tv Government Access Programming SFGTV August 30, 2019 5:00pm-6:01pm PDT
this is andrew rabinovich and irina strigo opposing the department of building inspection. this is for 157 marview way. this is appealing the issuance of march 6, 2019, to andrew rabinovich of an alteration permit to memorialise the replacement of the exterior facade from existing siding and also replacement of the garage door with new glass roll-up garage door. >> so the subject permit that is before you for 157 marview way is the result of an enforcement action for work on the facade that was done without benefit of the permit and the permit is
attempting to correct that. i won't go into full consideration of the board's calendar, but we have reached a compromise agreement on a project that may move forward. i have them in a green folder and i think we have copies for all members. the changes to the facade, we would allow for the wood siding that has been installed to remain, for a garage alteration to occur change in materials and glazing to occur, and also window replacement in line with what they've outlined in the plans here. there was also some other details that were removed, and we would allow legalization of that through this permit. so i'll put it over to the permit holder and request that the bothered uphold the permit of these plans. >> good evening, i am the attorney for the owner here and we agree with everything scott sanchez has said. i don't often say that, but
tonight we're very pleased we were able to come to an agreement. we would like to thank all of the planning staff for the time they've devoted to helping us reach this and also to julie rozenburg. so we're asking the board to sign off on this compromise proposal that we have reached and we do have copies of the revised plans. i'll give you one at least for the record. >> okay. thank you. >> alec, if you could accept the plans. what's the date on the plans? >> august 28, 2019. >> okay. and so you just want the board to adopt the plans; correct? >> well, i think we would need to allow the appeal to be revised -- >> okay. i just wanted to confirm. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? so the parties are requesting that we -- you grant the appeal
and uphold the permit on the condition that it be revised to adopt the plans dated august 28, 2019. >> are we going to go the other way and deny the appeal and uphold the permit with the stipulation that the current plans are adopted? >> well, if there's any change to the permit, we have to grant the appeal. >> thank you. >> do we have a motion? >> i'll make that motion to grant that appeal. >> i could repeat it for the record. >> that's fine. you did it eloquently. >> we have a motion from commissioner honda to grant the appeal and uphold the permit on the condition that it be revised to require the adoption of the plan submitted at the hearing today and dated august 28, 2019. on that motion, commissioners. [vote]. >> so that motion carries 4-0. thank you. okay. we are now moving back to item
number 6 jumping all over today. this is appeal no. 19-076. guy burdick versus department of building inspection. the property in question is 50 sussex street. appealing the issue. >> announcer: on june 26, 2019, to john and debrafburton of an alteration permit rear building change storage shed to accessory dwelling unit add a kitchen, bicycle storage and heating in compliance with title 24 report per ordinance no. 95-17. >> would you like to use the overhead? >> i would. thank you for hearing our concerns about 50 sussex street. the property is here.
first of all, 50 sussex does not require an accessory dwelling permit. 50 sussex already has a commercial use type of two dellings four units or less. use types as you probably know are tax and occupancy codes. having a two-dwelling use type already qualifies both struct e structur structures to be dwellings and occupiable. having both an adu and commercial multi-family use type is unnecessary and redundant. it would also be confusing in terms of regulation, which i'm going to talk about here. now, this is -- >> face it as if you're looking at it, sir. >> there we go. so this is from the 50 sussex
use type. two dwellings on one parcel. it already has the rights of two dwellings. now, it would be confusing in terms of regulation is the rear structure and adu or is it as john burton states on his 2016 building application, single-family. there are very different rules and regulations for each. this graphic shows a portion of our rh-1 residential neighborhood and 50 sussex you'll notice is the only property with a commercial multi-dwelling tax and occupancy code. why 50 sussex has a commercial multi-family use type is unknown. no one in city government has
ever been able to explain this to us. so enter the notice of special restrictions. the notice of special restrictions was placed on that rear structure in 1996. the burton's purchases a property in 1984 and there was this structure apparently from 1906, although i'm not sure if that's accurate. so let's say it was 1906. in 1996 they wanted to build a home up front. so they had to transfer the occupancy from the rear unit, the one occupancy that 50 sussex is allowed, to the front building that john burton would build. so they had a restriction saying
no one would live there, no services. you're only allowed one family dwelling, no other services or doorbells are out. that's just for storage. but as the 1999 building was finished, front home, the burtons -- >> overhead, please. >> overhead. the burtons immediately broke the n.s.r. or violated it and put a doorbell for the cottage in back. there's a neighbor that complained. he sent a letter to b.b.i., complaining that even though it's a storage shed, no one's going to live in there, it has an n.s.r. p.g.e. came out to install an
electric meter also in violation of the n.s.r. now, that brings us to the rear building a.d.u. permit in which the burtons claim this rear house is from 1902 -- >> can you please adjust the overhead so we can see the entire picture. just, if you minimize it. thank you. >> so someone is supposed to come out and check if that's from 1902. it's not. it's a building that was built in 2016 to 2018. it started out -- >> face it as if you're looking at it. thank you. >> yes, sir. i forget that. so it may have started out as a building from 1902, but in 2016, john burton raised it off of the
primitive foundation it had, excavated all the way out underneath and installed a new foundation which is not allowed. it's impossible to get a permit for that foundation. but he installed one. and i watched it happen with my own eyes. so how did he do it? how did we get really to a new building that's not from 1902? in february of 2016, john burton submits a building permit application over the counter. he calls that rear storage shed which has no special restriction on it. it's codified as an accessory structure, but here in 2016 he's gone back to say it's occupied. it wasn't and hasn't been used as an occupancy since that
notice of special restrictions went on it in 1996. he says it's an r-3 occupancy code and it's a dwelling and occupation won't change. but what he's attempting to do there is -- oh, 30 seconds? >> 30 seconds. >> you've got to be kidding me. there's so much to get through. what he's attempting to get through -- i should have spoken faster. is take the existing storage shed, this is from the 1996 plans, and he's trying to launder the occupancy through the permit and this is in an effort to disregard the notice of special restrictions and match the use type of two dwellings on the parcel -- >> you'll be able to speak again in rebuttal and at which point after the departments have their time we'll probably have
questions. >> okay. great. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the permit holders. good evening and welcome. >> i have a process question. we want to share our time. so i'll speak -- >> you have the time you have been allotted. >> excuse me, we'll share our seven minutes. i am a native of san francisco and permit and co-owner of 50 and 58 sussex. tonight we respectfully request the board of appeals reinstate the permit, plan as approved, with no new conditions. my husband and i have abided by all the requirements of city departments throughout this process and we ask you to uphold
this permit. we're not building hotels or playing monopoly, as alleged. tonight we want to bring to the table some transparency about ordinance 95-17. there's been some bizarre attacks on us, vicious, slanderous, and dangerous as you read in the brief i hope. this is about an a.d.u. a california and san francisco housing initiative for a beautiful rear a.d.u. cottage that blocks no one's view or blocks anyone's light. it has foliage creating privacy. it was a small home back in 1902 and it existed when we built our house in front. i think it's a poster child of
prototype f of a.d.u.s. this is of the a.d.u. exact same dimensions existed, but now it's habitable. there were no over-the-counter deals as alleged. this is about the time we invested. we have sat in that house for two decades before the codes changed and we were able to make it an a.d.u. it was six months working with a civil engineer and in 2016 we waited five months for a cemetery -- permit based on the plans we submitted. after two years in 2018 and after 22 years of being in that house, the codes changed and in 1996 our n.s.r. they called it an accessory building was rescinded by the city.
we submitted new plans and waited another nine months for a new a.d.u. structure. we're all in. we paid for plans and repairs. over $3,000 in school assessments which i love and we notarized a new n.s.r. that says it can't be in the parcel or used for short-term rentals. we endured complaints and whist whistle-blowing conspiracies and we had to complete two n.o.v.s that we immediately addressed and you'll hear more about that, mostly for a naming convention calling it a shed. we endured someone stealing the posted permit signs off our door and then calling in that they weren't posted. we've endured malicious vandalism by mr. burdick violently smashing our property as witnessed by neighbors. we had to take off work to file
a restraining order. we've endured his bullying and rallying neighbors and has threatened to call i.c.e. on my family. enough is enough. we ask for the support of this project, the expertise of our city department that we followed, and they've held us to the highest standards on the regulations and the requirements and we followed them. i left you three minutes. >> you're a good wife. my wife would have left me none. before we got an a.d.u. permit we got a permit for replacing two sides of the foundation, repairing walls, framing, repairing windows and siding and a new roof. under that permit we were given two notices of violation and had
two administrative permits due to the error in naming the structure, which i totally don't understand. the first was for a permit ridge being -- before i could get the permit together, a complaint came in that we raised the height of the building. this was proved false. so we stopped work and got a new permit. that was in 5-17-17. then in 3-17-17 we were made to get a permit for the naming of the structure again -- a new naming permit. then after that, we got an administrative permit, we had a second notice of violation come in from a complaint and it was alleged that we replace the entire structure and we replace
all the foundation and illegally excavated. this was also proven false in a meeting with the structural engineer, myself, and neighbors. we had to correct the correction notice. we corrected that and i was issued a new permit for additional framing on the first level and additional framing on the second level so i could move the bathroom walls so slightly so i could accommodate a legal stairway. that permit only lasted three weeks because the city got the naming wrong. so i had to get another administrative permit to replace that permit, but once i got that permit things were smooth sailing and we got an okay to cover and everything was inspected. i got the plumbing and electrical and mechanical finalized and the final building inspection signature will be done upon the reinstatement of the a.d.u. permit.
but if the city wants home owners to build these -- oh, sorry. >> you have 30 seconds. >> then we need more incentives and protection from these irrational neighbors and idle complainers. the complainers have to be held accountable for their falsehoods because there seem to be a lot of untruths floating around in this day and age. so i mean they said that i excavated the foundation and replaced the whole structure which is totally not true. >> thank you. >> you'll be able to continue in rebuttal. >> i would like to cause for a moment. did you call building services? is there a problem with the air conditioning? i'm sorry, it's very hot in here. i think maybe open it up a little. i think it does affect the
filming. i apologize for the temperature. >> it's my understanding that the a.c. broke on this side of the building. only in this room it was reported to be 85 in one of the rooms. >> mr. sanchez, could i ask you to abstain for a moment when i ask the appellant a question. >> of course. >> either one of you can answer the question i'm going to ask -- the permit holder, sorry. normally when there's an n.s.r. there is a reason for it. we ask the creation of them when there's -- where we feel there is a need. there was obviously a need when you went to build your house. can you describe, please, or can you provide the reason why there was this restriction that was required of you at the time that you built your house on this structure.
>> yeah, when i obtained the permit to build a new house in front, they made me sign the n.s.r. and have it notarized. that was for not renting the house in back. we could use it as an accessory to the main house. that's what i did and i removed the kitchen immediately. and -- but no one ever checked. i removed the kitchen as soon as i got the n.s.r. and there was no kitchen and it was just used for storage. that's all i used it for. it was very run down. >> it was common practice in the '90s to issue these n.s.r.s when additional rooms or structures were being built.
that all changed with david chu's legislation in 2014. >> and it wasn't legal at that time so that's why we had to sign it. >> thanks. >> sir, i have some questions either one of you can answer. so my first question is you began -- you embarked on doing more work on this rear structure in 2016 before the a.d.u. ordinance; is that right? >>no, the a.d.u. ordinance was already in place. i wasn't really thinking about the a.d.u. at this time. i was looking at this rear cottage until i built my house and it was terribly run down, 130 years or whatever. >> you were working to make it habitable as an accessory to the main house? >> well, at first when i started, i was just doing the structural repairs. i wasn't totally thinking about it. >> and can you tell me what are the terms of the restraining order that you referred to. >> well, guy burdick was walking by our house. the last warrior game as you may recall, about 4:00 or 5:00, he's carrying a guitar and started smashing my house. he opened the meter box and saw two meters. so he started smashing and
smashing and little guitar pieces to his front door. i discovered it in the morning and came down. two neighbors witnessed the whole thing. that's why we have the restraining order. >> what does it require? >> we've been there three times and nothing's solved. >> you're telling that to an attorney. >> okay. >> has a judge granted a restraining order? >> it's in place, but it's not -- it's temporary, yeah. >> thanks. >> thank you. any more questions? >> thank you. >> thank you. we'll now hear from mr. sanchez. >> thank you. the subject property is located in rh-1 zoning district and to help find some answers to questions raised. the building at the back based on our records has existed for
quite some time for 1902. it shows at 1908 those records show it as a dwelling. i think it is in agreement that the current owners bought the property. at that time it had a single-family dwelling at the rear of the property basically fronting on poppy. and they decided to do a new single-family dwelling at the front of the lot. it's an rh-1 district which only allows one dwelling unit. in order to render that they had to render it at the beginning and the back property to no longer be a dwelling. so they built the building at the front. now in this permit they would like to restore a dwelling unit there, given the changes in the planning code and changes in
state law. they can do an accessory dwelling unit in that rear building and that's the permit that they are seeking. and we have properly reviewed and approved this. it's under section 207-c-4. i've been in contact with mr. burdick in the past. i think in 2017 he reached out to me regarding the accessor's information. while we rely on them for a lot of information within they do not represent the official legal records is it right as far as what we look at for the legal land use. we look at the permit history. i explained i don't know why the assessor made this assessment. it is legally a single-family dwelling at the front with a structure in the rear and whether it's storage or accessory space to the dwelling unit, it is not itself a separate dwelling unit. but the permit they are seeking now is to accept a separate
legal dwelling on the property. there may have been two meters there the whole time. the number of meters does not mean the number of units. that's just irrelevant. that doesn't go into the factor. the issues raised about the permits at the rear, the senior building inspector is here and is very familiar with the history of the permitting on the property, but from all the information that i've seen here, there's nothing that gives me concern about the work being done in such that it would render this to no longer be eligible for an a.d.u. certainly it's non-complying structure. if they demolished it and rebuilt it, take down the walls and reconstruct it, we have seen this on another case, they can replace the foundation. they can do other things. they can reroof and reside.
there is nothing in the planning code that prohibits maintenance of the building. if they have dry rot, they can replace that. the question is when it requires the demolition and reconstruction of an element. but repair and ordinary maintenance is generally allowed and we work with d.b.i. and that's my understanding d.b.i. determined if the building was demolished and reconstructed. it's an existing legal non-complying structure. with that i think the permit was properly issued. i guess i was a little confused initially on the appellant's arguments at the very beginning and therefore why is this permit even required. legally it is a single-family dwelling. if they sought permits where they built at the rear, that is incorrect. that is why d.b.i. corrected them on that and said that is
>> as you can see, the permit actually allowed the homeowner to repair the foundation and rebuild the foundation. this is the front of the building where you can see the systems because there's a detail on the house, how are you going to repair the foundation on that side. i also have -- this is the inspection history. i understand there was a concern about the occupancy code which
we addressed under administrative permit to correct that on the n.s.r. restriction to correct that situation. there is a detail we address with the complaint in regards to the concerns about a retaining wall that was replaced. we reviewed the plans -- >> overhead. >> and face it like you're looking at it. >> so this is the poppy lane and this is the retaining wall. but in reality it was the sides that our understanding that the complaint was concerned about, which in fact were approved for replacement. the only retaining wall that was or the actual wall that was to be removed was in here which the owner did not remove. at the time we issued the second notice of violation, we were going through a transition where we had a new inspector, which he
went to the property based on another complaint and he issued a notice of violation. after that the homeowner came to the department, expressing his concerns, and i went to the site. the reason that no decision was issued is we thought that, yeah, in fact the other than replaced the foundation on that side. but this is actually the existing wall. at the time where inspector lee visited the site, there was no plans on the property and the owner had put a coding. so i advised the owner if he was okay to remove the coating, and he did remove the coating material so we could see that was a retaining wall. through the process, we did -- i do want to express that all the complaints were anonymous and most of the complaints were kind
of vague in the sense of the whole scope of the concerns. some complaints were just for completing the scope of work. some complaints were just for change of views. there is a kitchen there. you have to understand when we went out there there is no unit because he was under construction. so we couldn't verify that there was a unit in place. we did verify the n.s.r. restriction and we did go through a 1998 plans which shows the same existing conditions. i did want to show an e-mail conversation with the complainant where we explain why we amended the notice of violation. and the normal protocol when we issue a notice of violation or the language doesn't conform with the existing conditions. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> and thank you for coming down
this evening and explaining that for us. i know this is not our normal gig. >> is there any public comment on this item? okay. please approach. is there anyone else here for public comment? okay. >> welcome. >> thank you very much. my name is eric glasgould. i live at 56 sussex which is three doors down. i want to thank all of you, commissioners, president, and vice president for hearing my concerns. it's really lovely to live in a city where voices are heard. i wanted to raise an issue that i haven't heard raised, which is really two issues regarding first fire safety in this area. this structure is just a few feet, maybe two or three feet, from poppy lane.
the fire department has prohibited any development on poppy lane because they cannot access poppy lane with fire equipment or trucks. it is an unpaved lane and steeply graded and they cannot bring fire trucks up there. there is an additional concern because of how far rear this structure is and because 50 sussex, the front house, the main dwelling, it says it is attached on one side to 48 and the other side to 52. it's also a four-storey building that there is no way for firefighters to reach this rear dwelling from the front of the street. i also want to note we've had
three fires just within steps of this 50 sussex just in the last ten years and residents of the neighbors have been displaced, not just of the dwelling where the fires have been. it's really not a theoretical concern. the same issues that affect fire safety affect other kinds of emergency services, e.m.t.s. no one can get up that road unless you have a four-wheel-drive vehicle or a raised pickup truck. so i'm concerned with someone who lives near there about fire safety and emergency services. i also want to say if you rent a house in a very rear section of a lot and there are already a lot of two families living in the front, there is going to be a lot of pressure to use poply lane for entry and exit. although people drive up that lane rarely because it says it's very inaccessible, if ubers, lyf its, u.p.s. and deliveries are
going up that lane, they're not going to be able to do it but also i'm concerned about parking. last but not least there isn't foliage making this a private dwelling. i want to say that's inaccurate. i don't think that's the main concern. i really want to thank you for your attention and thank you again for hearing this thank you. >> just confirming no more public comment. is there anybody else here for public comment? okay. so we're now moving on to rebuttal. mr. burdick, you have three minutes. >> yes. first of all, no one has explained the two dwellings. it's a commercial multi-family
occupancy and tax code and it is suspicious and someone needs to review that because 50 sussex is a single-family home, not a multi-dwelling apartment so there's a number of -- so his permits kept getting suspended and needing to be revoked -- >> overhead, please. >> excuse me? >> if you want to use the overhead. >> yeah, i'll skip past that one. i do need the overhead on this one. you'll see that he never quite reassigns the accessory building as an accessory building. he always has an occupancy. he's always saying it's occupied, even though he changes the occupancy class to u and says zero here. well, which dwelling occupancy doesn't constitute the change of occupancy? we don't know if it's occupied or not occupied. he's just confusing. he's not clarifying anything. and of course that one gets shut down. that permit gets shut down. and he goes back again. we're going to change it to a storage shed. again he goes back, two
buildings, it's occupied. even though he says it's occupied. again, we don't know which one he's talking about when he says occupancy change is going to happen. you know how you get a basement foundation that wasn't there? you put on your plans that it is there and you have a friend look the other way, who's no longer at d.b.i. because of this, and then you make the basement you have in your plans. it's childish. here's more foundation work. didn't have a right to any of this excavation. no, no, no, or that. no one's -- yeah. so the inspector comes out and says, yeah, site visit revealed rear concrete retaining wall has been replaced and floor systems that ten days it goes away. i guess he had an explanation for it, but i don't see how a
senior building inspector looks at a rear retaining wall and says, that's an unsafe building, floor systems bad, ten days later when i'm not looking, it gets amended out. and this is the planning p.m.i. website for the first permit john burton had in 2016. you can't access it now. it's gone missing. and also in plans the fake foundation that they drew in there that they wanted, you can't find that in the plans. it's gone missing. and 50 sussex is not 2,248 square feet. it's 3500 square feet at least. that top floor is not on the tax records. that's a free floor not on tax records. >> mr. burdick, your time is up. >> thank you all. thank you, alex, for my e-mails.
ms. rosenburg, i'm sorry. >> okay. thank you. we will now hear from the burtons. >> i would like to address your neighbor eric's question about fire safety. >> overhead, please. >> so this double-shaded area is that there is a corridor that goes all the way from sussex street to the rear cottage. it's concrete so it's fire safe. it could be used for emergency and the concrete pumped right through there. so i think fire hoses could go right through there. the fire hydrant is two doors down. so we think we addressed that fire safety for an occupant who
would live there because we really care about who lives there. i want a teacher to live there. the n.s.r. referred to our building -- i don't know about our taxes. we just pay them. i don't know who assessed them, why, but we've been paying them and we keep referring to our house as a single-family dwelling because that's what the city referred it to. we would ask for help. that's why the naming conventions are really important as people look at this. so that's all i can say on that. i really hope you uphold our a.d.u. process. we wanted it rented before school started. i spent 33 years as a school educator at san francisco unified and they're still looking at housing. >> you should pay your property taxes. >> no talking in the gallery. >> go ahead. >> i wanted to address about the
two fires he was talking about. they were a disgruntled woman who burnt her house twice with arson, and i don't know what happened to her but that's what those two fires were about. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez. >> thank you. just briefly. this building typology is nothing new in san francisco. we have detached buildings at the rear of the property. in many cases. this board has seen many. it has been referred to building inspection to make sure the permit was appropriately approved for those fire safety matters. in regards to the assessor information, that's not relevant to the permit in hand. this permit authorizes a second dwelling unit in here. in 2017 i did communicate with mr. burdick and explained where
we are with this and that we look at this as a single-family dwelling. whether they would pay more or less for a two-unit building, i don't know. the assessors would have to comment on that. they might have a higher property tax bill, but i don't know and could be something for the assessor's office. they could go back a number of years if that is an issue for them, but that is for the assessors office. it is not an apartment building, my understanding is it is three units and above. it is also not a commercial use build. it's a residential use. again, the permit was appropriately reviewed and issued as an accessory building to allow for this permit here. i'm available for questions.
thank you. >> thank you. mr. hernandez, anything further? >> i would like to show the original permit showed in r-#, we did per all the complaints, we did have them administer a permit to clarify that. again, throughout this whole process the department was actually actively looking into this complaint. we have ten anonymous complaints, and all the complaints were actually addressed within 72 hours of getting each complaint. we actually went to a point where we had conversations again with the complainant and we did research -- as you say they overbuilt the structure. we went to the plans in 1996. you can see the same detail as the plans in 2016.
>> sorry, inspector, so all n.o.v.s were abated? >> no, they are not abated until he finalizes all the permits. and, like i said, we do have the standard procedure where if an inspector goes in there and the owner believes that it's not the right language or, in fact, it's not the actual condition, the senior inspector goes in there and takes a look and amends the notice. depending on whether there was more or less work that was done. >> and the appellant said a senior inspector came out the first time, but you had already in your testimony indicated it was a new inspector primarily. >> yes. >> and after going back he coded it and removed that additional
coding at his cost to indicate that it was the original footing at the time? >> and i do want to say throughout the whole process the homeowner was willing to give us access any time. it's difficult whenever there's an anonymous complaint, the homeowner as the right not to give us access. he had open permit and he was always willing to give us access. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. okay, commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> in reading the brief, it was kind of hard to follow. at the same time, i appreciate chief inspector hernandez coming out. i worked with him a decade ago. i can tell you he is fair but strict. after reviewing this -- the n.s.r.s don't -- they've all been amended. all those n.s.r.s that were done
in the '80s and '90s were amended because of the use. as a realtor we use tax records regularly, but the approved permits from the city and county actually indicate the usage of the building and that's what needs to be checked here. i see after the testimony of -- reading the briefs testimony, i'm not supportive of an appeal. >> anybody else? >> my motion is to deny the appeal and that the permits were appropriately issued. >> we have a motion before us. on that motion. [vote]. >> that motion carries 4-0 and the appeal is denied. >> can we take a break until 7:00, please, quick,
commissioners, because we lose a commissioner at 8:00 and i want his participation in as many items as possible. so if we can take a break until about 7:00. that's about seven minutes. >> okay. >> welcome back to the august 28, 2019 meeting of board of appeals. we are on item 10. 1580 unit 3a and b appealing the june 20, 2019. the legalization of existing unit fire separation, new doors, garage, bathroom clearance and
smoke detectors. 2019. we will hear from the appellant first. >> good evening. greetings. i am one of the owners of 1580 great highway and the current hoa president. they are a self managed condo. each having a separate ownership. financial responsibility for the building is broken down by equal access for all owners and tenants. any structural changing must be approved by the hoa or unit owners. when permission is granted an a mend is amended to change only then can the permitting begin. many of the line a tems listed on the permit have to do with
encroachment on the common space without hoa approval and falsification of factual cry pieria. the reason we are appeals is to assure the owner of 1580 unit three strictly follows the hoa laws, california civil code and california building standard codes. thus far the owner of unit three refused to be bound by any legal standard. ms. zhang has not complied to the mandatory before it can begin. permission was not granted by the hoa to alter the plan or use the common interests for the purpose of legalization as stated in the permit.
1580 requests the board of appeals cancel or revoke the tee permit. violation civil code and building code violations. three have her apply for conditional use permits to a four bedroom single unit. problems with the permit. one, there is no unit 3a as stated. only 1, 2, 3, 4 exist according to the map. these have been public record since 1983. i want to show that up here. much two, new street trees. there is no space for this. it was denied. three, no bike parking. the permit is suggesting putting new bike parking in the unit one
space. additionally the approved by suggesting edegrees to five feet. the building is played out has three feet. parking spaces are deeded. egress is restricted in 22r-c. these do not take into account the space needed. to be clear, she does not notify the hoa or members before applying for the permit or it being issued violating the governing documents of the project. the hoa beliefs she was were negligent. she is aware of the space. it was acquired at the time of application. four, subdivision and/or fire separation wall is a violation of ccnr2.4 relatings to
subdivisions. it prohibited no owners shall subdivide the air space or create time share for condominium it also violated the civil code relating to other owners,crous trustees. the installation is prohibited by the ccnr would require the other members to sign amendments to the plan which has not been done. five. there are other false misleading permits. the estimated cost. they estimate $14,100. this is excessively low in light of reality of the needed work to add a new kitchen, in plumbing, sprinkler and reroute sewer lines for the toilets for the bathroom upgrade. she provides false and/or misleading information to
minimize the scope of the project. another issue is false and misleading statement regarding affordable housings. on page 7 they ask if the city supply affordable housing be preserved. it will be enhanced because it adds to the housing stock. it is a four bedroom and four bathroom unit. the application and appeal would subdivide to two units 3a and b as sited on the plans. this does not increase the city housing stock as it has the same amount of people. the mortgage contracts based on this being a four unit not five unit building. approved plan problems. it is a deeded four condo building.
legalizes cannot pursue the condo. it is prohibited notwithstanding article 9 of the code a lot with additional unit may not be subdivided to allow for it to be sold or separately financed pursuant to a plan or similar form of separate ownership. she put it on the market to attempt to sell into two separate units. information the application of submitted plans contains false and misleading information. all the information presented is true and correct. this would be sufficient to revoke. it must be revoked in order to crerecreate this to other deeded space and common areas. not only physically outside but
new venting would be in other space. these are not disclosed nor is permission received. since the subject unit cannot be subdivided we ask the board allow a conditional use permit. >> thank you very much. i have a question for you out of interest. how many people in your building live there, how many owners? >> two. >> two units which are rented out and two owner occupied. >> thank you we will now hear for the attorney for the permit holder. >> h. >> good evening and welcome. >> thank you and good evening. i represent the permit holder. contrary to what the appellants indicated, this