>> he is joined by vice president and lazarus,darrell honda, tina chang and we will be joined shortly by commissioner lopez . executive city attorney brad will provide the board with an needed legal advice . at the controls, and i'm julie rosenberg, the board's executive director joined by representatives from the state department before the board this evening . tina chan, the zoning administrator jessica berger, senior planner all representing the planning department. also present matthew green and kevin birmingham, see your buildinginspectors with the

department of building inspection. the board requests you turn on or silence all phones and electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings . appellants, permit holders and permit respondents are getting seven minutes to present their case in three minutes for revolt.people affiliated must include these comments within the 743 minute period. members not related have 2 minutes each toaddress the board and no rebuttals . our legalconsultant will give you a verbal warning 30 seconds before time is up .if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, please email board staff at board of appeals at sfgov.org. public access are of paramount importance every effort has been made to replicate the process. sfgov tv is feelingthis hearing life and we will have the ability to receive public

comments for each item on today'sagenda . sfgov tv is providing close captioning . to watch the hearingon tv go to cable channel 78 . it will be rebroadcast on channel 26. a live stream is found on the website at sfgov.org/doa. you can join the zoom meeting my computer, go to our website and click on the zoom linkare called in by telephone . call 1-669-900-6833 and enter webinar id 825 5241 7768. and again, sfgov tv is streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the street screen. to block yourphone number when calling in dialá67 and then the phone number . wait for the public comments portion to be called and dialánine which is the equivalent of raising your han . you will be brought into the

meeting when it is your turn. you may have to dialá61 you yourself . you will have to or three minutes depending on the length of the item and speakers. please note there is a delay between the live proceedings and was broadcast live streamed on tv and the internet therefore it is important that people turn down the volume on their tv otherwise there is interference. if any participants or attendees need a disability accommodation or technical assistance you can make a request to alice, the board's legal assistant or send an email to board appeals at sfgov.org. the function cannot be used i can. now we will swear in or a firm of those who plan to testify. any member of the public may speak without taking both. if you intend to testify at tonight's proceedings and wish to have your testimony given evidentiary weight racer hand

and say i do after you have a firm. do youswear your testimony will be the truth, truth and nothing but the truth ? i do. if you're not speaking with you zoom speaker on you. we have one housekeeping item, the jurisdiction request number 22 two 401 main street filed by the requester and will not be heard tonight. so we will now move on to item number one, special item . consideration and possible adoption of a resolution which makes findings to allow the conference meetings other californiagovernment code section 549 53 . commissioners. >> any comments? >> i'll make a motion to accep that . >> any public comment onthis item ? pleaseraise your hand . and one moment, do wehave all the commissioners here ?

>> i don't see josi. >> there with me, commissioner lopezsays he tried to join . commissioner china had to step away for a moment so we will hold off on this boat . thank you for yourpatience everyone .>> ... president

swing, should we go ahead with the vote? >> three will cover it. >>: on this itemand we have a motion from commissioner honda to adopt theresolution . on that motion vice president lazarus .[roll call vote] that motion carries 3 to 0 the resolution is adopted and let me double check . alex, can you please resend the link commissionerlopez . thank you wonderful. welcome commissioner lopez. we are now moving on to item number two which is general public comments, this is an opportunity for anyone would like to speak on the matter

within the board's jurisdiction but isnot on tonight'scalendar . any member who wishesto speak on an item not on tonight's agenda? i see i have raised . charles rathbone , please go ahead. >> good evening board members, my name is charles rathbone and i'm a taxi medallion holder. i want to follow up on a misunderstanding about the value of the taxi medallion which has been repeatedly characterized as worthless. nothing to be further from the truth . as evidence i offered the sworn testimony of expert witnesses who testified trial which i listened to each day i assume. on september 17, chris weiss testified as an expert witness for the credit union. mister weiss is the ceo of a yellow cab and estimated the current value of her medallion to be $30,000. later in the trial on september 29, the city's expert witness a

doctor rascher estimated the current value of a medallion as $130,000. so please be mindful as you review these taxi cases that you are being asked to take away a valuable asset, possibly the sole remaining asset of an elderly and disabled worker. that concludes my comment. >> we will now hearfrom marcelo fonseca. please go ahead . welcome. >> thank you, for the record i am marcelo fonseca, a driver and medallion holder again the medallion wasacquired before the new guidance . i would like to implore commissioner chang, commissioner honda and commissioner lopez not to give

in to clever arguments by city attorneys took the positionto revoke taxi permits from disabled medallion holders . i know you believe in social justice. and social justice requires that these medallionholders be allowed to keep their permits . there is no law that requires you to support the mta nor the city's position . so i implore you not to give in to those clever arguments. which have shown, we've been making comments during public comment throughout all those hearings and to me personally because i've been driving a ca . i drove full-time for more than 30 years.

i'm not driving at the moment because of health conditions like it is so unfair what this city has done to the taxi industry for the past 10 years so please, i implore you, i know your moral principles and ethics. i know you believe in social justice and urge you not to give in to those clever arguments the city attorneys have been making. thank you. >> we will now hear from carl mcmurdo, welcomed. >> thanks julie.after last meeting deputy city attorney zachary corey under quoted from a synopsis provided by your staff describing theoutcome of the ninth circuit's loan appeal . mister corey on this states the appeal was dismissed and went 80 a ruling became final.

please note this loan appeal was not dismissed through the case merit and said mister sloan himself was requested dismissal because the city agreed in mediation to provide sloanwith the very 80 a really white had denied him . anything at all became final as a result of the ninth circuit agreement is the city's tacit admission that state 2002 essential eligibility requirements was basically requires taxi holders to drive until we drop dead at the wheel to retain our medallions is false. in any event you're rightfully vestedwith de novo authority to make your own rulings . resolution 09 138 defiance sloan's mediated ada relief as part of the transportation code for 13 years now and edit applies to all medallion holders,not just mister sloan . contrary to agency statements

relief is not limited to three years. the resolution allows for multiple ballots to be invoked with each providing an additional three years of protection. also, the agency points to code language created in year 2015 which is supplying retroactive lease on disabled permitholders as cost for revoking that out . could section 1118 88 now requires a prop came italian holder to have a card or renewal but california drivers license which a permanent disk permanently disabled person cannot qualify isrequired to obtain and a card . as such the agency has contrived a method to harvest medallions in a clear and egregiousviolation of the ada law and principal . mister coriandis claims the agency created an enforcement mechanism. i'm reminded of what the wizard of oz said. a no attention to the man behindthe curtain . i have no intention to

disparage mister corey on this but i implore the three commissioners who so far have sided with disabled permit holders to maintain your results despite the pressure you face to change your votes . thank you.please see through the city's ruse just as our predecessor board members includingkathleen herring did in 2003 . thank you very much for your consideration. >> we will go from the caller's phonenumber ends in 1743, these go ahead . you need to pressánine orá62 unmuted yourself yes, you need toturn it off another device . there's an echo. but you have a computer or a tv on?

thank you. please go ahead. >> caller: my name is robert she is on a. and after the city and mta agreed to the sloan decision by the night circuit in 2009, and regardless of maybe it only covers two cabdrivers the mta started a program called k drivers over 60 years old or disabled to sell theirmedallions . 50 medallions were sold in the pilot program but $200,000 plus $50,000 in commission to the mta. in doing this it meant the mta

recognized ada as a disability but this is a federal program and they cannot change the laws of the ada. the requirements of the mta to have a california drivers license is just to try to take away their medallions that have any real value today but the mta controls the market of selling and buying medallions and will not allow medallions to be sold for under $250,000. note sale has taken place since the end of 2015, maybe early

16. but hundreds of came italian holders did sell their medallions underthis program and are still on the list to sell them .thank you for your time

they turned into enforcing the a-card requirements so they could not by their permits became thecollateral damage . when john oliver suggested this low hanging fruit can be hard rested so the ownership and revenue can be given to them, mta saw an opportunity to revoke the cost and declared this opportunity to revoke the proposed transcendence. mta can revoke medallions direct to drivers and the credit union can release this closed medallions to the taxi companies so that they can accrue the benefits. when kate was asked in one of the town hall meetings why are you doing this for the prop k medallions his response was you

guys have already made millions out of them. if you put yourself in their shoes and you work for an agency for 30 years and leadership tells you in 40 years there is not a requirement, how is that fair? i wanted to give a perspective to commissioners lazarus about the medallions. even if they do not have value the answer is after the loss the value can come back. don't make them waste all thei golden years . you for your time. >> as a reminder any appeals referenced by the public will not be heard this evening. statements on the facts of those appeals not be considered by theboard . members will have the opportunity to provide comments about those matterson the agenda forthe hearing . is there any furthergeneral

public comment this evening ? these raise your hand . we will move on to item number three, commissioner comments and questions okay, we will move on to item number four. before you for discussion possible adoptedour minutes of march 2, 2022 meeting . >> anybody have any comments or emotion? >> any public comment on the motion to adopt theminutes, please raise your hand . i don't see anyhands raised . on that motioncommissioner lopez . [roll call vote] that motion carries 5 to 0 and minutes are adopted. we are now moving on to item number six.

this is the only 22 003 doctorchristopher chang versus department of building inspection with planning department approval. subject property 65 normandy terrace . issuing to randy and heidi whitaker of an alteration permit, division application number 1813 to comply with a notice of violation number 2020 674441 and planning enforcement number 2020 01 061 4 and permit number 20 2109 01 7599 as a preliminary matter, commissioner honda. >> i wish to disclose i am a partner in the firm that hired ruben julius and their participation willnot have any effect on my decision . >> thank you so we will hear from the appellant first. doctor chang, welcome. i understand you're going to split yourtime with your attorney so you have seven minutes .

>> can you see the first slide? yes. >> i'll get started shortly >> let us know when you're ready please . >> presidents wiggins members of the board, thank you for your time. my name is christopher chang, i'm the neighbor onthe south side . we ask you toreject the plan due to defective permit process, serious violations and efficient enforcement . there was no discussion of the plan before the 311 notification in 2018. the projectcircumvented the design guidelines .it's architecturalobjectives greatly changed . the glass on the northside is incompatible with the neighborhood . the original rope on the south side had distinct upper and

lower areas the project misrepresented thisin order to extend the roof . 311 plan incorrectly showed the roof of uniform height as the processpermit from april 2019 . this photo shows changes in shapeand increase in height . the sponsor finallydisclosed the correct drawing 39 months after the 311 notification . the work has greatly exceeded the project description and the 311 notification there has been extensive demolition without permit including nonconforming structures above the height limit. this was documented by dbi and the planning department. there has been extensive rebuilding without permit despite the notice of enforcement issues 15 months ago . permission for weatherization became excused orcontinued rebuilding .

the sponsor now asked to be madelegal . the originallyapproved height of the elevator room is 309.5 feet . as shown in theapproved 311 plan an approved site permit in april 2019 . in the terms of abatement the originally approved type was incorrectly listed as 309.7 feet . the elevator shouldbe reduced to 309.5 feet and made even with the surrounding roofline . the preconstructionheight of the upper roof was 3.5 feet . as shown in the august 21 plan. and the project description of the current plan. the preconstruction tied to the logowas 309.2 feet . shown the same plan. the term of abatement requires the lower roof to be removed.

the correct height is 309.2 feet. the sponsor changed the height to 309.5 feet in the current plan to justify the expansion. this is a new roof based on th current plan. the lower area is raised, not restored . the elevator sits on the southern edgeof the property it reduces the air and light to our third-floor . the current plan allows further vertical expansionof the new roof on the north side . the height of the preconstruction author roof is listed as 309.5 feet and the project descriptionand 309.8 feet in the table he height on the same page . the elevator height should be 309.5 feet. the lower roof area is constructedis not 310.2, it is 309 .5 feet. then it's pre-existing to be restored height tobe 309.2 feet . the same area was stated four

different times in the project description. the arrows andinconsistency permeate the plan and violate theterms of abatement . iq . mister william will present next. >> good evening presidents way, members of the board. stevewilliams . this board has prided itself on supporting the community process and fairness in applying the same rules to everyone especially if there ss is a mandatory community process and the planning code or mandatory by a planning commission resolution. as you see on slide one the sponsors contacting employees 17 before they filed the application and describe the project is mostly an inferior

remodel and claimed only two of the fagades on the building would be remodeled . one on the north side and one on the rear. as the email describes that from the sponsors submitted as exhibit j based on this description how hollow thought it was such a small project no pre-application or 311 notice would be needed . please read these emailsand decide for yourself . the description provided by the sponsor was not accurate and all four fagades weredemolished . could i have the next slide please? dbi found the sponsors exceede by 100 percent the amount of demolition permitted . whether it's false information about the project or inadvertent or unintentional it doesn't matter the sponsor did not go back after the project change to participate in a mandatory community process . can i have slide 3. no outreach

was made by the sponsors and that's the what the letter makes clear.they never heard from them again . five years later until the expediters approval for the project from how hollow. the sponsors avoided the mandatory community process and avoided the mandatory review by cal hollow. i found this out for the first time the day of the planning commission hearingjanuary 6 . at a minimum this board should require the project to comply with the community process. planning has one issue with this case. this exceeds the maximum height limit. planning was clear from the beginning the zone does not allow the nonconformingportions of the roof and the top floor to be demolished, reconstructed or expanded over the height limit . can i have the final slide? that's a direct quote but what

planningsaid to the sponsors and planning had it right. this is exhibit d, page 3 . this is an email from the planner from may to the sponsors telling them exactly what happened. so they were told before they filed the application. they were told after the application and pay demolished it anyway. we're asking that the project be reviewed and brought into compliance with the guideline that the planning code be enforced as it has on prior projectsand make no special favors to this project sponsor for the voluntary demolition which occurred in this case . and that's the keyto this case. love voluntary demolition . thank you. i didn't hear the 32nd buzzer. >> you will have time in remodel, mister williams. we will now hear from the permit holder and i believe

mister and which will be addressing the board, welcome . >> iq. president swig, members of the board, my name is scott amblich and i'm here with the permit holders heidi and randy whitaker along withtheir contractor contract attorney and planning consultants . the permit before you seeks to fix problems, fix problems tha , one second. seeks to fix problems that were called to the attention by dbi and planning . why would a neighbor of your government to fix the issues but theneighbor complained about . think about it. the problems would not be fixed

and the whitaker's and their neighborhood be left with an unfinished building and no path to resolution. butler's first review how we got here. the whitaker's applyfor a permit in 2016 to make their home . they had pre-application meetings and despite what the appellants said they did meet with their neighbors including the appellate and reached out to the association in 2016. one no onefollowed an application for discretion . as for the them self though whitaker's engaged with an extensive lead in 2018 tomake sure he was okay with the project . let me just pause here tosee if i can share my screen . >> we can prosper time . >> thank you. [inaudible] >> take your time.

>> give me a second. >> sorry aboutthat, alex . >> that's what alec is therefore. >> that's why he gets paid the big dollars, right thank you alex . >> i fixed it. there more technically savvy that i . slide one is a permit were

talking about. the permit that's before you. it's the permit thatfixed these problems . slide 2 shows you a portion of the email exchange. a portion of the email exchange between the permit holders and their nadir. and higher exchange is attached to the brief and it shows they wereforthright with their neighbor, they gave them the plan . they were grateful on the legibility of their plans. he did not file an application for discretionary review so we're not here to address that project. it was approved four years ago. we're here because the whitaker scene remove minor portions of the fourth floor patient have without first seeking an amendment to their permit to cover the additional demolition. we're not talking about the vast majority of the demolition on the top floor.

for example thephoto the showed you that shows the roof with what seems like littleholding it up . that demolition to be clear was approved . that was not wrongful demolition, that was approved as the original four years ago . we're talking about small amounts of additional demolition to address dry rot and the need for structural strengthening . in response to thousands of pages of email, literally thousands of pages of email and complaints from parents, planning and dbi investigative workand requiredquakers to make modification . those are shown on slide three . they include the changes that seem to be what the is asking for tonight a slight lowering of the elevator penthouse. a removal of background not said and have been put in and a slight lowering. that should be the end of the story. the complaint, planning dbi responded and the liquors apply

for a permit to address the issues planning and dbi said needed to beaddressed so we're all good ? no, appellant doesn't want those problems fixed. we want for the city to demand the whitaker stick off the entire top floor of his own claiming there wasunlawful demolition so the whole floor has to go . why? because let's go to slide four. that will greatly improve his viewsfrom his roof deck . you can see that on these two slides. right now he has a 90 degrees view of the bay. if you took off the top floor of the week or so you get about 180 degrees view of thebay . that told in the top floor it has been in the same configuration is 1939 and when the project is complete the top floor will look almost identical to have booked for over 80 years. next slide please. this slide shows a comparison between the preconstruction

condition and condition today. the roof line essentially unchanged except for changes to benefit appellant. go down to slide eight please. a majority of the changes to the top floor are shown on this slide where the whitaker's voluntarily removed all the instructions in brown which benefit the pilot anddecrease any obstruction to is you . this is not a situation that's all too common in our city where a developer buys the house and engages in massive excavation or demolition after applying for a remodel. hoping toavoid neighborhood notification to maximize profit . this case involves homeowners and a large amount of approved evolution to their top floor as was shown in the permit drawing that no one objected to.

the liquors didn't hide the fact much of the top floor would be removed and put that in a more structurally sound floor. this case involves a small amount of demolition went beyond the demolition crew and the permit addresses that access demolition to the satisfactionof planning, the zoning administrator, planning commission, dbi and everyone else except appellant . appellant claims the planning staff got wrong, they all got wrong and theyshould have ordered the top floor removed to be consistent with the code in past practice. that argument is backwards . fixing the problem is what is consistent withthe code and past practice . lopping off the top floorof a three-year-old home would be unprecedented, unfair and unjust .the argument to the maid tonight about two inches here or three inches there, those are all part of a campaign by the appellants to claim inaccuracy when there are

none. those plans have been gone over with a fine tooth comb by planning,by dbi . they been verified by a professional survey . i'm more than happy to address any questions you might have about that. i don't think it merits the further use of your time. please deny this appeal. please let the whitaker's finish this projectand give the neighborhood really from what has been almost four year construction delay. >> we will now hear from the planning department. welcome mister t . >> thank you and good evening president swig and commissioners, corey t with the planning department. before you is an appeal or a permit at 65normandy terrace . the property is in the rh one zoning district and 40 x heightened bulk district. building permit 2000 1707 13 1813 was filed in july 2017 for

a major renovation in the existing single-familybuilding. that was reviewed by a planner who also consulted with former zoning administrator sanchez . due to the complicated nature of the proposed work above the height limit the original proposal did include originally additional maxing above-which he did committed to the project sponsor was not permitted but after significant review and comment final scope of work was determined to be consistent with the planning codeand neighborhood notice was conducted in may and june of 2018 . please note the appellant and cal hollow association were included in that notice but the department received no public comment on the permit notice and norequest for discretionary review and was subsequently issued in april 2019 . the planning department

received a complaint in november 2020 had then conducted beyond the scope of the approved permit. the department confirmed the violation and a notice of enforcement on 20/20 and since that time the property owner has remained engaged with the planning department and dbi as work was done to ascertain work conducted beyond the scope of the permit but a combination of the complicated reform and the fact that the work had been completed made this process challengingand time-consuming . ultimately the property owner planning department and dbi landed on the final understanding of the work completed and the scope of work necessary to correct the violation which included reduction in mass from what had been constructed which the permit holder explained earlier. the building permit before you tonight was submitted in september of last year and the appellant filed a request for

discretionary review on that permit which was heard on january 6 2022 so this year. several commissioners expressed concern about the lack of engagement with cal hollow and a proposed continuance . however i did explain the nuance there and instead the commission voted 410 3 through the permit withouttaking discretionary review . i note the appellant did include a transcript of the planning commission hearing transcript includes my description of how and why the original permit and revision permit are consistent with the planning code relevant to work done above theheight limit so i will not go into detail on the issue unless you have further questions but i'm happy to do so . regarding cal hollow, resolution 16 147 was adopted in april 2001 and that rev a solution endorsed the neighborhood guidelines and stated the commission and staff would consider the guidelines,

review permits in that area and encourage project sponsors and neighborhood groups to consider them . this intent was repeated in the guidelines themselves but there is no planning code or planning commission requirement for project sponsors to engage in the cal hollow association or for permits to be approved by the association before the planning department can approve a permit and this is consistent with past actions. we have not require those steps for other permits in this area and to my knowledge there's been no complaints in the cal hollow association that they have not been engaged in other projects in the area so in conclusion while we built on the two permits were quite complex planning department worked very closely and over a long train a time with the project sponsor to ensure the permit before the board is consistent with both the planning codes and planning commission voted to approve the permit without taking discretionary review .

as such the department request the board should not appeal. i do have copies of planning code language at the neighborhood design guidelines, planning commission resolution etc.. i'd be happy to share my screen and go into more detail if any of the boardmembers would like but otherwise that concludes my presentation and i'm available forany questions you may have . >> we do have a question from president swig . >> president: the issue is the roofline and the shift from what's called the job that existed historically andthe straightening that occurred during the construction . along with the claim that once you tear down, you can't put i back up, is that correct ? >> there's a couple of components of ifyou carry it down can you put it back up . the job in the roofline on the side, that was originally included in the permit and the

permit was approved but later determined that should not have been included as that would be work above the height limit that could not be approved so as a permit holder noted that massing is going to bereduced by the permit in front of you tonight . and then there's a claim by the appellant that essentially nothing can be replaced or done above the height limit and that's simply not the case. i could go into that in more detail but the original permit had a significant amount of removal and replacement approved as part of that permit and again, that wasthoroughly approved by planning staff . they went further than that in the field and this permit has is going to capture that as well and this was determinedto be consistent with the planning code . >> so you are comfortable with the result of your complex conversations with the permit

holder and you feel the permit holder has complied with your request to make those set aside for a project. >> correct. >> thank you, we will now hear fromthe department of building inspection . >> evening president swig, vice president lazarus and board members. over 20 2010 dbi opened the complaint that notes the violation of the subject for excess demolition .the notice of violation wasamended on december 2020 two include reframing of the horizontal fourthfloor . the amendment was included to address the dorms . permit application 0599 was filed september 1, 2021 to address dbi and planning

enforcement. on that day senior inspector kevin mccue who wrote the initial mlb and the subsequent amended review the plan to the applications. after discerning the plan reflected the site conditions he gave the application the okay to process and the approval process commenced. after planning approval dbi reviewed and approved the permitapplication january 21, 2021 . otc. the permit wasissued january 24, 2022 . dbi believed the permit application was approved properly and recommends the permit the upheld. the owner or sorry, the appellant hasbeen cleaning there's discrepancy in the height . i think it was about two inche . san francisco building code section 106 8.4.7 requires a new building permit for any

changes proposed to any building or structure which falls in the exterior dimensions more than six inches since the discrepancies or the appellant is claiming will need two inches to fill.a new buildingpermit would not be required . thank you for your time and i'm happy to answer any questions . >> i don't see any questions at this time we will move on the publiccomment any public comment on this item ? i do seeone hand raised vicki, please go ahead . vicki, you need to unmute yourself. >> caller: high, members of the board. my name is vicki low. i've been a resident of san francisco for 50 years . a homeowner in san francisco for over 30 years and i am a concerned citizen. there were many violations with the renovation project at

normandy terrace. the most serious one was that the project did not contain the proper permit for the work being done. a significant amount of illegal demolition and rebuilding was done before the department of public inspection and department of planning became aware of it. and somehow the work at the construction site continued in spite of the notice of enforcement . this project appeared to be a thorough review of the entire house inside and out the result was the project quite different from the permit that was obtained. now the sponsor is asking permission to continue the work that was performed illegally. for the many reasons which have been brought upduring this meeting , for the reasons i have stated i would like to encourage the board to take these into consideration inyour deliberation of this case . youfor your attention .

>> we will now hear from stephen chong,please go ahead . >> that evening, my name is stephen chong and when my family and i lived at 2660 divisadero street which is directly behind and adjacent to 55 and 65 normandy terrace which has the properties ofthe appellant and the respondent . i have spoken with doctor chang and doctor whitaker andnote there's wildly different views on what was done on this project . but first i would like to make clear that doctor whitaker did not discuss this project with my family or myself prior to our receiving the 311 notice even though he has my cell phone numbers. i only became aware or only spoke with him after the planning commission hearing in january.

the only communications i received regarding 65 normandy terrace was the original 311 notice and a notice for the planningcommission hearing . the city enforcement does not appear to require any further notice to neighbors if there's a violation or a subsequent permit. so i was unaware of the status of the project until doctor chang, the appellant alerted me to what's going on.however, last week doctor whitaker availed himself of both medications the board entailed in the permit for planning codes.and whether applicable to the 65 normandy project for the purposes of this hearing my family physician is that

remodeling or construction work including abatement or remedial work in response to a notice of enforcement should be vetted for comment at thecourtesy of the neighbors even if not required by the city . otherwise the project can't exceed the scope of the original approved permit and then seek subsequent approval if changes or additions in the new permit that does not exceed the building and planning codes.and all that without any further notice to the neighbors. and thank you. >> thank you mister chang. we will nowhear from the caller whose phone number ends in 386 . you may need topress á6 to unmute yourself . 3860.

please press star 6. okay, you are unmute it. pleasego ahead . >> my name is scott whoops, i live at2850 union street for over 30 years .i've seen a lot of these issues. i think it's important that the parties continue to talk and that they work things out. seems to be a lot of issues over two inches here and a few inches here that could make a big difference . it's really important that the parties get along and i think the cal hollow guidelines mean a lot and that they should be followedthank you . >> is there any further public comment on thisitem? please raise your hand . idon't see any handsraised . we will move on to remodel .

doctor chang or mister williams, you have three minutes. >> i will get started with the rebuttal. residents and members of the board, from the beginning public sponsor intended was a complete rebuildhouse with a different architectural staff . if the work done up till now is to obtain a permit it would not pass so the sponsor resorted to various ways of bypassing the rules and guidelines. under the consideration in front of this for it's whether we're going to have to set the rules for residential projects one is according to thebook and the other is unwritten to build as one pleases . this project occupies a prominent location in pacific heights but the project is permitted , it would set a noticeable example of how to bypass the system. the currents regarding demolition of nonconforming structures of all the hype is

maintaining the rights of the owners and for protecting the rights of the neighbors . the sponsor disregarded these codes. the interpretation and legality of such demolition by the zoningadministrator in this case appears unreasonable , arbitrary and deviates from the precedent set by the previous zoning administrators. the term ofabatement calls for replacement of all decorative exteriorelements . this raises the question of how it's going to be done properly . in the presence of large glass windows and how it will be harmonized with itself and its neighbors. the sponsor insists on raising the nonconforming lower roof on the south by to the point of fabricating incorrect diagrams and numbers in the plan . inconclusion the permit could not be accepted in its present form . we request an incorrect number and drawings of the height of the structures and current plan he rectified . we asked that this project

adhere to the design guideline process. finally,the project should follow the planning code. thanks for your attention >> should we pop the time ? okay. >> can i have the second slide please? that was a noticeof violation . there was no demolition indicated on the plan and mister teague's findings are directly at odds with what dvi found at the site . as you can see here this talk about the fourth floor. the fourth floor dvi went out and found 100 percent in excess demolition on the north fagade and 60 percent access demolition on the east fagade

which is the front of the. there was no demolition shown above the height limit on the plan south or west . so that's what distinguishes this case. the planning code says the opposite of mister t's decision. section 188 says if you voluntarily tear it down you can't put it back up unless it's in complete conformity with the code. in other words youcan't build it back, i limit . the exceptions that the da and mister m let's talk about when you stop the work and asked permission and get a permit. and that's exactly what christophermae said in exhibit b . >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holders.mister m lynch,you have three minutes . >> let me address a few quick points starting with the last point mister williams made.

he showed you an email for christopher mae about what could not be done. that email was part of a back-and-forth about design, different designs on the roof. and what he told us not to do, we didn't do. we redesigned to comply with what they requested so mister williams isworking here , put up an email telling us not to do something that he knows we didn't do exactly what was in that email. as for the cal hollow association be clear. there was outreach to the association as part of the overall project permit . there was not subsequent outreach about the permit that's before you because that's a permit to fix the issues and as the zoning administrator pointed out no one from the association complained about this project either at its inception or as part of the revision process . and they said we had not complied with the cal hollow guidelines was before we got to

page 10 of our brief only cite two examples, neitherof which are applicable . they say the zoning administrators decision deviates from the past and we give you examples of the zoning administratorsinterpretation absolutely consistent . what would be inconsistent would be requiring somebody to take off the top story of the home whenthe top story existed for 10 years. there's no precedent for that . regarding outreach to the neighbor misterchong, again , we received a 311 notice back when it was circulated in 2018. he had no objection to the project at thattime . what he seems to be objecting to today, even objecting, not sure from his comments are design elements that were part of the 2018 project. nothing that has to do with a revisionpermit . for example mister williams the appellate mentioned windows to

face the day. those windows were all part of the project from theget-go and no one complained of those nobody file a discretionary review about them .>> . [please stand by]

z >> i'd just like to read through it. all existing on the garage level, the reconfiguration of the interior stair. the laundry room, powder room, and gym. the addition of an elevator. increasing the number of cars in the garage. seismic upgrades to the entire residence on the first level. a reconfiguration of rooms. addition of gas fireplace, etc. on the second level, some walls will be relocated to better accommodate a large master suite with bath and walk-in closet. two bedrooms with a joining bath. on the fourth level, a dormer for the elevator and a removal

of the northeast hip and a continuation of the design direction by continuing the window from the north side to the west side. remodel the roof terrace and replacing it with glass guardrails. the roof will be resurfaced with metal roofing. upgrade electrical wiring etc. there are also notes throughout the plans that said every level, all existing windows and doors to be removed, relocated and replaced. on the fourth roof level plan, there was a note saying existing asphalt to be replaced all elevations existing stucco to be replaced with integral colored stucco. so i wanted to share that just because i think it's important again to make it clear, this is an extensive renovation and that was always clearly made part of the notice with the original permit. so i don't think that's really

in doubt. they did go, you know, in some ways a little beyond what was permitted and it was a big complicated form at that roof level to kind of pinpoint exactly what had existed before and what had been constructed and what the discrepancies were so we could land on this final scope of work, but that's the work that our staff and the d.b.i. staff and the project sponsor staff did to get the permits in front of you. i'm happy to go through kind of technical code language if you want about the work above the height limits, but i will leave that for specific questions. and that's it for me for now. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. we have a question from commissioner honda and then vice president lazarus. >> commissioner: so i just have a couple questions just for clarification. i mean, both briefs were quite extensive and they were from two separate point of views. so one, you know, there was

some mention about the 311s. so from the original 311 that went out to where the actual project sits now, what are the specific differences between those two? >> what's the difference? >> commissioner: yeah. because what they're saying is that the 311 was vague and it didn't indicate the scope of work. but you just read that long. >> right. the 311 notice did not have the specific language. it's too much. the 311 paraphrases the scope of work, but the plans in the 311 notice as well. and, you know, relative to what went out in the 311 notice, what you see before you tonight as the permit holder has mentioned, it's getting smaller. the elevator overrun is getting smaller, the notch in the roof line is being -- >> commissioner: sorry to interrupt you. it seems like the modifications would benefit the appellant

from, you know, in all aspects to be honest. so if the roof was removed, evidently according to some statements completely, at which point is that a whole new process to add that back on? because that's not just an oopsy, right? >> yeah, in this case, we did not determine that the entire roof had been removed. the way i explained it to the planning commission is that the code does not state explicitly that you can't replace or demolish and replace any element of any portion above the height limit. what the code does say is if you voluntarily raise the structure and i think raise the common concept is that it's destroyed, you demolish it. then if you build a new building back in its place, it has to meet the current code. we see situations all the time where people are doing work above the height limit and every time there is essentially a case by case review of the

nature of that work, what you can't do, and this was part of the consultation that the planner chris may and scott sanchez had with them is you can't add new additions and new mapping and new discrepancies above the height limit. >> commissioner: okay. so that what the appellant's attorney mentioned section 188 would not apply at that point. >> well, that is the section that talkses about if you raise the entire building and you build it back. that's not the case. that's not the situation we're talking about here. that's in the section where it's talking about if you have an active nature like a fire or something and you're building is knocked down, you can rebuild it back in the same manner it was even if it was noncompliant, you can do that within a certain amount of time, but the other side of that is if you do that voluntarily. if you demolish a building voluntarily, you don't get to build it back in a noncomplying

manner. >> and that does not apply to the particular work on this. >> correct. this is not a demolition. this is work, renovation work and replacement work above the height limit. >> commissioner: thank you very much for that. >> secretary: thank you. vice president lazarus. >> commissioner: thank you. we see cases frequently when the scope of work exceeds what is actually permitted. are you able in any way to sort of classify kind of how egregious or not egregious you would say this scope of work exceeding the permit was and -- yeah. okay i'll leave it at that. >> sure. i think there's different magnitudes. i think the permit holder mentioned this isn't a case where someone comes in to remodel the bathroom and they do a building addition. or excavate 100 cubic feet of earth and do something like that. this was already a pretty massive amount of work that was

proposed in the permit and the roof form was extremely complicated. it has a lot of features that were very challenging and so the work that was done beyond, you know, in terms of scale of overall scope was not a huge deviation from what was permitted. i do -- it did also, it looked because the nature of it, right, they're basically taking the skin off of everything and they were approved to remove and replace a bunch. so there are certain times you can take pictures of that and it looks like a pretty substantial removal, but a very big chunk of that was approved as part of the original permit. >> and, one other thing that i guess i don't fully understand, so this is a permit to correct the violations so to speak. >> correct.

>> commissioner: does that typically go back to the full planning commission for a hearing? >> so it wouldn't have. the reason it did is that the original permit required the 311 because of the elevator overrun. so you had an increase in the envelope. all the other renovations interior and on the skin, that wouldn't have triggered 311, but because they have the elevator overrun, that triggered 311. to your point, this permit in front of you now has actually reduced the mass in some areas. so it doesn't trigger 311. however, the appellant has submitted a blank book notification request for this property. so any new permits, they get notified and have a 10-day period to file a discretionary review and they did. >> that was not the case with the original permit, is that correct? >> right. it was noticed but there were no discretionary reviews requested for that permit. >> great. thanks very much.

>> secretary: thank you. commissioner chang has a question. >> commissioner: could you better explain what is permitted above the height in this case and how the project sponsor or the permit holder complies with current code in that regard. >> sure. the planning code addresses this to some degree in multiple places and none of this says how much of the height limit. it says you can't add new discrepancies. but this question of like how much can you replace or not is not explicitly addressed in the planning code. there are interpretations that get into this to some degree and the case by case nature of it. as you can imagine, you can see

it as a spectrum. on one end, you can't do anything. if you remove one board, you can't put it back. on the other end of the spectrum is you can remove and replace everything down to the last stud. and the reality is it's actually somewhere in the middle and it's part of a review kind of a case-by-case basis which is what this project had. this permit had a very specific review with chris may and scott sanchez and then but there were a couple of places where and the permit holder can speak in more detail as to the reasons why, but there were some areas that were removed and some roofing that was removed that went beyond the scope of work and one wall for like the penthouse area was built back a few inches closer to the neighbor than it should have been. so that is being required to be pushed back a little bit and so

all of that work is being corrected by this permit. >> commissioner: okay. so in summary, it found like there are no new discrepancies above the height limit from the review of the planning department staff in this particular case. the other question that i had has to do with the discrepancies that the permit, that the appellant had against the height specified on the permit site itself. are those also corrections that are occurring or can you speak to that specific point as well? >> i don't know that i've seen the specific points but the issues of what the correct height was something that department staff and d.b.i. and the project sponsor worked for a long time to get as detailed, as close as possible and we do

feel confident that the permit before you is the most accurate representation. >> commissioner: thank you. >> secretary: thank you. we have a question from commissioner honda. >> commissioner: sorry. commissioner chang pretty much answered the questions. that was the appellant had some of the issues were that the calculations for the height were incorrect. you're confirming that they are correct at this point? >> my understanding is that they are correct. >> commissioner: okay thank you. >> secretary: thank you. president swig has a question. >> president: same subject. looking at those numbers, the difference in the height discrepancies were seemingly 2", right? >> in that range, yes. >> president: yeah. and did we not just hear that 2" is not, the wiggle room is 6". >> so that's relative to the building code.

of the planning code, we don't have that exact provision. so, for example, if you did have a roof feature and you wanted to raise it 5" and it was above the height limit, we would not permit that. so, for us, it really is more of an issue of making sure that those features are behind the departments that were submitted showing the existing context that physically had been changed since then. so we can't go out right now and measure what previously existed. so what the permit that's in front of you now was using all of the information available to our department and d.b.i. and the project sponsor to get that as correct as possible to the previously existing conditions. >> president: and therefore since you have compliance two statutes.

>> correct. >> secretary: thank you. we will now hear from the department of building inspection. inspector green. >> hello, commissioners. i'd just like to point out that the notice of violation written by d.b.i., the corrective action was a stop all work in the area violation of description submitted with detailing areas where the scope of demolition department approval required. that's exactly what this permit is. so the appellant brought up our notice of violation, but we believe that the permit holders are in compliance of the violation at this time. >> secretary: thank you. commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> president: commissioners, let's get started. >> commissioner: i'm happy to start. i have correspondence here from my fellow commissioners. it sounds like this has been a long drawn out process due to

the large scope of the renovation and how intimate the neighborhood is and how impactful generally speaking renovations can be for neighbors. but it's also seems like there's been an immense amount of review from the different agencies and that the permit holders have done what they needed to do in order to comply with the notice of violations and to bring the project back in scope. so i would be prepared to deny the appeal and uphold a permit on the basis that it was properly issued. i'd like to hear from others. >> president: so would i. anybody else? >> commissioner: sure. i'll second that. >> commissioner: i concur with commissioner chang. i think this project has had a lot of process and the changes that were made from what i can see the appellant

[ indiscernible ] and i don't see the reason to do what the city has put a lot of time and process as well as the project sponsor. >> president: commissioner lopez last but not least certainly. >> commissioner: yeah. i see it the same way. >> president: okay. cool. do you want to take a vote? >> secretary: sure. i believe we have a motion from commissioner chang to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. on that motion, commissioner lopez, [roll call] so that motion carries 5-0 and the appeal is denied. we are now moving on to item number seven. appeal jr-22-2. subject property is 120

eastwood drive appealing the issuance of an alteration permit. extend the deck from 48" to 105" so it can be supported by a load bearing wall at the garage. 09259421 and this is permit number and we will hear from the appellants first. welcome. you have seven minutes. >> thank you. good evening everyone. thank you for considering our appeal to the 120 eastwood drive deck expansion. we'd like alice to present. i'm not sure you have the presentation. [ indiscernible ] we're going to go through what you've already seen in the

brief, but just highlight some of the information. so the deck has already been completed. according to mr. hoskins, the extension had to be -- the extension was baseded on a recommendation from the san francisco building inspector, but no such documentation exists on the website. we have concerns we will articulate in the next couple of slides, but we're requesting that the deck return to its original dimension and that the property that there's no further structures built on the property without neighborhoods, without the neighbor's approval and the san francisco permit office prior to any construction being undertaken. it's appropriate we're requesting that an nsr be issued requiring no additional deck build-out for perpetuity. and that the board revoke the issuance of this permit. next slide, please. and you see here on the first picture, the deck is built upon the garage. it has elevated views into our respective properties.

the first one is from 1411 plymouth and that picture is taken from the bedroom. the next picture is from 1417 plymouth in the back yard and you see an angular view into the back yard and then the third is for context to show what the deck looks like. we're concerned with the impact to our rights to privacy and views into our back yards. next slide, please. for additional concerns, one of which is the confusing process for the multiple permits with regard to this extension and the consequence of events. the others i'll go through on the next couple of slides. next slide, please. this order document submitted on the website, you can see here that the prior deck was 6' 11" along the side of the house pro-travis knudesening 4'.

the new size dimensions more than doubles that. next slide. there was confusion referenced to the documentation provided whether or not the width of the deck was 8' 11" or 8'9". this one shows 8'11" and you can see the structure above the garage. next slide. and this shows 8'9". and he does clarify it's 8'9". next slide, please. this slide here shows it may be a potential easement issue as you see the five split looks like it abuts or overlaps the property line of the next home to the right. next slide. the original dimensions of the -- well, let me start with saying, the deck is being built

upon the garage and if you note on the left-hand side of the garage did not extend the backside of the home in the 1990s now, you see that there's a structure and cross extension well into the back yard. the concern is whether the extension has somehow impacted the structural integrity upon which now the deck is being built. next slide. we found several permits on the site. two of which pertained to the deck did not find a permit for the extension into the back yard of the garage nor did we find a permit for the support beam that you see to the right of the garage mr. hoskin's response to that particular

support beam he indicated that that was to put a tarp over during rainy times and he mentioned also in his response that he did not intend to undertake any build-outs to his home. but i'm curious if that also includes build-out extension of the deck or any deck-like structures. next slide, please. again, we're asking the board to revoke the issuance of this permit and return the deck to its originally 1969 dimension and additionally we're requesting if it's appropriate to submit an n.s.r. indicating no additional deck build-up is permitted in perpetuity. i'm going to yield to my co-appellants. >> thank you. my name is mike risotti. i live at 1411 which is directly behind the subject property. and i agree with the concerns

that yvanne just flagged and also would add we're concerned with the potential use of the deck now that it's doubled in size. the original purpose of the deck was used as some sort of egress for stairs in case of stairs inside the house. so, you know, to move furniture up and down inside the house. if he needed to open the door to let in furniture out onto the deck. with this extension effectively doubling the size of the deck, you can imagine that there are substantially more uses for that deck and, you know, we would be concern wednesday those potential uses might be by mr. hoskins and any other subsequent owner of the property and how those uses could impact the use and enjoyment of our property. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. are you finished with your presentation? >> yes. >> secretary: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder, mr. hoskins.

welcome. you have seven minutes. >> okay. thank you. let's -- if i can share my screen here. >> secretary: we'll wait to start the time. >> okay. see my slides? >> secretary: yes. >> okay. so i'm william hoskins, the owner of 120 eastwood drive. i actually grew up in this house. in 1969, my parents built this permitted deck that is cantalever so it's not supported at all. the purpose was to facilitate moving things like mattresses up stairs because the stairway makes a u-turn and there would be no way of bringing furniture out onto the deck. so that's really the only thing this thing has been used for in 50 years. it's in disrepair and needed to be repaired and the --

everybody has looked at this has agreed that it doesn't make any sense to do the repair. i will yield some time to my structural engineer at the end to comment on what the design considerations were for repairing, but it needed to be supported somewhere and really the only place to support it was to extend it out by 4'9" to the edge of the garage where you have a load bearing wall. that was the only reason this deck was extended. there is no intention of having parties out here or anything. we're just trying to support a deck that used to just hang off the house and after 50 years was dangerously falling down. now, this has been a five-year process to get the permit. originally at the advice of the building department, i got a repair permit that was in 2017 on the -- at the final

inspection for the repair, it was a different building inspector and he said, this deck has doubled in size. this really should have gone through planning. so in order to do that, i got a new permit in 2019, that's the one we're discussing today, that went through the planning process, so neighborhood notification. neighborhood meetings as well as the westwood park association. for some reason, are the appellants did not contact me. they were definitely notified. they did not come to the neighborhood meeting and i'm not sure why that was. it waited until now to bring up these privacy issues. now, after planning approved and it went back to d.b.i. and

i was told to have a structural engineer stamp and drawings on it. then finally the permit was issued this january. now, coming to the concerns that the appellants have about privacy, what i've done is taken their pictures and drawn in green where approximately the original deck would have been. and so this is a view from 1411 plymouth's bedroom window and this is the view from 1417 prelim outh. and you would have had a view of the original deck. so the fact it's doubled increases the view a little bit and let's take a look at how much that increases.

here i am on the deck and on the left-hand side is what it would have looked like from the original deck. on the right-hand side is what it looks like with a new deck and the main thing is we do see more of the back yard for 1411, but notice there's a lot of shrubbery here. so they have a lot of screening already for this section of the yard that i would see more of. now, for 1411, i think the issue is you see right into their bedroom windows here and this has always been an issue. here i am in my driveway. this is the old deck and i can see right into their bedroom windows if you're walking down the sidewalk on eastwood drive, you can see into their bedroom windows and, you know, one issue here is every single house on the block has some structure built on top of their garage. i don't. so they don't have any screening. now, in the past, i actually found a picture from the 1980s.

[please stand by]

>> that was the time to bring up these issues. the premise of these issues were not made significantly worse by the expansion of the purpose and the deck was not t have it hold more people . it was to support the original design. and now i'd like to yield time to my special engineeralbert. are you available ? >> yes, i'm here hello commissioners . albert rufus, atrium structural engineer. i've gone out to the site and what happens at that location where the deck is is you go up a set of stairs. you come to a landing and from that landing you go out on the deck and then you see up to the second floor. the landing does not provide

enough backspin for a cantilever development because it's only three foot six and even that deck was four feet, i don't know how itwas built in the first place but it was not very sound . i was out on the deck and you could not see into the properties at 1411 plymouth on the ground floor because of vegetation. the existing roof, the fence and the issue of privacy. >> the last time in rebuttal and we do have a question from commissioner honda. >> this is to the structural engineer. from the fissures that areshown i see the deck looks like it's sagging, starting to fail . and three foot six or four foot, doesn'tthat generally rule of thumb as a cantilever portion in the house need to double that ? >> that is correct.

typically for a 3.6 fax then you would need have seven feet. in this case you have basically three foot sixpack and four feet out so it was not very ... >> that was the question, thank you very much. >> we will now hear from the planning department. deputy zoning administrator tab, thank you. >> good evening president swig, vice president lazarus. 19 at tam. 120 eastwood drive is in the arts one the zoning district and a 20 x height district. the lot measures 43 feet and went and 95 feet in length. constructed in 1919 the property has the potential as a potential historic resource the permit is to legalize removal of existing deck andreplace it with a larger deck in the same location . the previous deck was approximately four feet in width and seven feet in length

and partially cantilever over theone-story garage structure on the south side of the property . the new deck is approximately nine feet in width and seven feet in length and extends the full length of the garage. as the garage structure is set back five feet the new deck willalso be set back five feet from the property line . the appellants of the neighbors who reside at 1417 and 1411 permit avenue. these are neighbors who would join thesubject property at the rent . the appellants are citing privacy impacts for the deck and would like the deck to return to its original size of no more than five feet byseven feet . because the deck is greater than 10 feet in height the department did conduct notifications or the permit . this is worse to all owners and applicants, it's 150 foot radianceof property . and while the 311 unification

was open for 30days, no discretionary review was filed for the permit . in summary the planning department does not believe the size of the deck or location is intrusive to the neighboring properties. the distance between the deck and the appellants square building walls is more than70 feet away . the planning department also does not believe the deck is inconsistent with other decks that are routinely reviewed and approved by the city. the deck measures 11 feet seven inches in height and is set back five feet fromthe property line .the deck is located within the billable area of the lot is in the same location as the previously existing deck . although the new deck will be five feet wider than the previously existingone , the length of the deck will not change and will remain atseven feet . this means the new deck will not be much closer to the

appellants property than the previously existing deck that was on the property. the project complies with the planning code. it's consistent with design guidelines and thedepartment recommends approval of the project . that concludes ourpresentation . happy to answer any questions . >> we have a question from president swig . >> president: my reading on this was if it was my house and i had a cantilever deck that had been there for decades in an earthquake prone area it would be a no-brainer to support the bestway i possibly could to maintain the safety of my house and safety of my neighbors . is that too simple? for you in this case? >> i'm going to, i'm a

structural engineer and i'm not going to be able to comment on whether that's a structurally more sound or less sound design than is by opposed the deck. maybe matt can provide some clarity and more information about that. >> i just realized i was asking if this is more of a pdi question that planning question but you don't find the deck significantly more intrusive and it was already is your answer . >> that's correct . >> thank you very much, appreciated. >> we will nowyou're from dbi, director green . you have seven minutes . >> good evening again commissioners. dbi issued a notice of violation august 21 2017 for work without permits on the deck above the garage. on the permit application 2017 0925 5421 was issued over-the-counter temper 25th 2017. this permit was to repair the

deck less than 50 percent. the inspection history for that permit application was to start work inspection on july 24, 2018. and november 30, 2018 inspector determined work exceeded the 50 percent replacement and issued a new permit with plan. i would note that there's no record of thebuilding inspector instructing the owner to extend the deck . the inspector as quoted has since retired. the permit application number 2019 08 20 9309 to extend the deck was filed on august20, 2019 . after planning department approval be residents on july 13, 2021 or 2020 applicationwas

approved december 9, 2021 and issued january 21, 2022. dbi believes the permit was issued properly and recommends withholding the permit . to address president swigs question. yes, i agree thedeck would be stronger if it was supported rather than cantilever . if the original privilege is repair the original deck, then immediatelyget the revision permit when they do decide to extend the deck . but that second permit that's under appeal today they decided to extend the deck so theycan have support rather than having it cantilever into the building . >> we have aquestion from vice president lazarus .>> i'm just curious what prompted the dbi that led to themlb in the first place . >> there was an anonymous complaint. >> just wanted to confirm, thank you.

so we will move on to public commentsanyone here to provide publiccomment , please raise your hand . i don't see any public comment sowe will move on to remodel . miss simonson and mister resigning, you have three minutes . >> i'm just confused as to why we're raising the issue now after having been notified earlier of the deck extension. i had a discussion with mister hoskins quite some time ago and that last discussion was that the deck was going to be repaired in kind. that was the last we had spoke . what prompted concern with regard to this issue is receiving the permit request and the deck had already been built.the answer is that support beam in the back of the yard, having seen that and knowing that there had been buildings without permits previously, concerned that

there was going to be additional buildout of the deck and additionally i noticed that there was substantial deck building material and mister hoskins yard so that's what's prompting this appeal to ensure that the deck is not going to be extended. i yield my time.>> i would note i'm not a structural engineer but it hasn't been established that the support could not have been added without keeping the deck with the same footprints, atleast at the railing the same . i don't know if anyone wants to comment or has expertise to comment as to why this design was required and why a similarly supported deck with footprint with the railing that matched the prior deck was not

possible . >> are you finishedwith your presentation ? >> yes. >> iq, we will now hear from the permit holder mister hoskins, you havethree minutes in remodel . >> i really wish that i would have kept it the same. i will turn this over to my structural engineer to let him opine on whether that would have been a practical solution to keep it the same size but i don't need a deck any bigger than existed before the former one. can you opine? >> we would have had to restructure your roof of your garage in order to do some other system and it would have not been a cantilever system, it would have been a supported system but it would have been supported on your roof of your garage which might have been waterproofing issues. the otherthing , the question

asked about you exceeding your permits on doing other work, i think after going through this for five years and hearing your stories i don't think you are going to be doing anything illegal or exceeding any permits in thefuture after learning your lesson on this job . i'll leave it at that. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. >> planning does not have any further comment. >> does dbi haveanything further, inspector green ? >> i would note there's concern at this deck is being built beyond what the approved stands are there's going to be a final inspection in dbi building inspector will verify that the building permit had improved plants. we can't presume that he'sgoing

to go beyondthe scope of work with any building material but if he does , the neighbors are free to file a complaint. >> thank you, commissioners this matter is submitted . >> who would like to start? don't rush to the podium so quickly. >> i do not see any issues with this permit and we be prepared to denythe appeal on thebasis it was properly interested and i'm not interested in an nsr . >> i as well would support that motion . >> commissioner lopez>> i see it the same way . >> chair chain. >> i concur with my fellow commissioners . >> we do ask for avote please . >> we have a motion from mice vice presidentlazarus to uphold the permit on thebasis it was properly issued .

that motion commissioner lopez . >> commissioner chang. >> presidents weight. that motion carries 5 to 0 and the appeal is denied. that would conclude thehearing thisevening . president swig, would you like to adjourn the meeting ? >> i would like to say to everybody i look forward to seeing you all in person . after two long years inchambers next week . >> looking forwardto it . >> and with that i moved to adjourn the meeting. >> great, thankyou. thank you to alex and sfgov tv as well for their assistance tonight . >>

>> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their business in the 49 square files of san francisco. we help san francisco remain unique, successful and right vi. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i'm one of three owners here in san francisco and we provide mostly live music entertainment and we have food, the type of food that we have a mexican food and it's not a big menu, but we did it with love. like ribeye tacos and

quesadillas and fries. for latinos, it brings families together and if we can bring that family to your business, you're gold. tonight we have russelling for e community. >> we have a ten-person limb elimination match. we have a full-size ring with barside food and drink. we ended up getting wrestling here with puoillo del mar. we're hope og get families to join us. we've done a drag queen bingo and we're trying to be a diverse kind of club, trying different things. this is a great part of town and there's a bunch of shops, a variety of stores and ethnic

restaurants. there's a popular little shop that all of the kids like to hang out at. we have a great breakfast spot call brick fast at tiffanies. some of the older businesses are refurbished and newer businesses are coming in and it's exciting. >> we even have our own brewery for fdr, ferment, drink repeat. it's in the san francisco garden district and four beautiful murals. >> it's important to shop local because it's kind of like a circle of life, if you will. we hire local people. local people spend their money at our businesses and those local people will spend their money as well. i hope people shop locally.

>> the city has undertaken a pilot program to hook up private privately -- owned hotels. >> the community members say this is helpful for them especially for the seniors and families with kids from seniors being able to connect with the family during the pandemic and too watch the news has been really helpful during this time where they are stuck inside and are not able to go outside.

for families it is important to stay connected to go to school, to get connected so they can submit resumes to find jobs during the pandemic. [speaking foreign language] >> challenges that might seem for the fiber in chinatown is pretty congested. the fiber team found ways around that. they would have to do things such as overnight work in the manholes to get across through busy intersections, and i think the last challenge is a lot of buildings we worked on were built in the early 1900s and they are not fitted with the

typical infrastructure you would put in a new building. we overcame that with creative ideas, and we continue to connect more sites like this. >> high-speed internet has become a lifesaver in the modern era. i am delighted that we completed three buildings or in the process of completing two more. i want to thank our department of technology that has done this by themselves. it is not contracted out. it is done by city employees. i am proud and i want to take a moment to celebrate what we are doing.

>> we are approving as many parks as we can, you have a value garden and not too many can claim that and you have an historic building that has been

redone in a beautiful fashion and you have that beautiful outdoor ping-pong table and you have got the art commission involved and if you look at them, and we can particularly the gate as you came in, and that is extraordinary. and so these tiles, i am going to recommend that every park come and look at this park, because i think that the way that you have acknowledged donor iss really first class. >> it is nice to come and play and we have been driving by for literally a year. >> it is kind of nice. >> all of the people that are here. ♪♪

. >> clerk: in-person and remote meetings via video and teleconferencing. this meeting is being held by webex pursuant to the governor's executive order and mayoral declaration. to join the meetings, access the agenda on the s.f. fire commission website. you may also watch live on