>>clerk: good evening and welcome to the october 10, 2018 of the san francisco board of appeals. board president frank fung will be the president tonight. to my left is deputy city attorney brad russey who will provide the board with any needed legal advice this evening. i'm julie rosenberg, the board's executive director. we will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board this evening. scott sanchez, the zoning administrator representing the planning department and planning

commission, and bernie kerns, senior inspector with the department of building inspector. the rules of presentation are as follows: people affiliated with the parties must include their comments within the seven or three-minute periods. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have three minutes to speak on rebuttal. you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to staff when you come up to speak. speaker cards on are the left side of the podium. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or rule schedules, please speak to the staff on a break or call or visit the board office.

we are located at 1650 mission street, room 304. this program is broadcast on sfgov tv, channel 38, and rebroadcast on fridays. now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note that any member of the public may testify without taking an oath pursuant to rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you wish to testify or make a statement tonight, and have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please state and as you are able and raise your right hand.

>> number one, general public comment. is there anyone here for general public comment? okay. we will move onto item number two, commissioner comments and questions. >> i would like to just acknowledge that r.z.a. was honored last week for his nine year, ten-year with the planning department. we're very excited that he's decided to stay at the planning department and do the board of appeals hearings. >> president fong: he's too young to retire. >>clerk: is there any further public comment? okay. we'll move onto item 2, adoption of the minutes. before you are the september 26, 2018 board meeting minutes. >> president fong: okay.

is there a motion to adopt the minutes from the meeting? >> so moved. >>clerk: we have a motion to adopt the minutes from the september 26, 2018 meeting. on that motion -- [roll call] >>clerk: okay. that motion carries. okay. we will now move onto item number 4. this is peal 18-101, mark hermann, andres farrier, department of building inspection. protesting the issuance on july 11, 2018 to 3255 okay tiff i don' don't -- okaytive -- octavia. this is application number 201805159170. on september 26, 2018, the board voted 4-0 to continue this

matter to october 10, 2018 to allow time for the permit holder to submit revised plans, reflecting the concerns addressed at the hearing, so we will hear from the permit holder first. >> and before we go on, i would like to disclose that i am a member of a firm that hired reuben junius to handle a project. it will have no effect on my hearing. >>clerk: okay. permit holder. so you can have a seat -- are you one of the appellants in. >> yes. >>clerk: okay. so please have a seat. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners i'm eric jacobs here on behalf of the owner of the property. i've brought with me tonight revised plans that i'd like to present to the commission. >> president fong: please provide a copy to the appellant and to the department.

[inaudible] >> -- and scott sanchez, as well as supervisor tom. >> director hsu: -- plan check

supervisor tom. >> director hsu: -- tom lee, and to go back over the things noted by the commissioners, as well as some additional cleanup items that we found. in working with both d.b.i. and planning, we made the following changes. one, we relabelled the rooftop paved areas which were outside of the occupiable roof deck as unoccupied roof garden. we've correctly positioned the rear yard set back line so it was very clear where the buildable area of the lot is located. we've added a label that no garden planting or sculpture is to be located in the rear yard set back, respecting the planning code. we've lowered the wind screens to 48 inches, removing the requirement for 311 that would have been triggered by a 6 foot wind screen. we've replaced the outer rail

around the unoccupied areas with a maintenance rail. it has a simple top bar and is only for the purpose of providing fall protection when that area is to be maintained. the existing roof plan has been corrected because there was a ghosting which incorrectly identified the new staircase providing code compliant access and egress to the roof deck, and that has been corrected. the gas line, which was originally shown in the common area has been removed from the plan, and the ground floor has been renamed a media room in line with what c.b.i. had recommended and in line with chapter ten, egress requirements, and the scope of work has also been updated. we feel these corrections what should be seen as a code complying proposal, and we really appreciate that all the

work that d.b.i. and planning have done to help us cleanup this plan. thank you very much. >>clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the zoning administrator. >> not all rush up at the same time now. we welcome, senior inspector curran. >> good evening, inspectors. it's been a while since i've been before you. i see they made all the proposed changes. the only thing i see is a lock on the gate that's labeled maintenance area. my fear is a kid will get in there, and because it is not code compliant with total fall protection, i don't want any children to be able to access that area. i'd also ask that there be some kind of recorded n.s.r., some kind of special restrictions

that are documenting where that area of deck is located in the building so that we don't have code enforcement problems in the future. say they sell the building or there's a new occupant or something happens, they're going to start saying hey, this is all of our deck. i want it documented clearly and recorded if you guys would allow that where the specific deck area is to be. but other than that, i went down to the plan checker, we went over it, they've done what we asked, so i think other than that, it's okay. >> okay. >>clerk: thank you. that is bernie curran from d.b.i. we will now hear from the planning inspector. >> good evening. scat sanchez, senior building inspector, d.b.i. i agree with what mr. curran said, and i'm happy to answer

any questions. >> president fong: mr. sanchez, it was not set back to the back wall? [inaudible] >> has that vertical addition been approved? >> it's my undering it's been approved by the planning commission. i don't believe the permit has been issued because i think if that permit would have been issued, it would have been appealed to this board already. thank you. >>clerk: okay. i understand the appellants are here. you have three minutes. if you could identify yourself for the record, please. >> good evening. i'm appellant philip meza. the -- it's our contention that the revised roof deck is even further out of compliance than the first iteration that the

board reviewed at the first meeting. two gates were added for easy access to the so-called nonoccupied areas, creating safety and abuse enforcement issues. the deck area creates a total occupiable roof deck, both extensions constitute a single large roof deck that is out of compliance. in the previous hearing, commissioner swig correctly pointed out that a finish item that someone would get amnesia about. if it walks like a deck and quacks like a deck, it's a deck. i would also echo the earlier comment that no genuine n.s.r. that was -- as was recommended by the board is included in these revised plans. >> good evening. i'm mark hermann, one of the

appellants, you can't really state how an owner's going to use a property, so we really think this is a useless item there. going down to the ground floor level, we discussed this last time also, and we're asking that this space be either labelled nonhabitable as mr. duffy suggested or a deed restriction be put on it. both mr. duffy and mr. sanchez expressed suspicion at the last hearing, that this area behind the garage would facilitate its use as a ground floor dwelling units. the counters, g.f.i. units, appliances have been erase, but can you really erase the intent of what was there in the first place? i would point to a couple things that still remain. there's lighting and ventilation

calculations here which are suggestive of living space. i would not do that unless you were considering it as habitable area. and lastly, why in the plans that you just received, does it show three units specified? did someone forget to erase that? thank you. >> i have a question. >> president fong: are they finished? >> oh, yeah, are you guys fin h finished? >>clerk: you have 16 seconds. >> so we continued this case from a couple weeks ago. you filed the peal. is there a reason you did not submit a brief or show up at the last hearing. >> we did submit a brief. we didn't show up because we felt the brief spoke for itself, and we felt that the building and planning would support that, and they did. we're here today because we don't think the changes address what you guys asked for and we wanted to kind of hammer home

why we think they don't. and actually, philip was out of town, so it was only one of us in town, and we thought it spoke for itself. >> thank you. >> thank you. >>clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> hello. my name is patrick murphy. i'm a neighbor. i was going to come to the last hearing, but the night of the hearing, i was called by jeff and told that mark was going to withdraw his objections, so i'm here tonight to see how this process works and how long it continues that neighbors can fight amongst each other. i know there was 50 people signed on, you know, for this project. caused quite a riff in our

neighborhood, and i'm just curious how this board reacts and how much time it take to see get something done once a permit is issued. i'm stuck having to do maybe a retrofit on my building if i continue to own it, and i'm wondering, if i wanted to add another unit, am i going to have to go through all this with neighbors questioning what's happening inside my building in addition to the exterior. thank you for your time. >> just one question, are you supportive or not supportive? >> i am 100% supportive. i was introduced at the last meeting as the person who sold jeff and his wife this potential compound. ever since then, i was insulted and i've been following this closely. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >>clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay, commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> president fong: commissioners, questions,

comments? >> commissioner swig: as pointed out by the appellant, there's paperwork that indicates this is still three units. is that a typo? i'm asking of the department. >> scott sanchez, planning department. so where that three unit appears is the title 25 project compliance report, so i think the soproject sponsor addresses that? >> that's a typo. that's an energy compliant document. >> so it's a typo? >> yeah. there's no intent here to put in

an idllegal unit or a third uni? >> what is the necessity of having pafvers on the entire ex-pans of the roof. >> there's a big investment that goes into that, and there is the desire for this to appear like a nice, finished space so that when you're occupying the roof deck, and you look around you, you do not see a roofing material but rather a finish material, and that's the only purpose for it. >> so your answer is cosmetic? >> correct. >> okay. okay. thanks. >> i feel that we have several questions that we addressed to the permit holder as well as the department last week. the concerns i had and the

questions i had were regarding the pavers, the rails, and the -- and the gas in the lower section and how it was marked. they've all seemed to be addressed, so i no longer have a problem with this permit. >> i'm the same way. i'd just like some -- i think it's important to follow mr. curran's advice, and put the n.s.r. -- i'll let somebody -- whoever puts the -- puts forth the motion to put the appropriate set n.s.r. i want to make sure that we're clarifying in that that the building is two units, and -- and i'm wondering why somebody would go to the expense of putting pavers if there wasn't the intent in the long-term to make it a permanent deck, but i'm -- i think i may trust somebody on that instead of

requesting that they not fully install the pavers. >> president fong: okay. i think some of the items have been addressed. i think the point that i'm struggling with is looking at the intent of the policy that planning is -- has brought forth, and it's one that i'm very sympathetic toward in terms of is thing the mitigation of issues -- of assisting the mitigation of issues between neighbors. it's not a line i've used. i think my fellow commissioners heard that line before. i would have been more comfortable with this if they had said, all right, the

existing deck wants to be expanded, we're going to deactivate the existing deck and create a new you are deck that is in the middle of the building and connect it to the stair. but the addition of the deck in the front now exceeds what is basically a deck area way beyond the metrics brought forth by planning. so i'm not in support of the items as planned. the other items, whether you want to add the additional three

items -- [inaudible] >> i'm certainly leaning in your direction because i'm not comfortable with 100% pavers. the easiest way to do it is so restrict the -- -- it is to restrict the -- make it very clear that you restrict the pavers to the occupiable space as noted on the roof deck. is that -- is that enough so then the occupiable space, that which is noted as occupiable space, would have pavers, and that which does not would not have pavers. and therefore, coupled with the clarification and the n.s.r., that this deck is to, in perpetuity, be sustained in the way that it has been approved?

that would kind of take care of that issue, would it not? >> i'm not sure you need an n.s.r. for that. you probably want the n.s.r. for the other item. >> what's the difference in size, mr. president? >> i think it's -- if i remember the appellant's sketch, it's probably in the neighborhood somewhere of 400 square feet less. >> it's significant. >> so that's okay. it's a range. >> so do you have a suggestion? you would get my support if you wanted to take surgery on it. >> the presentation last time was that the new roof deck conformed to the -- not the not unpassed, the not passed policy.

it would have conformed based upon what was presented previously. >> you want to recommend a solution? >> you want me to take a shot at a motion? >> oh, yeah, 'cause you're good at this. >> the motion would be to grant the appeal on the following conditions: that the unoccupied roof garden pavers be removed,

that there be an n.s.r. regarding the ground floor space. >>clerk: so that would be limiting it just to two units? >> i thought the n.s.r. was for two areas. >> i thought it was -- >> they can qualify it as an a.d.u. right now. >> okay. i shouldn't touch that. >> yeah, you shouldn't touch that. >> okay. did you want an n.s.r. for the roof? >> well, the n.s.r. was for the pavers. >> the unoccupied space. that the title 24 table be corrected, and we would condition this as a special permit. you look like you want to say

something, mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. just confirming you'd be removing the unoccupied roof garden at the front and back of the property. i think there'll be no notice for special restrictions because there'll be no gate fneed for a to access those units, and i think they'll need a separate permit in the future for a third unit. >> i'm sorry. just to be clear, you couldn't come back later and ask to put pavers down if there's no -- >> it would be a separate permit. they could file for a separate permit later. >> are you trying to stop that from happening or can you not stop that from happening? >> we can stop that from happening. >> i'm not sure we want to get that -- >> all right. no, sure. just clarifying. >> okay. so we have -- and on what basis,

president fung? >> on the basis that looking ahead to the planning commission's new policy. >>clerk: okay. okay. so we have a motion from president fung to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that the -- the plans be revised showing that the unoccupied roof garden pavers be removed at the front and the year, and that the title 24 table be corrected, and then, it will be issued as a special conditions permit on the basis that this proposal is more consistent with the draft guidelines for roof decks from the planning commission. okay. on that motion -- [roll call]

>>clerk: okay. so that motion passes. mr. jacobs, you can contact me about submitting the revised plans after tomorrow or whenever, okay. thank you. so we will now move onto item number five. this is appeal 18-117, nick skinas versus the department of building inspection with planning department approval. subject property is 15 allison street, protesting the issuance on august 15, 2018 to obtain final inspection. all work is complete. this is application number 2018-0 # 21 2018-08217886, so we will hear from the appellants first. do we have an appellant here? nick skinas?

okay. the appellant is not here. is the permit holder here? 15 allison street, appeal 18-117. >> this rarely happens. should we check in the hallway? thank you. >>clerk: we can move onto six, if you want. >> let's just see if they're there or not. >> okay. mr. sanchez will know. >> wow. >> no, mr. sanchez? you know, i might note that this is just a final. why don't you come forward. at least the department can

bring forth -- i probably am not interested in continuing -- >> bernie curran, d.b.i. what they're trying to appeal is a final permit, but it's only on the -- some of the structural aspects, shoring at the retaining walls and things like that. all that work is done. what they should be appealing is if they were going to renew the permit for the main building, three story rear addition. you know, there's been numerous problems out there. they've got about 20 different complaints that they've dealt with. >> this went through a couple of hearings here before. >> yeah. it's my understanding that the guy is trying to do it on a shoe string budget on his time off, and my opinion is you can't do it. >> that was mine. >> is there any public comment on this item?

>> mr. kern, while you're up, so are there -- there seemed to be copious amounts of protests from the appellants, even though the appellant may be protesting going down the wrong road and protesting the wrong items at this point. >> yes. >> in reading this, it would seem to me that the appellant's better path would be filing -- requesting those as a violations on current activities, which would stimulate prevention of further permits being issued. is that correct? >> yeah, and i understand the appellant's problem -- it's his elderly parents live next door. these guys got off on the wrong foot to begin with. they did work beyond the scope. i was out there 2.5 years ago for the first notice of violation. they got the wheels back on. subsequently, things were okay,

then, it bogged down again. i don't know if he ran out of money, i don't know what happened, but as you know, we have no way of dictating that or even produding along or the way the job goes to. so that's the root of the problem. it's this seemingly endless work done on his parents' house. it's noisy, dusty, there's probably fumes from welding. i don't know about that, but i know if you're living next to a job site for 2.5 years, it gets old. so while i comisserate with them, i know that the longer this transpires, the longer it's going to take. it -- >> it appears most of the construction is done. >> most of the construction is done. >> no, he's only at the framing. typically, he has all the concrete done, but then, have you to run your subs through,

your electrical, your plumbing, your hvac, all that. all that is done before we even do any framing inspection, so we haven't done any framing inspection out there as far as i know. >> yeah, that was my question. has there been any inspections? >> well, i had -- i had the district inspector issue a notice of violation fairly recently for lack of inspections. you're supposed to get an inspection every 180 days or your permits expire. >> wow. >> so we issued the notice of violation, there was no action on that, yesterday, i sent it up to code enforcement. so will it get his attention? i don't know. i'm kind of beyond words to figure out what the guy's doing. i don't know. as a former contractor myself, i would think how can you live like that? >> so the permit -- even if we deny the appeal, if this behavior continues then the permit's going to be suspended

any way. >> correct. it'll be ex-pipired, then, he w not be allowed to do work until he come ms. and renews it, at which point we say we need some kind of a site inspection in the records so you can keep your permit valid. >> sorry to interrupt, but the appellant vacated that there are other tenants located in the property. >> i think he's talking about his parents. >> okay. i couldn't understand that when i read the brief. >> the concrete's been done for sometime. it was a massive excavation. >> that was a problem last time. >> correct, correct. so we had the engineers involved, the appellant had an engineer. they all met and said hey, okay, this is what we're doing. they had a permit to do it. they actually completed all their special inspections, they're documented in the

computer at d.b.i. that's why the only inspection they have left on this one permit that they're requesting is a final. >> appreciate if you guys can prod them a little bit. >>clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay. commissioners, the matter's submitted? >> i'm going to move to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. >>clerk: okay. we have a motion from president fung to deny the appeal and uphold it on the basis it was properly issued. on that motion -- [roll call] >>clerk: okay. that motion passes 4-0. we will now move onto item number six. this is peal number 18-096, ricky peterson versus department of building inspection with planning department disapproval. the subject property is 39 to 41 child street, appealing the denial on july 13, 2018 of an

alteration permit to comply with physical inspection report c.c. number 7856 and legalize seven replaced windows at front elevation. item number one on the inspection report. this was application 201720169676. and we'll hear from the appellant first. you have seven minutes, sir. >> okay. thank you. my name is rick peterson, and i purchased a home in 2003 that had vinyl windows in it that had been obviously replaced since it's a 100-year-old house. i bought it from the second owner who had it since 1920, so my suspicion is they just had -- their windows got old or they wanted to get dual panes or whatever, and they just replaced their windows, not even thinking you'd need a permit. i don't even know you'd neated

permit to replace windows. some research that i've done, indicate the guidelines for windows changed in 2003, which just happens to be the year that i bought the house, that you can't put vinyl windows in. so doing some permit compliance things, i tried to get a permit for these vinyl windows, and they wouldn't issue it to me. i believe had the prior owner tried to get a permit, they would have been able to, because they were legal at the time. they're perfectly good windows. again, they're dual pane, so they might have done it for energy efficiency. i'm not sure, obviously. the only records i can have of any window work in this house was the permit i showed when they did the garage and removed windows, but again, that's only a guess, and that was done in the 70's. so that would be a good idea of when they've been.

they are double hung windows similar to the windows, so they probably just replaced them with more modern windows at the time. and so -- and they've been there for 30, 40, 50 years, and there's nothing wrong with them, so they were, as i put down in this brief, perfectly good quality windows. they've been put in well. there's really -- i doubt there would have been any reason they wouldn't have been able to get a permit had they done it. i'm not really appealing on the basis of the technicality because i'm sure it's technically not -- not compliant. obviously, it isn't right now, but hopefully on the practice sensibility that to replace these seven perfectly functional windows would be wasteful and

disruptive to our street, i -- in the little research, i can see that i understand that we make it compatible with surrounding buildings is something i read. and i described the other you g get -- eight houses on my street, and they're all similar to mine. only one has wooden windows. it certainly doesn't stand out as anything unusual, and obviously after 40 years or so, it is the character of the street, really. and the other -- it is an alley up on telegraph high school, so any time one of us has to do something on the house, it's kind of a burden to the -- the whole street in general, so we kind of would rather not do additional projects that just aren't necessary. so i guess in essence, i'm just

basically asking to be able to get a permit for my windows that have been there for decades, kind of explained in here. >> mr. peterson, why are you going through this process? >> i -- we participated in the condo conversion lottery seven times and lost, and then, finally, when it -- when it -- they allowed us to call in, so he wii did it. we did have several open permits, one for a back stairs, electrical, plumbing. they did require electrical and plumbing work, all of which i've done. i've done all of the -- everything. like, the stairs, they opened the permit, they didn't close it, but we had it inspected, and everything is fine. this is just a stumbling block because they won't allow the windows. but again, if they had had the

homeowners went to get a permit, i'm sure they would have been able to get one. and again, i have no idea why they didn't, but you know, they owned the house since 1920. they just decided to replace their windows, i guess, so that -- i'm just trying to make it all compliant and legal. >> so you haven't hit the lottery yet? >> no. no -- >> i -- >> no. no, i haven't. >> that was my question, as well, 'cause it looked like it was discovered under the condo conversion. >> that's correct, yes. >> is the building being held with a t.i.c. or are you just -- >> no, i own the whole thing. >> okay. and you live in the property? >> i live in the property. have since 2003. >> okay. thank you. >> you still do have three minutes if you have anything further to say. >> it's a fairly simple thing, i think. should i give you this? >> thank you. >> okay. thank you.

we'll now hear from the zoning administrator. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. the subject property, 39 to 41 child street, located in telegraph hill. the building was constructed in 1911, considered a potential historic resource. it is of two units and as stated by the permit holder and the appellant, the property recently underwent the condo conversion process and that is how this matter came to everyone's attention. the property owner bought the property in 2003, i believe it was. it's unclear exactly when the windows were installed. using google street view, it doesn't go back that far for this block, but it -- i would say it could very well predate the current owner, and i would believe him when he said he didn't install those windows. there was other work, actually,

installation of vinyl woulds that aren't telling from the street. i don't think this would have been decades ago, given that vinyl is not that old of a window system. there was a series of remodelling permits around '99, 2000, 2001. my guess is that maybe one of the those permits exceeded the scope, but none theless, there is no permit that authorizes the installation of the seven windows here. going through the condo conversion process, that was confirmed by the department of building inspection when they did their inspection. this was reviewed by the current planning staff and found be to comply with our current replacement standards given that they are vinyl windows and that the detailing in them is not compatible with what we'd find in this building. it's not to say that only wood windows would be allowed here. clad windows may be approved,

but the vinyl windows are not appropriate. given that they're 20 years old, they may be in good shape, but vinyl windows are not known for their longevity. those are the points the department would like to make in this case. certainly, when you go through the condo conversion process, it does confer a significant financial process on the owner. it makes it difficult in the future to gain compliance, especially we're deelg with all seven windows on the facade of the building have been replaced. i believe it's two flats, if we have two separate owners, they're left to deal with this, and it's more complicated to get compliance and all the windows properly replaced as they should be with proper permits at the same time as the condo conversion has happened. so that is all i have to say on this case. i'm available for questions.

thank you. >> i have questions -- two questions. did your staff look at the vinyl windows, because one could almost tell their age by the depth of their extrusion. >> i don't -- well, i don't know if staff looked at the windows, but i don't know that they made any estimate. staff didn't relate to me that they'd made any estimate as to the age. i've got a photo of the building because i don't think any photos were submitted with the appellant's brief. >> some -- the department accepts some vinyl windows if they're of a certain depth, right, and a certain extrusion shape? >> generally, we don't find vinyl windows that comply with that, certainly not of this vintage. generally, they're going to be the clad windows, so they'll be solely wood windows but maybe even vinyl cladding, but not

full vinyl windows. >> then, the -- the other question in my mind when i read this was why the -- or how does the department determine whether it's a replacement or whether it's purely an administrative issue? in other words, they're treating this as a replacement, and i understand your policies -- relatively new policies dumb into play. >> these are window replacements. i mean -- come into play. >> these are window replacements. i don't know where a window would be required would be just changing the glazing out, but these are not windows that have permits. there are no permits to install windows on the property. the installation of vinyl

windows then replacement with whatever window system was there before. >> right, but they were done way before any of the department's standards on -- on window replacement. >> that is true. i mean i would say that the windows, based on what we've seen, they were probably installed before our standards. however -- >> no permit. >> there was no permit, so now, they need the permit to legalize, and the permit to legalize it to our standards. >> to verify that everything was done with a permit. >> correct. >> thank you. >> is this house a historically relevant. >> it's b as a potential resource given its age, but it's not within a historic district, and it's not a known historic resource, but a potential, given its age. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. curran, do you have anything to add? >> i have a question for the building department. so mr. sanchez mentioned that there was several permits that

were taken in the 90's. in our brief, we only had one that was from 1976. are there any permits at all that could cover this? >> nothing for the windows. as mr. sanchez said, it might have been compliant in those years. it would have been easy to get a permit. unfortunately, with the condo, it triggers all this stuff, what was done, what wasn't done, and unfortunately, it got caught in this one. >> okay. thank you, senior building inspector. >> do we have records of these? >> from the 90's? oh, yeah. nothing turned up for window installation, and that would have been a window installation, because they were wholly, not changing out window or glazing. >> it wouldn't have been vinyl glazing in 1976. >> it would have been aluminum. >> aluminum, yeah. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay. mr. peterson, you have three

minutes for rebuttal. >> and i'm rick peterson, and i understand the concept of these neighborhood guidelines to keep atrocities from being built all over the place and keep it looking similar. but again, if we -- i revert back to the exhibits i've supplied in exhibit e, those will be outlandish, strange looking windows that look terribly out of place, and if you look at the other houses, they're all very common. yes, i'm trying to complete my condo conversion. of course -- and i'm trying to go through all the steps, and

obviously, i have to. if i were -- if i were to be going to replace my windows, i would fully expect to have to do current guidelines. i'm just hoping that this appeal process will look at a situation that's -- and use, you know, some judgment, you know, in -- in light of the technicalities of the law and have -- and see a situation where it's unlikely anybody was doing anything underhanded or anything like that. and i've -- like i say, i bought the house in 2003. i know those windows were more than a couple of years ago, which are irrelevant. the guidelines are 2003; and i have researched. from the history, i can't find anything, but i know for a fact they were done when they would have been permitted if the prior

owner would have thought -- again, i stress they had owned that house since 1920. they just -- i assume just was trying to do the windows, and did the windows. i didn't know you would need a permit to do windows before i researched this. i could see how your average person wouldn't. there's even some question here on what this -- whether glazing would take a permit or whatever. it's -- you know, those are complicated things. so that's basically all i have to say on that one, so thank you very much. >> did you check with the previous owners whether they had any documentation? >> he's dead. she -- the reason she sold the house is she was, like, 85, and she -- so that was in 2003. so she was getting so she couldn't walk up and down the stairs, so i -- and the -- and there was a brother that owned

part of the house, but he was in texas, so i don't really have -- i'm the third owner of the house, so there's not -- there's not much resource there. so i -- i just have no idea when those windows were put in. >> okay. >> thank you. >>clerk: thank you. mr. sanchez, anything further? mr. curran? okay. so commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> i'll start. so i personally am extremely sympathetic when cases come up regarding some of the windows throughout the city being noncompliant. unfortunately, even if they were installed in 2001, prior to the legislation, since they were done without a permit, we can't back legalize anything. we actually recently had a case of a garage in the same area, that if they had applied and done the garage when they applied for it, it would have been approved, but legislation

after now prevented us from doing so. at the same time, i would have no problem continuing this to the call of the chair. the problem is, this is a compliance issue in regards to if you want to finish the condo conversion, unfortunately, you're going to have to complete this compliance issue with the window unless our magic president has something -- a wand. >> just out of curiosity, why did these even check they were done without a permit. >> when they do the condo, they have to check the property, and when they checked the property, they saw the windows. >> it was so old. >> right? okay? i mean... >> i don't think there's much to scratch there, either, unfortunately. >> we can't back date this,

unfortunately. so make a motion -- >> we could if we weren't afraid of getting sued. >> how about precedent? >> i'll make a motion to deny the appeal that the department acted appropriately. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner honda to deny the appeal and uphold the denial of the permit on the basis -- >> madam, let me ask. is this window a policy? or is it a codified standard? >> it is not codified specifically in the planning code, however it was adopted by reference because of the residential design guidelines in section 311 of the planning code, so while it was not contained in the body of the

planning code, planning code calls for guidelines of -- residential guidelines that we have adopted, and then, we have our replacement standards incorporated into the planning code by reference. so by extension it is. >> isn't that a little bit of a tenuous extension? >> it's the -- it's -- it's what we apply, and it's what the planning commission applies when reviewing projects, so it's the standard by which we review projects, and we do so consistently. >> if it's a policy, then, there is discretion. >> like i said, if this had been a complaint, it would be one issue, but this was self-inflicted because it requires compliance for the -- for the condo conversion, and then, we would set precedent. >> i don't think i'm going to

make a -- a motion that's going to lose. >> so do you want to keep your motion? >> sure. >> okay. so we have a motion from commissioner honda to deny the appeal and uphold the denial of the permit on the basis that the permit was properly denied. on that motion -- [roll call] >> okay. so that motion passes. we will now move onto item number 7. this is appeal number 18-093, michael turon versus department of building inspection with planning department disapproval. 2722 and 2724 folsom street, appealing the denial of june 22, 2018 of an alteration permit, permit for administrative purposes only. occupant is trying to document the legal use of the subject building as a three story

building with two residential dwelling units based on a review of records. correcting previously issued c.f.c.'s showing the unit as a three unit building. this is application 2018323234544, and we will hear from the appellant first. >> and as earlier, i need to disclose that i am a partner in a project that has hired reuben and junius as counsel. they are present before this body, and it will have no effect on my decision. good evening, mr. patterson. >> commissioners, this is a case about a permit to correct the record. d.b.i. and the fire department formally determined in a preapplication meeting that the property's unit count is incorrect, and they instructed the appellant to file the subject permit to correct the record. here's the problem in this case:

was the c.f.c. issued in error? the c.f.c. says three units, but it's actually two.

>> to remove the illegal unit. there's a lot of other evidence as well. 19 # 5 permit and the cfc say the property was not upgraded to

one hour construction. the permit checks no no in 1986 and 94 the owner signed saying no off street parking was consisted. a certificate of occupancy was never issued. the 1975 permit application answered no to does this altercation constitute a change of occupancy. and the day high report required plans for unit legalization but no plans were filed. and, d.b.i.'s stipulation stated comply with day high plumbing and electrical reports with the electrical inspection reports on the overhead is very clearly three reverting to two. it's clear, in 1975, permit removed the 30 legal units. but something strange happened. c.f.c. was issued por three dwelling units.