i have. >> mr. duffy with the research and hear what he has to say power points content 20 men's. >> commissioners there was some evidence that we have a cf c the building was fy in ground floor with a retail residential above and dbi had notes they were seeing it as two unit i went back to dbi and presented the cf c it the housing intersection services the complaint that housing inspector had been hey challenged his notes overhead - - a little bit on the bottom just to - >> and mr. pacheco if you can try to address the flickering problem. >> so if you can read the that better. >> not open ear our screen. >> august 18th from the housing inspector grady states he got the records this present use of a single-family dwelling previous enterprise was incorrect that matches what i was saying rarpdz to the sift of completion on the overhead now and this was a certificate dated 1995 the second floor with the single-family dwelling over the first floor commercial the other issue this work was on a plumbing permit

we'll call him back or the matter is submitted. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners to clarify comments by the attorneys the reason a building permit is required in this case you'll need a set of plans to show there's illegal construction and converting it back to the use one thing the housing inspector has not issued a notice of violation which says an illegal unit created behind a legal space probably what he is going to do is issue a notice of violation as a illegal dwelling unit with plans to divert it but certainly that area in our dbi reported it seem like i imagine it as a storage space behind a reciprocal space not a dwelling space the department needs a set of plans with a permit to show your removing is the president of the united states that's duplicate by a permit there is in use of occupancy stated by itself interest you're not changing the use of occupancy your simply reverting that back to the use if that's what the building permit wants to show. >> to be clear what would drinker the issuance of the n o b the awareness of this. >> yes

. >> thank you mr. duffy. >> commissioners, i just wanted to speak about the we - i worked on the dbi we come across when people get the condo reports i lighten it to opening up our solar your building is not going to be scrutinized we have a rear deck and each of those egg things the planning department is not involved i see it an condo windows installed no permits that's where those folks are it's unfortunate a lot of time the work has been done by the previous owner and their stuck because of the situation i didn't see any building priorities for the windows even though there was building permits and the kitchen and bathrooms are not okaying the building their not going to be looking at the windows so don't assume tyler windows sometimes i've been an inspector i see the paper on the inside of the windows did you put new windows okay yes. you did go down and get more permits because i didn't see the permit phenomenon for the windows sorry that's where rethey are you saw one on 23rd i think 26 windows all st

thank you mr. duffy well, let's start off with what happened last time genesis of this board denomination last time was based on a position that noise generation and it's sources should be handled within the within the property and therefore the historical use of light wells or of interiors of building with the ducts is not something we felt a strong residence so that letting lead us to look at the rejecting the appeal of the variance decision i'm still of that opinion that the sound like sources might have been fairly consistent in terms of sound sources need to be examined within the property and therefore controlled to a certain extent the issue that's coming up today is slightly different in the sense that there's the legal copy formation and the legal properness as to whether you can have a sound measurement it's not legal within the base a thought ordinance i don't accept that either the question of letting it whether it's residing between dph or whether it's preceding within the court system is no

. >> when you looked at the permit history mr. duffy what did you see besides the kitchen and bath. >> only in the brief i saw others but nothing mentioned about the windows not you may give that strikes me we would have done a window replacement. >> thank you very much any public comment on that item? seeping public comment we have rebuttal from the appellant. >> so thank you, again so i just want to say this remodel permit seems like it is fairly innocuous you put in new kitchen sink that was actually a large remodel that concluded the expansions of the leadership into the laundry area and removal of the laundry area into another area the permits from the 2005 actually list multiple permits one or more one was a exterior stair again, no permits required were meow not sure what the scope of the permits were without the planned if this is where i find myself what's in the scope and out of scope based on the two line descriptions you know i think we would agree with the zoning administrator fwerp talking about windows that were sliders w

sanchez and mr. duffy has said there's no issues from the departments we believe the issues involved are civil and not related to the building code our neighbor complete thaer their own roof and comboechd our property they demolished the roof on july 20th but in this situation the microscope encroachment was enough to stop the construction and they admitted this was not legal today, our negotiations are stalled because of the architecture we've provided them the plans don't show the flushing because of the property line our neighbors have been unwilling to discuss the negotiations and have filed a second request we need to have a solution and we believe this calls for o a neighbor to neighbor jurisdiction and all along our other neighbors have prauchd our project he understand this board is able to limit the number of requests filed i withdrawn we feel the process it being manipulated to gain leverage in a private dispute thank you very much for your time. >> thank you jane kim seeing none, item 3 commissi

sanchez, mr. duffy? >> commissioners on the this appeal when i reviewed the read the brief and saw language about a firewall the description was for a new deck i get into the plan in the package that was this afternoon and i looked at them and thought i better do a plan check when you build a new deck there's a requirement for firewalls they're not on the plan it was approved and the deck is not approved just this evening i've spoken to two senior plan checkers and there's a need for the firewalls they're required on property line to property line it will have to be modified to build this to code i let the permit holders know and the planner it was his first month in the department so i forgive him for that definitely we need firewalls and the metal staircase to the property line and the plan checker didn't like it but it if it's a staircase we codify that and maybe part of the conditions on the permit and maybe allow it but a noncome buffalo stair. >> sorry to interrupt 0 would it be galvanized. >> it w

. >> mr. duffy has indicated he has nothing to say unless the board has questions public comment can i see a show of hands how many people plan on speaking opium if you could line up on the side of the wall the wanting has indicated a one minute timeframe. >> two minutes. >> two minutes okay. >> he'll be back in one minute public school two minutes commissioner president lazarus that's because of the hour if you haven't filed out a speaker card please do that and hand is to mr. pacheco but please wait until commissioner fung returns to start your comments thank y to but please wait until commissioner fung returns to start your comments thank t to but please wait until commissioner fung returns to start your comments thank you. >> okay. ready to start? per go ahead. >> good evening. i'm corey bash to read a letter. >> sorry you are a relative i believe of the permit holder. >> your time will speak under the time allocated to the permit holder. >> thank you >> next speaker. >> is there anyone else tha

. >> mr. duffy. >> good evening, commissioners yes. i agree for the request for the continuance to get to the bottom of the issues. >> thank you any public comment on that item? seeing none, commissioners. >> okay. so i'll move to continue this to november 5th if it's amenable to our calendar that's great but i think it's manageable. >> there are a few items on the calendar that may go away. >> so moved. >> and i need cards from both of you, we have a motion from the vice president to reschedule all 3 matters 14098 one hundred one and 4 to november 5th on that motion to reschedule all matters commissioner fung president is absent commissioner honda. >> thank you vote is 3 to zero all 3 matters are rescheduled until a 10 minu. >> welcome back to the september 17, 2014, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals we're on item 9 which is a hearing request it is on crestline drive we've received a letter for the, llc permit holder for the permit request for the t p n and they decided on july 27th at the time the board voted 4 to one to

. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners, i didn't bring information i thought that was a planning issue but i looked at the ipod and the online tracking an active complaint with enforcement so as mr. sanchez said we can move forward and an order of abatement i did not have the details but i see it from 2003. >> those would have been held in abeyance. >> yeah. we can move forward and get the new owner to resolve it i okay is there any public comment? seeing none, commissioners the matter is submitted. >> go ahead. >> that we deny the appeal on the basis that this is - the city acted appropriate. >> they were in violation of the city directive. >> would you care to amend it. >> deny the appeal i uphold the denial appeal open the basis that the property owner was in violation and in violation yeah. >> what was the last part in violation of the city. >> directives. >> okay. >> so that's commissioner honda's motion to uphold the denial of this permit application on the basis that the appellant was in violation

important in the wealthiest city in the country we don't fifth about the vulnerable and thank you to mr. duffy for his work in making that happen. >> with that, colleagues, can we take a roll call vote and supervisor breed supervisor campos supervisor chiu supervisor cohen supervisor farrell supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisor yee supervisor avalos you have 11 i's. >> item 26. >> approving the 7th academy to increase the contract for a total amount not to exceed $35.9 million extending the contract. >> same house, same call? this resolution is adapted item 27. >> supporting on amendment to the mta's operating budget to provide free muni service to 28 to 23 years old in the education program. >> same house, same call? this item is approved. >> item 28 an ordinance to add web services to schedule the film fees to effected he resident for film that results in the parking latin four consequent hours or more. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank for hearing this legislation it is straightforward it requires the filming company to provide notification to the neighborh