accessible and maintenance free. greenwood has a long history of submitting inaccurate permitting plans. when he didn't have a garage he certified he has one. this is $275,000 big project not including the work he did not disclose, demolish the roof with construction 40 feet high. this roof in violation of planning code 134 that railing five feet from edge of building for privacy. they have the railing remain at the edge of the building and at the second of the railing parallel to the first one and violation for planning requirement. he he has three decks. the decks are directly facing

our kitchen bathroom and room windows. he and his people have stood on the existing decks looking down at us and took picture of us using dirt on to our property. more decks and planter would make the problem worse. they use prior architect when he realized higher than the limit they move the line about four feet higher to manipulate to code. he concluded it's three story but dbi said it is four. they did not require him to comply with code. plan must be accurate. permit application to disclose the scope of work but he did not. dbi issue architect plan required him to respond.

both planning and building say as long as architect signature and not worried about the

this is a good day. washing the deck and do other things. this is the people looking at us. he is fire rating. it is not complete. no details for the column and no

structure calculation. our tenant need support. >> we have those. >> thank you. >> since i have time. i was told when we were to send to the permit holder. she is a public member. if they do i think you should be a architect here. i have a problem. seven minutes altogether they used it for public comment. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder. there are two appeals.

you have 14 minutes. >> good evening. my name is craig gene wood, i am the property owner and the permit owner. the way i am going to present is to provide you with a background in history because i think it is very important for the context of the case. then i will talk a bit about the project and a privacy issue which is the main issue here. my architect, dean martelli of walker moody is here to answer any questions you may have with

respect to height limits and grade lines. this is a picture of the property right here. my wife and i moved in to the property as renters in 2001. in 2004 we purchased the property and received multiple notices of violations. i spoke to the neighbor whose received multiple notices of violations. if you turn to exhibit c in your brief, i'm sorry the briefs are not tabbed. ther there is a memorandum from the previous zoning administrator, larry badner, you probably have read it. i won't get into that, but the memo describes what i was trying to do for two years to comply with the multiple notices of violations. describes the state of neighborhood relations in 2006

which were extremely strained. it describes the city action against the appellant. she put in some shed and there was a city action. then lastly, mr. badner highlights a number of complaints of which came before the board here. commissioners, i don't know if the shed incident was what -- was the catalyst to put her on the mission to harass her neighbors in the city. since then there are a lot of complaints and conflict between her and her neighbors this. is her property here. the appellant's profi appellantn

north point. there are 84 complaints, actual notices of violations in planning enforcement actions on the adjacent properties to miss tsang. the fact is, commissioners, the appellant does not want her neighbor to work in or improve their properties in any way. i am going to share 3x amples. i think this is relevant to the case. she and her boyfriend, the other appellant, egregious behavior to anyone who attempts to work on their property. the first is. >> face it how you would look at it, sir. >> the first this is a property wall at the ad jay sent neighbor to miss tsang, 767 north point.

as with many properties this is a zero lot line situation. the rear of the property abbutts her property in the backyard. the property owner wanted to paint his property. he painted that property. this absolutely infuriated miss tsang. she got hergor de her garden hoh paint. it looked like this for seven years. mr. englewood got notices for peeling the paint on her property. it turned into an order of abatement. she would not allow access through the air space. it took him seven years. finally, under a court order he was able to paint the wall. there is an exhibit e. i am sorry it is not tabbed.

there is an e-mail from docto doctorrenindoctorenglewood the . it is in my brief. next this is thal appellate's pink property. that is adjacent property to the west. 2666 hide on the corner owned by sandy walker, who is here. sandy decided it is time i need to paint my property. this absolutely infuriated ms. tsang. there was a painter in the morning. she tried to shake the painter off the ladder. the police were called and there were witnesses. nothing happened. this is the behavior we are dealing with. lastly, as she talked about the garage. this is a view of the corner. this is sandy walker's property

here. this is ms. tsang's property on north point. this is my property here. now when i attempted to put in the garage, you would think that number one she was around the corner this wouldn't impact her that i would be improving the property and maybe taking a couple cars off the street. this infuriated her as well, i would dare to put a garage on my property. her boyfriend attacked my contractor, the contractor had to get a restraining order in court, and it took me seven years to get a garage put in. seven expensive years to get a garage put in. this brings me to the project before you today. similar to the garage. this project will have minimal

to no impact on ms. tsang. what we are trying to do and what was approved after three and-a-half long years is to take the gable roof here similar to what was done to the property next door, make it a flat roof, and put a small roof deck up top. the roof deck is an important part of the project because my children who are 8 and 12 years old and especially my 8-year-old is petrified of ms. tsang. miss tsang is looking out the window at her. the roof would provide refuge where my daughter could be out there without ms. tsang looking at her. the main issue that tsang is

alleging the roof deck is going to invade her privacy. to give you an idea of the elevations, as ms. tsang alluded to, this is a view from the top floor looking east. her roofline is at the top of the base of our top floor. privacy issues, windows are way, way below. to give you an idea about distance, this is the area where we would like to take the gable and raise the gable. it is 31 feet from her property line. from the gable and then with the 5-foot set back for the deck, it would be 36 feet away from her property.

the big privacy issues stem from these windows which are her property is perpendicular to my property. as you look back it is a solid property line wall with two windows, bathroom and kitchen window. the windows for whatever it is worth are nonconforming. they are there. they are operable but regardless about that, as you can see they are down below there. what we did is we had a side line view done because she is alleging we are looking down into her bathroom window from the deck above. we had two sightline windows. first was the kitchen window. as you see the bamboo there. we had to put bamboo there. anytime the children would go in the backyard she would take pictures and writing in a notebook. this went on for years and

years. we put up the bamboo. that is great, but the kitchen window is blocked. there is no view issue. here is a side line -- site line study. you can see from the top floor, the new proposed roof deck looking down there is no view with the bamboo into the kitchen window. once again, the bathroom window which is real three main point of contention here, there is a site line study conducted from that one as well, and you can see from there you can't see through the deck. there will be no view to the bathroom window from there. to conclude my architect is here

to answer questions about allegations in the brief, whatever you like. the allegations are improper grade lines, it is a fabrication. as stated in our brief, given the appellant's history this project is heavily scrutinized since the outset. she is involved since day one. if you look in the back of my brief, there is a timeline which in excruciating detail, details how much back and forth and all of the correspondence and what is happening for the last couple of years. the board should deny this appeal. the permit was properly issued after review by the planning department and the planning commission and increased scrutiny by the building department. thank you very much for your consideration. i am happy to answer any questions and the architect is happy to answer any questions you might have.

>> thank you. mr. t. >> i am really interested to hear what you are going to say. >> good evening again. the subject property here is 2650 to 2652 hide straight in rh3 zones district with two unit district 1902. they filed th the knowledge pert july 8, 2016. it was revised to respond to comments from the preservation and residential design advisory teams. neighborhood notification pursuant to 311 was conducted in november and december of 2016.

one of the current appellants filed for review during that notification period. a joint hearing was held on april 27th of 2017 to hear the review and variance cases. the planning commission took the review by 4-1 vote and required the roof set back 5 feet from the northern and eastern walls to provide privacy to the neighbors. the planning commission determined it was consistent with the planning code and design lines. they granted the variance on may 11, 2017. no appeal was filed to the variance. the issues raised for the subject permit were raised during the review. in the interest of time i will not address each issue. however the planning commission and zoning administrator determined the project

consistent. found nothing in the briefs to question thos determination determination. the acoop-see of the plan -- the accuracy of the building story. it is defined in the code and interinterpreted by the planning department. i am available for any questions you may have. >> inspector duffy. >> jill duffy dbi. the knowledge permit was a form three. that was taken for intake. it was filed on the eighth of july 2015. issued on the 20th of november 2017.

it was reviewed as you heard. we had building plan checked. the fire department. it will be approved as well. it looks like code compliant. i don't see anything from building code issues that would be anything to worry about that i saw. in regards to the heights and the elevations and surveys. that is responsibility of the design professional. we will expect it was done professionally and that is where we are with that. obviously people do bring that type of thing up. it is sometimes prudent to get a survey done to make sure everything ask accurate. that is done by alonged surveyor.

the most recent one was the garage permit that is signed off and cfc issued. i was involved in that. miss tsang was down to the departments and we made plans available and let her have comments. if she had complaints we addressed them. there was a cfc issued. there was a number of -- i counted 28 complaints on the property filed going back to 1997. 2004 there was an increase right up to march of 2017, all complaints have been closed. i am available for questions. >> the appellant was concerned that the survey was not produced when in fact she claimed that the survey was done. should we be worried about that?

>> i wouldn't be. i mean we have to be professionals for this type of thing. it is not something that dbi require for a building permit. we have had one. one case before i think was broderick street where the architect got that wrong and closed -- caused a lot every hearings. it is for the architect. maybe in rebuttal you could bring that up. if there is discrepancy we could ask for a survey. i know there is a lot of work. the garage was done and i can't imagine that would have been brought up at that point. i am not sure why it is brought up now. >> the question is the number of floors and the count dbi. can you explain that? >> well, on the building permit it is three stories and basement. there is a drawing in the plans

for the grade plate addressed by the building code. dbi planned check that it was three stories over basement. that is determined at the time of the plan check. it is on the drawings. i didn't look at it real fully. i plan it checked out. good question for the architect as well. i heard the requirement that a four story knowledge has to be structurally upgraded. i am not sure what that means. there was no code section provided with that comment or in the brief. the building does have a brand-new foundation with new garage. maybe the appellant could provide a code section where that has to be upgraded. it is in the brief that shows that there is a great -- grade

plain. that terms story or basement. iit is a three story with one basement. >> does this mean it is sprinklered at this point? >> i believe the garage would have been sprinklered at one level. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? >> good evening, commissioners. >> i am here as a neighbor as well as an architect. you said public comment. >> you are a paid agent of the permit holder?

>> yes, my associate can answer better questions than i can. i think you have a financial interest. >> tough three minutes -- you have three minutes each. >> this is from the picture.

they took a picture. how can they say you cannot see it? we also have two windows. the third one is the lower unit. i showed that to you here. it says three story and four story. the plan in the building department has a note that says this is existing 12 feet. it is not a basement. it is a story. the planning asking them five feet. they put a railing. the rails is five feet from the edge of the building. now they have the other two. one is the edge of the building, one is the parallel to that. you have two railings and they put the plan in those things.

those two railings. it is not one railing. it is two railings. they have been attacking me. the court order him to put the bond with the court. comply with the law. he says he has easement. he doesn't have easement. this is two pages of court order. this is a long one. this gentleman said that i sprayed water. i never did that. they say there is red paint on the wall to our property. the city has the violations. this is not the issue.

you talking about relationship. they are complaining about me recently. they still are complaining. they just come in to the inspector. he says no violation. they are talking about tenants listening in the buildings that complain, too. they should not complain when they do illegal things. i believe it is not accurate. you can see it is against the code. thank you very much. >> any rebuttal?

>> thank you. this is amazing to me. he admits he got the notes of violations and the neighbors got notices of violations. you are doing something wrong when you get a notice of violation. there is something going on that is wrong. what bothers me is the city building and planning department they shift the responsibility to the private sector. they can take a pencil and do what they want on the drawings and tell you everything is fine, and you guys are eating this. it is unbelievable. he said i had a problem with one of his contractors. that is the one the police department did not believe his story. i think it is the same contractor that the plans for

the garage were an existing garage and unexcavated area. one day we are inside and miss tsang's building is vibrating. they are 80 feet away excavating under the building without a permit. that is when the doa commissioner come out and said the plans were false and put a stop work order and went from there. let's see what else. right now, too, here is the code right here. how they are supposed to measure, and according to their measurement, again, they are short from here to here they are short. the slope is way off. it is really short. the measurements are short. the slope is off.

the grade line is off. if they don't produce the survey they are using t to support thi. there is something wrong. unbelievable. i ask the inspector for the code that shows they can backfill the property to raise it up so they can when they alter an existing structure they can get around the four story and change it to a three story. he told me to look at the california building code chapter two and definition of grade plain. i asked again. he hasn't responded. he wouldn't provide the code. they are architects. they can change what they want and say it is fine. they are going to support them and you guys are going to vote okay that is fine. thank you.

>> mr. greenwood, you have no rebuttal? okay. anything further from the department? >> can we ask the question please? i would like to ask the project architect. >> we have the project architect come forward. you have a question for the permit holder, is that right? >> sure. it doesn't count against your time. since you have no rebuttal you can have your people speak on your behalf first and ask the questions. it is your choice, right? >> thank you very much. my question related to the question related to the question raised by the appellant with regard to the site survey and lack thereof and their request

that it be provided to them and then a lack of their ability to get the site survey. can you clarify. is there a site survey? >> yes. >> what would be the reason you won't share it? >> well, yes, we did have a survey performed by kca surveyors in the city of san francisco on brannon street. per the request of the planning department, planning department did not ask to have the survey submitted to them nor did dbi, but they ask that the survey results be incorporated into our drawings which we have done. we did not what i received from the surveyor was a computer cad file with all of their information.

the last permit was for an event pipe closer than three feet to the property line and we ended up writing that up and mr. greenwood came in special got the permit, moved the pipe three feet away from the property line. we see a lot of vent pipes close to property lines. that's the type of situation we have here. i mean, it's unfortunate but, you know, everyone has their rights and we'll do what we do. as i say, you settle a number of complaints around the property and we responded to every one of them. >> one last question since you have the plans. they indicated a small deck. what is the square footage for the top floor deck, do you know? >> i don't know. i'm sorry.

>> could the architect address that maybe? >> you want the square footage of the roof deck? is there someone on the team to provide that information?

>> commissioner honda: the question was that the garage was there but erroneous. >> i mentioned in my brief, i hired a contractor, it was the wrong contractor. he had his own engineer, i'm not an architect, i'm not an engineer, i wasn't involved with the plan, apparently the plans were not done correctly. i don't believe they said there was a garage there but there was some issue with the plans and the appellant took them to the state engineers board. i fired that contractor immediately and hired a new architect and seven years later the garage was completed. that's the issue there. with respect to the nov, since you brought it up i would like to -- >> commissioner honda: we're fine with the nov situation. >> i just want to say -- >> commissioner honda: unless a question is addressed to you. we're comfortable with that. the question right now is the size of the deck. >> it's 223 square feet. >> commissioner honda: thank you.

perfect. thank you. >> commissioners unless you have other questions, the matter is submitted. >> president fung: comments, questions? >> commissioner honda: i don't. as i mentioned, the brief was several hours in review going through it. it was really kind of complicated, two different stories as the appellant has mentioned as well as the permit holder. looking at the current permit before us, i see no reason to grant the appeal. >> i make a motion to deny the appeal in that the permit was properly issued. >> president fung: is that your motion? >> yes. >> thank you vice president from the motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the

basis it was properly issued. two appeals to deny both. right? >> yes. >> thank you. on that motion then... (voting) that motion passes and the two appeals are denied. so we'll move on them. commissioners to item 8, the board's consideration and possible adoption of the budget for the next two fiscal years. commissioners, i know you're very familiar with the materials that i provided to you, they were similar to what was provided in year's past, i'm not going to go over in great detail some of the same information but we need to have you consider the budget now because the budget documents need to be submitted to the mayor's office in a couple of weeks before the next meeting. >> commissioner honda: so you're doing the work for the new

director. that is kind of comforting we're going to have this for two years, because as of the five years i've been on the board, watching and doing this process has been very enlightening and your budget is always well done. >> the new director will still have to shepherd it through the board of supervisors, but at least we can tee it up for -- >> you're not throwing monkey wrenches in are you? >> i'm not. pretty stayraightforward. the surcharges are the same. the budget expenditure for the current year is basically the same as in past years, primarily going to the costs for employees, salaries and fringe benefits and some of the other departments we rely on, like the city attorney and sfgov-tv. the projections for year end,

we're looking at 6.4% below the 10 year average. we have 107 appeals filed so far this fiscal year. last year at this point we had 99. we're close to average, normal for what we see. you may recall we've had a spike of some kind or another. >> at&t. >> right. we haven't had a spike but one may be coming soon when the cannibis permits get issued more -- i do think it's important to give an update on the current year dollars. we're looking at a small surplus in filing fees and deficit in surcharge revenue. the surcharge rates were adjusted this current year and so the reason for that was -- two reasons, the controller's office wanted to make sure we

don't overcollect. you may recall we have a reserve fund where we're putting surplus revenue in year to year. that reserve fund has been growing and over a million dollars in the fund and i think quite understandably, the mayor's office and controller thinks we shouldn't continue to build the reserve, bring down the rates and see what we do with revenue and we can draw from that fund at the end of the year if there's a deficit as a result of the reduced surcharge rate. >> commissioner honda: sorry to interrupt. they're basically penalizing us? >> i think some may be efficiency and that the rates were possibly too high. anything to help alleviate expenses on the population when they get permits is a good thing. the $25 surcharge rate was reduced to 18.50 and there's an

appendix at the back if you want to look at the current rates. mta went from 7 to $2. the police department rate went from 26.50 to $6. that's more of the reflection of the volume of appeals going down for those permit types. so we're trying it out. we'll see how it goes. it does look like there might be a bit of a deficit, but as you will see if you go to the next slide on page 7 we are looking at expenditure savings so i think we'll end in the black, if we don't, it would be covered by this reserve fund and there wouldn't be concern about having an actual deficit to deal with. >> that was my concern, why it's -- i'm probably skipping ahead.

but the -- it's not like -- there's a surplus of 18,000 which isn't much. and there has been a trend that seems to be less activity for ourselves here and some of that may have been the at&ts or verizons, sorry to mention brand names but that's what they are. i was concerned that through the actions of reducing the fees and that very narrow margin of 18,000 which is not going to grow the surplus that much, when there's increase of expenditures of 34,000 for next year -18, we're in the red. that's why i thought the budget was a little tight.

>> it is tight and i think you are skipping ahead, but i think it's okay to go there now. really what that means is what it points to, the controller's office needs to consider that when the rates are readjusted for the coming two years. that's what they'll do. we started that process, each year it's done in context of what has the revenue been, what are the expenses going to be, so these increases in the next two budget years will be taken into account when the surcharge rates are analyzed this year. as well as how have the new rates produced. so we'll see what the deficit is, if there is one closer to the end of the fiscal year, the adjustments happen around april and may. we'll have better -- more clarity than we do now and i think we have some for increases there might be in the next

budget year. >> president fung: we have a very large reserve. >> yeah, yeah. that's why it's not a fatal flaw. >> president fung: that reserve can take care of any deficit we have for up to 10 years. >> yeah. it's just odd setting yourselves up, maybe it's my private sector hat being worn too strongly, but setting up for the risk of a deficit is odd to me. it seems that we are not on an increase as far as hearing more and more appealing, we're flat lined or down and therefore the expenditures are fairly fixed and there is risk that there will be further deficit.

i agree with president fung, if we tripled and it was wrong and the law school went up to $100,000, still that means 1.7 and change. >> the other thing to keep in mind vice president, the bulk of the budget comes from the surcharges and not the budgeting fees. it's not really going to affect the bottom line. it's who is out there applying for permits. not just the ones that get appealed but generally. it's more the economy, the health, what is happening in the city in terms of building activities that are going to affect the bulk of our revenue. >> vice president swig: thank you for that clarification. that's important. >> president fung: i think it's possible, there's been blips in planning apps and building permit apps downward that may show a decrease in the amount of surcharge revenue we're going to

get. >> that is one of the big pieces of information the controller's office uses when they project forward what the rates should be. it's not just how much we need, it's how many permit applications they anticipate in the future. >> vice president swig: isn't that counter intuitive that during the period when there's high demand for new development and all the things you went through, it would seem surcharges are something that really don't matter as much because there's this -- you know this stampede of development whereas in a down period, when in fact there might be a need for development, that would be the time to reduce the surcharges to stimulate demands like interest rates. >> uh-huh. >> vice president swig: it seems to be counter intuitive but i

know you'll carry that message to the controller's office with the comment. >> i will be happy to do that and it's tied into the legislation. there's a bigger question if the formi formula needs to be looked at but absolutely. we have moved into the discussion about the coming years and we've indicated that there are some increases in each of the two budget years, both of them in the low 30,000 range. 3% the first year, 3.2% the second year and so, again, those will be looked at in context of the surcharge rate and how to generate income to handle those. the recommendation is very similar to past years, for us to continue to work with the mayor's office and controller's office on the discussion of what the surcharge rates should be. i wanted to bring you up to date on the work being done for

updating the board's data base, it's in the context of budget discussion. you may recall previously i have mentioned we need to upgrade the data base because of software it's built on is no longer supported. we wanted to use a pool of contractors that the department of technology have put together that will customize something for us through a platform. and that pool was just certified a few months ago. we do have a bid out right now, and i'm hoping that we will get competitive bids in and that perhaps the new director will want to move forward in that direction. they'll be available for that person to look at when they arrive in the office. and in discussions with the controller and mayor's office to use the reserve fund dollars so it won't have an impact on the surcharge rate and this is the kind of thing that makes sense to spend it on if it needs to be

spent. >> does that make gary's job easier? >> to get a new data base? >> yeah. >> i think it will. >> president fung: you know, building and planning's new data base system is -- >> circular file. >> we'll have the second version before they get their first one out the door. so -- i would expect. so commissioners, that's really it for the presentation. you see the budget detail if you have questions about it, i'm happy to drill down with you on some of the numbers but it's all there. and we would need a motion to adopt and take public comment if -- >> commissioner honda: i motion that. and it's well done and for us the financial side is relatively simple. >> vice president swig: i motion

it and commend and thank our director for all the hard work and effort she has put forward. yeah, so i make that motion to accept that. >> is there public comment on the budget? seeing none, then on that motion to adopt this budget proposal for the two fiscal years... (voting) >> president fung: are we the only department actually reducing our rates? >> i don't know. >> vice president swig: that should be a trend since we're on the record. thank you. >> mr. president, do you want to gavel out? the meeting is done. ♪

>> they tend to come up here and drive right up to the vehicle and in and out of their car and into the victim's vehicle, i would say from 10-15 seconds is all it takes to break into a car and they're gone. yeah, we get a lot of break-ins in the area.

we try to -- >> i just want to say goodbye. thank you. >> sometimes that's all it takes. >> i never leave anything in my car. >> we let them know there's been a lot of vehicle break-ins in this area specifically, they target this area, rental cars or vehicles with visible items. >> this is just warning about vehicle break-ins. take a look at it. >> if we can get them to take it with them, take it out of the cars, it helps.