>> good evening, and welcome to the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding officer is commissioner honda and we are joined by our vice president commissioner fung and commissioner lazarus, commissioner bobby wilson and commissioner swig transportation authority is brad the deputy city attorney and provide the board with any needed legal advice and gary and

my name is cynthia goldstein the board's executive director. we expect to be joined by representative we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. scott sanchez should be here the deserve and also representing the planning department and planning commission and senior building inspector joe duffy dbi 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 - 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. >> thank you so we'll start with number one item one anyone wants to to the board any general public comment? seeing none, monarchy to item 2 the election of officers pursuant to the rules we hold officer elections he want wanted to take the opportunity to thank you commissioner honda and commissioner fung for their service and i think what we typically do start with the wanting office and take nominations and move on to vice president anyone here wants to

nominee a colleague or themselves more office of president >> i'd like to nominate defense attorneyal honda i'll go with that. >> me, too. >> okay. any other nomination for this office okay. seeing none we have a nomination from commissioner swig to elect wanting honda for another term and indicated he's willing to serve that on on that motion i'm sorry public comment any public comment? that motion. >> thank you. >> seeing none, then i'll call roll on that motion commissioner fung commissioner lazarus commissioner honda and

commissioner wilson i. >> okay. >> got to cough on that congratulations wanting honda moving on to the office of vice president and take nominations. >> i'd like to nominate the current vice president to do one more term please. any other nomination for that office and . >> willing to take it they should come forward. >> are you willing to serve. >> i am sorry. >> okay. so is there any public comment on the nomination of commissioner fung to be the vice president of the board. >> okay seeing no public comment. we have a motion from wanting honda to elect franklin

functioning as the boards vice president on that motion we'll ask the vice president. >> i. >> and commissioner lazarus and commissioner wilson and commissioner swig okay. that motion carries we have the officers for the next year thank you very much. >> thank you very much commissioners. >> okay. so we'll move on on to item 3 which is commissioners questions or comments anything commissioners? >> item 4 the boards consideration and possible adoption of january 18, 2016, minutes unless additions, deletions, or changes may i have a motion to approve those minutes. >> so moved. >> any any public comment on the minutes seeing none, to adopt the minutes on that motion

commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig that motion carries the minutes are adapted moving on to item 5 the jurisdiction at market street thomas requester asking the board take jurisdiction over the application which was issued on september 16, 2016, by the department of building inspection the appeal period eventd in 2016 and the jurisdiction was filed on january 6, 2015, the permit holder is b b and the notice of violation alteration of stairs to item 2 first floor and notice of violation for remodeling of bathrooms we'll start with the requester mr. thomas 3 minutes to present our case to the

board. >> good evening and welcome. >> sir. >> good evening. >> can i show - >> i mean - okay sorry.

>> sorry ladies and gentlemen, i was here about 6 months ago i believe i'm sorry, i was here about 6 months ago and i believe i saw everybody here then and this is the same case the conditions have changed but in many ways still the same based on the experience in the construction areas that is work at the budget and national hotel the building is one and 11 years old and out lived it's life a licensed

contractor or workers would have considered it in months or less we're at months and counting people living in sros are considered homelessness their meant as transient corners for workers to stay for weeks or month due to a lack of development and by the appointed officials that are scores of those buildings in the city approaching over one hundred years old many a desire family in one room the living space is one hundred and 65 square feet for example, on may 18th the hand washing under the

circumstances were removed and along with the toilets a couple of years ago hand washing sinks were insulate then for some reason removed and tuesday, january 24, 20178 months later in the bathroom has a sink people using the sinks can't wash their hands and go to the bathroom for 8 months. also two of the new installed toilets on the third floor are nonfunctioning and still to be installed on the second floor he reported a loss to the building and the department today tuesday, january 24, 2017, there is a raw sewage from the newly installed sewer drain sorry the residents of the budget

inwere told all the bathrooms are going to be remoment but some are in the remodeled i was told there are no records of the building plans or the planning department contractor on this job has been sues by the city for using asbestos and performing substandard work the owner has been sued many times >> sir, your time is up. >> you want time in rebuttal. >> mr. thomas question for you this jurisdiction request most of your testimony was on the conditions upon which you want to be able to discuss the permit can you elaborate why you are

late in filing this appeal. >> because a in filing a. >> we were - there was never a notice posted informing us we had what 15 days or whatever it is to. >> nothing on the lobby. >> never been a job card permit in my kind of notice of any type of of the substantial work that occurred was going to happen. >> of any kind. >> of any kind only after repeated trips to the health department did we get a notice of the abatement sign warning warning us that we shouldn't be in the building. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> okay we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> >> good evening and welcome. >> encourage. >> thank you very much mr. president, and commissioners i'm rich a lawyer at the hanson bridget law firm i learned about this procedure yesterday or would have gotten something to you in writing i'm higher to give you important context for this jurisdiction mr. thomas was one of four tenants who brought a had been ability lawsuit against the owners during the course the time the renovation work was in progress and made numerous complaints to the city about the conditions that lawsuit with all the condominiums he's related today was settled last october with

mr. thomas and others getting a generous amount of money and if anythingness of unpaid rent that was done to complete the work that is not nine hundred and 99 percent complete that was signed off to be taken over by the tenderloin housing clinic they're prepared to take position and move forward but notably at the time mr. thomas settled and well paid last october he agreed first and foremost to withdraw the appeals he had previously done last year and not submitted with the renovation work or slow down it is also noted as part of that settlement i have a copy here

i'll be happy to submit there was rent forgiveness that the work was not signed off but agreed as soon as the sign offs are done he's obligated to presume paying rent we have a cynical attempt by a tenant to try to manipulate the system to avoid paying rent i have copies in the commissioners are interested of the relevant pages of the settlement argument there be only 4 including his snatch agreeing to the terms that are now violate i have copies if you're interested. >> you can leave them with the clerk. >> are you done counselor. >> counselor we have questions

for you. >> sure. >> have you ever been in the building. >> many times. >> okay ask you character listed it as 99.9 percent as of yesterday. >> have you been in the building to observe the photos as part of our brief that indicates that no more near applicable finished. >> depends on where and when you take the pictures. >> as of your visit yesterday it is 99.2 or are you pulling that back. >> i'll say in the 99s the gentleman is here with copies and pictures that were taken yesterday of the bathrooms in question and i have the hallway and the rest of work it takes a village this is indirect i learned about that yesterday

when i learned this was underway i think everything is pretty much signed off except the final final and observing there are petitions to go up in the bathroom because the tenderloin housing clinic expect the patients in the total areas be brought to a lower part like an airport restroom that to my knowledge work began this morning i don't think if it is completed toy or tomorrow. >> do you know from the sink the tenants recorded as number one fundamental. >> i think all the sinks and totals are fundamental but obviously people from dbi will be out there to inspect for

final sign off. >> counselor is there a reason it took so long to get those repairs done. >> is there a reason yes a lot of back and forth and discussions have continued that tenderloin housing clinic that basically specified the level of improvement he wanted and that discussion had continued and city continues but we're down to just cosmetic things at this time nothing fundamental to my knowledge. >> my second question council what's the occupancy of the be automatic to the best of my knowledge only 16 rooms opted out with the idea that was intend to have as few tenants as possible during the work, however, once the tenderloin

housing clinic takes over they'll use 90 or 91 rooms. >> so the occupancy will be higher than. >> yes. with the tenderloin housing clinic we'll be working with the city to take area medium income or other people and the expected occupancy after they're fully leased ousted u out. >> booked up 90 to 91 rooms as opposed to the 16. >> is there anyone in the housing clinic here this hearing. >> i know mr. randy shaw had sent a communication i think to the board stating the importance of lot cost housing this shouldn't

impeded. >> i've not heard whether or not the notice has about this properly. >> i can't commissioner fung speak to the nosey was not out there but tip line everything was route and i was unaware of any issue until yesterday when i first read this jurisdiction. >> so you don't know if there were any photos taken showing the notice was divided. >> i did not know i do know i can tell you the work has been going on for quite a long time and anyone living there or interand walking around will be well aware of all of that i know that permits have been pulled

but not personally aware of that fact. >> thank you thank you. >> inspector duffy. >> good evening commissioner joe duffy dbi on the jurisdiction request hopefully, i'll bring some answers and light to some of the questions i too read the brief we have a housing inspector robert with me if you have any questions and he's familiar with the building been out there several times and will be able to update and as of this week i apologize for not letting you know i had a housing inspector with me the building permit that the

jurisdiction was for complying with the notice of violation alterations of stairs to item number 2 first floor and inspection nov for the remodeling the bathrooms the builder inspector has done inspections i got a look at the drawings today and i did get a report that the work has been substantially done when i first looked at the brief as well i saw the photo of toilet that is typical during construction the petitions for the stalls have not been installed i too like commissioner honda was wondering why it took so long in your

opinion those should be strieltd for the convenience i believe there was a holdup for the order for the stalls i was told by the a senior building inspector the building when i looked at the complaints today, i was quite frankly shocked i got two over 80 complaints on the building 80 complaints filed with dbi with housing and plumbing and others i'm sure there were over welder some open and some closed i look at the complaints with mr. thomas obviously a history in the building of complaints with the landlord/tenants and with that said, i do think that according to inspector lopez and buildings

will back up him on this the work at the start regarding the notification that dbi housing inspection issued a notice of violation that got corrected i believe and the work is pretty much done it waiting for a final sign off the question on the sinks i read from the brief i will have a question about the drawings there is no existing plan on the proposed plan it is hard to know, however, i do know that dbi has not given the final inspection which any initial thought to go to the plumbing inspector permanent a requirement for this inches clearance from the toilet and the sink as far as i'm

concerned, there to be a sink in there i do need to get to the bottom of of that. >> i'm available for any questions if you want an update from the housing inspector i'll be happy to bring him up. >> let's go back to the jurisdictions request does the building department require the photoic evidence of building. >> it's pardon of code. >> then it depends on the code on that - depends on the work that is being done and later finds it is disturbing work so maybe not everything the housing inspection did bring that up it was addressed the containment

was done i think that things got off to a rocky start but in my opinion they're moving to a good conclusion. >> i have a question. >> go ahead i have one more mr. duffy. >> what was done to comply with two novs can you clarify the nature of the nov. >> i don't have the notice of violations with me but the annual notice of violation and put the bombards on the plumbing i think that was the work without the permit that started the work without a permit and dbi cited them and like i said things got off to the wrongs start i don't know they wouldn't have gotten a permit it was shocking but i think from what i'm told they're in a better

place now. >> do you know who is the presidio. >> i looked at that up today is started as the owner builder i do so the gentleman's name i'm familiar with in pulling permits the owner is the owner builder. >> thank you. >> the electrical and plumbing permits which i don't have with me would have been issued to a licensed plumbing contractor under the - the building permit can be obtained through the contractor. >> we heard it characterized as 99.2 you said you've substantially done are but those

bathrooms assessable and usable by the tenants or not. >> when they're finished they will be. >> but until in that time not assessable. >> you mean for something to use i saw the building plans their usable and basically in the same vicinity at the bathroom single occupancy. >> so if we take the jurisdiction and the completion of those bathrooms is extended and the work for the most part has to stop and therefore the use of those bathrooms are - >> are not. >> exactly. >> and that's why i think it was today as well can't make decisions if we are that close to getting an inspection opening

an appeal will not stop the jurisdiction it took too long and not usable the one thing i'm concerned about it the sink i'll say this to the chief inspector i didn't get ahold of him i think we shouldn't sign off until we are 100 percent sure those tenants are the full vicinity of the bathrooms. >> so if we they're not usable today, if we take jurisdiction then they'll useable tomorrow they're closed metro

phonetically tomorrow then whatever is dysfunctional as description might go on and on as well so what if we don't take jurisdiction how does the building department's assure us this is actually going to get done and council said 9.9 percent done. >> i think if it was not an appeal i don't know if we can continue the jurisdiction request but not sure that is an option if their 95.9 percent this is 51 percent given a couple of weeks should be finished you'll see - i'd like i'd like the inspector to know

about this is a situation you have multiple complaints whether warden or not there was on the 18 of january mr. thomas filed 4 complaints with dbi on the 17 of january he filed four other complaints with dbi things must be pretty bad i'll ask why he took them that's a lot of 9 i heard another one 9 complaints in two days so i think we're - i'd like to try to get the permit filed in dbi and take that back. >> i think the other issue the tenderloin housing clinic i believe is taking over the property and trying to expedite it so fits their need. >> this is we can discuss in the discussion but always the

issue the perpetrator is the owner can i get clarification on mr. duffy's statement about continuing. >> if we do a continuous. >> jurisdiction request didn't stop it you can continue the request and grant jurisdiction at at a later date. >> you want to hear from the housing inspector. >> correct. >> i'm the district housing inspector and 1139 is in my integrity i've received an excess of one hundred complaints

entirely from mr. thomas and cited him for a number of violations and generally been good about taking care of the violations ranging from the fire alarm to whatnot in a fashion i cited them in june for a lack of public facilities when i first got there the construction was already in progress i don't know it is hard to say what was there before but doing a count of rooms the formula i determined they don't have enough public facilities i cited them and issued an order of abatement that case can't be cleared until they get the permits signed off and the bathrooms are back initially i cited them last june with the stairs. >> what is before us a jurisdiction request not the

merits or non-merits if i may ask were you there when the - assigned when the project was started. >> no, i first came to the building because of a complaint i received and the work was in progress they demolished some of the bathrooms. >> do you have any knowledge of the attending permit. >> i did not. >> when were you last in the building. >> i was out of town last week and found out but earlier there this month. >> how far along was the completion the project. >> they have done substantial work i don't know if i go so far as to say 99 percent unless there's a lot of work since i

was last there they had fair amount to do. >> what about the major complaints in this case. >> i know one was signed off and the shoulder were fundamental they're not the barriers between the toilets and one of the rooms i believe they intend to remodel the women's showers that was not there that time. >> thank you the council are pictures of the work if you have those pictures can you bring them up to the podium please. okay. >> good evening and welcome.

>> hi, my name is karen i'm the owners son so i have pictures that were taken of the remodel shower rooms and the bathrooms. >> when were they taken. >> put them on the overhead please. so this is. >> sorry. >> one of the shower stalls in the communal shower rooms that were remodel this is one of 3 shower stalls just another wide picture. >> on the first and second floor there will be showers 3 shower stalls there and right

now curtains but right now their shower doors are installed for ta cs request because of shower rooms. >> okay. you have more pictures i'm interested in seeing the bathrooms. >> yeah. yeah. >> thank you. >> so this is a just a single bathroom with one toilet common bathroom this is another bathroom on the first floor single bathroom and this is a bathroom with multiple toilets their missing the partition but their installed starting this morning and will take all day to

complete the partitions i'm not sure if you want to see the pictures of hallway. >> i think we are fine thank you very much. >> okay any public comment on this item. >> commissioners sam dodge department of homelessness thank you very much for taking this item i hope you understand this is something we take seriously and look forward to the tenderloin housing clinic taking over this is important that we want to make sure this work is done right and this work is done in a way that will last for a long time we have confidence they're close very close to getting through there this is been a long project we have working closely with the owners to go through this and trust

this process we're taking a lot of tourists units and convert them into permanehome units andd those for the homeless this is a great home and the com municipal that is a good building and will be a very good home the bathroom work is very important for us that it about usable for a full building and this is going to be a 91 unit building and we have hopes to start moving people in this not next month than march this is delayed we won federal support within the federal process the shelter

plus care it takes a lot for housing permitting in this city were existed this is happening and no one displaced that is uncomfortable for tenants there are multiple bathrooms always available no one is denied toilet assess this work needs updates in the bombards their essential for its ultimate highest use so i appreciate our efforts and hope you're able to get this this open as soon as possible. >> is this. >> mr. dodge question. >> is this project opportunity by the city. >> it received funding from the city but ultimately you know we get from private owners make sure they do all the code compliant work on their own.

>> so the hope- who hired the contractor. >> the owns. >> this is all. >> the owners. >> yes. you know it as complex way that we have to do this the tenderloin clinic has the lease and the tenderloin housing clinic that won this federal grant through our communities applications to the federal government and then in the budget process there's money looked like for the ongoing support services and staffing to make that a successful building. >> just for clarification mr. dodge are you with the tdm. >> no with the city of san francisco and the department of homelessness i worked on this project as part of mayor's office. >> thank you for attending this hearing. >> mr. dodge since we have an expert in the room i'd like to get context and information

firstly when you say tenderloin housing clinic will take that over did they become the master lease he on the building and basically step button role of the owner and responsible for the upkeep and maintenance and care of the tenants. >> yes. >> okay. thank you. >> and that will take place continuity on the placement of those bathrooms. >> yes. the sign off of those bathrooms. >> anything in the building that their currently under an nov situation that will prevent that from happening. >> i don't know have knowledge we have the intend to has the clinic that is required by us to have the extensive checklist and make sure they became the master lease he everything is up to a

high standard and novs will need to be resolved. >> do you have any knowledge of the history of the building given that you are hands on. >> yes. i mean, i worked for years as a tenant organizer in a previous life and worked with this building used to be called the national hotel and worked with the residents in a home for scores off people and you know there is some good attributes. >> how much - how much of that building the rents in that building were subsidized or how much the operation of the building was subsidized but public agencies or was any of it. >> urban design group there are people that had vouchers and a little bit of voucher use but primarily been a private hotel where people paying private market-rate.

>> so, now this represents the point at which that moves from private operation to public service. >> yes. >> exactly. >> thank you, thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i have a question for the property owner. >> no rebuttal. >> okay. from the property owner then. >> does the attorney represent you or represent tndc. >> they represent you. >> yes. >> are you aware of noticing of the permit before you started construction. >> i am not like posting the notice posting the permit notice and was not aware of that no.

>> you are the contractor. >> well, my father hired the contractor i've not been as hands on as any father he hires the contractor so hose been dealing with the project more hands on than me. >> the notice of the jurisdiction went to you as the property owner. >> can you repeat that. >> i said notice of this jurisdiction request went to i believe you folks because it was the owner who applied for the permit. >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners. >> we have no determination as to whether notice was -

>> yeah. >> i mean speaking to the merits of case from either side i have no notice i'll lien on the conservatism and allow the jurisdiction request. >> how long will that process be vice president. >> however long. >> the board is currently scheduling appeals for march 29 and they can be expedited at the presidents discretion. >> you know i asked the question what was the level of funding

for a reason and whether this was a private operation or not if it is was a private operation than coming from the history of the opposite end of the hotel business i know you treat our customers the way you treat them unfortunately, some treat them nicely and some treat them both i'll let the panel and audience decide that you know the - the building was sufficient it is being cleaned up the owner which in my opinion was operated a sub quality building has taken steps to lease this building to a city agent and agency will manage it

in a positive and constructive fashion for the community if we - don't take jurisdiction we preexempting that step not wise for the community if he wanted to be make sure this gets done we can still sustain the oversight by moving forward and not making a decision but seeing in the notice was given or not commissioner fung and the work can progress and will allow tenderloin housing to take overtake that over that's a positive step with that discussion i would kind of punt

and move this to another day for the purpose of discovering whether notice was properly served or not. >> that's a reasonable. >> i'm not sure i followed your last statement we have no proof the permit was served i want to know what we are accomplishing by punting. >> if we take jurisdiction the work will not get done the tenderloin housing will not take - >> i believe our director said by taking jurisdiction it will not stop do the permit. >> by continuing. >> that's why i'm advocating so the work can continue and in the meanwhile find out whether proper notice was given and hopefully the tenderloin housing

will take to over and everything is better. >> in other words. >> who ever has jurisdiction the stay of the work didn't occur until the appeal. >> right. >> we know that. >> in the interest of the community and in the interest of actually in the interest of the appellant i would suggest a continuance of this point we should at least get the work done based on the fact we should find out whether a proper notice was served. >> i'll support that. >> sorry commissioners, i have a question can you clarify what notification you're referring to there notice no notification on

dbi. >> the notification is for led or asbestos because i'm not sure which one (multiple voices). >> they're not talking about the notification surrounding the neighbors i think they're talking about the posting that is required on site and i felt this was addressed during the complained according to the senior building inspector the i'll have to get back with you. >> i was told by the senior building inspector. >> that was not in our brief. >> you're talking about 80 complaints i'm not going to start looking over welder complaints. >> so the reason for any request. a continuance so we don't come back 5 minutes from now but

allow it to continue and the tenderloin housing can take >> we can live through the welder complaints i guess. >> no asking for proof the posting was proper. >> i don't know. i'm not sure we'll ever find out. >> right that's my question. >> i'm fine with that. >> that would be my motion madam director do you get that. >> you have a request to continue this item we need a date and also someone in particular you want to submit additional evidence about the notice we need to specify that how much time do you want to give them and the march 23 date we have space. >> march 29 a 29 yeah.

>> i think if you're intent to have this done quickly in order to not impede you'll want february 28th a while the continuance is going on the work with continue and the use of bathrooms tenderloin housing can take - this is where i'm getting mixed messages if we continue the work continues tenderloin housing specification and tenderloin housing when the work is done can take over the building. >> this is not suspending the permit. >> right so basically, the time we give to continue allows sets the time during which completion

of the work can get done in the tenderloin housing and can take over; correct? if they allow an appeal be allowed the permit will be suspended. >> what would you suggest commissioner that we continue it to. >> february 8th in terms of in determining that. >> okay. >> and is there - are you going to have testimony at the hearing then more information about the notice just so no additional briefly. >> adequate testimony at this time. >> the only outstanding thing the notice issue. >> the notice is a responsibility of the permit

holder so let them provide it. >> so i think the motion then is so continue this request to february 8, 2017, to allow the permit holder time for a notice. >> and that evidence will be presented at the hearing commissioner fung commissioner lazarus no commissioner honda. >> and commissioner wilson that motion carries with a vote of 4 to one. >> this item will come back on february 8th. >> okay moving on to appeal item 6 appeal andy versus the department of building inspection with the building department approval on clay street for the issuance to henry

chan of a site permit to raise the building by 4 feet and alternating the existing floor space 12 feet 9 to accommodate the stair with the egress stair with the open walk alter front facade we'll hear from the appellant now. >> >> good evening and welcome. >> we do need to make a disclosure first, the appellant. >> oh, you're the appellant. >> i am now we had a meeting. >> hold on one second reuben, julius & rose on a project as counsel. reuben, junius & rose representation as an entity before the board will not have an effect on my decision. this evening go ahead.

>> you're here on behalf of the appellant. >> on behalf of the appellant and project sponsor is out in the hallway i believe we came to an agreement we want the board to endorse to request a special permit to adjust roof of they're building to allow light in one of our windows and on the other windows to seem like them up as required and at the back to adjust the stairs to remove the rear stairs. >> as we proposed in the briefly and we request we'll work with the c a to make those changes discussed and we need permission to do a special condition permit to do that change to the roof to lie light with into. >> you're asking us to

incorporate >> you have plans to show the revisions. >> no. >> you need some time. >> well. >> it behoves everybody to have something. >> right. >> mr. sanchez a proposal. >> the da would like the podium. >> so do you have the existing plans it is straightforward on the the subject property that involves the removal of spiral stairs at the rare and endangered for the portion and behind the existing lightwell they would pull the roof and separate on the appellants prompt raise those windows the property lines windows between sloping of the roof and do window they'll perspective the light and air maybe put it on

the overhead. >> they'll mention they'll be closing the other windows sealing these. >> not part of this permit a separate permit required to seal off the windows that is a conditional use permit their stating for the record they've resolved closing the property lines windows. >> there are two items that effect this property one of the reinforcement of the stairs and one the roof specific information in order to deal with the enforcement. >> can i have the overhead, please? so the area in question will be first, the removal of the spiral stairs at the rear of the

property and between this a lightwell on the appellants property and the rear building wall it is currently a flat roof the building is raised a little bit over 4 feet and the idea this portion here will be sloped with the existing flat roof will be removed and sloped down those details have not been worked out that will be in coordination with the extent of the slope in coordination with the separate permit that relocations the property lines window to raise it up and kind of the idea to line them up between the sloping of the roof and it will preserve light to that. >> mr. sanchez i think what we are looking for something we can note in our records this evening if we are able to give you time we'll have the drawings

submitted we'll hold this over and hear the next case and go from there. >> we can accomplish that. >> okay. >> thank you for your confidence and time. >> so why not go ahead and hear the next case. >> that's great we'll continue - okay. we have not decided it yet if you want to take public comment. >> we're having a temporary break we'll have public comment when it comes back; right? >> okay. >> thank you. >> okay. >> so we're going to hold-off on deciding item 6 and call item 7 lincoln versus the department of building inspection and it is protesting the issuance to ray chan for the vertical and

horizon one one bedroom and start with the appellant and. >> good evening and welcome. >> unfortunately, the same law firm i've hired reuben, junius & rose their appearance before this board will not have any effect on any decision this evening please proceed and welcome. >> i'd like to enter into pictures and i'm sorry. >> photos. >> it hboard has to agree and them on the overhead. >> i'm christine thank you for your time and congratulations on your re-election. >> we have filed for appeal for the project on granite for 2 reasons first, the significant concerns over the use of the property that is purchased in

2001 they applied to convert the units in february 2003 and denied by the city and reapplied and later approved in 2005 and applied for a single-family but were denied the cal hallow guidelines allows for rh2 current property at 32 feet but the city regulations for rh2 allow for 40 feet maximum in height while their taking advantage of the zoning for additional housing they've owned it 16 years and uses it as a single-family home and it is a modest renovation over to 24 hundred square feet the proposal increasing the interior space the second reason of not adhering to the san francisco

city regulations those owners had a previous property on third street in pacific heights and evicted their tenants under the condition they'll occupy it but didn't renovated the building with a penthouse and made a profit they then brought the owners to the state of california and settled for damages it is not on the sustained property first street they came in front of the board of appeals after the issues related to that property and adjustments were made number 3 for the good neighbor adjustment i'd like to make corrections their attorney has outlined first, as noted in a letter which we shared in the cal hallowing association in 82015

and other queries and the concerned neighbors as well as the association the 3 setbacks they've noted actually creates privacy concerns this is not a benefit to us nor to the dr parties the penthouse noted ♪ letter this was a significant area of concern for other neighborhoods and the association and eliminated there was discussion they agreed to eliminate it in discussions with the architect in addition another setback they noticed is not done per their request this is the systemic areas our notice to the plans is the 311 in 2015 they have errors plans within the 311 were miss labeled and misinformation again

april 1915 and in addition to this they made reference to the 311 in comparison to a property on invention issue street in 2015 we nor the other significantly impacted owners on greenwich issue didn't receive notice of those plans in addition to when the other dr requesters had filed the dr and paid money unfortunately they're not included in the e-mail from mary woods in 2015 and informing the owners as well as us and the association of dr hearing that would be held in december and the other two dr parties didn't get a notification apart from the general notifications the neighbors are required to see in

addition, we hosted dozens of meeting with the cal hallow association with the other dr requesters and the planning department and the architect and his representatives and spent housing in proposals unfortunately, the owners didn't offer compromises with the cal hallow the only conformation following dr was erecting story poles e poles we have concerns with the disregards of laws and regulations we're we reject those owners will not over any accommodates and we ask you to take the recommendations from the canceling hallow noted on the letter from broke samson and place restrictions with the

elimination of the upper roof deck to address the privacy concerns and setback the wall by 12 feet that adds square footage to their property >> thank you. >> thank you. >> in addition he wanted to show some of the photos of neighboring properties that are multiple units including the multiple mailboxes to demonstrate those are adjacent properties on the same block and just photos of their property and how there is single mailboxs with no separate addresses so - >> single address 567

greenwich street this is their property >> can you use the mike please. sorry about that here's another one as well as photos this is photos of their property single address and single mailbox. >> separate entrances no separate entrance. >> that's all. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. silverman. >> good evening and welcome. >> counsel. >> good evening commissioner honda and commissioners david

silverman on behalf of the permit holder. >> ray chan obtained the permit to alternate their home on greenwich for an upper story that will be setback 12 and a half feet from the permanent house as you heard the sponsor provided 3 foot side setbacks the increase in the height in addition will be 8 feet the building steps remained unchanged the proposed addition is in context to the 09 homes on the block and permited by the planning code no variances involved the planning commission held the dr hearing a year ago on december 10, 2015, the same people the appellants

were there they presented the same arguments as they presented tonight the planning commission approved the project 7 to zero. >> unanimous approval the adjacent contiguous homes to the east including the appellants four homes which i'll show you in a moment all have substantially the same or larger height they all have larger massing than the proposed project they have propels to property line houses this is unusual in san francisco no rear yard whatever as opposed to to any client that as a rear yard the adjacent home to the west that is similar no size to any clients house has received building permits almost

dental to the one want to and that is under construction therefore in a contiguous row of 7 homes the site stand out as one story shorter than the rest rae having a code compliant rear yard the appellants here tonight are located in the east of the project and will continue to block light and air to any clients house regardless whether this is built or not when reviewed in complex the addition results in a building that will remain quite a bit smaller than the building to the east and nearly dental to the neighbor to the west the appellants themselves have a vertical addition with a deck yet to the board deny the

property owner a smaller upper story in sum the appellant are failed to demonstrate in any reason to overturn the planning commission 7 to one decision in favor the permit holder it is the case that the appellants may lose some partial views from their deck, however, views are not protected by the planning code we submitted within our brief 7 letters of support from the neighbors that received an will additional letter we have now 8 letters of support i wish to show you two photos -

now you can go back. >> more. >> okay. >> that's good. >> thank you gary. >> project sponsors house this is the appellants house as you can see the appellants house. >> can you speak into the mike. >> i'm sorry. >> this is the project sponsors house right here this is the appellants house you can see the appellants house is lot line to lot line and the project sponsors house is here this the adjacent to the west they're constructing as we speak a vertical addition with a deck virtually dental to what is before you.

>> this is the neighbors top floor under construction this the appellants house which exceeds the height limit by 7 feet with no rear yard the next house to the east has no rear yard exceeds the height limit two smaller houses here had look much the same after the work is completed. >> i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> and the projector architect is here if you have any questions about the plans or the elevations thank you.

>> counselor. >> yeah. >> are you aware was the project that is built is that dr'd as well are you aware if it project was dr'd. >> it was not dr'd. >> not dr'd and . >> and cal hallow didn't file any letters. >> any addendums or change to the plans since the planning commission. >> yeah. the deck was made smaller maybe the architect can talk about that. >> please step forward well introduce yourself. >> architects with wushgs c you project architect as part of plans we reduced the size of the deck from the rear we cut off a 45 degree angle eliminating parts of deck what we showed at the planning commission.

>> that's i'm done maybe - >> questions. >> well, one the things i noticed the drawings you showed you are dated in 2015. >> uh-huh. >> you're saying that there are drawings subsequent to that. >> actually, i brought - >> so the drawings that have changed if i can show them. >> overhead. >> we included the existing diagrams this is not included in the planning commission drawings previously otherwise the interior floor plates are the same. >> and the main change on the upper floor we basically cut off

the section to allow for the decrease good great of a travel distance for the stair. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank goodness an architect. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you. good evening scott sanchez planning department. the subject property even located within rh2 two dwelling units are allowed legally as a two family between that was a prior permit that reduced the permits from 3 to 2 their reducing the size of the unit but legally maintaining as two dwelling units we under 317 a protection measure for the protection of dwelling units nothing that requires someone to

represent that unit to the general public comment but it is maintained as a two family dwelling unit it was first submitted in i believe 2014 and underwent the neighborhood notification in february and march of 2015 during that time 3 discretionary review requests one by the immediate adjacent single-family dwelling and two drs filed by the two unit building one building further east and the photos that have large windows that were fairly well developed on the lot and had windows originating over the

the subject property for a view it was during the did drs were filed consistency in the the drawings of 2030 and no additional discretionary review filed that was heard by the planning commission in december of 2015 the planning commission unanimously voted to approve the project as proposed and the appellant has raised the issues of the notice and conduct of that hearing i don't have any evidence to support that i mean, i was not able to connect with the planner before the hearing we are a noticeed public hearings the planning commission felt that of the parties didn't have the ability to properly address them they could have continued that and don't have anything on the record that was a concern they voted not to take

discretionary review the most of issues wanted to raise a code compliant project assume looking at the adjacent property to the west no discretionary review on that that was issued sometime in 2014 so long since passed available to answer me questions that the board any have and i got one. >> okay. >> one the famous o pair the question how do you get a property that didn't have a rear yard. >> well, it would have been conducted before the current prado i didn't see any plans that allowed the construction

but i'll note this block faced on greenwich the lots are short but the property is 82 feet deep the property that fronts on filbert is a deeper lot. >> the question any variances or exceptions to this condition. >> not seeking any variances are exceptions. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so it seems one of the issues of the appellant that a two unit building is used as a single-family home is that a problem. >> well certainly we would like to see all the dwelling units utilized but nothing we be, require something to rent on

the open market no internal connections between them they - but nothing to require someone to renter a unit it does happen some people can afford it will keep both units and maybe have>> next speaker. >> in-laws in one unit or an - we ask this is preserved this is maintained a a two family dwelling. >> if they sell the building it needs to be addressed a can be utilized as such. >> i interpret that as no harm, no foul i rather not have that that way no harm, no foul. >> anything on this inspector duffy okay any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none we'll have

rebuttal starting with the appellant. >> good evening and welcome. >> loins owner and i wish i had more time to dispute the attorney for the chan's to keep it short in the appellant package the sponsors removed the waltz and using that as a one unit building and again, you guys are the experts in the planning code the planning code section clearly states no application should be issued by any city department unless a construction or other activities that is permanent also so these guys combined the unites; right? which david who was their contractors said that

wants done without permit and e-mails from mary woods and the attorney present today those walls were removed by put back up post the fact; right? they submitted the plans to the planning commission were factually incorrect number one and number two our house was built in 1908 the owners bought the house with no alterations to the height of the house; right? their conveniently talking about other multiple unit buildings on block with no obviously tings to do so you know, i think that the question was asked the proof the other applicants were not notified they were and the other e-mails from mary woods went out

of her way to consult the architect and the attorney interesting not contemporary to those they're put together as there is a material impact not outside of the living conditions we live in san francisco; right? those are interior issues with light and privacy not take into consideration by the are project sponsor we you know we you know we think that you know the other multi unit we never received the notifications and the applicant didn't receive the noticed plenty of records we can submit to the commissioners again, we as outlined our support that the board of appeals take action to the size and scope with the recommendations with the cal

hallow association. >> you done, sir. >> if i have more time i have a lot more to say. >> i have a question. >> sure. >> if you're disputing the size and scope the project sponsor why didn't you file a notice. >> we've not received a notice. >> i'm sorry if you want to come up to the podium. >> i have an e-mail if you like it confirming that from mr. lindsey. >> also another dr requester. >> i'm talking about the next door houses. >> oh, i have that available if you want to see it. >> that's fine thank you very much. >> that's it. >> okay rebuttal from the permit holders.

>> thank you commissioner honda the appellants raised the same issues regarding notice of the planning commission hearing which i believe there were 3 dr applicants present and the planning commission found no merit. >> i'm sorry you can't speak. >> the dr hearings has been over for a year i'm not sure why they're raising this stage in addition the appellant is only one of the 3 dr applicants that filed an appeal presuming from the other dr applicants have an issue of the notice they'll file an appeal as far as the, there was a 3 unit, 2 unit merger 10 or 12 years ago

and so currently the building is two units they have straight doorways and kitchens and separate bedrooms so forth i've been at two different inspections because the appellants called have called the well the to inspect and i've been at the folks house twice and both times the planners found to the units were fully in compliance with the planning code as the zoning administrator confirmed i believe that's it thank you. >> thank you counselor. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you just to note that the the subject property was the

subject of complaints with both building department and planning department those cases were closed the plans that are before you do have code compliant conditions they were to at some point in the future remove the walls and have connections between the unit that is in fact, a merger and the fact their code compliant. >> mr. sanchez any planning notice of violations given to the property. >> i don't know how far the enforcement went but i mean at least the staff investigated and found the violations were stated. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i haven't heard anything to persuade me for this permit.

>> i'm not in agreement with that. >> me, too for the audience this is a notable hearing what happened they planning commission or the planning commission didn't happen at the mraths we don't take into consideration the facts are what is supplied in the current briefs i'm in concurrence with my colleagues. >> move to deny the appeal on the basis the permit was properly issued. >> thank you a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal and on the basis it was properly issued commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig that that motion carries with a vote of 5 to zero are we ready to go back to item number 6. >> if they're ready we're

ready this year this is appeal number of i think before we hear further from the parties we should take public comment. >> yes. >> okay public comment on item number 6. >> sir, do you have public comment. >> this is your chance thank you for waiting. >> thank you. >> >> good evening and welcome. >> i apologize for the wait. >> my name is a bernard i have two names i'm an actor i live there for 26 years moved in 26 years ago the backroom which is i'll show you quickly here this is the beauty of this neighborhood it is quiet, clean and that it is

used to have trees there were to giant trees i live on the top floor of the 3 unit 3 floor building the tree next door in the building next to me a at all tree higher than the took up floor and two giant trees in the yard they purchased and it filtered the noise and flirlthd a lot of the soot and the dust in the city and made that a quiet area if you - so mainly what i'm concerned is the loss of privacy the loss of light, the amount of noise that might be generated by putting in by moving the unit four feet closer to the property lines of the apartment building i rent. >> which is speaks to privacy

but you have here if i can show you this is their unit this is the corner building this is the building i live in that the building next door. >> you can see right now effects the corner building that is 6 unit maybe 3 unit that are directly adjacent and the building as you can see here and here 3 floors that are 6 units and 6 unit if in building next door and 6 unit next door to that so if we look at it right now this is at least on any side of the property they want to come closer owe and i can look out the window and see space they'll go up i'll have a window looking into any window we've lost the trees it immediately got needser and

those changes they'll make will effect 15 unit at least just on my side irrational damage to the neighborhood i moved out of my this is last friday night they make assurances that will be quieter from the time those people moved in. >> may i and this is 1229, january 21st saturday morning. >> (people talking). >> you can hear - >> this happened frequently.

>> and few look at the layout family. >> go ahead and please finish our comments. >> thank you, thank you very much this is a drum essentially wood on all four side sound will be magnified if anyone is talking on the ground level they're talking about outside my third floor window if they put windows there are a deck on the back for a roof deck they'll have - >> sir. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> any other public comment on this item. >> okay. we'll invite the parties back to speak to the board about their proposal.

>> thank you, tom on behalf of the project sponsor and i just like to show you the modifications to the plans on the drawings if i could. >> maybe zoom out a little bit gary oh, the other way perfect that's fine. >> yeah. >> so what this is showing is the rear stair being taken out which we proposed it in our papers and the additional change we're agreeing to say a roof at that portion of the building and the detail is above shows that their window their property

line window at that point will be rabsz as far as they can go 0 above and then we'll be pitching the roof adjacent to that window it falls below the bottom of that window. >> may ask if these plans are clear enough for the zoning administrator know what kind of dimensions will be needed a yes scott sanchez planning department. there is still a little bit of a x factor in terms of the window needs to go up but we are a good relationship and the plans suffice to allows us to develop the special permit. >> so director i imagine have those dated today's date would be that advisable. >> norm we'll want that but

certainly do that if the board wants to adapt a motion to reflect those changes those are not the plans used for the specialized permit. >> those will need to be drafted and meet the building code requirements but this is sufficient to document the agreement is. >> okay. >> thank you for working that out gentlemen. >> are those - will you date those are today's date. >> i don't think there is any other public commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> the motion to grant the appeal and condition the permit on the changes to the plans as submitted today on today's date. >> and a basis. >> on the basis the parties agreed to the changes that are

in their must actual interest. >> so the grant the appeal and on the provisions and the plans submitted their submitted have they been submitted? with today's dates on the basis it reflect the agreement of the parties commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner wilson commissioner swig okay. thank you that motion don't carry e to zero and item number 8. >> can we can take a two minute break-ins

thank you. >> welcome back we're resuming the tuesday, january 24, 2017, of the san francisco board of appeals and calling item 8 connie chan and lincoln chan the property on 18 avenue protesting the issuance of outside loaned to erect a 3 story building. >> we'll hear from the appellant now. >> >> my name is michael phelps the attorney for the appellants and no relation to the swimer i'm not with reuben, junius & rose so. >> there are 3 issues which we discussed in our brief and if to the board has no objection i'll talk about them in reverse order

with the ethnic and setback and bulk of the building we would like to just speed limit that issue based on the brief we submitted and obviously i'll answer any questions the board may have the second issue was that we asked that the board either deny the site permit and grant the appeal or else condition the site permit on the requirements that the permit holder give two business days prior notices of excavation not a problem the permit holder in the brief on page 3 again recites the request to mandate the permit holder have to business days before excavation the response that is a perfectly reasonable request and the permit holder would be happy to

have agreed to this had she been asked there is limited time involved in this we're asking that rather than relying on the permit holder to voluntarily give us the two days notice we ask it be conditioned on that the third issue i'm the focus on tonight is the issue of the inadequacy of the provisions in the engineering plans the shoring plans to safeguard my clients property we submitted the 9 pages the engineers drawing to have shoring provided so no provision for dprout and no provision for under pine now i'm sure that everybody well knows the reason with they put sand in honor glasses it runs

that is exactly what will happen it is chemical grouting and basically hardened sand not does not run this is coming closer but like the board to impose something specific page 3 of their brief it has always been the permit holders intention to incorporate forms of foundation shoring and structural systems deemed sufficient by the engineers app abdominal building code and dbi and work with them throughout the process and note that just while the permit holder is willing to have it reviewed and incorporate valid changes the ultimate responsibility is that dbi again

what we are asking for rather than the permit holder voluntarily compliance will not to have any obligation to do with we are asking this board as part of its protection of the property owners keep have that mandatory mandatory - briefly have i a couple of photographs the main ones in green just to set the stage this my clients property and the the subject property are on the same block. >> sorry to interrupt you can you speak to it as you're looking at it thank you gary. >> got it. >> i was focusing on the ones and again there are several lots that used to be the parking lot of the alexander theatre and my client has from problem the

problem my client has with the vacant lot adjacent to my clients property the green grass on the picture that is to the current but a stanley area for the other two areas as you can see the property my clients property and the permit holders property starts at the street and slopes up from there and is you know has a substantial slope to it we would like to have the position of those requirements not only the two days notice but thought requirements that they put the provisions our structural engineer has spoken to the architect i'm going to turn it over to him to recount those discussions. >> he's not here i'm careful what i quote i talked with him and my colleague will confirm

i convinced my clients in their best interest to grout to do their shoring they're under pining but this needs to be grouted and any confusion to mr. duffy that have other projects that everyone is on the same page i believe the architect will confirm that everybody is on board with the grouting; is that correct anyway that's i that's my concern if everyone is grouting it i have no doubt the project will be good. >> everybody is pretty much on the same page they want to they'll do it out of goodness of their heart we want enforcement

as it seems this is a reasonable request thank you. >> thank you counselor. >> we'll hear from the permit holders now. >> >> good evening and welcome. >> good evening commissioner president honda address board members i've been practicing in so for for 2 two years and this is the first time that i'm in front of of the board of appeals our team the owners who is here tonight the architect and kevin o'connell the structural engineer we have been open and transparent on the first preapplication meeting december 2015 all the way down to today with the appellants the chan's about the plans for the building through meeting and e-mails every opportunity to communicate on an architectureal design and the structural design

for the project i'm sorry and my client is disappointed this is not enough and to file this appeal so addresses the 3 things in the appeal the first one to provide stronger protection for the properties is, of course, in everybody best interest to do this correctly i'm the architect for the alexandra project one parcel away only one construction project by the way, one big construction project if that project we shoring and we went down 25 feet we were only proposing to go down and our engineer you know very willing to work out whatever is necessary to make this a safe building for our proximately and not effect the chaunz property

next door the bottom line the site permit doesn't need the structural drawing and therefore this intention didn't apply for the permit again you know we are willing to work out this and we've had xhfgdz this week with mr. boskovich but didn't apply to the permit so no conditions to be attached with the addendum of the structural permit. >> which are not appealable. >> that i did not know. >> okay anyway, the second one about the two days notice the two business day notice we're willing to do that you know a matter of all the time and memorandum of understanding like i said jessica myself and mary woods the planner and the engineer have all been available we have lots of e-mails and

correspondence back and forth expressing our willingness to work with that and the third contention about the size and building inspection and height this is strange when the appeals were filed by the chan's for the safety of the building make sense when we got the brief an additional concern about light and air and height and all those things it feels like something angle attorney will throw in to juice this thing up like there's a a problem those were vetted and from the first moment the chan's received the notice of precirculation meeting sent out in 2015 connie chan attended that meeting the chan's

were innovative of the section 311 posting from june 2015 to july 21st, 2016, and had every opportunity to file a discretionary review on that the section 311 was on the fence next to their driveway it is likely they saw that everyday and through e-mail the chan's were provided drawings of the project and so over a year for almost a year there of the not one iota of the concerns of the architectural design and at the last minute that pop up this was vetoed by the planning department the design is fully compliant with the code, there are concerns with that being significantly larger but only - this complaint really have not

bearing on the issuance of the site permit it seems like no illustration how the issuance of the error to the process of either the planning department or dbi as note with the many e-mails challenge and the owner jessica has been more than willing to work with the appellants in summary the appeal we believe the appeal has no merit and urge you to uphold the issuance the permit i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> the appellants made a statement the courage that something about you folks agreeing on the grouting. >> i mean, we're in discussions right now we have submitted any structural drawing. >> your comment is complying very general complying to our engineers needs and the planning

department's needs i did not hear anything specific. >> we're willfully willing to do that again, we started i think mr. boskovich was hired last saturday and called me i happened to be in the office but only yesterday i believe - no only yesterday that mr. boskovich talked with our engineer it was in the early stages of what the appropriate thing to do and my is willing to do whatever. >> so let's see what the building department has to say about it. >> have you looked at the investigative work thought how you the - a. >> is could require underpinning 4 feet at one point that requires under piping if

they're willing to do that, of course, workout an agreement underneath the appellants home and there has to be permit and some kind of an agreement we've done other houses in the sunset and the richmond that have's e has sand. >> the next question since i'm on that lot any daughter goes to that i saw water introduce the entry of the alexandra what are you guys going to do with a building. >> with the alexandra this shouldn't count towards my time. >> we submitted to the planning department to look at creating a swim and education center in that building and if so in process we submit. >> that's not part of case but thank you, mr. romania. >> we'll hear from the

department now. >> who wants to looks like mr. duffy wants to go first that's great. >> batter up. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi mr. sanchez let me go first for a change. >> (laughter). >> planning building explosion there. >> no, no that's okay. >> all good for a building permit erected a 3 story family building only a site permit the addendum needs to come in and one of our robert is the assigned the dbi engineer and everything he heard as far is pretty good regarding the conversation regarding protecting the adjacent be buildings foundation that is, of course, in the san francisco building code anyway under section chapter three 307 and the under f line e pining needs to be done on any adjacent

property that is effected and should go down to the bottom of the foundation for the new property and it is pretty standard procedure discussed between the adjacent property owners and the person doing the work on the new building and it will be under separate permits as you've heard for the actual property it works well and essential and needs to be done the neighborhoods get nervous but i can reassure them it does work and done it plenty of times. >> i'm available to answer any questions. >> one last question and underpinning is not required is it. >> not in every distanced no, but in this case it is and in my experience if you have an existing building as far as you know commissioner vice president fung it has sand and sometimes a

foundation on the existing building the neighbors building that didn't have rebar you get a new function on site pretty much a strengthened foundation i should say not required all the time you're right and the grouting is another option the dollar pining they both achieve similar results underpinning is a foundation put underneath the building of grout loan the property it works both options work well. >> inspector duffy can you tell me i've heard we have a lot of new rules and regulations regarding excavation and foundation due to the new thinking millennium does that effect that. >> nothing added to the

building code not there before not involved in that building at all i'm not sure they maybe changing the code but nothing i'm aware of that came across any deck. >> by the way, the notification in the building code is a 10 day and the notification shall be delivered nolessly 10 dazed prior to the excavation i heard that will you 10 days per the building code. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. the on the project architect did a thorough presentation this is added at the end the bulk with the planning code issues the project is code compliant and meets the residential design guidelines and the section 311 no discretionary review that's all i have