very much. >> (clapping.) >> thank you alex's and thank you for the correction the state owns the street but the streets belong to the people of san francisco and the people of california that's a good reminder we're ready now if you didn't get a goody bag grab one ask the folks the leaders to dawn their helmets we'll move and break ground ready set go. >> okay. >> ready get set, let's get to work. >> yeah. >> >> (clapping.)

>> let the work begin thank you, >> good evening and welcome to the the san francisco board of

appeals. the presiding officer is commissioner honda and we are joined by by our vice president commissioner fung and commissioner wilson and commissioner swig commissioner lazarus that be a little bit to my left the deputy city attorney to provide the board with legal advice at the controls so gary the legal assistant director. we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. sitting at the table in the front is so scott sanchez planning department. and her representing the planning department and planning commission and next is inspector, next line item. >> phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. please carry on conversations out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes,

participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process.

if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i raise your hand and say i do after out of been scorn in or affirmed do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> okay. thank you very much commissioner vice-president hyland and commissioners two housekeeping items two items that have been been withdrawn item 5, and 1698 haight street number 7 1885 mission street is also been withdrawn neither of the items will be heard tonight number

one, is general public comment this is the opportunity for anyone that address the commission on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda. any general public comment? seeing none, then monarch to item two commissioner comments and questions. nothing commissioners? no okay item 3 commissioners our adoption of commission minutes. discussion and possible adoption of the march 08, 2017, minutes. >> >> additions, deletions, or changes an adoption to have a motion to move that. >> move to adopt. >> thank you thank you any public comment on the minutes? okay. seeing none then we have a motion by the vice president to adopt the minutes commissioner president honda commissioner swig that carries with a vote of 4 to zero item 4 a rehearing request.

scott & patricia quinn vs. the department of building inspection at 2328-2330 north point street. is rehearing request. of the appeal that was decided february 22, 2017, at a time the vote voted two to two to one and commissioner hyde to grant the appeal and overturn the zoning administrator and grant the variance lacking the four votes the motion failed upon a second motion with commissioner vice president fung and commissioner wilson dissenting to uphold the zoning administrator on the basis the finding articulated by the zoning administrator are correct lacking the 30 votes it failed with no motion to - the proved or disproved of variance requester is alexander to

convert the storage space of 3 story dwelling unit on a non-compliant rear yard and commissioner president honda did you miss the fun two outdoors of votes welcome. >> so have the requester start 3 minutes to present our case. >> good evening. i'm the architect for the studio units at the 523 guerrero street at the february 3, '22 meeting we talked about the urban justice of denial but not the justification the zoning administrator to use in his determination and how it relates to the depended policies that were in place at the time of application for the variance i wish to do that we believe the justification is invalid the zoning administrator denied the variance the 80 route to creating a unit exists i would

told by a senior planner two ways to get the project as an adu the new unit with a variance i owed to my client and it had a chance of getting approval i did no research so thank you - it shows the e-mails that i challenged with the planner i did more reason for the policy information from the planning department i reached out to the zoning administrator but my e-mail was answered by the same planner and again recommended the variance route i think on analogy will help here we were shown on apples and oranges both are fruit but have significant difference between them we were told that we could have either

one so we choose the apple suddenly we can't have the apple bus the orange exists this effectively means we didn't say a choice been the apples and oranges singular all information we made the submit thousand dollars to apply for a variance or a new unit or utilize the adu program and accept a waiver in on reduce form of roll call. either way have to unit but like the apples and oranges they are different if they're not we wouldn't be discussing this my client created a shout out for the 3 snares the non- readings and the castro street and not had he been told that was his only option he wants to share

the shout out by the adu program for the justification of denying the variance the zoning administrator said we have in case we were mislead by the planner the zoning administrator didn't work in a vacuum but part of the planning department to such basic things our your time is up. >> there are two ways to push a permit or one shared in the department it citywide now but at the time, we made our submittal it was not as shown here so. >> thank you love to have you look at thank you. >> if i may correct you this is not a second appeal. >> i do understand. >> this is whether we will grant you based new information

or mandatory discretionary review. >> i see an injustice may i answer you the manifest injustice it the fact if that we were shown given two options and then told that actually, the other option is off the table because a okay. >> we feel this is manifest injustice and the new information is tell you spreadsheet. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. this is a rehearing request. that i think the materials i've seen not in my opinion not satisfy the requirements necessary for a rehearing request. i'd like to address a couple of

points raised by the appellant the laws the application was filed ear heard this was eligible for an adu it was stated not eligible because of adu's were not citywide the building was undergoing a schematic upgrade through the code eligible to pursue the adu because they have volunteer seismic upgrade no new materials they alleged to present now that couldn't have been presented either at the original variance hearing arrest the last hearing on the item and in regards to the duties and responsibility of staff i think staff acted appropriately in providing the other peoples money possible and safe is staff is not kwnld i'll be upset in the staff told someone they have the

ability to apply for a variance the variance is justified and have that variance granted there was a hearing on this and had the opportunity and the decision was made to deny the variance if the appellants continuing that because an option exists they should be grant that i completely disagree with that in my position i'm advising staff they can file for a dr or board of appeals not have the commission i cannot the dr and make the changes or this board will grant the appeal and overturn the appeal and staff in the capacity in discussing with the sponsor and the sponsor said they want to have unit not subject to roll call. this is what staff understands and this is the process you need to go through so we do have the ability we're

hearing this items and acting for this item we have full consideration in who to grant or deny the variance because the staff suggested someone file an application didn't mean the applications will be granted in the adu's we have the total exact total but seven hundred plus 7 or 8 unit that have been approved financially good unit their that the building itself is subject to rent control requirements and this is one of the reasons the board of supervisors has adopted in legislation we also i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> i have a few. >> unfortunately, one the foe hearings i missed was this one in the room was a stand alone room can it be a legal room? it

or. >> it wouldn't be subject to the exposure if was an accessory bedroom not subject to the exposure requirements. >> okay. then regarding the exposure departments i mean exposure requirements is i - i know we have local laws the state law is admonish lenient it trumps the law. >> the building code requirements relatives to light and air this is 90 more reflective than in the building code but that's the law we applied for all dwelling units it is separate from state law and more riefbtd and allowed to be. >> the last question i have

requiring the enclosure that the outdoor space what the board it. >> under the section one 040 the between must face an area a few ways for the compliant rear yard or a street as well so didn't front the property so not on the street and able to obtain the endorse not nooifrm. >> and then the last bit to that i believe we had a case before that and adding the third unit the space as long as they provide a private 10 by temple with direct assess that alleviates that is that true or not true. >> this is able to step under the adu provision so that is our argument a path that is code

compliant with the exposure they're able to provide under section 207 with the adu process so that would be code compliant exposure to grant a waiver to add this unit under the adu prom i meant an adu person from planning to avoid this avoid the adu if they can provide antenna by 10 area for each unit did i get this wrong. >> you're referring to open space rather than. >> i'm getting it thank you mr. sanchez. >> so if we deny this hearing they are what i'm trying to recall if my context if we denied a rehearing request. what can occur that they can go

back he and file for another permit with the adu route and then there's no variance no. nothing it is very a clear path; right? >> yes. >> it can get done through the adu. >> right. >> no notification a public hearing under the adu provision. >> that's what i thought my recollection was mr. sanchez we haven't seen this public literature that was provided on the adu what does that last - >> this is i think an updated one if you're adding an adu everywhere in the city for regular calendar and the k5069

waivers will not apply i will want to discuss with staff. >> is this document prelegislation. >> this is before the current legislation because should be an older document it is citywide at one point only for available within the castro and under the seismic retrofit. >> this is started there this references something different i think. >> it i mean issues with under state law adding adu to a single-family under state law would not be subject to generally subject to the rent

control that maybe referencing the incorporation. >> it is establishment earlier. >> yeah. >> but looking at the last 3 lines. >> it seems to be outdated materials i think that dated july 2015. >> can you come to the podium and keep it short please. hold on a minute. >> directly to that question; right? >> this is just an excerpt from talking about the other requirements and miscellaneous code at the time, we made our application and all through our process we had our hearing in august of 2016 it was not until september 4th of 2016 that the whole thing became citywide.

>> thank you. >> the zoning administrator couldn't rip. >> to clarify the adu provisions were eligible for this property at the time of the application four volunteer has been for sometime. >> okay. >> thank you any public comment on this item? seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i think i've made my position known it has not changed. >> after watching the tapes and asking the questions the rehearing bar is pretty strong i don't believe that there has been you know now what is that.

>> manifest injustice here and the information as the department present comic presented at the time of original hearing although i personally would have sided with my vice president in this case not strong enough to have a rehearing. >> i'll make a motion. >> i'm not - >> a motion denied. >> motion to deny the rehearing request. based on no manifest injustice and not enough new information presented to. >> a motion making machine. >> from commissioner swig a request to deny the request commissioner vice president fung commissioner president honda

commissioner wilson okay. that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero. >> item 5 is withdrawn and move on to patricia quinn vs. the department of building inspection at 2328-2330 north point street. with the planning department approval and have section 14 diane to 2328-2330 north point street issuance on to north point and barker partners to add 13 feet by 25 feet times one story at rare and endangered alter shape of western lightwell in the lightwell earn and roof deck over setback over 13 stories and internal reconfiguration and jurisdiction was granted on 2017 and an important hearing start with the appellant. >> come on up and prior to

starting 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. >> good evening and welcome. >> so you have 7 minutes to present your case. >> thank you overhead please thank you my name is a scott here with my wife 20 years residents of marina we occupy one the property with our daughter and one of the 15 resident spoken out in opposition for the offerly ambitious project it is simple to remove the fourth floor and number two, reduces the depth of the rear extension as well as

the size of the terrace and 3 the raise the fence from three to four feet we have suggestions we've included as part of our appeal and we're hoping this will say the basis of a resolution around the conflict so the new data not available at the dr the project plans don't apply the second one on our part to allow the project sponsor to build in the western lightwell on the first floor and the second item concerned in terms of an offer is our willingness to the other party to allow a full width cypress in the rear to allow reduction in depth the next major item not available the recognition that reduces the

rear addition we didn't have the final plans we have photos of illustrating with regard to elimination of the fourth floor the terrace is simple i don't know if you can't read this i'll summarize this is an e-mail visible to cynthia goldstein from the secretary the planning commission for the reduction of fourth floor by 10 feet in the terrace this shouldn't have been approved and working with the sponsor and dbi to correct this oversight that was a mistake and further corrected the dra eliminate the fourth floor terrace with respect to the rear those are now photos they're not

available but two manikins on the roof terrace with the new plants as you can see the directly site to my bed that's where i need to sleep and my wife needs to sleep the manikins move out a much bigger expansion and assess and availability to the our bedrooms so we're looking to correct this privacy issue here and point out that privacy is not just a visual but acoustic light from the open windows they're open in the night time the next piece of new data is the resulting site from the upper level 3 bedrooms and 5 levels the only place to reside in the hallways is this second floor the only outside spates they have this rear terrace so

of all the people that live in the large property they'll be here and immediately adjacent to the bedrooms a direct line of sight not just mine but this is a privacy issue not available as part of dr and give you further context in the rear everyone of the yellow boxes is a bedroom people need to sleep what are there 15 of them and the new project with the new plan will have all the bedrooms directly line the site from the proposed terrace upon many occupant will be residing and i also like to know the lighting not the amplifiers by the speakers are immediately adjacent to the all the neighbors so again that is 11 bedrooms and 23 windows and 22 people but they'll be impacted no other properties on the block that has this kind of

configuration and provides this privacy to the adjacent neighbors next up this is what the inside will look like a picture from this project sponsor similar property this is the kitchen that is over to the right that is currently replaced by a testify teaspoonful room with other media this is all adjoined by those large full height and neither here nor there full width opening that is 3 and a half feet worried weirder than the garage door this is the exterior spaces will have seating and cooking this picture is wider because pinched in by the effectiveness people will be residing here next up this is a outside as you

can see looking being so the the subject property all the fences are 4 feet a very, very open space this is the existing character of the backyard you look at the rear of what would be a resulting at this property if it has this fence will be blocked off we'll have adjustments to the information to the folks today in summary the cladding residential design guidelines calls for the mid block open space and with the neighboring building and the light in your opinion will not affect only us but the other 15 neighbors you have letters in the back of our packet recent and other previous letters and now data that motivates the adjustment we have two offers there are part of exhibit we think they're

excellent basis for revolving those and this is an offer and ask the project sponsor what his goals for the building he listed them we read them back but building to check all of the boxes that's the right one thank you for your time. >> did you provide those offers to the project sponsor. >> yes. indeed there is an e-mail. >> were there any discussion. >> there was absolutely discussions shall i try to summarize them. >> i'll try to summarize them as a result of first off to the project sponsor returned with a proposal that asked it be eliminated for the fourth floor deck and terrace added in and the kitchen added to the top he took both of the offenders it will offer extension in the lightwell and that the terrace on the back be extended closer

to the property lines that's the preponderance and we ultimately tried to negotiator with the project sponsor he summarized his reaction to saying he felt that he wasn't getting in terms of process for public love versus adjustments in the back i'll let, of course, the corresponding party will talk about that thank you. >> okay. >> thank you from ms. wisconsin strengthen now. >> good evening and welcome. >> thank you. >> can i have the overhead, please? >> thank you all for being worked out here and accepting our appeal my appeal it bans several items number one, this

plan is increase the housing density and the current plan is not appropriate for the neighborhood and didn't address the privacy concerns as stated in any brief the primary concern the unsuitability with the rear extension for the 23 hundred block what is being worked out proposed a single-family home the lower unit is moved to the lower floor and the minimum allowed for a single unit babsz my understanding the planning code the anytime square footage rule was created to accommodate those current homes where they have an in-law unit and to - permitting a new structure to abide by the unit seems in keeping with the intention of the planning code not only is the proposed unit adjoining the

garage at the current planning stage has no bedroom for the new plan it is a unit that be e is unusual and 8 people live in this two unit and the proposed the plan is in effect a single-family home in addition the back extension that is put in to accommodate thirty this roll is no in keeping up with the sunlight and boxes in the southeast corner so take into account here as you can see a drawing of where that will be and he key lots in the back with the mid block and the second picture coming from the other way and it shows where the deck will be and blocks that place and a person standing on here

which basically cuts off half of this generated a more effective solution to in their opinion will be to allow the builder to convert the two fascinate that will diminish the issues of sunlight and there's a precedent as presented in my brief you have that and another concern the discretionary review decision that scott brought up the fourth floor terrace is not brought up but now a new terrace and the builder shows revisions of the terrace for 6 inches by extending the length of the building not allowed for the juliette balcony in the dr. >> the east facing window on the ground floor extension is phenomenon on the plan the gentleman states i want to. >> you can move the mike over

when you're looking at the screen. >> this was the window that showing on this east side he said this is a mistake that will be eliminated i want to make sure that is in the plans essentially let's see if 3 foot from the property line is suggested by the dr is reduced to 28 inches and the deck in the basing back has sightlines at the ground floor and the first floor the pictures and the deck here and the two bedrooms as well a couple of examples are brought to light concerning the decks in the mid block open space and in this presentation all those

pictures sorry - this is from the builders presentation or his response to the grade and as you can see all the decks they have you'll decks there so our issue not with the deck but the issue of privacy if you look at the decks those on the third floor and not on top of a ground floor extension in the back and none on the

- lastly a proposed 6 foot fence the character of the mid block is in question their skwirnd with the persists we're the ones planning on moving there we want to keep to a

maximum of 4 feet a more natural effectiveness such as part of mid block and a 6 not fence didn't help with privacy but a deck that overlooks the properties 9 feet this is out into that we hope the board will consider our concerns one point he would be amenable and made efforts and keeping the facade of building you know good for the neighborhood in moving the fourth floor back based on the dr and merger those into a single-family home most of issues will be reconciled thank you very much

thank y thank you we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> >> good evening and welcome. >> good evening thank you good evening commissioner president honda and members of the board i'm tom of reuben, junius & rose on behalf of the permit holder excuse me - the appellants have raised a number of issues i'd like to get the specification but i'd like to start with give you a little bit of background here and context our applications for this project were first submitted in march of 2015 we're here now two years later two years of progress and review that really is extraordinary amount of time for a modest project and modest expansion

it borders on unfair for the permit holder to go though the process you mean a discretionary review largely the project proposed to the placing at the time was one story rear extension to the 45 rear yard penicillin under the code 4 stories are allowed to the rear line and in addition 12 feet more of an extension into the rear yard which the permit holder didn't take advantage of we also proposed a new for you that was setback 15 feet from the building front which is itself 6 feet from the street for a large project authorization setback and 21 setback on the for you with a roof deck with no stair or

elevators penthouse the planning commission conducted a one hour discretionary review hearing and considered the two dr requesters and their concerns and concerns of neighbors and they modified the project considerably they pushed in the each side of rear expansion 3 feet and pushed in the sides of terrace above the first floor by 5 feet and on the fourth floor they removed the territories we'll get to that and pushed back the front floor and the fourth floor is 31 feet from the street and they removed the roof deck entirely we think those are considerable changes and absolutely address the appellants and the dr requesters concerned so, now we're appealing and asking for more is unremarkable not what the

process is designed for no error in the planning department and dbis review of the permit and the plans and the dr requesters have age opportunity for process in the planning commission through the dr process like to talk about a couple of the specification the fence in the rear yard as you may know was proposed for 6 feet as 10 feet are allowed this is reasonable we or willfully to do some sort of privacy screens on the rear terrace and that will help with privacy but any further reductions makes that unusable to the fourth floor terrace as a discretionary review hearing commissioner moore brought the approval motion and saw in our papers we provided a transcript when they described

her motion she described allowing the property owner for a three or four juliette balcony on the fourth floor pulled from the side when the commission secretary described the motion he omitted that terrace by meek we submitted the plans for review a 10 foot terrace that two was in error and unclear how much of a terrace was allowed by 0 staff approved the terrace they had the same understanding that commissioner moore allowed for a front terrace so we would like the board to deny the appeal as to the changes requested but to correct the mistake and allow us to have that small juliette balcony on the front terrace i'd like to show a floor plan to get a sense of what we're requesting

as you can see the terrace this actually depose to the property line but what we'll propose and katherine anymore proposed having it pulled in from the sides it shown as 3 feet and 6 inches really more of a visual amenity it is almost you can fit and few people out there but has no impacts on the visibility from the street front or any of the neighbors i'm available to answer any questions and our go architects are here and we ask you deny the appeal but allow for the juliette balcony.

>> will you leave that up there counselor one question you have that up there so this hearing is didn't matters but is that 3 feet setback on each side is that what you explained. >> yes. i think that has to be at least 3 feet. >> okay. thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. so the the subject property was submitted in 2015 under the neighborhood at the beginning of last year again for a horizontal and the discretionary review hearing last year recommendations for the project not take dr and approve as

proposed and the planning commission took dr and the changes one that is not representative of representative of plan but the removal of the fourth floor balcony and as commissioner president honda so the board can provide clarification it completely within our purview how you'll have to see that balcony be motions as we're interpreting it as corrected that the entire balcony will be removed but from the board felt it is appropriate for some element of that to remain that is within our purview to have clear direction that would be helpful otherwise we'll enforce regardless of outcome here enforce well regardless the outcome if no action the fourth floor removed

from the board directs it otherwise with the fourth floor balcony so in terms of some of the facility issues and possible compromises the merger is not a possibility under the planning code at least under the building code application that requires a conditional use authorizations from the planning commission the ability as present one the parties brief to do a comping out xaishl affordability and acceptable unit no longer an option for the merger so not a count without an conditional use authorization i want to make you aware of that provision be nevertheless of the compromises and i think the compromises that are may or may not address that will be maintaining the usable open space for the upper market units at least 8 hundred square feet requirement for the

dimensions 6 by 6 for all that said we believe that was approved other than the correction we've noted to comply with the dr decision the project is code compliant it is with the residential design guidelines we felt before the planning commission reduced the scope of the project so hopefully that complies with the residential design guidelines and not an inappropriate addition to the block so i'm available for questions one other point a question about the setback of the ground floor structure it is less than 3 feet the clause was that it be approximately 3 feet in a way in the resulting the lower unit reduced in square footage more

than 25 percent of reduced by more than 25 percent because of that case that will be considered a merger under the plan that's why the commission has that in there and found that spa, to be code compliant not but to provide as much setback there as possible without decreasing the size of the unit such that will be a merger under the planning code does that make sense? i'm available to answer any questions. >> more information purposes for clarification so commissioner moore made a motion and jonas read the wrong motion ? >> well, i mean the planning secretary. >> the secretary repeats back the motion so that's the time if that motion was not properly

reflecting their motion that would be the opportunity to. >> none clarified it. >> right and then to compound things that was left out of the decision letter and this project was approved. >> not jonas fault the staff drafts the dr action. >> oh, okay. >> but it was yeah unfortunate oversight it happens but an unfortunate oversight. >> we granted the jurisdiction to correct that. >> yeah. that will be resolved on our end it - so i don't know how you'll vote want to but we will insure that that condition is satisfied you know that's why we're asking you to take an action to grant the appeal and to make that change 0 i don't

know if you feel otherwise but vote to do that it/. >> clarify the direction. >> yeah. no outcome that results in a change we would have them foil a revision permit to have them strike that unless the board gives other direction. >> thank you go ahead. >> no, go ahead please. in terms of the residential design guidelines if this was rh-1 wouldn't that require a setback on the fourth floor rear too. >> no so the setbacks to the rear will be if in the rh-2 and rh-3 zoning district averages are being worked out used the last 10 feet that is there armenian to a health off thirty feet in the rh-1 the heights are reduced to 35 feet across the

board depending on the lot configuration and typography but not an additional setback at the rh-1. >> only the front. >> exactly. >> the additional height limit at the front of the property. >> thank you. >> so i am confused and would like a clarification on the claim from the appellant that the project sponsor got around that which is the merger by simply restricting a thousand square feet area on the second unit i heard was yeah there is one thousand square feet that is the second unit but in the plans no plan for a bedroom or any residential characteristic. >> state penitentiary that kind of jerry rigging or playing

with the law i mean what's your comment. >> i simply had discussion on another case a concern more merger in the last year and the concerns raised at the planning commission about this and what is to be - short circuitably the unit requirement the planning code states that you can reduce the unit and no more will be considered a merger even if the number of units are the same in this case they're coming applying and reducing the square footage and it is under the planning code not to be a merger there is a mucky in the plans an

area on the plans yet mo' magic that is raised repeatedly they planning commission we're looking at amendments to the planning code 317 more broader focusing on the definition that is problematic but this is become more of a concern in the planning commission and may choose to deal with that in the future and relocating with an you aren't unit to the ground level and it is code compliant with an closer to the rear yard and has all the requirement necessary for the tuesday, march 21, 2017, but a policy to be discussed with the planning commission when units are relocated and 2ukd hunted the garage not a merger under the code but something when you know we've seen market materials listed as a single-family home and more closely and have two

units this is a valid policy concern to see if there are other standards that needed to be applied to stop this from happening to have a real unit but this is no change to the code as of yet. >> so we had quite a few of the of those and reduced two regular sized unit but at which want someone can have a larger family size but a legal rental unit as mr. sanchez pointed out when the marketing unit comes ousted and that is some action taken as a two unit building is marked for identification as a single-family home we should have a violations. >> we contacted the folks that listed and made aware of those

the most important thick the 3-r report it is legally a two unit building. >> so if so made to look like a duck and represent as a duck wellness wellness it must be a duck. >> no policy issues of the city beyond what the - it is ironic californ ironic cases illegal units opted out as illegal units and than ever end up trying to be legalized which we get into the bathroom, discussions and all of that and the whole thing is

around well, you know the city needs bedrooms you know that's clearly stated by the mayor and the board of sups and everything else and then a situation like this where accordingly to carving out this space it is in compliance with a statute but really not occupiable and no intention because not on the plan to put in a kitchen and put. >> is there a question there. >> as hone on the plans a kitchen and bedrooms and a living area we'll not approve it as shown that as being worked out a dwelling unit. >> it is safe that is it passes the smell test as a unit that can be occupiable and

occupied space. >> this is a between book. >> (laughter). thank you >>introoushgs has no comment any public comment on item this, please step forward >> good evening and welcome. >> hi my name is a marion north point street i one of the 15 neighbors that wrote a letter last year we lived on the block in the same home for 10 years my son is not the only home he's lived in a native san franciscan my concerns this current plan essentially takes a two family-friendly unit off the

block and places those are one essentially single-family home plus a small in-law unit and, secondly, the developer is not a resident with the type of commitment to the block and the quality of life that those of us that live on the block and hope to live there a long time have this is where it gets personal i sunshine should note that move two years ago resulted in my sons best friend moving to marin they sent their children to public schools our block was teaming are with children a place to raise our children and had an informal agreement we'll stay on the block and see our kids graduate from high school our hope was that with that plan we might have the option of two

families owner move-in so one of our disappointments and concerns at this point we can agree that will be difficult for a family of 3 to live in the in-law unit that we have seen in the plan so again, we're committed san franciscans we are trying to raise a family, our bedrooms our sons bedroom faces the backyard we have concerns of noise i support all the neighborhoods and other concerns regarding privacy but essentially this is personal matter in some ways it is a hard thing with you lose 5 kids off our block thank you for your time. >> thank you any other public comment. seeing none, have the rebuttal starting with the appellant.

>> last year thank you, commissioners on the topic of modest thank you. i want to quote a couple of stiefks it had 33 percent there of height with 21 if you add 33 percent i'll be a freak of nature turn around any basketball player if they took an hour and this much time and people are involved in wrestling that is because that is so far out of compliance we're trying to bring it back into motion and thank you for the projector please so can you zoom out? in some way please. thank you so this is the approved motion

this is. simple the commission secretary called the motion and by setback that is said the word with the 10 foot reduction and went on to make another point but clearly said that will eliminate the fourth floor terrace those commissioners are serious have significant investment and did a nice job no mistake that's what the motion was on the removal of fourth floor terrace now with respect to the statement what went on and what discussions on this terrace there were a lot of them and commissioners deck that one i'm getting god bless mr. tony we'll be comfortable get rid of of that for you and exposure have an additional balcony by

reducing the pop out she was making a proposal to the project sponsor that if you further reduce the mass in front of this building by 3 feet have a juliette terrace not suggesting you can add a terrace but if you reduce the mass by three or four feet push it back that's the proposal and a lot of discussion that was difficult to where else this to the ground an important discussion we hold that as an extension of the impacts of other buildings 5 feet to the property line with commissioner moore and commissioner antonini i'll supportive and they run into the strategy in a conditional use problem in other words, to stay with and not to hit that make that a single unit reduced it to 3 in order they're saying they tried to come a better job of reducing the mass

we're asking that the 15 resident tdr and commissioners eliminate the terrace and the commissioners didn't say access to the mid block open space and could - we think >> your time is up. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> okay mr. lee. >> yeah. one question. >> yes. please project sponsor has indicated they're willing to screen the sides of the extension in the current shape or reduced as per your desires does that work for you folks. >> did that work for us. >> in terms of at the second floor deck. >> yeah. >> screening at the - >> so the dilemma the screen is a barrier a wall; right? and while they provide some enhancement of privacy it

dividends up the space i appreciate the thought and the willingness to try to find 0 something i hope we can continue. >> more please. >> you get our 3 minutes. >> i'll reiterate some of the facility issues the two hours or so two years it's taken took to bring this is to the board of appeals and wasn't something we did so they after the dr they made modifications not based on the dr that's taken extra time i'm sorry it took two years we'll actually live there so that is very important to us and in the privacy screen i agree with scott another blockage i'll look at a wall that will be the

feet and blocking our sunlight and effecting our privacy even if they have the deck at 5 feet they'll see our bedrooms and we will be blocked more from the mid block let's see also want to talk about the motion on the terrace i think that scott pointed out not a motion but a number of suggestions when the motion was made it didn't include that fourth floor terrace and the setbacks were some mention the setbacks were made you know we didn't have setback from the back but when we were in the dr they asks us the appellant would we rather have the setback from the front of the house or the back we occupyed for the back we'll have been amenable to have him move the deck back 5 feet to have his

deck if that is amenable and maintaining that separation on the front that is my comments i appreciate also the talk about the smell test from 317 i know you can't make decisions but i think that is something the city should consider that yeah you know it is nice to allow more density by people in their current properties to create a front property and continually because of city rules i think he'll be amenable give him a conditional use and not have a deck in the back and no issues of sunlight i don't know if that is in our purview but bring that up. >> as a side note the department mentioned reducing and removing rent-controlled units will be a large problem and we hear that quite a bit.

>> uh-huh. >> we don't want to see rent-controlled units evaporate this is a legislative thing but this is why we're here. >> basically used as a storage room; right? and airbnb that will work but not they don't show up as a bedroom but a murphy bed and one thing i'll ask. >> that's okay that's the comments. >> did i get my 3 minutes. >> yes. you did. >> okay. >> i'd like to penned a minute talking about the lower unit that is 11 hundred square feet that's a real dwelling unit

that we know there are concerns about making those units too small but a place in the city and a place in the city policy for smaller units you have a family-sized unit above and below can i have the overhead, please? this is the unit it is originally proposed separate bedroom here a living and dining and bath and kitchen with access to the rear yard it is a nice unit and liveable we made changes because of the planning commission pulling in the sides of the rear extension by 3 feet so what you see with the murphy bed a studio configuration to comply with the

planning commission changes this - we know concerns about those projects marked as single unit not the case here two unit and finally to the balcony that really is an important amenity to the permit holder and came up because the planning commission was considering taking the terrace away completely and the roof deck and so as a compromise to provide a little bit more outdoor spates on the fourth floor they proposed to the balcony. >> thank you so mr. tony you brought of marketing and so this property will not be marketed as a two unit. >> mr. sanchez nothing further are commissioners unless other questions commissioners, the

matter is submitted. >> i have a question for the zoning administrator. >> whatever's if we reduce the setbacks or on the little pop out. >> they will be required to maintain at least 75 percent of size of smartest unit in the existing building they're at the minimum now i don't see space that would be easily recaptured from within the building in terms of they're using month of that ground floor for the unit they are right at 75 percent now. >> if we do it did that create and the fact 0 meeting. >> it will require conditional use authorization so this plan

would have an issue with those if it is i'm sorry we're a we're in closed session so no more public comment. >> a lightwell and there's marginal area that can be recaptured in the lightwell is reduced in size the garage is minimal as it is but, yeah i mean not able to keep it at one thousand 10 square feet they were to go smaller there will be a conditional use. >> thank you thanks. >> i guess we - planning will be very unhappy if we gave a conditional use. >> not quite sure how the code will. >> i don't care.

>> with it it, be increased. >> i don't know so i'll start been a member of this please state your name and address over 4 years and every week, we deal with what those encroachment and privacy issues a large part is that we have a lot of people that all of a sudden are findings san francisco desirable that have a ton ever money and ininfringe only old san franciscans neighborhood the marina has been for the most part left unscathed just recently cyclist of those in the marina noah valley deals with over the last 15 years and other districts in san francisco had

to deal with with quote/unquote monster homes not that that matters a fully notable hearing the planning departments you can wishes not to take dr and the planning commission still took dr and did a sizeable reduction i think that when we're talking about as my commissioners said will this be a two unit in the eyes of the planning department it is legal too unit this is a large project authorization situation and this board is not ready i'm not ready to tackle that particular deal the only question i have actually is from the zoning administrator can come up as well because i asked the question in regards to the juliette deck i thought that was what can you

explain what happened i heard two stories upon - >> i mean as you may know these hearings and planning commission heartens xeechs ideas how to tackle the adversaries that are raised but we look at it and rely on the final motion so we go with the final motion i'm not going to get into the position of reinterpreting what was said but look at the final notion and the deliberation can be important. >> in particular case sorry to interrupt you but commissioner moore made the motion was there a motion misinterpreted entered sweet spot log. >> in our department we enforce the motion that was recited by the commission secretary and voted on about i did commission. >> so what's in the blocks as voted on. >> it was approved or not

approved. >> so the fourth floor terrace shall be removed. >> and compounding things. >> so we'll ask if you agree with that that you grant the appeal and at minimum for the project and remove the fourth floor to comply with the commission decision. >> thank you i'm going to ask you a question. >> let me finish one second i'm very emphatic with the neighbors i went to middle school and grew up in the hood wasn't we're getting this everywhere i don't see any huge, huge monster home going up we see monster homes that are 6 and 7 and 8 thousand square feet these are very, very large homes

just that none on the block made an improvement if you get f this deck you'll have more decks in the future so i'm kind of tossed but leaning towards a recommendation of the department at this time. >> commissioner swig. >> so in the black deck is that size into the need of new open space or just so that deck can't be reduced in size or scope or - >> excellent question there are two issues one is compliance of the size of that lower unit and this is a small as that can that deck above splts planning code required to have one hundred square feet of open space for that unit

they're at one and i think 200 square feet so the size of the deck can be reduced. >> but 200 square feet. >> under the code the detachments have to be clear in every direction but certainly room to reduce the size. >> it can be narrowed to protect the privacy issue somewhat brought by the thought neighbors. >> yeah. >> so is it my turn that's really good thank you. >> so. >> mr. sanchez thank you. >> oh, no, don't leave. >> everybody wants the z a. >> i want to make a comment i think that the privacy issue is important one i live in the marina i love the marina and i understand the citizens and the backyard and understand the open

space in the backyard i share the opinion of the president we've seen this and appealed in the marina this behavior you know by the developers that want to let's face it folks make money and go against the history of the neighborhood that is their discretions they have to look at in the mirror but supported by the law their supported by the law but with regards to that back deck and privacy i know putting in privacy all that does is screw up the open space or the light and air of entire mid block area and i honestly think and the only solution and best

compromise of the reduction of back deck to the lowest possible condition in defying republicans the key lot that the neighbors protects everyone and the lowering of the fence from 6 to 4 feet and behind my house a 6 foot fenced the way it is you look at keeping some of the open space by not making it to improve the suggestion by a different type of fence that's up to the developer i think to look at into the conscious. >> and with regards to the deck on the top my interpretation that deck was balanced so i don't think we follow our direction whatever the motion that might be if we

that we address that and balance that that's all. >> the open space requirement with those two units satisfied by the rear yard and except the design didn't provide access to the rear yard for the upper market unit it is interesting given the upper market unit is 3000 square feet but anticipated having i mean supports the fact that lower unit will be used and . >> more independent. >> not illegal to have two unit to occupy as one. >> that's correct. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you batter up. >> i'll make a motion to up to

date uphold the appeal that the top floor deck be babtd abandoned and the back deck reduced to the lowest possible size to comply with the city statutes. >> i believe you said one hundred square feet. >> that deck is 200. >> 95 secret. >> i'm advocating that it be reduced to one hundred square feet. >> let me clarify the plan is 200 square feet but then i think that is the entire roof area because the railings are enforced the existing is 200 square feet but not want it to go further out but keep it at the width and reduce the depth

to one hundred square feet and that's it. >> what will you recommend as the planning expert reduce the width or reduce the depth for a privacy stand point. >> i mean certainly bringing it back in as closed to the building a positive but the amount i think that is set off 5 feet. >> i'm sorry your hand did work we're in closed session at this point. >> i'll say to keep the width as is but reduce the depth to one hundred square feet the neighborhoods may have a preference how that is but okay with making that weirder as long as you get the minimum do we want possible but from the plans as they are now to bring into the developed to square feet. >> the motion.

>> one hundred, 200 square feet for the reducing the depth of the roof deck. >> and so just - and the basis of that motion? >> i think the basis is for the deck and keeping with the open space character. >> the mid block. >> the mid block open space? and with regards to the upper deck with the intention of planning commission resolution. >> okay. and then commissioner swig to clarify is your motion to reduce the the depth of second floor roof deck

to the lowest possible size are you taking - >> the square footage to the lowest possible size where the recommendation of reducing the depth of the deck. >> and this is the second floor roof deck. >> yes. >> so the motion by the commissioner swig to grant the appeal and condition the permit to remove the top floor roof deck and reduce the second floor to the lowest possible size one square feet removing the top floor roof deck executes the resolution and reducing the second floor roof deck support of character of the mid block open space. >> on that motion commissioner vice president fung commissioner president honda no and commissioner wilson

oh, i. >> okay. is there a motion with a vote of 3 to one with one absent needs four votes to be upheld that motion fails and the board can continue this to allow the missing commissioner to participated with another action or if you do nothing that will remain as is. >> i'll move to continue this case so the missing commissioner can participate. >> my thoughts were i'm supportive of top floor deck disappearing not supportive of mraundz stated the deck not quite 2 hundred feet at this point and side rails in my opinion you know not we're - a

lot of this has been taken off that project already i'm sorry the rest of the neighborhood has not had improvements to the back of the property as per - >> there's a motion. >> sorry. >> versus a rehearing at this point. >> so commissioner vice president fung do you want to pick a date for the continuance you want to she's also out on the 29 commissioner president honda are you here on april 5th is that the question. >> we moved to another date to accommodate another commissioner; is that correct? >> yes. i'm not sure my daughters is off but. >> the large number of cases on the 19 is that all related to. >> those are all at&t sidewalk

cases. >> are they held. >> they're not all but 7 that may move. >> let's move this my motion to continue this to april 19th. >> okay so the vice president has a motion to continue to the 19 of april to allow commissioner lazarus to participate on that motion commissioner president honda no. >> commissioner wilson no commissioner swig. >> no okay. that motions fails. >> go ahead commissioner swig. >> i'll make a motion the same motion with regards to the top floor deck and remove my comment on the - >> second floor deck. >> so the motion to grant the appeal and condition the permit to remove the top floor deck it

executes the planning commission resolution. >> okay on that motion commissioner vice president fung no commissioner president honda and commissioner wilson the bo

together. vs. the department of building inspection at 819 ellis street. and item 8b - philip achilles vs. the zoning administrator at 819 ellis street. 819 ellis street protesting the denial on 2017 of an alteration permit with the notice of violation and building inspection complaint and the second appeal is of issuance on january 11th of a notice of violation amending violations of the planning code with a group housing without a building permit application and for a tourist without

conditional use authorization. >> good evening and welcome. >> thank you very much two appeals and 14 minutes if you need to present your case i'm ray the immediate past president of the location school and the in the mission district and a friend for the past 40 years if not long run the american cap and a great contributor to the community and during that time in 2003 was recent to purchase the building at 819 ellis street where w he ran the shuttle business very successful as you may know in the past few years the cab business and the shuttle business has taken a number of hits starting with

9/11 for people getting out of the airport with the 2008 recession but more importantly the arrive of uber changed the business altogether and the cab business and shuttle businesses have grown because of that he wants to move to the third story a hostile that will deal with you know youth traveling from europe or whatever and others and he payroll applied for the permit to do this and hired an architect to make plans those plans railroad submitted and told not adequate this sort of died for quite a period of time he is interested in picking up

this and you know meeting all the compliance that are needed in doing that asked me to help him i've asked him to hire mr. sanchez a friend of the vocational school and will develop a plan to gather the plans to do the necessary drawings of architectural work and engineering and what we'll request for given 60 days to come up with a plan to present to the planning commission, planning department. >> thank you, sir for note taking owl 14 minutes. >> sir a question your friend has filed for a conditional use? >> yes. meaning. >> what's the status of that.

>> what's the status. >> of that placates. >> i think from what was i'm hearing today, the department of building inspection has said to they don't want to continue with it because the time leverage that is going through that i think that is what. >> i think they because there were no response from your friend. >> well the gentleman has not been well and surgery i would building that i've had terminal issues he to run something out of airport and so i think there is just some sort of misunderstanding we asked me to help we would like to make that mean that will be a significant

improvement to the building and to the area actually as well the building is other 819 ellis street between polk street and a van ness so an vantage advantageous position with buses and such. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. the city first became aware of that enforcement in 2014 the city attorney's office reviewed the public complaint about the the subject property that is legally a bargaining at the upper level is used for a tourist total e hotel the city did a joint task force inspection in 2014 with representative from city attorney's office the building department and fire department and the health department a

violation it was used instead of a legal use as a hostile we substantially created the enforcement case, the sponsor the property owner submitted a property owner application to have a legal use as a hotel and in that year they substantially filed the conditional use authorization that is required for the use in july they were didn't have complete applications not diligently pursuing we issued a notice of violation and that was appealed to the board, however, withdrawn prior to the hearing because our understanding they were going to come into compliance and remove the illegal use and submitted the building permit application to update the application by

removing the illegal work and restore that as parking that permit was approved by our department we had response from the property owner they didn't intend to seek the conditional use authorization we closed that case due to inactivity earlier this year the same time we sent this for cancelation they filed in 2014 they've not made progress on the application appear no intent to legalize the use and dbi has an ongoing enforcement situation with a parking garage life safety considerations by using the parking space for hostile or any other residential use and late labor the building department confirmed they're using it and friends in there being worked out opted out so we issued a

notice of violation that is on appeal to you today and with the city attorney's office there is no apparent effort to move forward they can abate this live safety issue by not occupying the spaces we're happy to work with them 60 or 90 days for the proper process to have a legal use there but there are life safety considerations we on the violation this be abated and the proper process should be undertaken to legalize the use we work with the property owners to go through province we're not seeing good faith efforts to legalize this they've filed and not respond to our requirements and then substantially said a they'll not pursue that they'll

pursue a permit for the removal of illegal work and still not issued by the department of building inspection but the property owner has not sought to comply we've been in communication with their representatives they've generally not think responsive to us to give a site visit and confirm the notice of violation has been ability our staff was communicating with the representative someone named nicole i think a designer they said they wanted temporary occupancy to have this a tourist hotel use this is not possible in the last communication if january 2017 it was already we'll discuss it and get a back to you we've not had communication since that time

we've happy to work with them and respectfully ask you uphold this and refer to the city attorney's office and get compliance. >> thank you are you done. >> so the violation would that be like our old friend the department will be airbnb or a different - >> so there are two issues one. >> i'm sorry you're telling me i'm thinking. >> back in 2014 it was initially handled as a airbnb violation but two things the historic violation using a dwelling unit to rent it out. >> it's an illegal space. >> and an illegal hotel so the other question your enforcement are they currently listing or have active listing.

>> i received communication that from the city attorney's office which said they believe that we're still being worked out rented or listed so it is - >> do you guys have our own department with enforcement have you checked with that department. >> yes. it has not think evidenced where they look at. >> i know the site it is difficult i've seen it. >> not that i'm aware of that. >> from the last sited dbi gained entry and will be a violation and happy to get out there tomorrow. >> the other question i've been in violation evil for two years plus what are the penalties and involved in that

eventually for business making money and they've profited and should not be there according to the city and county of san francisco in oakland people should not have perished. >> this is where we did the notice of violation in 2014 and had legal counsel representing them you know they were went through the appeal appeared to abate the violation and no listing so the penalty were assessed and last year became aware it was still in use so. >> okay. thank you. >> so the win-win situation here that's what we try to do; right? win-win situation win-win being worked out city gets a legal building, the owner the building gets to do what they want to do

with that so in the path to that is seize and deceptive with a recommended - to illustrate how they couldn't get into compliance and providing a timeline to get there and then if they get there by the end of the timeline they win and you win too or the z a wins is that where we're going important a win-win >> could be a win-win we want them to abate the violation to so the property is in compliance they have as much time to pursue

the permit and no one is renting a bed in an illegal hotel, etc. >> thank you so the undermining entitlements for the building is only parking. >> yes. i mean, that's my understanding of the space in question. >> no other uses that are allowed at the site previously. >> my understanding that is legally a parking garage. >> only yeah. >> and there is actually a permitting process trots police department for getting a parking ability to do parking seeking that again with the change of ownership but holding that permit pending a resolution of this complaint as well. >> and would it be safe to say that if to they're going to

continue with the conditional use application 60 days will not be aries. >> 60 days i mean, we want compliance and . >> i understand that but the reality of cu process in their application not going to be done in 60 days. >> we - the application was filed in july of 2014 it would have been completed had they intended to pursue that. >> but asking for the continuance of the 60 days for a period. >> the building is currently for sale and for sometime. >> you mentioned you're holding into the parking i thought that that is a permit issued after 3 years if you are not doing business you abandon that and requires a cu; right? >> the permit is the authorization in the police department for licensing the

operators so in our books the use is legally parking but this authorization in the police department. >> but by using it as a legal hotel shouldn't they have that usage they're no longer users it for over two years. >> the majority of the building is in use arrest for parking. >> the third floor. >> there could be a argument the laugh use. >> it is ended. >> correct. >> all right. thank you. >> wow. what a privilege we've not heard 2, 3, 4 from joe duffy. >> joe duffy dbi i want to agree with mr. sanchez not

repeat but dbi has actions on many building most notably a couple of notices of violation i can read them out probably the best one this is the thirty of june 2014 site inspection a change of occupancy from the residential with required permits construction i e bedrooms on the third floor and shower and restroom on the second floor part of structure lacks the structure dignity stop the illegal use of building and have an engineering do a study and obtain the permits for all required inspection for the complaint that's an open

complaint obviously nothing is done on that and the next notice of violation from a housing inspector and this is a 3 story building on the illegal is commercial presently two parking garage auto repair and came back services and office on the third story and the creation of bunk beds in the third floor and a water heater has been installed along with bathrooms on the third floor and there's a list of code violations that will take me 10 minutes to read i'll spare you that you're getting the picture we have a building permit that looks like it should have been picked up by now to remove the illegal construction on the third floor and a separate permit for the changes of use

that permit has not been issued but getting the permit will be key at least to eliminate the illegal residential use and then go move forward with a change of use permit will have to go through the planning department and then the building department for structural life safety, go accessibility if you want to convert any building to another use that is part of the progress particularly when you put people in there to life it is important it meets strict codes we've not had that yet that's it i'm available to answer any questions. >> questions inspector duffy. >> you issued notice of violation over 2 to 3 years and

evolving not ceased and desisted bad things happen like in oakland at which point did the city stop sending notices do you red tag the building. >> that's a that's a good question i mingle the city attorney's office will try to get an order issued to get the people out of there i mean. >> i mean what happens if there is a fire and the city has been giving them citations and the life safety threats have not been met. >> i agree with you that's a question for the planning department. >> this is one the worst types of violations people in the building that are mother their asleep and no life safety that is what happens it happened recently in oakland that is a

serious violation it is disturbing to here people are living in there. >> how terrible to have all the people visiting in japan and greece and have a bad situation that's why we have hotels the gentleman is a representative of the owner you should hear more. >> thank you inspector duffy. >> it is frustrating when those things happen a task force team since the oakland event a few of them they had to get the people out of there and put a paddle lock on the donor. >> that's where we should be heading over 2 and a half years. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, we have rebuttal starting for of minutes.

>> it our intention to bring this up to code and do what is necessary to do and make that an appropriate unit to my knowledge none on the third floor i toured it last week and certainly that was empty and i've asked that so i don't know about the past but it is a really fine location for what he's proposing to do and commissioner swig said perhaps a win-win go situation i'd like to pursue that. >> i appreciate that. >> mr. sloan. >> i'm probably going to ask questions you may not have the questions eventually but notice of violations were issued in 2014 and as of last year that was still currently occupied and used for a non-valid usage so do you have any information.

>> i don't i only saw the third floor in the last couple of weeks. >> don't want to kill the messenger. >> mr. sanchez. >> scott sanchez planning department. briefly to address commissioner president honda concerns rightful concerns about this matter so we did pursue enforcement in 2014 they were diligently pursuing the legalization issued a notice of violation we had processes and pled that process they appealed the notice of violation and requested a lengthy continuous and we said no given the life safety matters involved they withdraw the appeal demonstrated the compliance the reoffending we're made aware of

that late last year and went through the process to get this to the city attorney's office so we're asking the board uphold to refer to the city attorney's office so we don't have to go through the process every time they want to they can go to the it don't make any difference and enforce yeah, and bring this as necessary for compliance. >> i know this has hit the spotlight how many other cases the city is dealing with. >> there are not that many i mean, i don't know the numbers i think that is less than a dozen properties like the task force is involved in doing the property. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> inspector duffy nothing further no commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> the matters plural are

submitted. >> well, my permanent lot to uphold the appeal on the i mean to deny the appeal excuse me - and to affirm the departments decision no basis for this. >> they are different so the first is the permit and that's the and the other is error in the discretion of penalties. >> deny the appeal on the grounds no error or abuse on the part of the department mr. sanchez are you making a motion. >> yes. >> okay so there are two. >> i don't make that often. >> so there are two different matters so the you're denying the appeal of both matters on one the we will need a different sentence. >> that the permit was

properly issued. >> properly denied now he backs me up (laughter). >> so my understanding a motion from the president to deny the appeal for the permit was properly denied and the next appeal excuse me - the notice of violation no error or abuse of discretion by the zoning administrator with respect to the notice of violation. >> yes. >> okay. i do such a good job. >> for those motion for the two appeals commissioner president honda and commissioner wilson commissioner swig that motion carries and the appeals are denied thank you the last item on the calendar a. >> and we're back welcome back to the wednesday,

march 22, 2017, meeting the board of appeals we're on item 9 item no. 9 - michael davenport & stephen hamilton vs. the department of building inspection at 595 noe street.. 595 noe street protesting the issuance on february 8th to mark oden and timothy tieu of an alteration permit and remodeling of one one bedroom and addition of two new bedrooms and bathrooms for the ab dash 009 start with the appellants all appellants come on up. >> thank you. being worked out patient you're lucky the cases would be at 9 o'clock and 10 act mime making

davenport on 819 ellis street stephen hamilton may consider the sale of 595 noe street and 599 the sale of the property to mark oden the realtor melinda said that was a pleasure working with us and gave his gift cards in 2016 we are mother here to protest improvements of properties not why we're here we're here we're concerned we're concerned for your health asbestos and led paint when we opened up the walls we know there is mold in the building we

have proof of that we are to have a happy relationship with the owners timothy tieu and mark oden going forward steve hamilton is a disability senior with serious medical conditions the led to his surgery in november of 2016 and is trying to recovery i'm 71 years old disabled senior under continued care of my doctor for respiratory and allergies i suffer from allergies public policy less than and car fumes on a daily basis and must take 5 prescriptions of medicine to help me come up with my breathing in the day and night air quality is poor i stay inside and i have high blood pressure and hypertension

forcing me to have chest spasms and breathing that can be difficult at times i've been operated on twice on my nose forfeiture bent reduction to open my nasal he will i have allergies i'm - i've suffered from paint fumes and wood ceiling compounds that can you see me vomiting and i can't be around construction because of health conditions mime here today requesting that the new landlords mark oden and timothy tieu give stephen

hamilton and hierarchy reasonable xhumgdz temporarily relocating us to an apartment to think within a one mile radius away if construction and renovation and definition for 3 month period and then to move us into our home at the 595 noe street louis us peace and quiet and enjoyment of life the construction and renovation to 595 noe street will make the building uninhabitable for all remaining tenants there is no plan in place for relocation of tenants so as i stated we don't have objections to improvement we believe homes should be improved i have an e-mail if timothy tieu that was sent to us after steve's operation and it gave us

great southern may >> place it as although our looking at it, sir can i have the overhead, please? >> okay i also bought with me an e-mail from the third floor tenant when they had their inspection the hired air quality testing i believe. i'm sorry. >> american air testing

they have bad reviews i checked them online they people complain that they ignore mold inside the house and so rebecca from the third floor no longer lives there sent me an e-mail i said did you ever have mold problems this is her reaction we also have >> face it as though our looking at it, sir. >> i apologize i'm new to this. >> me, too that's fine. >> so i want you to see that we also have pictures of mold that grew in our bathroom

and just a couple of weeks ago from the second floor i smelled bleaching in the hallway from the second floor. >> i'm sorry, sir move the mike over. >> my neighbor on the second floor told me this is john that he had mold problems in the bathroom and a hard time get rid of this is happening spotted with mold and grows on the doors and everywhere we're you trying to keep on top of it thank you. >> are you done, sir. >> you have 30 seconds i believe. >> okay question regarding the bombards are there vent or windows open ventilation into those bathrooms. >> that's a window in any bathroom i believe. >> pardon me. >> an exhaust fan in your

bathroom. >> nothing like that i don't see how we're in this part time demolition knocking down walls and sheet rocking. >> you'll have time in unreasonable we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> you'll more time in rebuttal. >> come on up don't be shy >> good evening and welcome. >> commissioner president honda and members of the board good evening and thank you for your time and consideration my name is mark oden and my co-sponsor owner timothy tieu and working in san francisco for many years and have recently be able to buy a building we wish to call home the building has 3

units two are rented and the third is racket the vacant unit is under gotten not under gotten repairs and hopefully, we can make that comfort for tim we've presented a written brief and available for questions and point out the following details to the benefit the public and the board we're working with the appropriate and agency guidelines for the air quality those agrees are thoroughly reviews similar cases for the protection of the public we've showed we would like to offer the board assess to the property to see how the lower property are separated we also offer this image from google street to the board here as you can see the sideline

595 noe street that is the bottom unit and 599 here are the entrances the entrance to 595 noe street and not shown the entrance to 595. >> we're not performing the definition one note the picture the indigents of 595 noe street there is an address second floor staircase and not performing demolition work for the record stephen is an original occupant awhile michael is a sub or subsequent occupant testing by an authorized agency is not showing demolition with a process neither stephen more michael is

proving a - and test results prior to the filing the appeal areas having worked on to are lead and the air quality management we'll be making sure that is safe of lead allegations we feel this is important to point out the housing inspection farther of stephen and michaels exhibit have no assess inform 595 noe street nor the basement and therefore can't perform an adequate inspection we'd like to reiterate we want to not cause inconvenience to the neighborhood and to limit the hours of construction beyond the state allows and the radios onsite inspection not heard we've collected letters 2, 3, 4595 noe street and our tenant

john is here as a member of the audience we've also received a letter of support kitty-corner from 9th street and the bay area management district in addition to all the previous argument we're referring to the golden gate rent board which states the construction noise is not grounds for a rent reduction and the maintenance work during normal working hours and didn't interfere with the premises please forgive use it must be shown the city is in error by not following the planning code by lack of procedure the items on the appraisal are not

appropriate for this board we tried to reach out to stephen and michael to have reasonable discussions and yet are lowfat the appellant know we want to build a strong and positive relationship this appeal has detailed the construction by 6 weeks and we've paid double rent and mortgage and legal fees any further delays will cost us more money we ask the board of appeals uphold the permit with no new conditions and recognize this appeal is frivolous in nature thank you for your time. >> are you finished, sir a question i pass that building all the time you've hired a also architect and go contractor as well. >> - i'm sorry if you speak dgo come to the mike. >> we're here with our

architects. >> you guys are lead abatement folks as well. >> yes. >> thank you and my mom is here a lead certified person. >> a question if commissioner swig. >> is there any common hallway or passage any common beds that shares air with the 0 other two apartments. >> the architect can speak to that. >> that's okay. >> state your name you're the licensed architectural i am the project manager. >> there are not any shared other than the front person a shared stairs out back and a shared set of stairs to a common

area but nothing combrsdz they have individual unit not shared. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you we'll hear from the department now. >> inspector duffy. >> inspector duffy wow. >> two cases in a row. >> oh, yeah and joe duffy dbi the building permit on appeal is over the approval for the renovation of a 3 unit building with 3 locations one bedrooms and laundry and kitchen and the bathroom two new bedrooms and bodily harm and property line windows the permit was issued on the 8 of february and suspend in february 2017 and went through planning and mechanical plan

check and the fire department plan check and our housing inspection services as well there are currently no open complaints? >> on the property we expect the work from the permit is upheld to be down to planning code that is the notification for the lead paint take care of the asbestos we've heard that there the bay area air quality and we ask the work for the neighbors and the tenants keep the place clean do your project properly and be respectful other than that i'm available for questions if there are any >> can you explain to me inspector duffy what are the hours of operation that a contractor can work. >> yeah. so the