>> last comment, ok? >> thank you, sorry. >> because of his repeated wrong doings, we would please request the board to have him match the existing five feet setback from the property line and remove the fourth floor additions and have him start the process over so we are giving due process, since we were denied the due process, or go forth with the plans sent out, the plans from 2013. >> thank you. >> hear from the permit holder now, i believe through his attorney, brett gladstone. [please stand by]

attached on the overhead is the second notice. and neighbors claim that it wasn't clear and there wasn't a vertical addition, but also down

here in yellow, it says currently the proposal is to construct a vertical and horizontal addition. and the plan attached is never different. and you can ask who was there. and if the 311 plan was inconsistent, they could have easily called planning or the project sponsor. the second page of the notes says here in yellow, if there are any questions, call project sponsor or planner. they didn't do that have. they pulled out one page of the notice of the plans and not show you this. there is a legal theory that is very, very well known and something the judge would consider in this case called constructive knowledge,

constructive knowledge. constructive knowledge or constructive notice is a notice of a fact that a person is presumed by law to have regardless of whether he or she actually does since the knowledge is ascertainable by reasonable character. i would submit that the judge said it was reasonable care and expected that the project that the neighbors read not only what was the plan, but what i showed you the narrative was about the fourth floor. i submit to you that it was reasonable then to make increase which they did not make. as for the n.o.v., yes, no n.o.v. because the foundation went beyond the scope. the client was there. client apologized. client paid $13,000 to the appellant for the damage. it was a mistake. it wasn't a huge one. it wasn't even n.o.v. i would like or appreciate if we could put an end in to this

tonight. i think this is constructive notice, which is legal notice, and on that basis, ski you to approve -- i ask you to approve. >> questions? i have a question for mr. lund. refresh my memory, who attended the pre-application meeting that you held? >> the appellant, the neighbors across the street, and we met subsequently with the appellant. >> how many people? >> we have a list here -- there were at least five. and some of them are here in the room tonight. wanda -- there were seven people who attended the meeting. >> you have a list? >> yes, we have a list and that is part of the submittal that we included. >> yes, we have the list right now. >> and at that meeting you presented the revised design. >> yes, we did.

>> for example, the neighbor across the street, the ones that were complaining last time about the fourth floor, we modified and removed a window specifically because of their request to do that. they were very aware of that. as i said, we pet with the appellant, modified part of -- we went down into the first floor and looked at his view and took pictures of it, modified the project, and created open railings and moved the deck back specifically to address his concerns. >> okay. >> is that it, commissioners? okay. if we can ask for public comment then. is there any public comment on this item? i'm sorry. >> my name is martin smith. i live across the street at 567. what we talked about a couple weeks ago, we didn't get -- we got the original plans. they had the four story.

we didn't want it. we said something about it. they came back and gave a second set of plans without the fourth story. we didn't complain about it. that is why nobody complained. we got two sets of plans. we got the one without the four story. that is why we didn't complain. i don't know what they were doing, but if you look at what goes up -- what is going on, it's like a convoluted mess. we didn't know and we didn't complain because we thought they were going to get rid of the fourth story. it turns out now there are four stories in and saying they -- i think it was deceit to tell you the truth. but it doesn't -- the fourth story doesn't fit in with the neighborhood. if you look, all the buildings on the block o three story. he wants to build a fourth story and it is unsightly and i don't think it conforms. thank you. >> sir, you were the previous d.r. requester, weren't you? >> pardon? >> you were the d.r. requester? >> no. >> you were not?

>> no. i live straight across the street. >> understood. >> an it does not conform. >> thank you. >> next speaker please. >> hello. my name is andrew may. i'm the neighbor from the north side. i live at 564 29th avenue. i submitted a brief that you received, and i don't need to go through the details of that. what i did want to bring to your attention, though, to confirm, is this is an original copy of the plans that we were sent. i actually agree with what the last speaker said and the covenant and does read it it appears to be inconsistent with the plans provided to us. by the plans themselves as you can see for the proposed section b do not include any fourth story. they do not include the horizontal addition. i included these in the brief.

and so we were working on the basis that having had the preapplication meeting, that they had actually decided to back down from the proposal that had been put forward. and they had decided to move ahead with the original plans and that we actually filed the original d.r. the against, so we basically let that expire because it had been a long time. we felt that our objections to that previously were something that we could now live with and they wanted the project to move ahead. we decided not to file any further complaints or to raise any objections for the designers because we felt they backed down to what we figured was a reasonable comprise at the time. unfortunately, we were working off completely wrong set of plans. and had we known that we were actually talking about the plans that had been shown to us during the pre-meeting, we would have raised some significant objections to these. we really have had no chance to be able to come in or engage

about that because we had just made a decision to accept the plans that were in front of us. the one thing i think is also worth pointing o it is this has been a very contentious project. as i pointed out to you in the brief, there has been being denied what is due process along the way. and again, we didn't -- honestly, we didn't engage after having receive the plans because we wanted it all to be over and done with. fortunately, mr. tan filed the appeal, and that is why we are here today. that is where we are. >> did you attend the second pre-application meeting? >> i believe i only attended one pre-application meeting. >> the earlier one. >> i attended one that associated with the original design. and i attended one with the new designer who is showed us a set of plans that were then

different from the ones we received in the 311. >> can you repeat what you just said? >> yes. so there was one pre-notification meeting in 2014 with the original set of plans. there was a second pre-notification meeting with mr. lam and his associate where they presented a much larger set of plans which is what i understand is the basis of what's being approved. but again, we have a long conversation with them about the contentious situation, and i i had assumed based on that to back down to the original design and be forward with that. i had no basis to think otherwise. >> ls a, because this is kind of confusing, when you met with the project sponsor's architect, they showed you the current plans with the fourth story on it? >> i believe so. something similar to that, yes,

for the pre-notification. >> when they pointed it out, did you have any questions to them in regard to the fourth story? >> an at the time of the pre-notification meeting, there were -- i think he is right. there were about seven people there. there was a lot of objections to that, to the extent of the horizontal addition, to number of the design elements that were brought up during the discussion. >> on the second meeting. >> on the second meeting. >> thank you. >> okay. other public comment? please step forward. >> good evening, commissioners. i am amy tang, the owner of 571 29th avenue. i would like to state once again

that we strongly disagree 566 29th avenue to do a fourth floor. we told mr. lam and his assistant in 2016 that the pre-application meeting that we disliked the look of this fourth floor. and obviously our concern was not heard. and the same drawing was submitted to the city planning as well as to the building department. who does not like the neighborhood to look beautiful and neat? let's have a look at the pictures. it makes my family think of a headstone in front of a tomb. the master bedroom is on the third floor facing east. this is something which -- this is something within our sight day and night. and it will make us foal very

uncomfortable. and another thing is mr. lam lied in the previous hearing on trying to contact us. neither him nor his office told or mailed any correspondence to us after the pre-approval me meeting -- i mean the pre-application meeting. if we had received a 311 notice the with correct drawings attached, we would have more time to look at the drawings and to let the planning department know our concerns. we felt like we were being cheated, and our right to voice our opinion was taken away. thanks to our neighbor mr. anthony tam who submitted the appeal and here we are. we hope that the commissioners share our feelings and seriously consider the environmental effect of the look of the fourth floor to the neighbors. and if possible, give us back our rights to review the process

starting from 311 notice. thank you. >> ma'am, i have a question. you attended the pre-application meeting with mr. lam? >> yes, i did. >> he presented this project which is different than the original project. >> yes. >> you notice there is a fourth floor. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? okay, sir. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is heinz. owner of 571 29th avenue. i am a licensed contractor and have been working in this field for more than 25 years. ever since we received the notice of appeal, this case has been bothering me and my wife. i talked to some of the architect and the people in this

field i know regarding the 311 notice attached with an old plan, and an agent of the applicant submit the new plan of approval after the 311 notice expired. they all said no way could the city planning department make such kind of careless mistake. unbelievable. nevertheless, there have been stories among the policy planning and nothing show the application, pass deceit, and others. because of some kind of personal connection. anyway, stories are stories. without evidence or proof. but now, but now it's hard for me not to relate this case with the story i have heard.

this careless mistake was made. a good image is easy to be destroyed than build. i hope that the commissioners return fairness to our legal and wish fur family to allow -- to family not to allow 566 29th avenue to be the fourth floor. or we do the whole process start from sending out the 311 notice with the correct plan. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? >> seeing none, commissioners, i think the asis about the zoning -- the assistant zoning. he spoke first. we didn't skip him. there's no rebuttal.

but he seems to have something further to say. if you like, we can bring him up. >> okay. >> thank you, again, commissioners. cory tiffe restate that considering the sensitive nature and the long history of the project, it absolutely was an unfortunate error to have the wrong plans likely sent out with that 311 notice, but it was essentially that, just a staffing error. i obviously can't speak towards any communications that did or did not happen outside of the required notices from the planning department. but i did want to provide you with as much information as i could if possible. the appellant, mr. tam, stated that he did not receive the notification for the pre-application meetinger to 311 notice iing the mailing sheets included for the pre-application

and the 311 notice did include his address. and the list of attendees at the pre-application meeting included anthony tam as well as andrew may, so what that helps to provide that information. it does appear that the project sponsor did conduct the pre-application appropriately and did conduct the 311 appropriately. and that the error if the plans were not included in the second 311 was due to staff error. and i am available for any other questions you may have. >> if i were the project sponsor, i would be livid because i would be sitting there shaking and quaking and upset with the city like crazy. at the same time, if i was the neighborhood, i would be livid and shaking and quaking like crazy because this one little

mistake is like saying, oh, i only poured a little cyanide in the pure water system. it still poisons the system, does it not? i am really wrestling with that. because if i would have gone to a meeting and protested against the fourth floor, and then -- regardless of whether the project sponsor was flexible or not in the discussion, and then received a piece of paper and i am not an expert, and i lock at a piece of paper and another notice and it shows a building that doesn't have a fourth floor on it, i would have probably said, yay, we win. and with all due respect to mr. gladstone, it doesn't really matter what the editorial states. i looked at a piece of paper and it shows three stories, so we have -- i think we have a

completely poisoned process. i am not saying that the project is right or wrong. but it's poisoned because just a little cyanide was poured in the water. so i'm really confused legally -- >> do you have a question? >> i am confused legally and looking at the city attorney. is this -- what happens when -- what happens with something like this? where the city screwed up, misled the public, and also -- >> i do have a question. >> what happens? and you can answer the same questions. because it must have happened before. >> what happens when there is a mistake made like this? >> i don't know that i have ever experienced this exact situation where the wrong plans were sent out with 311 notice. what we have before and this is something that came to you not too long ago is where a project had a bbn notice filed.

and that was not called. and the permit was approved, issued, whether there should have been the bbn notice. and there are questions there about, well, one option is to revoke the permit and start from the beginning. the other option was to essentially have the planning commission reveal it and do the b.b.n. notice to the requester and give them the opportunity to file a december discretionary review and with the understanding that whatever decision the planning commission makes would be essentially a recommendation to the board of appeal on appeal action. this is for the project on broderick where that happened because if it's an issue and an appeal permit, the planning commission can't take formal action. and i believe those are the two options we have weighed in the situation where is a b.b.n. notice was not done appropriately. i assume a similar -- one of those two paths would be available here, if not others. >> mr. vice president n that case, we would continue this

until that process was allowed to take place at the planning commission. and the appeal would just -- >> i think there is a third option. >> i have a question. i know you kind of explained this. how did this happen? from the planning staff or the mail house? >> again, we are running on the assumption that the wrong plans were in there. i don't have a physical copy, but i don't have any reason to believe that is not what happened. >> correct. >> the best of my knowledge is that obviously we have essentially in our system we have a folder for each building permit. and in this building permit folder, obviously it's kind of like two building permits in one. you have the first project that went -- >> understanding there is two felders and they sent the wrong one, is there tracking on who made the error? i would like to know that. >> okay. i can get that information for you. >> correct. >> because as my fellow commissioner eluded to, now we are in a fine mess, bull winkle.

>> yes. i can also assure you that support staff didn't know this project from a project on the moon, and -- >> actually, something like this has happened before. >> we have had the b.b.n.s quite often. >> not talking about b.b.n. all right. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> a commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i think i would like clarification on one piece of it. i don't know to whom -- maybe this is to mr. lam. the second pre-application meeting, whereas i understand it, the appellant was present, along with a couple of the other neighbors, the plans that they were looking at which were -- were which plans? >> the plans with the fourth floor and actually the fourth floor wasn't an issue with the appellant. it was -- nor the d.r., existing d.r. applicant. >> the fourth floor plans were

the ones around which people met? >> a we did our pre-application meeting with. >> we did meet with the d.r. applicant afterwards and also the amrant. >> one more clarification. who did you negotiate the window on? >> the neighbor across -- >> did they speak? >> the ones that said i was a liar. >> we did ask them to send images from their view so we could understand what the view effect would be. the husband was not open to letting us on the property. the wife was more open to that. but -- >> what considerations did you make in reflect to their view? >> we removed a window that they were objecting to that they said was going to be a privacy issue from across the street. >> thank you.

>> an actually, we did have -- i think it was more than one instance where the notice -- no, everything is done. we're in discussion now. where the issue of notice was not 100% clear cut, that it wasn't done. what this board did is had to decide is to clarify the notice issue and they did what the active d.a. indicated as an opti option. what was brought up here was in terms of whether this board in essence would do the review similar to a d.r. review. and make a decision on that.

and rather than have to go through additional process, and i remember that discussion occurring at least once, possibly twice. >> your suggestion would be, mr. president? >> i think it's incumbent upon the board to think about whether -- how badly was notice not conformed to, notice requirement. and if it was somewhat conformed to, the question is whether we would want to make a decision in order to not repeat further process. >> usually my concern is that the surrounding neighbors are not aware. evidently there was a process glitch with the planning department regarding plans. but i think the affected parties all understood without the plan -- without seeing the plans, but

they met with the project sponsor. they saw the fourth story. and there's been three years of process here. maybe four years of process here. as in the last hearing, i was not supportive of rehearing it or continuing this case. in this particular, i feel there has been process here. if you reset the clock, basically you are causing the permit holder additional three year years for the process here. then you have a tombstone on the block. the other thing is in the last hearing a lot was talked about housing. i mean, these people are supplying housing for them and their adult families, and we are in short supply and in need of it. i am not supportive of granting this appeal. >> i'd like to ask a question of the neighbor who filed the

original d.r. could you step up? because i want to be really clear on the truth. i would remind you that you are under oath please. not that i would haven't to do that, but it's -- we have a lot of hearings. you filed -- i want to make sure i heard clearly what you said. i know that you filed a d.r. >> yes. >> then there was a subsequent meeting where you saw the fourth floor rendering. then you chose not to file the d.r., and i wasn't clear on whether you chose not to file a continuing d.r. because you had plans delivered into your lap that were different from what you saw at the meeting, so you thought the hair cut on the

fourth floor was given, or you just were happy with what you saw as a result of the follow-up meeting. that's for me -- >> so, the d.r. was filed on -- actually, on the plans that were sent out in the most recent 311 notification, the 2013 plans. >> the original plans. >> we never received a hearing for that d.r. in pront of the planning commission. it was not open. when the new project architect was brought on board, they restarted the process, generated new plans, which they presented to all of us during the pre-notification meeting. that included a fourth story. when we received the 311 notification, and then -- i'm sorry, there were objections from the neighbors around the fourth story. i did not object to that tt i saw that because i hadn't really thought through -- hadn't had a chance to inspect the plans and

think about how they fit with residential guidelines. the plans we then received were the original ones we filed the d.r. against. we decided on balance because of the amount of time that we should let those go through because they were substantially better than the plans we had been presented with in the pre-notification meeting. >> and that is how things worked. >> thank you. and therein lies the conundrum. >> no further discussion. a vast amount of the oral presentation was related to

proce process. only a couple of times did they really talk about what they were objecting to. i state this, though, for myself in my review is there were actually two things i think i sort of showed up through the briefs. one was the fourth story. the other was the length of the extension into the rear yard. i have no real issue with the extension into the rear yard. i have issues with the fourth story. >> i agree completely. i hate to do it again and get -- >> like to make a motion these days. >> why doesn't somebody else make a motion.

vice president? >> i mean, there would be two opportunities for motions for me. i'd like to go back and i am hear i hearing the thought that, boy, we're adding three years back on to the process, and that is really awful for the project sponsor, but the process was flawed. and you heard from somebody who said, oh, but i didn't go d.r. because i wanted to move it forward and the fourth floor was gone. so that is flawed. so, you know, my inclination is you've got to go back to where it was when that set of plans would have gone out and he would have raised his hand again for a d.r. possibly. >> if you were confuse t at the plans you saw, it gives a

description of the work and clearly states adding and changing third story to fourth story. >> i understand that, but a picture -- a picture is worth 1,000 words. and that was only about 10. that's my problem with that. >> make a motion. >> but the other motion would be that we could lop off the fourth floor if that's really the key issue in the case. i don't know what to do -- how to start it all over again or lop off the fourth floor. >> make a motion -- from the city attorney. >> can you bring your mic down please? thank you. >> is constructive notice enough? or does it have to be actual notice? >> i don't know that there's a clear answer to that question

here. it depends on the context of a lawsuit it might be. hear they seem to be arguing there is a due process violation of the notice not being sufficient. i don't think there's a clear legal answer to that question in these circumstances. this hearing is before the board and you are in a de novo context, so there is process being provided to the neighbors. you have the same power a tz planning commission to consider all the changes they are asking for to this permit. and there is certainly an argument that that would be sufficient process under principles of due process. >> i am of the opinion that the process that has occurred here is significant process for all parties concerned. i am willing to take a shot at a motion.

i'm going to move to grant the appe appeal, and to eliminate the fourth floor on the basis that it is not contextual to the a a area. and with that removal would be -- the permit would be granted. >> commissioners -- president fung, on that motion, what we would need from the permit holder eventually would be revised plans. >> this is a motion of intent. >> well, you could either -- my concern is only that when those plans come to our office, we would be able to insure other than the earemoval of the fourt floor if there are other changes needed because of the design

change, would they be of concern to the board? so you could either continue it to allow them to submit revised plans that reflect that, or if you feel comfortable and i am locking at the planning department about whether that's going to be a concern that if you feel comfortable that they could just take off the fourth floor and whatever is presented to us regardless of how they redesign the rest of the property, it would be acceptable. then we can make it -- we can make it your motion and move forward. >> does planning feel comfortable with that process? >> cory teague. the process is definitely adequate. the only thing i would ask is that if we're not going to wait for plans and we're just going to have that condition is clarify because right now there is an existing sloped roof form,

so they are proposing -- it is not a situation where there's three stories with a plat roof and proposing to add a fourth story with a flat roof. it is a sloped roof they were proposing to pop out and flatten out in the rear to create space that was previously attic space. whatever motion if you went that route to reflect if the concept is to have the roof form to go back to what it was and have no space on the fourth floor or something like that to make sure it is clear what context you are wanting the fourth floor and roof form to be. >> this is similar to the the property we had that had a pop-up penthouse. >> a little different. >> then they raised an increased the building height because the pop-up. >> a little bit different because it is a sloped roof context now and going to pop it out and flatten the roof in the rear to create habitable face in the fourth floor. i am assuming what you are discussing is not having that

popped out and keeping that sloped reform on the fourth floor. >> how much addition to the roof height are they add iing from t a fronted back? >> to the height? >> i would have to check on the measured height because the way the planning code measured -- we take the midpoint. >> the pop-up doesn't quite hit the peak. >> up to mere the peak. probably 4, 5 -- >> he has the numbers. >> it is in the drawings. >> an it would be in the 311 notice. i can check, too. >> do you have a question? >> wondering if we should continue this and have the plans submitted and make sure that everything is kosher. i don't see what the harm is. >> i was just trying to see if -- >> for all the people in the audience to be done in one meeting. >> well -- >> they are interested in a lot more process than this. >> maybe that is best just to be safe. why don't we continue this case

pending submission of drawings. >> okay. we haven't had a motion yet. i have made the motion to continue this case pending submission of drawings that eliminates the fourth floor. >> do you want to pick a date for the continuance? i don't know how much time you want to ask the project sponsor how much time they need to prepare that? >> april 11? >> just asking about the date. are you available april 11? >> that would be fine. and we agree on the motion. thank you. >> that is part of my motion to continue to april 11. >> okay. so we have a motion from the president to continue the appeal to april 11 to allow time for revised plans to be submitted, reflecting the elimination of the fourth floor, and president

fong fong, i am assuming that means no additional briefing, only the submittal of the plans. >> that is correct. >> on that motion by the president, commissioner lazarus. commissioner honda. commissioner wilson. vice president swig. >> thank you. that motion passes and this item is continued as specified. >> we're going to take a >> welcome back to the march 7, 2018 meeting of the san francisco san francisco board of appeals. we are calling item 6a and 6b and appeals numbers 17-191 and 17-192 filed against rasa moss and john and carol broderick with the property at 363 jersey street. protesting the issuance on november 9, 2017 to 363 jersey street of a site garage and

horizontal and rear vertical addition, complete interior remodel and place the property line walls and sprinklers, convert underdeck space. this matter was heard on february 21, 2018. at that time the board continued the matter to march 7, tonight, to allow time for the permit holder to submit a revised plan set reflecting the removal of the basement, lighting plan showing exterior lighting pointing downward, property line construction detail showing at a minimum construction meeting the state code standard for party walls between condominiums and a shoring plan. and again, commissioner wilson, just confirming you're prepareed? great. i understand from the parties who are all standing there together they have reach and agreement and would like to present that to the board for adoption. >> something easy? say it's not so. >> pardon me? >> go ahead. >> please. >> thank you for the support and direction you gave to the project sponsor, and the

neighb neighbors. i think the case is settled. the permit holder would like to have the approved plans including the revised drawings that have been submitted and ask for a special condition permit for the deletion of the basement, the rear window, the down uplight, the shoring, which is very important to neighbors, and the acoustics. and apparently those drawings have been submited. we accept them. we are now working with the permit holder to coordinate a preconstruction photo survey which the neighbor wills agree and cooperate with. and they have agreed to some damage issues and we are currently entering into a written agreement. we are writing it. the lawyer just got hired, so i am doing the talking now. and we will be working with the project sponsor for a successful project. we will coordinate with the

engineers and the flashing and the roofing materials. so we ask the board to take jurisdiction and accept the new plans. >> thank you. >> does anyone want to speak on behalf of the permit holder? do you want to say something? >> i think we other good. >> the neighbors don't -- >> i think he was representing all of the appellants. >> yes. >> okay. so we have these plans dated the 28th of february, and there is an attachment a. that was submitted. are those the documents that you are referring to? >> was a. the shoring plan? >> attachment a. is -- wall detail. >> right. >> and the architect and we

incorporated that into the addendum. >> a my question is, are you asking the board to adopt the revised plans dated february 28 and this attachment a. as the eare vised plans for the project? >> that attachment actually is actually included in the architectural drawings. we made a digitized rendering of it. but that was the original drawing by the neighbor's architect that we retained to provide that detail. and we created a digitized electronic -- >> understood. >> the detail there they have in the drawings would satisfy the requirement. >> okay. >> was there any public comment on this item? >> any staff? departmental staff have any comments? you don't have to if you don't need to. >> good evening, commissioners. planning department staff, just confirming they did review the

plans. there were internal layout changes proposed. and some minor external changes, although no increase in building envelope. we reviewed the plans and they are consistent with the planning code. >> good, thank you. [please stand by]

. >> this was also continued to at any time to allow the appeal to -- for the department of building inspection to confirm the number of stories in the subject property so we can hear from inspector duffy first. >> joe duffy, dbi. i did meet with the project

architect at dbi last week, and we did discuss the project more, and i pointed out some of the concerns that i had from the last hearing, and we -- he was in agreement with a lot of the items, and we have come up now with a new project description which i think will fit better than what we had before. and the plans do reflect the fourth floor level as an existing attic going to be converted to livable space. and i just, for the record, just readout the project description. remodel of single-family residence including new kitchen, plumbing, electrical mechanical and structural work, new work on front

an 11 copies tonight, so he -- or the attorney for the project, so i think he brought 11 copies for you. they weren't submitted. we just mapped them at dbi. >> okay. >> so you might want to hear from the -- >> well, we'll hear from both parties. >> should we here from teague first, if the department is

done? nothing? okay. so we can hear, then, from the appellant. >> president fung and commissioners, i'm very glad to hear the report from senior planner inspector duffy, and i'm very happy to hear that sprinklers will be able to put in so it will be a legal dwelling right next to me, connected, so there will not be a fear of fire hazard. i do want to request that we work out a agreement just because i have a new roof on their side. every roofer that came up to give me estimates told me that their roof needed to be

replaced years ago. so even if they don't do it now, it's going to need to be done. i've given them cancelled checks, and i've told them we need to have things in place done, because if they make my roof leak, they're going to hear about it. this is not asking a lot. i'm not asking them to soundproof to condo level or put down lights or that type of thing, but it's just something to make it as a neighborly agreement that if there's damage done to our roof because we are connected, that i'd like to have them pay for the expense, and that's all i ask. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. we can hear from the permit holder now.

>> it's not whether we like to do it. if you want us to adopt it, you better submit it. >> i would like to. >> please hand them to the clerk. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> you want one?

>> thank you. okay. why don't you state your name and proceed. >> good evening, president, vice president, commissioners. my name is steven hammond of clark hill llp on behalf of respondents car why a respondents care w respondents carrie and ryan baker. the issue here was the appellant, miss momota, brought up at the last hearing, that the plans improper omitted the requirement to install a sprinkler system. vice president swig was particularly concerned because there was an e-mail from miss baker, the project owner, saying that the -- one would be installed. all this was news to me because in the apartment papers, the issues was a dutch cutter that miss momota had affixed to her property and attached to the project owner's property.

the board continued the hearing, and at that time, we looked into this issue of the sprinkler system requirement, and what we discovered is that the as approved plans -- and you now have with you the first two pages. one is -- the first is a blowup, which i also have here on the overhead. and the second is the full page of this blowup. and what it shows asti conditi of approval is a requirement to sprinkle the entire building pernfpa 13-r under separate permit. so in fact that has always been a condition of approval, and -- and i'm now able to make and clarify that point to you. the -- as inspector duffy

indicated, the architect did meet with him and submitted revised plans as requested that clarified the number of stories and also further memorialized the condition of approval that there is to be an installation of a sprinkler system in the entire building. on that basis, we ask that you deny this p.o. or in the alternative, conditionally approve it with the appropriate permit. if -- i'm available if you have any questions, and as well as mr. hertzig. thank you. >> as a point of clarification, you're asking that the two sheets you submitted replace the corresponding sheets in your original set, and the balance of the set remains as

is? >> that is -- that, i believe, is correct, but i want to make sure that -- [ inaudible ] >> so as mr. hertzig said, it would be a permission revision? >> you want a permission revision? >> no. we want a permit tonight with the conditions that are indicated in the plans that we've just submitted or has been submitted to inspector duffy. >> you have something to say? >> commissioners, joe duffy, dbi. i think i did advise them that the special conditions permit was the option to get this cleared up. and just on the roof, there's no work on the appellant's side of the roof showing on the plans. the dormers are on the other

side, so they shouldn't affect the roof. the basis of the

departmental review? >> yes. >> >> okay. so the president has made a motion to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that it be revised to reflect the plan sheet submitted at the hearing on the basis of the departmental review. on that motion. [ roll call. ] >> okay. thank you. that motion passes. >> okay. >> number 8 has been heard and decided, so we'll move to number 9, which is appeal number 18-003, louie ababian and headache hofsevyan, to erect three five story single-family type residents.

>> hi. thank you for hearing us today, and thank you for pronouncing my name right. my name is lily abagian. we are living at 1106 3 avenue, which is directly behind the lot in question at 13 lucky street. and the reason we're here today is to appeal the building permit for the garage that's going to be destroyed and the single-family dwelling that will be built at 13 lucky street. we don't oppose something being built there, but we really want our voices to be heard and have input into the building process because we're really concerned about our neighborhood, the fabric of the people in our neighborhood, the neighbors, the architectural integrity of our neighborhood, and the building process, as well as we're all in such close proximity. i'll start with just sharing a little bit about the neighborhood. i'm sure you know that the mission is a very vibrant district. it's one of the most heavily

trafficked by tourists, and i think one of the most beautiful in the city. and we're right off of the calle 24 district, so this part of lucky butts right into 24th. the lucky alley is about a block away from baume alley, which gets a lot of tourist traffic. it has a lot of beautiful murals, and lucky has a couple of beautiful murals, as well. i'll do a couple photos. so that's one view of it. that's right across the street from where the building would be. you know, some of the buildings are better preserved than others, but this is an example of some of the beautiful historic buildings that are on that street. what -- what our -- what the developer who like to build will be a much more modern looking home, and a home that he plans to build and then se