essentially, the illustrative fee is our n.o.v. we have that power at the very end of the project. that's not going to do much right now. >> commissioner honda: it will when they want to try to clear up their loans. >> again, it's -- we're eight months or a year from that. >> commissioner honda: okay. and do you have an idea how old and how tall roughly the trees were? >> yes. the trees, they were somewhere in the range of 10 inches in diameter and 13 inches in diameter. the trees were about 25 feet tall. it's true that they were earmarked to be retained when we evaluated all the trees on

vanness. the trees were in good condition to remain. they weren't the greatest trees in the world, but at the same time, they were. london plain trees, appropriate for vanness, solid 20, 25 feet in height. one of them had been excessively pruned about eight to ten years, was reforming its canopy, so again, not the most perfect specimen, but certainly doing great work out there in the sidewalk. >> commissioner honda: okay. and do you have any comment or input regarding article 16, regarding the no tree protection plan? >> sure. so really, before anyone breaks ground with construction, trees need to be protected before that occurs. sarah stacey, our inspector, pointed out that they need to get that in place. i will say that there was

general cooperation with the fr project, and i wish i knew whether or not they had protection in place as of september 24, at that hearing, but certainly, it does show intent or a lack of commitment to street trees if there isn't protection in place. we've done a much better job with our street trees on masonic. you'll notice a lot more two-by-fours and snow walls around the city. we are now responsible for all the street trees, so that's one of our charges, to make sure the trees are protected during construction. we didn't see any -- you can't say you're adequately protecting trees if there's no physical protection in place. >> commissioner honda: okay. thank you.

>> president fung: mr. buck, most of the trees on vanness are london plains, aren't they? >> correct. >> president fung: can that tree be -- of that size handle relocation? >> the challenges are getting trees that size into small sizes. there's a root ball that has to come along with the tree so that pushes it away from the curb. you can put the tree in and pour sidewalk over the ball, so one conversation, what's the largest size replacement that can physically get in the sidewalk, be close enough to the curb to not affect the path of travel. there's definitely logistics involved with that. joint trenches to stay away

from. it's a challenge, certainly, in the urban environment. it's not like a business park, like apple, where it's a blank slate. >> president fung: is this even an alternative because there's a lot of trees on vanness to be demolished. >> that's a good question. most of the trees that are going to be removed for the vanness b.r.t. have been. >> president fung: not all. >> not all of them, correct, but many. and then, the sycamore, many of them are the ones that are mostly identified for removal, but instead of removing and transplanting from vanness, the other option is what's the largest size available that can physically be planted, and it's a real challenge to figure that out. but it's something that can be

looked into. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> president fung: commissioners? >> commissioner honda: well, i guess you can tell by my line of questioning, you know, this is pretty blatant in my mind, and no brief, no appearance. looking at the detailed brief that the -- that mr. klipp provided, which was the only brief we had, indicated a process that these builders were just adamant and going to do what they wanted to do no matter what it is. i think personally, i'd like to make it as painful and expensive as possible and replace what was there. if the department is not aware of what to do, then i think the best thing we can do would be to continue, depending on how

long mr. buck would need to gather that information. how long do you think you'd need to -- >> president fung: if you're going to request, i think you need to be a little more specific what answers you are requesting. >> commissioner honda: so could a 25'10" diameter tree be back here in there? >> chris buck, department of public works. the current requirement condition was replacing them with 25 foot box size trees. if the item was continued, what we'd look at is requests for in-kind on vanness for the two that were removed, and largest box sizes regarding all the other trees that were planted.

the application was removal of two with replacement of eight. i don't know if they're going to get eight trees. i do believe there's a minimum of seven that can be replanted, so they show on plans four trees on union, four replacements on vanness, so there are the opportunity to look at in-kind on vanness and bumping up sizes in the other locations, as well. >> commissioner honda: okay. >> president fung: but that is not replacement trees, those are based on planning code requirements, isn't it? based upon frontage lane. >> it is, but it's -- this permit, when we issued this permit to the applicant, it's for the removal of two with a replacement of two. sometimes we stick to just what's being removed, and we don't start counting all the replacement trees because of many moving pieces, and that sort of holds people to a certain number that's difficult to achieve.

one other thought is the planting application, if we're going to require a separate planting application for these additional trees, that would be appealable. so you know, there's probably two things i'd look at if the item's continued. largest replacement possible physically and also what's the process for discussing the rest of the trees? are we going to issue a separate planting permit for that? that's something that -- >> commissioner honda: i think we should, but because of how we got here, i think it would be fair to the public that was left out in the initial process, personally. >> president fung: i would think you would want to make it as comprehensive as possible. >> correct. >> president fung: so that it's not a serial condition. >> commissioner honda: so how long would you need to find out how large of a tree -- >> just a couple of weeks. >> commissioner honda: okay. >> clerk: we could put it on

the 20th. we have another one moving off there, so we -- >> commissioner honda: 20th okay, mr. buck? >> president fung: you're not here. >> commissioner honda: oh, that is. i'm not here. one meeting i miss in two years. >> president fung: 27th. march 6? is that your motion? >> commissioner honda: yeah, that's my motion. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from commissioner honda to continue this item to march 6 so that the bureau of urban forestry can determine the largest replacement trees possible and evaluate the trees -- the additional trees on union street. >> commissioner honda: correct. >> clerk: okay. on that motion --

[roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, and that appeal is continued to march 6. and so can we just confirm about the briefing for that? are we going to allow additional briefing? >> president fung: yes, you'll need to because there's too many questions. >> clerk: okay. from the appellant, can the appellant comment on the plan? okay. so if you can get those to me, is there a page limit? six pages? three pages? okay. six pages the thursday prior to the hearing, we'd like to get all the material, please. >> president fung: procedure only. >> yes, procedure. i may have a conflict later that night, so i'm not sure -- >> clerk: we'd put you at the beginning. we could put it first. >> okay. all right. thanks. >> and i have a question for the executive director.

are you able to convey to the permit holder the displeasure of the commission at their lack of appearance here? >> clerk: i can certainly do that, and i will do that. thank you. >> president fung: okay. next item. >> clerk: okay. we're now moving onto item number six. this is appeal number 18-166, pamela and eric tang, department of building inspection. subject property is 1 boemt --

1509 beaumont avenue. >> good morning, commissioners. we have brought copies that is a map. >> president fung: show us on the overhead, please. >> clerk: overhead, please. overhead, please. thank you. . >> good evening, commissioners. i am pamela tang. my husband, eric tang and i are the appellant. in light of a new land survey and additional san francisco city codes on the validity of the 1990 permit, we ask the board of appeals to revoke the alteration permit in question. the permit has to be revoked because first, the permit

includes two windows that are inside our property. second, both the 1990 and 2018 building codes do not allow any openings on the property line. and third, the 1990 permit is null and void. the permit holder must apply for a new permit. since submitting the appellant brief, we have obtained additional evidence. we hired a california licensed land surveyor to locate the property line between our properties. the land surveyor is here to answer any questions. the survey results confirmed that the entire alley is our property, and that 159 beaumont's face of building is north of the boundary line. that's what's highlighted. as you can see, 159 beaumont's wall encroaches on our property. i'm a licensed architect, and i

taught building codes at the academy of art university. in addition to the current building codes referenced in the brief, i have researched the old state and city codes in effect at the time the original permit was approved in 1990. both codes in both time periods are unanimous, with zero tolerance. openings are not permitted in an exterior wall within 3 feet of the property line. confirming that the permit holder's wall in question is over the property line validates our complaint that the windows violate the building code. had d.b.i. had this correct information, the original 1990 permit would never have been issued. the old city code outlines the code for suspension or revocation of a permit. it reads, the superintendent may suspend or revoke a permit whenever the permit is issued

on the basis of incorrect information. our current city code has similar language. clearly, in applying for the 1990 permit, incorrect information about the location of the lot line led to the erroneous approval of two openings in the lot line wall where openings are not permitted. my research of the old and current city codes are also unanimous in their rules for the validity of the permit. the current city code addresses permit expiration. it reads, every extension unless specifically approved by the building official shall expire by limitation and become null and void when the time allowed is reached. the old city code has identical terms but shorter time periods allowed. for the original permitted valuation of $15,000, the

maximum time allowed to complete all work authorized by building permit as listed in the code table is six months in 1990 versus 360 days today. it has been 28 years, and for the record, no extension was requested at the time and none were given. the original permit expired by limitation and became null and void in 1991. can this permit qualify for are you renewal? no. the original permit described in the building inspection division pamphlet cannot apply because this is not a straightforward renewal. first, the original permit was null and void having expired by limitation without extensions. second, the original permit has been flagged for life safety

violations of code. the new map of survey is evidence to show that the permit was issued on the basis of incorrect information supplied regarding the location of the lot line. the 2018 alteration permit should be revoked because we now know that one, the entire alley is our property. 159 beaumont's wall is inside our property. two, the lot line openings violate both old and new state and city codes which clearly state that openings are not permitted. and three, the 1990 permit is null and void, having expired by limitation in 1991. four, if d.b.i. had the correct information about the lot line provided in the legal survey, they would never have issued this new permit. the permit holder should be directed to apply for a fresh

permit is documents that incorp. -- with documents that incorporate these survey results and comply with current city and state codes and irmt kwoos. the code clearly states that when codes conflict, the stricter code applies. this 2018 alteration permit must be revoked. my husband will now speak. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is eric tang. i want to address several questions raised by the permit holder's attorney. first, we are not trying to keep them from painting their wall. in the last 18 months, we gave her four written offers to paint, but she declined because we would not allow her to open the door to her back yard or house in the alley. in december, we asked for a restraining order to keep miss mulligan or her dogs from

entering the property -- >> clerk: mr. tang, your time is up, but you will have time in rebuttal. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is gene shirelli, and i'm an attorney, and i represent mrs. mulligan. mr. mulligan is here, and i'm going to try to split my time with him. originally, i want today ask for a continuance because these permits were issued in 1990 originally, and it's my client's desire to rectify the problems. unbeknownst to her, she did not know they expired. i disagree with the three-foot

rule. if you take a look at those openings, those are 4 feet from the wall -- or their wall adjacent to my client's property. however, we would ask that we be given an opportunity to work with the board, or i should say the building department to try to rectify any short comings that may have been the result of 29 years passing. we're not trying to avoid the responsibili responsibility, we wish to face it. mr. mulligan. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is edward mulligan. i'm the general contractor that -- >> commissioner honda: i'm sorry, sir. could you put the mic a little closer to you. >> edward mulligan. i'm the general contractor who remodelled the house. i've known the tangs back before that. i have nothing against them. they're nice people, and good

people. so i've -- two things you need to know about what i've done. since i got my license in '81, i've done quite a few projects in san francisco, marin, san mateo, and santa clara. two things that i've never had, i've never had an inspector come back for a second because it wasn't complete. i've never had a job that wasn't done right. second, i've never had a complaint from a client that i worked for. and the reason for that, those two things is i've done the job right the first time. i'm very proud of that, so -- as far as the window's concerned, yes, it is on their property, and i'm not disputing

that. we did ask them for permission to install the windows there, and they did give us permission. and i can understand -- i don't know why it took 28 years, but that's where it is today. so i don't really know what to do. so -- but i just don't know anymore, so -- i guess that's all i have to say. >> commissioner honda: i have a question, sir. so when you installed the windows 27 years ago, you asked your next-door neighbors if you could do so, and they agreed to it at the time? >> yeah. >> commissioner honda: and then, what happened since then that caused all this animosity? >> i'd rather let mr. and mrs. tang answer that because i've been out of there since i got divorced.

>> commissioner honda: okay. thank you. >> i'd actually let them answer the question. >> clerk: mr. shirella, you actually have almost four minutes. do you have anything to add? >> commissioner honda: your voice carries. you probably don't need the mic. >> sorry. the only comment i do have is on this comment by mr. tang about the injunction hearing. quite frankly, the version of his events is not quite right. the judge did not find any malicious intent on the part of mrs. mulligan. by the way, this was tied to painting on the side of the house. my client put up almost $7 million in insurance coverage to protect these people. the painter went in, and she

wasn't present, and they could not provide sufficient evidence under the standard of clear and convincing evidence. thank you. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. okay. we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> good evening, commissioners. joe duffy, d.b.i. it's an interesting case, to say the least, i wouldn't normally see appeals on building renewal permits. there's a little bit of history going back to the original complaint that was filed by mr. and mrs. tang on the windows. we actually got the complaint regarding the windows. the thought process was we knew there was a building permit from 1990 that those windows were included on. to sort of take care of two things at once, the building permit had expired. we knew there was going to be a

problem with the windows, so have them come in and renew the building permit and have them bring up the window issue. so that's kind of where it went. the permit got renewed, then, it got appealed. so here we are. i have met with both parties, i've spoken to the tangs, i've met with the mulligans. i was at the property this afternoon, and i did see the windows. there's obviously a history, there's a lot of gates up there, security cameras. there's a dispute going on, but none theless, we do have to deal with the building code issues. the windows themselves, both windows were definitely approved, and i would agree with everything that miss tang said. i wouldn't be on for revoking any permits. i do think that it can be resolved. d.b.i. can resolve that.

i've explained that to them in the meeting that i had at d.b.i. a month ago -- or about three weeks ago. but we have a process where this could start off as a correction notice to deal with the issue with the windows that were improperly approved. the drawings from 1990, and i have them and can show the commissioners request they wish. it -- if they wish. >> if you were to look at that, it could be considered that the other wall was the property line, there was no clear definition of property line. the windows got approved. they shouldn't have been approved. they could have been approved as construction rb-9, but they would need permission from the

tangs. so even today, they could get them approved, but the tangs would have to give permission for that. so we're at an impasse. it's the board's discretion, but basically, if the windows aren't allowed, and the option is to restore to the previous condition of the wall, then i think according to mr. mulligan, he will do that, and the only way that he could keep the -- any sort of an opening there would be with the tangs' permission. d.b.i. also has a block notice similar to planning's. there's no way if we lifted the inspection that they could get a final inspection.

miss tang talked about permits being null and void, and i know that language is in the code. but i would argue that if permits are expired, we have to have the right to renew the permits for final inspection. by right, that permit actually expired in 1991. it could have received a notice of violation then. probably should have, but we have thousands of permits that are expired, and this work that -- for these two bedrooms, bathroom at the ground floor, i inspected the -- the inside of the property today. the work is immaculate. it's very high standard. there's a bathroom in there, like, a master suite. the work is good. so, like, revoking that permit whenever the work is finished doesn't make sense to me. i think the renewal permit, take care of the issues with

the openings. now, the issue with the surveyor, that's a new issue with me. that would be a civil issue. if that wall was over the property line, that was the existing wall of the building. if they're talking about the wall, the existing building is not over the property line, that's a whole other separate issue, and i don't see where d.b.i. -- we could get involved in that, but that -- it gets very complicated at that point, and i didn't see that in the brief. i think that was just brought up tonight, so i'm available for questions. i'm sure there are a few. >> commissioner lazarus: i have one. i'm confused about this renewal of the permit. a permit's renewed if the work isn't finished, and you -- but i thought this work was done 20 years ago -- or is it being renewed somehow in conjunction with the new project. i'm sorry. somehow i'm confused.

>> no problem, commissioner lazarus. it's a good question. when the work was partially completed or fully completed, the building code would ask you to renew the permit to get the final inspection or for the final inspection. we do need to have that in our code, and it's there, so people let permits expire. i think mr. mulligan thought this was signed off. a lot of people do that. they get the permit go all the way through. they start enjoying their new digs. guess who they forgot about them? d.b.i. and their permit expires. so we have that in our code to let people come into our department and renew the permit. the older the permit, the more complicated it is. we're going back, and it's 28

years ago. we're going to go back and get the drawings. you might have to go back and get the electrical drawings, but in this case, it would have needed a c.f.c., a certificate of final completion. this allows that to happen. >> commissioner lazarus: okay. >> just to understand, there are two windows that are specifically part of this permit that were approved that we would not approve them today, and if we did, we would have specific requirements for those windows, and a remedy would be through this removal to require reversing that? is that what you're suggesting? >> yeah, we could do that. i saw in the brief the request from the appellant was to instruct the board to remove the windows and put it back. and that's what -- that's not what she's asking for tonight. so that would be something that

we could do it on a revision permit. this is a $1 permit. it's really an administrative permit. it's only for the purposes of giving a final inspection. if you want to do a special inspections permit to remove the windows and install a wall, that could be done, i imagine. to answer your question, there is a remedy, and taking out the windows would be that remedy. as i said earlier, they could put in three-quarter r frames, but they have to get permission from the tangs, and i don't think that's likely. >> president fung: we don't know that -- >> what's interesting, commissioner fung, there are

two sfriprinkler heads. the windows were approved wrong. there's no doubt it, miss tang is right. they shouldn't have been approved. >> president fung: as you know, we've been getting a lot of property line windows in recent days. >> commissioner honda: yes. they're like trees. >> president fung: if that fall and that substantiating survey is correct, and they're over the property line, how can the department issue a permit to that? >> which? a new permit? well, they'll have to sore out -- >> president fung: you understand what i'm saying, the question? >> yeah, but that building has been -- they can go through several processes and figure that out with an easement or whatever they need to do. if we're given evidence that the wall is over the property line, that's a separate issue from this one, but it will

bring that issue into play, as well. i agree with you. it's got a -- they've got to figure out of that, as well. it'll keep the openings there longer because their concern was -- they told me that they were worried about -- because of the fire in oakland, they're worried about fires. the openings were there 28 days, and the more they stay there, the more the fire risk they're concerned about. it's bringing all these things up. the other thing that's interesting is if these windows have to be removed and the wall restored, the work's going to have to be done by 155 beaumont, so the work would have to be done by their side. so are we going to get that? we're asking for a lot of things, but are they going to get that unless they have cooperation? i do think mr. mulligan has a

pretty good relationship. he was pretty willing to do today whatever it takes to get this fixed and move on with life. maybe we need more time on this. there's an important involved. i haven't -- an attorney involved. maybe they need to -- any speak the attorney. -- i didn't speak with the attorney. but there's other issues that need to be resolved. you can't have open windows on the property line? >> commissioner honda: okay. >> clerk: okay. is there any public comment? okay. we'll move onto rebuttal. mr. and mrs. tang, you have three minutes. >> pamela tang, appellant. the codes were written because of unsafe conditions that caused deadly fires. fa failure to enforce codes can have damaging significant consequences.

the goshen fire was a case in point. the goal is tonight's hearing is precedent setting. will letting permits expire without inspection become the loophole to go around the building code to install lot line windows? the suggestion to allow the permit process to run its course puts the public at a disadvantage. the code says there's a strictly enforced time limit for appeals, but the permit requires that we wait for d.b.i. to schedule inspections while this time for appeal closes. if d.b.i. inspections are delayed because the permit holder is not available, does that mean we lose our opportunity to appeal the permit and assert our right to protection by the codes? what is the resource here? do we appeal when the mulligans apply to legalize their illegal dwelling unit behind the garage

made possible by the sole source of light and ventilation provided by these openings that are open on our property? the current notice of violation should have called out and separately cited the two properly line windows as a fire-life safety violation, especially since this m.o.v. was issued in response to our complaint exposing the serious violations and fire code hazards pertaining to these windows which make the property unsafe. can closing the property line windows which are clear code violations be prioritized and expedited under the notice of violation so that it is not delayed by the timeline of a new permit application? we ask the board to revoke the permit and direct the permit holder to apply for a new permit by submitting a new set of drawings that accurately

documents the context of property lines with the intent of filling in the openings and restoring the north exterior wall to meet the unanimous standards set by our city and state codes. thank you. >> commissioner honda: are you done, ma'am? i have a question, miss tang, mr. tang. so the permit holder evidently does not live her anymore, but he said he had asked your permission 27 years ago to have this done. is this true? >> he asked us permission. we gave him conditional permission. we had five conditions, which i included in the brief. none of those conditions were met. >> commissioner honda: so my question was that was 27-year-old. so what changed in the last year or two that has caused this to be a problem? >> he showed us the permit, and he told us that it was -- the building department had inspected it and it had gone through permit. it was approved, and our

conditions had been met. back then 28 years, you can go on-line to look up documents to see if they're really done. >> commissioner honda: so the question is, so what brought this up again? i can't be any more clear than that, right? >> it was because lately, we had to go down to the building department because mrs. mulligan had been having different people come into our property when we were not there and trying to bully their way in to erect scaffold to do whatever she want today do. -- wanted to do. and we even had thugs come in and try and dismantle things in our house. so we realized we have to really become proactive. >> commissioner honda: okay. thank you. looking at your documentations you notice the only thing

missing was a survey, but that's kind of a cash 22 because if that is on your property line, how does the city and county going to issue the permit? and two, if we say cover that window up, are you going to allow them on your property to do the work? >> if they are going to restore the wall to the level of the rest of the wall, yes. >> commissioner honda: okay. thank you. >> yes. we have always wanted them to paint their wall. it's just that with the four offers that we gave them, first offer, she sent a contractor who had a fake license and fake insurance documents, so we learned our lesson. the second offer -- >> president fung: we saw your overhead. it wasn't in your brief. this was the first time that we heard about -- you brought up the issue of an illegal unit. is that the issue here?

>> that was what made us realize what was happening to us. she told other neighbors who actually got the word back to us that she was planning on putting in rental units without going through the city, and -- but then later, she said oh, maybe i should go through the city, but she realized there was no second means of egress the way the house was setup. in order for that second means of egress to happen, she would have to open a door and make use of the alley. so then, she started to claim last year that that alley was partly hers, as you've seen in their brief, she thinks that there's a foot of that alley that is theirs, but they have also no documentation to show. we really needed to rely on a legal survey. >> president fung: okay.

so is there some basis, then, to look at a -- a solution that's a compromise in your mind -- and i'm going to ask the same question of the other side. is your own solution here to in-fill these windows? what if they fire rate those openings? >> no. the codes are the minimum standards. they have shown us in every single -- i looked through every single code -- >> commissioner honda: that wasn't the question. >> president fung: i'm quite aware of what the codes are on the property line windows. >> so zero openings. >> president fung: all right. thank you. >> we just want the code enforced. >> president fung: understood. thank you. >> clerk: mr. shirella, you have three minutes.

>> i will be very brief. i'll go back to my original comment which will solve the problem, not create one. these neighbors are not getting along. it's become quite obvious, i can't speak for the building department, but of course i think there has been a strong suggestion that this can be rectified short of dealing with an appeal at this point. to the extent that miss tang is concerned about losing an appeal right, you know, we're willing to cooperate. if possible, we'll extend it. we'll agree to stipulate to one. again, going back to what happened over this harassment and the things being said, all of this was being tried before a judge in the sense of an injunction hearing. there was evidence, and testimony under penalty of perjury, and the court did not just find it convincing. there was no evidence to support the testimony,

including miss tang's allegations about creating some kind of a down stairs facility. it just didn't hold water. i'll defer to mr. mulligan at this point. >> hi, commissioners. if -- i would like to just close up the windows and put it back the way it was. it's very simple. i mean, all i need is permission from the tangs to do that because this madness can't go on. i'm not playi i'm not blaming the tangs, i'm blaming regina -- >> commissioner honda: his wife. >> president fung: sir, are you the owner of the property? you're the holder of the permit. >> we were -- it was '97 we were divorced. >> president fung: why don't you finish your presentation. >> i'm just saying, it's not

the tang's fault. if it wasn't for regina, this thing could have gone on for another 30 years, and nobody would have even said anything. but she has a problem mentally, and that's all i can say. you know, but i've always done good work, and if that's -- you know, it's just -- it's sad, but i get along with everybody, and she gets along with nobody. >> president fung: now i'm going to ask my -- who's holding the permit? >> huh? >> president fung: who is the permit holder? >> she pulled the permit. >> so mr. shirelli, are you the representative of the permit? >> commissioner honda: they're trying to pull a new permit. >> i tried to pull the permit 28 years ago. i was the contractor at that time. >> so is he the permit holder? >> clerk: that's the regina

mulligan family trust. >> i pulled the permit because i was the original contractor at the time. >> commissioner honda: thank you. and you're a good husband. >> thank you. the only thing i'm more proud of than my work is my kids. >> clerk: thank you. mr. duffy? >> i'll be brief. the 28 years is definitely an issue for me, as well. it's just sad when people get -- this comes to this. i know i wish we would have known about it 27 years ago, 27.5 years ago, but we didn't. but the trespass issue is not a d.b.i. issue. that's san francisco police department. we do not get involved in trespassing. if i was in the unit, the ground floor area of this unit, there's no illegal unit.

it's rooms done. there's no kitchen, so i want -- there may have been some people always think that -- or someone says, i'm going to rent this out, i'm going to get a tenant, but i didn't see any evidence of any tenants. it's a family room, a couple of bedrooms, a bathroom, and a laundry. the labelling of that room would probably have to change because it is a family room. it would have to change to some other storage or den or work room or something because you have no natural light with the windows gone. you never really had it, any way. that was another mistake on the permit, on the drawings. thank you. >> president fung: so just -- yeah, mr. duffy, the -- can

only the property owner in this instance or designated representative file for this permit or can the original permit holder ask for -- >> for the renewal permit, the one that's under? the owner of the property got this permit. mr. mulligan was the contractor on the 1 990 permit. so she could add mr. mulligan as the contractor on this permit. a lot of times, people pull a permit as owner-builder, and then, they add a contractor later. is that what you're asking? okay. but it wasn't taken out -- the renewal permit was not taken out by mr. mulligan, it was taken out by regina mulligan,

his ex-wife. >> clerk: okay. thank you, commissioners. this matter's submitted. >> i did have some language -- we would typically -- when we find something like this at an inspection, we would typically issue a correction notice. the correction notice would have a time limit. then, we would issue a notice of violation which would read something like the permit's been approved in error. please submit a revision permit. the windows are not allowed, something like that. there is currently a notice of violation on the property for the expired permit. the permit is now suspended. that notice of violation has held, so we actually do have a notice of violation instructing them to renew the permit and get a final inspection.

they are under a notice of violation for this issue, and we would be issuing a notice for the window issue if this was upheld tonight. if that was not adhered to, we could issue a notice of violation for the openings that should never have been permitted in the first place. just wanted to add that. there's more options. >> president fung: not many. >> commissioner lazarus: i want to know where you were 27 years ago. >> commissioner honda: it sounds like president fung -- motion? >> president fung: first is -- yeah, unless they can prove that the survey is not correct, this wall is illegal, you know?

but, you know, i'd like to see some sort of resolution. i'd like to continue this for one week, and they have an opportunity to change the renewal permit so that it includes the in-fill of the wall, of those openings, and then see if the two parties can structure a settlement out of that. i'm not giving them much time because i don't think it deserves that much more time, but it adds emergency to just get this thing over with. so my intent is to give them one week and see if they can structure something and come back. >> i'm willing to support that, but i will not be here next week. >> clerk: all right.

we'll make commissioner swig do his homework. >> commissioner honda: okay. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from president fung to continue this matter to february 6 to give the parties an opportunity to reach an agreement. >> president fung: yes. and comprehensively create a renewal permit that includes the in-fill of the windows and therefore some type of resolution. >> clerk: you're being waved off by -- >> president fung: you don't like my motion? >> well, i -- the only thing about d.b.i. on a renewal, we can't -- it would be a revision permit, it wouldn't be a renewal permit. it would be a revision. >> president fung: okay. you're right. >> getting the drawings done in a week, it's probably going to be difficult. >> president fung: no, we can handle that as a special condition.

to make sure the parties understand, this board can accept a permit change and therefore provide approval to it. >> yes. so language would be a revision permit, not a renewal permit. >> president fung: procedural only, sir. [inaudible] >> president fung: procedural only. >> -- remedy and drawings, but one week is a little too short in time. can we have at least two weeks? >> clerk: yeah, i mean, two weeks, our next hearing date available would be the 20th. we don't have a meeting in two weeks. february 20th? >> president fung: does that work for both parties? >> that does not work for us. >> president fung: okay.

then march 6. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from president fung to continue this matter to march 6 to give the parti parties an opportunity to reach an agreement and to develop a comprehensive plan for a revision permit that includes in-fill of the walls. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, and we'll see you on march 6. and so can you please submit the plans the thursday prior to the hearing so that the board will have an opportunity to review them and serve the other side, as well. thank you. >> president fung: if there's a deal. >> clerk: i'm hoping there's going to be one. >> president fung: okay. two minutes, a break, and then, we'll hear the next one. >> clerk: okay.

>> clerk: welcome back to the january 30th, 2019 meeting of the board of appeals. we are now on items 8a and 8b. they shall be heard together. they're 18-143 and 18-149. david collins and daniel newcome versus department of planning inspection. subject property is 84-page street protesting the issue anson october 23rd, 2018 to the french american international school of an alteration permit to construct a practice field, structure and fence for a school. this is the application number 2017-11204422. and, are we -- have you discussed the order you want to go in? mr. collins, you have seven

minutes. >> dear board members, thank you for hearing this case. i appreciate you staying late. it's an important case because a lot of tenants are involved with this and their quality of life. i know that means a lot to you guys. this is -- at issue is it a planned construction of a private school yard in the high density haynes valley. while schoolyards of part of any urban landscape the nature and location of this one planned at 8484 page street is not consistent with the guidelines with the california environmental quality act and is not consistent with the city of san francisco general plan or the area plan. the plan project does not satisfy the key consideration of having no expansion of an

existing use. the project is further disqualified from a ceqa exemption because of project minor modifications but a significant change of use. from a bible factory and distribution center for the former company jews for joe us o a school yard. there is and was a prejudice shall and flawed ceqa determination that allowed the issuance of this permit without the proper environmental review by the city's planning department. this is not the first time that this has happened. on the other side of the building, sits a six ton unit installed without a permit and loud with only a variance written on the back of a napkin. you would be hard-pressed to go to any city in the united states and see a 20-foot h-vac unit

placed within three feet of residents windows. you can see it here in san francisco. you are looking at it right now. the apartment this photo was taken from sits vacant and had to be shown over 30 times the last time it was available. the sound and vibration of this equipment is a nuisance to the tenants that live on that side of the building. the appeal hearing was canceled by the planning department leaving me with no legal recourse. the tenants of 74 page street should be protected by the california environmental quality act which provides, among other things, the freedom of excessive noise. instead of a objective environmental review, the city of san francisco based part of their decision on the charles and salter noise analysis report. it's inaccurate and most of you will not objective.

the salter noise report speculates that the potential noisy mission from the outside playground, not inside. and does not account for the nature of moyes am amp la attit. they could have and should have measured the noisy mission noiss from the other schoolyards in the neighborhood. dan newcome, the co appellant here, is and was a sound engineer with professional experience. he used a professional grade noise measurement equipment and measured noise from the -- which according to the salter report, would be a considered unhelpful and a nuisance. so, let's look to the ceqa guidelines identified by the city of san francisco and the project sponsor in order to gain

exemption status and avoid the proper and necessary environmental review. minor addition to schools, class 14. it reads, consist of minor additions of existing schools within exiting grounds where they do not increase original student capacity by more than 25% or 10 classrooms. which is more. the french american international school, nor the san francisco planning department mentioned this section 15314 of the ceqa california guideline. as if this section does not exist. it applies specifically to schools. we can only sur mice they do not like the word, additions to exiting school with an existing school grounds. for this reason the