is not nice and pretty much a obgyn hell next to the celeb i appreciate your consideration. >> humane did you attempt to contact the clubhouse and in june 2015 a group of 8 neighbors and i wrote an actual letter expressing our concerns around the events and attended ever

board meeting and in october of this year we meet with them and agreed on mature conditions that meeting was last week it never happened no things to the future board meeting and continued to act like i'm the problem. >> you reached out in june and it took july and september. >> we've been to every single board meeting. >> four months okay. okay thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is wes i'm the husband i'll notoriety what she said he also agreed with the talk about the impact of the community and want to talk specifically that relate to us

that are not specific on the neighborhood we live directly behind it our bedrooms are 20 feet from the fence he stand if necessary backyard i see the touch things a 6 foot backyard on that ground. >> barbecue and cooking there was a bar they do storage they leave things there at night and will skunks and other animals go through the food i reached out to michelle in the department of health and found out in permit from the department of health and skook there i have the pictures inth kitchen outdoors this is not allowed in the ditch they've done a lot of things to the environment there and other things for example, not using

the baeshgd permission that showed they're using facility backyard one thing in the pictures of the overhead really quick i have this electronically this is an example of a moving truck how they bring in large tents at net and pick up them this is an example of a casino tents weddings outdoor here and more weddings outdoor and a food truck serving people using the sidewalk this is example of things left in the backyard those are dishes here is an example of at net a skunk and derbies are falling down and cooking items to cook with a

deep frier another example sitting up outdoor bar set up here is an outdoor petitioner and quicken through those that's outside graduating and raw cooking you'd the fence that is next to media backyard this is a if you weeks ago and the action to no longer use the backward their december radically i talked with the event manager all over the place didn't know i couldn't use the backyard the kitchen is too same way. >> thank you your time is up. >> >> next speaker, please. >> hello martha. >> you can move it up

i see that many people have written e-mails about people that baulth homes near the clubhouse should have known they were parties we came to talk to then manager greg and every nearby around the sclesh and very little impact for much of the time that was very true very little impact but after the clubhouse renovation the avenue is very, very deft our intimate celeb in a lovely setting not a large wedding venue that it has become and crowd and excessive noise effects the less of those who live nearby and ruins the setting people are getting marveled and toast and toast and toast and should it is a wedding

but not appropriate for your neighborhoods and communities it is often last week living next to a rock performance every day but they're in a celebratory mood not a great place four oar neighborhood i respectfully ask you to deny the appeal thank you very much. >> thank you very much next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners. >> thank you for staying late it is - i'm dana pedestrian shin eave lived in forest hill and served the hefty on the board of education and wanting for two years and also i'm currently president of open organization and vice president of the forest hill music base they're not nonprofits

in the past for four years wanting the forest hills association in 2011 he understand the conflicts that the boards sometimes have when trying to serve their community clvjt needs but this board is in conflict with the community it has to internal conflict and informed the community of the issues that are going on and has tables hearings and invited people and ignored the anger and the hurts that is happening in the community yet they say the board is grpg it's organization to serve the members and misusing the preempt it procreates the clubhouse i live blocks away but the people with r my neighbors and fellows and many of them have spoken given years and years of free

services by serving on the boards, et cetera, and serving on the committees and serving on the other nonprofits they've been benefiting our communities by serving on the garden club and building community even if they hadn't stared in our homes they deserve the same respect and quiet he expect on any street four blocks away just because a clubhouse next door they don't deserve to be subjected to noise and shouting and urination and allowed music and crowds coming and going all day saturday and sundays and friday and other nets one and 10 events a year not a small number it is changing the character of our neighborhood and changing for the worse and makes the

clubhouse less available for the other neighbors the remgsz those rentals represent no change and circuited and aggressive marketing and graltd themselves on the income they've raised don't yield to the entitlement and please do not be swayed by one of the wealthy places in the nation. >> i'm sorry darin your time is up. >> i received a phone call

from the people that live next door to the clubhouse 15 years later still a problem unfortunately, the parties have gotten and exceeded the ability for the building to handle the parties we have a small building and people come out to the outside area with one and 10 people so that noise is spreading through the block we had people in our driveway and beer bottles not as much noise for 29 years i still - i heard the realtor parties are the worst. >> good evening commissioners. >> thank you for allowing us to

speak i'm kate john spoke we've been in the neighborhood 29 years and i've served as president of the forest hills gardens club and been on the board for the association and really appalled the way the board is behaving in this situation one thing that was especially surprising there were so many letters of support from the members of the association that received an e-mail encouraging them to write letters to support their appeal those living near the scleb and meaningful constituent we didn't receive that e-mail they sent out requests on behalf of of the association but not to everybody in the association he found really appalling and also, they made a claim that was reilly finally necessary the debt

serving is $3,000 a month and affordable within the budgets i currently you not to - thank you next speaker, please. >> i'm sally live next door to the clubhouse and i would like to speak specifically about members sponsored events you've heard the events in which a member writes and check and reimbursed by the members the members are supposed to be at the party and take full responsibility 3 points first of all, i absolutely building there are legitimate sponsored events but know there is abuse and have seen sponsors that leave parties early he know there are sponsors

who hardly know the person their sponsoring and know of incidents in which non-members shop the neighborhoods looking for sponsors i truly believe the association needs a process to be put in place to try to examine the rep between a member and sponsored party that's not an easy task public school number 2 it is seems the board is doing everything to obscure this process until february or march gotten copies of rental reports that went to the boards and delineated members and member sponsored event all of a sudden they decided to lump everything it together and call everything a member events for one hundred member events not the case and finally for the

last couple of months not seen any reports at all we do know what is going on it is a puzzle time and number 3 the permit allows occasional events as far in 2016 on the books more than 80 rental events and counting i think if we had all the information we would see clearly a relatively small percentage of those fence are truly member events the bulk being a few residual left over from premember events. >> when the boards stopped the policy of non-member events all of a sudden the clubhouse manager reports a huge her words

inclusive for the sponsored events to clearly the board is still in the business of doing a rental business and member sponsored events a convenient way to obscure the member events we ask you to deny the appeal and consider some kind of avenue cap. >> i'm sorry your time is up. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> hi good evening i'm bruce he live on the two doors from the clubhouse lived there for 15 years with my husband and two kids had i retired from my incorporate attorney and advised for profit and nonprofit i want to talk about the issues that underlie the boards behavior and you can

look at the appropriate use of clubhouse the fha didn't address me of the concerns the bylaws the headquarters for a gardens and clubhouse for social and recreational purposes and not otherwise a direct coat the articles prevent me tests for non-members the fair market value fair market value obligate the boards and the members of the association to pay for the assessment the forest hill provides in twradz or business of any covet should be conducted within the neighborhoods despite limitations the fair market value fair market value talks

about the purpose of non-rentth i wanted to address the other issues. >> if i can get the overhead. >> overhead. >> don't worry about that's my question. >> 2 the the last rental agreement the board pushed since we began - the information by the board is less and less this is from february of 2016 according to the fha member events 86 percent are member

sponsored it is perfectly consistent with the fha driving the business into non-member events 90 percent only 4 of the events were hosted by the and for members 90 percent of events as of february were by or for non-members miraculously by the may the board changes it's reporting practices and all are recorded as member events a direct and end run of the obligations under the blaulz. >> any other public comment. >> handsome commissioners my name is harold a civil and instructional engineer my family moved to forest he will in 1996 he lived there and a forest he will director from 1986 to 2007

the chairman of the architectural review committee involved in city planning in matters the forest he will celeb is always been vertebral for non-member and private parties since it's beginning in 1920 in 1920 the celeb was dedicated the newspaper recorded a i have it here a new social feature in san francisco no planning codes at the time not a zoning law at the time in san francisco that same year a couple from that a couple of miles away held a 25 wedding nancy pelosi and recorded in the newspaper they didn't live in forest hill had a big party right from the very start of the association

the newspaper accounts that 1920 not going into 1921 presented the society pages told about large dance parties fraternity parties a associate way from the start also, if the beginning the we thought offer twin peaks counsel 20 homeowner organizations starting meeting like a city hall all the associations meet me family moved to forest hill in 1956 i was in the boy scouts and senior highway and junior group that held dances at the celeb and members people that children that lived inside forest hill and finances that would outside

of forest hill we played records and that parties that went to midnight there were girl scouts and brownies a square dance club and adult dance groups and the gardens club was famous for the parties that went well past midnight those disease it is quieted down not nearly as many groups the garden club is older not the big parties anymore but the recent problems artists who we were renting to but the amount of noise that needs to be controlled thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is can i i lived in

forest since 1978 the executive secretary the forest hill to 2007 desiring this time both members and non-members could rents the clubhouse we averaged two or less complaints a year from neighbors those complaints were quickly responded to member raenlz can be the most difficult to control and the rental use to offset the maintenance expense of the celeb the remaining expenses the celeb are covered by the assessments the clubhouse didn't make a profit the association maintenance the public landscaping along the trees - along the trees streets at no

cost to the city many of the recent k4r5e789s come from 3 recent directors of the forest he will association the complainants are dan kelly and saly and katie part of a group to replaces the association drooshgz in 2007 after that the complainants doubled the assessments and borders $500,000 they told us the scleb can be rented more and more often and for more money the same complainants continues to rent the cliche to non-members the 2007 election campaign was mean and nasty i had to resign our celeb manager also reas i understand a new group of directors who are pleasant and

dedicated to the entire neighborhoods they're working to correct the problems we hope you reverse little planning department decision thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment. >> seeing none, we'll have our rebuttal starting with the - >> can we have - >> huh?

>> i was getting rode to do open mike karaoke.

>> thank you for your patience sir. >> thank you ryan patterson for the appellant commissioners there are a whole lot of issues i hope you'll ask a few questions of the open items but i want to raise 3 issues the first as seen in the records of newspaper clirpz and testimonies that weddings and private parties have been done here the 1993, 2015 snapshot in time that was computed in the zoning administrator's decision in the overhead here and that decision was not representatives best representative due to the sclib

needing maintenance the idea this private party rental is an accessory use or legally use is simply not true maybe this prezone use didn't fit into the modern code categories i think outside the box is probably the case what is clear that it could fit into several of the grandfathering provisions and i detailed that in my brief the attack that was maids in the arguments i'd like to scholar that but clearly fetus into at least 3 the third point here is that some remedy is needed obviously problems the recommendation is not to say that the historical

the remedy is the liquor license issues dealt with by other attorneys and my understanding under control and dealt with the thing that needs to be dealt with the the hours the association is dealing with those not perfect yet they're working on them and have a set of composed rules i have copies if you like them on the overhead here it sounds like some of the neighbors want restrictions and the zoning administrator didn't have the clarity i'll suggest give us a week or two and happy to host a meekly at the office or clubhouse and sit down with the complainants neighbors and work this out here's noise substituted they

are making great prosecuting we invite the entertainment commission if you like to come out and check the levels in any equipment is installed thank you for your time and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. i think several people are questions so i see the rules what's the enforcements if none there to enforce. >> there are a couple of answers first of all, the president's can speak to this one of the rules they have to have someone to enforce the rules and . >> we have an event manager and security guard accident every events. >> the management is trained. >> sorry to interrupt someone mentioned no use in the back area i'm familiar with by the way, so how did that happen. >> they're not doing their

job. >> that's one question. >> we are definitely working on correcting those issues and there's also another issue that people p are claiven of the violation of their privacy. >> the other thing is that what is the current gross income those those events places now. >> eric do you know what the current gross. >> no income whatever the fees are. >> whatever the fees. >> grease revenue is taken back year to date april 1st about $78,000. >> okay. >> that answers any question believe that commissioner swig might have a few. >> yeah. was the gross square

footage the building please. i is where the city assessor here. >> overhead. >> square footage by city veer our are 3 thousand plus the event space what's the square footage of the event. >> it depends on the type of events. >> no what's the inside event space in the building. >> 27 hundred square feet what about 3 thousand. >> 35 hundred. >> we have pretty small

bathrooms and kitchens. >> it is very small. >> that - so 27 hundred what's governs do you place on how many people can occupy. >> please come up to the microphone. >> one and theo if they're standing i think we all acknowledge modern than 85 people is too many people that's something we want to work on and then. >> you count staff you have waiters and i saw prep people and so it gets pretty kroult. >> yeah. it gets crowded. >> what's your that's not true by cutting down to 50 percent to

mitigate the properties. >> 50 percent is too much all over the place also have the wholly gardens area for peep some of the events are - >> so what's the times restriction for the neighbors i live coordinating for the marina lived there for over 25 years and one motorcycle he woke up and found i with poa weighing soccer i called governor newsom if there was a wedding across the street he would be upset he feel the pain the neighbors when it comes to noise what hourly restrictions do you place did it have to shut down at - >> yes. it is. >> we used to have historically we ended at 11

saturday and subpoenaed and clean up by mint nowadays we end by 10 and the clean up is by 11 all the music has to end by 10. >> at the asked did fol the fs what time the parties ended you how often they end after 10. >> that has not been a complaint the classmate suicidal about noise and bat behavior. >> so also during the week we end at 9 o'clock request clean up by the 10. >> i'll ask a whole bunch of questions to the zoning

administrator. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. >> quite a big folder mr. sanchez. >> we've done our research there's a beggar folder over there that has been going on for quest we first made aware of this complaint last argue with a letter to the context last june i know that is frustrating we're now it has been continues at least a couple of times we're hearing still and working on this and that oh, we'd like tool meet to my knowledge it is the first time they've offered the counsel to meet with the neighbors it is frustrating that comes at that time and they are we started with the hearing with the request to rehear at some debate

in the future we thoifl reviewed this matter we looked at the evidence that was presented and think that is quiet clear regardless of the building permit for the original building it is quite clear the intent to have the community celeb for the residents we know this we have multiple letters from the associations stated those are in the brief as well that is it is to be used for any member not the public clear on that definition the planning department is not against wedding the public likes to that we're trying to curtail the use of unoccupied buildings but recognize there is a horrifying use of wedding for the members and that's what it is for in 1956 they protruded a list of uses that had occurred in reception under the association

a diner dance by the association this is something that we take quite seriously that is challenging i mean commissioner honda not this distinction between member and non-member we could have capped the number based on the historic number given and say that anything further a gentrification of use looking at you know what the limit is we feel that you know over time the members with the east bay and flee and reasonable to have this use for the members of association we're not saying they can't have a wedding or party but has to be for a member a thought association that is a historic use of property yes will be a challenge in insuring that is you know in reality comes down to the association to properly enforce that

you know, i can understand the concerns by the neighbors and the meeting we've had so far steering wheel articulated tonight but they've made the complaint and gotten anymore with the quality of life. >> thank you this board makes people come together. >> in many ways. >> mr. sanchez where - so i would hate to because it is a historic resource it has a great tradition forest hill neighborhood is a wonderful neighborhood with a great this be building has a great purpose clearly i'll make the assumption 24e7kz are out of line you've

heard and both sides where are we're going with this you know where we're going with this. >> what is going throwing my mind and frail in the 1920s and 30s and 50 necessarily the scott sanchez there was no a lot of outdoor graduating that kitchen was a kitchen and no food twrukz and no one and 20 decimal or whatever the level amplified music or even someone dividing a o giving a kwekd speech leave is schapgdz and is a by all this is what what happened the noise and the envelope is s