Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  September 3, 2019 5:00am-6:00am PDT

5:00 am
>> good evening, and welcome to the august 7th, 2019 meeting at the san francisco board of appeals. the president is joined by the vice president and commissioners commissioner darrell honda is absent tonight. to my left is the deputy city attorney who will provide the board with any needed legal advice this evening. at the controls as a board's legal assistant. will also be joined by representatives from the three departments that have cases from -- before the board this evening we have scott sanchez, acting
5:01 am
separate do you -- deputy zoning administrator. we also have joseph duffy, senior building inspector representing the department of building inspections. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board request that you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings please carry on conversations in the hallway. appellant -- appellants, permit holders, and department respondents are given seven minutes to present their case in three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include these comments within the seven or three minute period. members of the public were not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone for rehearing and jurisdiction request, the parties have three minutes each with no rebuttal. to assist the board and accurate preparation of minutes, you are asked not required to cement a speaker carter business card to staff when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium.
5:02 am
four votes are required to grant an appeal, jurisdiction request or rehearing request. if you have any questions about requesting a rehearing, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call and visit the board office. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government t.v. , table channel 78 and will be rebroadcast on fridays on chan you'll 26. the video is available on our website and can also be downloaded -- downloaded. now we will swear in -- or affirm all those who add -- intend to testify. any member of the public may speak without taking the oath pursuant to their rights under the sentient ordinance. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand if you are able, raise your white -- right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. if you will testify tonight, please stand. do you swear or affirm the test
5:03 am
and when you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth thank you. please be seated. okay, commissioners, we have one housekeeping item, item number 8 , which is appeal number 19-063n by the appellant, so we will move on to item number 1, which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but that is not on tonight's calendar. is there any member of the public here for general public comment? okay. we will move on to item number 2 , which is commissioner comments and questions. >> commissioners, anything? >> i want to acknowledge it has been a tough week in our country and also in california. i work in palo alto and one of my coworkers was at a festival when the shooting occurred. it is a really tough time. i just want to offer our thoughts for the survivors and victims and their families.
5:04 am
>> thank you. is there any public comment on those comments? okay. thank you. we will now move on to item number 3, which is the adoption of the minutes for the july 31 st, 2019 board meeting before you for your consideration. >> commissioners? >> i think on the last item that commissioner hawn devoted no, and it said it was 5-0. >> that is true. >> thank you for that correction >> and one minor spelling error, his name is spelled differently. i believe -- we will correct that, thank you. is there a motion to adopt those
5:05 am
revisions? >> moved to adopt as revised. >> we have a motion to adopt as revised. on that motion... [roll call] okay. that motion carries. we will now move on to item number 4. this is a rehearing request. the subject property at 3620 buchanan street. 5098 bay condominium association the appellant is requesting a rehearing of the appeal. it was decided june 26th, 2019 at that time, the board 44-0 to deny the appeal and uphold the rear yard modification on the basis it meets the three criteria required under the planning code. the determination holder is gas like building l.l.c. the project description for the project proposing to demolish a noncontributory one sorry garden
5:06 am
house currently used as office space and a portion of the noncontributory garden patio, and to construct a new four story eight unit residential building, eight class one bicycle parking spaces, four class to bicycle parking spaces, and one vehicle parking space. the portion of the existing garden to remain will be used as open space, and the new building will extend to the rear property line. the project proposes know we're yard located in the project area at the lot, and the new building will extend to the rear property line. and rear yard modification planning code section 134 e. is required. we will hear from the requester first. >> i move to affirm that this has been reviewed. >> yes. commissioner, have you had an opportunity to review the materials for the hearing which took place on june 26, 2019? >> i have, and i'm ready to receipt -- proceed.
5:07 am
>> thank you. is the requester present? okay. is the permit holder present? >> would you mind, terribly? i'm sorry, thank you, i appreciate that very much. let's move onto the next item. if the requester his not here then we will move forward. >> okay. the next item is number 5, jurisdiction request. i'm sorry, sorry, the requester is not here, so we are moving on to item number 5. [indiscernible] we will come back to it because we're we are missing one of the parties. thank you. item number 5 is a jurisdiction request. the subject property at 1412143
5:08 am
albion street. the requesters are asking the board take jurisdiction over building application number 2019 which was issued on may 13th, 2019 by the department of building inspections. the appeal period ended on may 28th, 2019 and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office from july 17 th 2019. the permit holder is eric rice and the project description is to convert the existing carport space to include -- to enclosed storage space. we will hear from the requesters first. >> my name is lydia chavez, one of three owners. i want to make three quick points. the city, by improperly granting a permit to mr. rice, inadvertently causes us to miss the deadline for apo.
5:09 am
myself, my husband and leslie lie are the sole owners of 141 and 143. mr. rice has a limited and conditional right to store items on our property. all right he has used as long as we have lived there and they write that we are not contesting , however, he is not the owner of the property, nor an authorized agent. he does not have the right to seek a permit on our property without the permission of the owners, and therefore the permit should have been denied. we believe that the city and error assumed that mr. rice was acting on our behalf and that he had been given permission to seek a permit by the true owners mr. rice argues that we should have known he would be seeking a permit and been attentive to the call on our property, with a record, including facts including -- submitted by mr. rice shows the opposite.
5:10 am
in fact, and jenny were 2019, his plans were not imminent, they had been executed on or about december 30th, 2018, when all of the owners of 141 and 143 were out of town, mr. rice constructed two large storage units, completely enclosing two spaces in our garage with floor-to-ceiling walls, bolted into place, in which -- and wedged between parking spaces. he did this without a permit, without consultation, and without notification. it was then that discussions began. as part of our research, we contacted the department of building inspection. we were told that no such storage units were permitted. we shared this information with mr. rice, including the e-mail attached to exhibit 1 with a name and contact of the person who gave us this information. mr. rice subsequently took down the walls of the unit, but left
5:11 am
to the frames up. when we left town in april, we had no reason to suspect that a week later mr. rice would apply for a permit, further, we do not think that someone could obtain a permit to build on property that does not belong to them. we do not think that a neighbor would represent themselves as our authorized agent to build precisely the kind of structures we had explicitly objected to. i have some exhibits to offer into the record. >> you have 20 seconds left. >> okay. my third point is we know of no break-ins on the property. we know of no deaths, there is no reason either would occur there. there's a high metal gate to the garage. we offer the e-mails from d.b.i. and the parking structures that we gave to mr. rice. we have two declarations attesting the construction prior to january. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> may i ask you a question, please? >> sure.
5:12 am
>> so in the condominium structure, is the garage space for each of you, or is it deeded out separately as condominium -- part of the condominium space, or is it a joint, common areas. >> that is a good question. there are two different condo associations that use the same garage, and everyone has their deeded space, and mr. rice has an easement, a use of an easement between parking spaces for storage that he has always placed items in. >> so we -- so the parking spaces are all deeded, they are individual property of the condo owners? >> excuse me, my name is mark raven, i don't know this
5:13 am
specifically the answer to your question, but i believe that it is all h.o.a. common area, which has been divided out, and then part of that common area, part of those common areas have been granted to mr. rice and for storage, and another was granted to another neighbor for parking. these are granted, these are not deeded. i don't believe any of the space is actually deeded, it is actually all common area that has been divided up. >> all right. i think that is really important to know. thank you very much. >> thank you. you can be seated. we will now hear from the permit holder. >> good evening, commission. i represent eric rice.
5:14 am
in a preliminary level, the requesters have argued a lot of points on the merit. they failed to address the actual legal standards before the board tonight, which is whether the city did anything intentionally or inadvertently to cause them to delay in filing the appeal. they failed to provide any testimony, any argument, any evidence that addresses the singular question, this annular standard that is before the board, and the fact is the city didn't do anything wrong. the city did not do anything inadvertently, did not do anything intentionally, the city did not cause the requesters to be late in filing this appeal. the fact is, mr. rice has been discussing with them, doing this very project since january of 2019.
5:15 am
that it has been in discussions with their predecessors since 2016. this has been a project that has been in the works four years. and whatever happened in 2018 is irrelevant to what is happening before the board tonight. once the discussion started, once the requesters were well on notice by -- that mr. rice was going to do this, they did nothing to protect their own property rights and they failed to appeal the permit within 60 days. so that is the only question before the board tonight, but if we are to address the merits at all, which i'm not sure that is even appropriate, the requesters have made all source of arguments based on assumptions, based on irrelevant matters, for instance, they made the assumption that the permit was issued improperly or that mr. rice failed to tell the building department what his status is in terms of his
5:16 am
ownership and where he actually lives. all that is untrue. he did tell the building department very specifically where he lives, that he holds an easement, and he was very honest with them about what was going on. i don't want to let it hang, but there are assumptions, they assumptions are simply not true. i have 30 seconds left, but if the board has any questions, i'm happy to respond to them. >> could you describe the concern, a little bit, the easement and what the nature of it is, what does it grant, what does it allow? >> it was attached to the opening. it is a specific you seasoned that allows mr. rice to have four areas of storage within the carport that is part of the 141 and 143 building, and in my brief, i try to provide a brief history of what was going on
5:17 am
here. >> i guess what i was curious about is how you read the easement to allow for construction or modification of the space, and if that is expressly included. i wasn't clear that that was part of the easement. >> the easement does not specify whether include or his can be made or not, what does exist at least say that it is exclusive possession, and to the extent there is any ambiguity about interpreting what that easement language is, that is a civil matter that will need to be resolved between the parties outside of this forum. >> thank you. >> the easement incorporates the covenants of the condo association. do those covenants and restrictions permit construction in the common area? >> the easement only incorporates article seven, the use restriction. does not incorporate other articles including article six, for instance, which would address the design criteria that the h.o.a. goes through, and so
5:18 am
the easement does not incorporate other portions, only the use restriction, and they do not have any restriction on building enclosures. >> okay. is it the case that your client erected a structure in this area before you had a building permit >> that is true. my client acknowledges that he did so without a permit, but he took it down knowing that he had to take a permit. that is ancient history. ultimately he did get a permit to do permitted work and that is what is before the board tonight >> my last question is as he informs the building department that he had rights under the easement. is that in the record somewhere? >> i will let mr. rice answer that question. >> the building department took copies of the easement with highlighting of the relevant portions so i knew exactly what i was proposing and under what status. >> thank you. that is helpful. >> because i asked the question to the appellant, are you in
5:19 am
agreement that the garages, the common area in the h.o.a. and it is not granted for use by the h.o.a.? >> i actually have not seen the legal description and i apologize, are not able to answer that question, but i do know that the easement, which is the recorded document, does provide use to mr. rice in the garage to mr. rice. >> mr. rice, do you have any thoughts on that? do you have any knowledge or opinion that that space, which is the garage, is h.o.a. -- is an h.o.a. grant, we are property as far as the condo? >> i'm not sure you understand the question. the space which is the garage that you use, is that owned by yourself as part of your condo, is that your assumption, or is it what the appellant said, it
5:20 am
is granted -- the use is granted to you, but owned by the homeowner's association? >> the latter. it is granted under the condo. >> thank you. i appreciate that. >> thank you. you can be seated. >> thank you very much. >> mr. sanchez? >> good afternoon. scott sanchez, planning department. i will be brief on this matter. i think there aren't any planning code issues. it is extra not required at the time that the new structure was built in the subdivision occurred. they would be no issue under the planning code with converting parking to storage or and a.d.u. , for that matter. i'm available for any questions. it is probably more of an issue for d.b.i. or a civil issue. thank you. >> thank you. mr. duffy?
5:21 am
>> good evening, commissioners, joe duffy, d.b.i. the permit to convert existing carport space to enclosed storage space, i'm reviewing the plans and i did not see anything wrong with the work itself and what they are doing. i think the issue is the issuance of the permit and how the applicant obtains the permit if you did see in the brief, there was a permit application and a copy of the typical form and certification. at the time, the permit was issued d.b.i. were okay with that, and there was -- the easement was provided. and i did see in the brief that the appellants or the requesters went to d.b.i. i would probably, in addition to that, have advised them to refer to the central permit bureau to do the checking of who we give our permits to, who applies to them, because if you come in --
5:22 am
if i obtained a permit for something else -- from someone else, i have to have authorization for that permit from that person. there are checks and that is done right before permit issuance. if we did do something in error and we were misled, we would look into that and possibly revoke the permit if it was issued in error, were from what i see, they did provide documentation to someone at d.b.i., so at this point, i would say that the permit is valid, unless they can provide us with some documentation that it is not. it could be, indeed a civil issue as mr. sanchez said. we could ask our city attorney for an opinion on it. as for d.b.i., we also have -- there are several city attorneys that work with d.b.i. sometimes we have to go to them for an opinion on this, as well, just because the city could be
5:23 am
party do something later on, but for now, i would say the permit is valid, i think. >> just so i understand from education, from d.b.i.'s perspective, if you are provided with a copy of an easement and provide -- and nothing authorizing from the owner of the property, that is sufficient for d.b.i.'s procedure? >> it seems to have been in this case, yes. as you see, it was in the brief and i read it last night. mr. rice said i was granted an easement for use of these two storage spaces. whoever read that at d.b.i. thought it was enough to give them the permit. whether that was done in a detailed way or not, i wouldn't know that, but if we were challenged on it, we could look into the merit of, did we make a mistake and issue the permit. at this point, i don't see that, but possibly there is. >> just to eliminate the pathway forward and what the appellant
5:24 am
could do or the permit holder could do, and what d.b.i.'s rule is, what can they do? did they go to the other agency within d.b.i. to request him to look into it in the meantime and is the permit valid? the gentleman could construct it in the meantime, and then we're looking backwards. how does it proceed to look into the matter of who has the authority to construct within their property, and how does that unfold? >> they could fight a come -- file a complaint with d.b.i. and we will start the investigation. it could be that the complaint numbers issued improperly to the wrong party. we would contact the permit holder and say, hey, you have to hold off on this construction until we figure this out. and sometimes it does get very -- when it turns into a civil issue, these people might need to file a lawsuit on this. when it gets too complicated for us, we say go to the court to figure this out. you get an injunction to stop the work, as well.
5:25 am
but when people present documents to d.b.i., and when you fill in a permit application and you reflected that you are allowed to get that permit and you say on the form, that is a legal document, and if proven otherwise somewhere else, that's a whole other case. you have committed fraud, anyway , if that is what you have done. these are legal forms and you want to be careful about how you fill them out and what you put down on there because you could be challenged at the board of appeals or in some other place which is the court, probably. but from what we were given, obviously someone at d.b.i. said okay, you put yourself down here , you have this easement, you have provided us with the easement. for that alone, they got the permit. it later on we find out they haven't given the permit, we can resend the permit and revoke it. >> thank you. >> i don't know where that leaves the request, but i hope i
5:26 am
answered that right. >> mr. duffy, there's no notice requirement on the issuance of this, correct? >> no, not for this type of work >> i would like to bring up the city attorney on this and maybe he can shed some light. so, mr. duffy, you can stick around. you are not getting off so easy. you can't get on the golf course anyway. i'm going to look at the glass half full and say that the permit holder presented to this, what he thought was a just cause to get that permit, and he elaborated perfectly on that, however, the permit holder, they had an easement about the permit holder, but the permit holder does not own the property onto which the improvements are being
5:27 am
made, and as we have discussed many times here, and another condominium or any other real estate situation, of the other occupants aren't necessarily real estate experts, and they might assume, a dangerous word, that no, the h.o.a. owns that space, nothing could possibly happen in that space unless the h.o.a. approved it, and therefore, they would not contest, they wouldn't even look for a permit because how could a permit to be thought about on something that somebody doesn't own? so i can see it both ways. and i would look to the city attorney, what are your thoughts on, or is this a civil matter? what are your thoughts on this, that a permit was issued without the permission of the h.o.a. who
5:28 am
, in fact, owns the open space, and has granted an easement for use, but didn't grant any construction? >> i would make a couple comments on the same matter. first, as the board knows, it is whether the city intentionally or inadvertently because of the sequester to be late in filing the appeal. that doesn't mean that any time the requester alleges that the city improperly issued a permit that they cause the requester to be late. they would have to be something related to the actual notice, otherwise, any time a requester, three months later, decided that the city improperly issued a permit, they could make a jurisdiction request. does that make sense? after the underlying issue, i would agree that the interpretation of what that means is a civil matter for the
5:29 am
parties to figure out in the civil courts. >> on the issue of notice, and they understand this was made by the permit holders' council, but the issue clearly was properly noticed given. my understanding was there was no notice required. >> but if a permit was issued to somebody, in fact, who didn't own the land, that becomes a civil issue for discussion? and if it was -- here's the conundrum, is that if it was improperly issued because it was issued to somebody who did not own the land and did not have the right to make improvements onto the loans, then by virtue of the fact that it was
5:30 am
improperly issued, then with, " along with the notice situation there's no notice on it. my point is there's no notice on a permit to the never should have been issued in the first place, and of course, the h.o.a. is not going to appeal something that they wouldn't even think of seeing coming because it would be inappropriate for somebody to even file a permit without going through the h.o.a. this is the vicious circle. >> i suppose it could be argument that that is the case. i don't know that i can give you a legal opinion on that issue at this point. i think they do have a recourse in making a case to d.b.i. and that the permit was -- d.b.i. improperly consider the information that was considered -- that was provided to it. >> i agree. so as far as this jurisdiction
5:31 am
request, if we felt that it was improperly issued for the reasons i stated -- >> if you feel you have grounds to find that the city because the requester to be late by issuing this because they didn't provide notice to the h.o.a. and the h.o.a. should have been notified because they have a legal right to know what is going on, you could find that as a basis for granting jurisdiction. >> in a roundabout way, thank you very much. i couldn't find a clear way to ask the question, but you gave the answer that i wanted. thank you. >> just one thing i would like to add. the forms that this was brought to, they did not exhaust their options with d.b.i., in my opinion. they were told by the jurisdiction request. there was no complaint filed with us about this, which would have been a good start, and maybe they were just told
5:32 am
straight off, file a jurisdiction request. you advised people about the board of appeals in the processes, but we always think we should exhaust our options before we start telling people to go to the board of appeals, you know, because if we issuing a permit, we are happy to look into that if that is the case. we have done that many times. this is not the first time someone came in and got a permit it has happened before. people have got permits on people's properties without permission we fed to revoke the permits. that is an option, as well. it is not finished here tonight if they still pursue that. i didn't see anything in writing from d.b.i. to say that it was either proper -- improperly issued are properly issued. we didn't revoke, there was no revocation request, but we are happy to look into that. i just wanted to add that. >> mr. duffy, if a stranger on a property tries to get a building permit, his or any procedure of
5:33 am
the building department to notify the owner of the property >> you have to have a written permission from the owner of the property to get the permit. >> if someone tries to get one without permission? >> we would not notify. again, you are feeling these in. we do 66,000 of these a year. people fill the van and they're supposed to be filled in honestly and all the associated forms. we depend on people's honesty that they have the right to get that permit and we're issuing it properly. we assume all issues -- was simple permits are issued properly unless we are told otherwise. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? commissioners commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> this is a jurisdiction request, and the city, as far as i can determine, did not
5:34 am
inadvertently or intentionally cause requested to be late. we would have to take jurisdiction in order to weigh on whether the permit was properly issued or not, and i don't see the basis for the jurisdiction, and since there is remedy to the requester his, i don't think there was any harm or foul, so to speak. >> i would like to know, actually, just based on the requester's body language, i would like to know if they complained before the permit application was filed to the building department work during the appeal period. i'm a little troubled by this case. i think if the building department told them something that led them astray, that, to me, would suggest a problem. >> yes. when i returned from out of town on june 1st, we were given -- mr. rice gave us a copy of his
5:35 am
granted application for permit on june 6. all this, by the way, is written down. two days later, i went to d.b.i. i personally went to d.b.i. and said, what do i do about this? this is coming up on my property somebody just pulled an easement on my property. i went around and talk to five people. everybody sent me to a different person. the last person i was sent to told me to write up a complaint to the head of the chief inspector, patrick, whatever his name is, and i did that. i did that immediately and i think it was filed on june 10th . we have a copy of that if you like to see it, it is not with us today. i filed that on june 10th. a week later, i called the chief of d.b.i. and i asked to ask what was going on. i got no answer. a week later, i called back and the chief said, well, i have sent it off to the guy who was in charge of the division they
5:36 am
gave you that, that grants that. then i called the guy, i believe his name is daniel lowry, i called him right away and i asked him, what about this? he said, well, i don't know. the planning commission signed off on it so it is okay. i asked him about the easement and he said, i don't know. he represents himself as an owner, and then on the last page , he says he is an owner of an easement. i don't know, he said, and then he said, the best thing for you to do would be to appeal, so we called the board of appeals and they said, you're too late to appeal, and then they said, you know, it is an interesting case, you should talk to whoever it is who is sitting right in front of me who i called up, and he told me the procedures to do and we filed as soon as we could. yes, we did go through a complaint, we got the runaround
5:37 am
from d.b.i. and never really a clear answer as to why this was permitted in the first place, and secondly, we never got an answer for why this particular structure was permitted, but that is not an issue here. if there is recourse, of course, we would like to take it, but that was what we went through, and that is why we are here today. there is a process for doing this. there is a process for altering easements that are on common space. it is a process that mr. rice didn't choose to follow. had he choosing to follow, we wouldn't be here today. >> thank you. >> any other questions? mr. duffy, just to be clear, i will not anticipate a vote one way or the other because i am unclear on my own direction, but
5:38 am
if we deny the appeal for jurisdiction, will you be clear on what the appellant's next step might be to d.b.i.? is there, or is -- when i read the brief, i didn't see any complaint, obviously all these people here are pretty high up in d.b.i., they are all management chiefs and deputy directors, but i don't see anything in the brief on that. i checked the address, we can't find a complaint, that's you are never done with d.b.i. you can come back and say, hey, i didn't get what i should have got, but these people spoke to people in management. i don't think we looked into it well enough. it could be something that we was sent to the city attorney and say, give us a judgement on
5:39 am
this, but when you get down to the nitty-gritty of easements and who has what, we're probably going to turn around and say, look, this is a civil issue. as far as i'm concerned, it sounds like they spoke to people in d.b.i. i don't have any record of that, or couldn't find it in the computer system to look at complaints, so i believe them, but i don't see the proof. >> if we deny the appeal and it came tomorrow, to they file a complaint and open up pandora's box, yet again? >> of course,, yeah. again, i think it gets into the nitty-gritty of the easement and the rights of the easement. >> this is my concern would that comment, mr. duffy, is if they had been involved in the process at the beginning and d.b.i. said , well whoa whoa, easements
5:40 am
are complicated, i'm not a lawyer, this is not my job, a court has to decide this, i assume that your decision at this point would be to not is you'd the permit until it is resolved. i would assume he wouldn't issue the permit while at the same time saying, but i don't really know if you are authorized to do this. >> i think the permit would have been issued anyway, but i think you're talking about after the -- after the permit is issued and not letting the work proceed until it is resolved. >> i'm saying, before the permit is issued in the owner walks in and says, i own this property, this person has an easement, they not entitled to do this and you respond as you have said and you say, we don't get into the nitty-gritty of easements, at that point, i assume you wouldn't issue the permit because now it is become a little complicated and you want these people to work it out. >> i think the question is, you know, if you had any doubt about someone's authority to apply for a permit and receive the permit, would issue the permit would you resolve the question over whether that person has authority?
5:41 am
>> in this case, they presented the easement to d.b.i. and the person who approved it, approved it properly based in what they were given, but if we are given new information later, we can stop the project until it is resolved and say, hey, that is where you find your complaint. you know, i looked up 141 albion and i couldn't find any complaint. i'm happy to speak to the people about it. certainly, if we issued a permit , then we are the first ones who will revoke that permit it is in the building code if it is issued. i guess what one way to do it will be to give them the opportunity to appeal the permit if in the meantime this gets resolved, then they withdraw the appeal, but that is entirely up
5:42 am
to yourselves. certainly, from my experience as a senior building inspector at d.b.i., when we are not satisfied with something we have been told, there is a higher body, we have a commission, as well. we have a director. if you don't thank you have been given the proper treatment, you're welcome to bring that to a higher level. maybe that is what these people need to do. we happy to look into it again. if i was handling it myself, i would definitely involve our city attorney and say, we are being questioned on the issuance of this permit, did we get enough? was this a proper information we were given to grant this permit? and we would definitely do that. that would be the least we could do. in the meantime, we would say to the permit holder, suspend all work until this issue is resolved. sometimes then that does lead to a legal case involving the parties, which is maybe where they're going with it anyway. >> thank you. >> i'm also troubled by this case. i'm trying to think through what is the impact of our jurisdiction and it would seem like even if we were to take the
5:43 am
case, the civil matter of how to interpret the c.c. nr and the easement if we have authority to file and receive permits would still questioned that this body would not be able to adjudicate, that is not our role. until that issue is resolved, neither d.b.i. or this board would have much clarity in making a fair decision. there is remedy available. i want to hear -- i want people to here is that there are things to do to pause the construction, or have d.b.i. run it up to their attorney to understand if it is clear once you provide information. and maybe it is not. unfortunately that becomes a civil matter which is time, money, and resources, or maybe you can resolve it amicably without attorneys. that is kind of where my mind goes. while i'm sympathetic to what
5:44 am
has happened, i am not sure that this resolves it. i'm hoping to being persuaded if someone can do that. >> when we have a permit before us, we will say we are denying the appeal because of permit was properly issued. we have no basis for knowing that at this point, whether it was or was not, because we would need to take jurisdiction first. i don't believe we have met the criteria for taking jurisdiction i would not support a motion to take jurisdiction. >> i agree with commissioner tanner's comments. i think there is an argument to be made that the owner of a property is not on any kind of notice that anyone could get the building permit on their property, and if someone doesn't have no authority to get one gets one, that -- i think a
5:45 am
complaint to the building department is probably where the requesters should start. >> i would support the commissioner lazarus in anticipation of her motion, and advise the requester to take the advice of mr. duffy and file a separate complaint and get this back on track if you believe, if you continue to believe that you are in the right. okay? missioner lazarus, would you like to make a motion? >> i believe i did. deny the jurisdiction request on the basis that the city neither inadvertently or intentionally cause the requester to be late. >> we have a motion from vice president lazarus to deny the request on the basis that the city did not intentionally or
5:46 am
inadvertently cause requester to be late filing an appeal. on that motion... [roll call] that motion carries 4-0 on the request is denied. >> move back to item number 4 regardless. >> we're back to item number 4. i am assuming, i didn't see anyone come in, the requester is not here, so why don't we give an opportunity for the permit holder to respond. >> thank you. on behalf of the permit holder, thank you for your time here tonight. we will be quick as we are required to be. i'm just reminding you we were here about a month ago, so probably don't need too much reminding, but wanted to remind you that the project proposes an 18 at residential building. it will share a lot with the
5:47 am
historic gas like building. they have been two years of review by the planning department and various decision-making bodies. this is our sixth hearing and our second before you. the project as proposed to be built towards the rear of the lot. this is something that was requested by h.p.c. and as part of the design in order to ensure compatibility with the gas like building. it also leaves attractive open space and opens up the garden and views of the gas like building. it is definitely a preferable configuration for the building and it was supported that was granted by the zoning administrator with the proper findings. you can see from the rendering, the configuration is compatible with a lot and with a brand-new building. the appellants recently finished construction, noting that the units were sold while our project was underway.
5:48 am
there project receive the same rear yard modification as well as additional variances. the appellant has provided no evidence or arguments that there is manifest injustice. there is no request or basis for a rehearing here. we ask that you deny the request thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you. the issues that were raised in there rehearing request or arguments that were raised. i believe we addressed them at the appeal hearing. i don't see it as any grounds for their hearing based on the fax.
5:49 am
i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, missioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> i move to deny the rehearing request that we have not received any new information, nor will manifest such a result from denying the request. >> we have a motion from commissioner tanner to deny the request on the basis that there is no information or manifest injustice. on that motion... [roll call] >> motion carries 4-0 and the request is denied. thank you. okay, we are now moving on to item number 6. this is appeal number 19-061, ben lewis versus the department a building inspection with the planning department approval. the subject property is protesting the issuance on may 24th 2019 of a site permit,
5:50 am
vertical addition, roof decks and a new master bedroom, no changed occupancy or parking. the board voted 5-0 to continue the appeal so the permit holder can get revised plans approved by the planning department. we will hear first, how about we hear from the planning department first? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. we did work with the permit architect to provide plans that address the issues. there was only one outstanding question of what was actually there in 2008. all we have our aerial photos from the time that will provide us with a perfect understanding. what they have provided was a good resolution. there was maybe still some
5:51 am
lingering questions from d.b.i. i know senior inspector duffy was out talking about the last case and whether a firewall be required. the deck -- the stairs and landing that are being -- as long as they're reconstructed in the same area as they were before, they could be constructed without the firewall and i think this is the assumption that you are all working with here. as long as the plans that they are showing here, d.b.i. can confirm that the firewall is required. we would -- we are focusing on the rear stair and landing, that was the only issue that we had in the department with the permit. the vertical addition, we didn't have any issue. i'm not even sure if he is here this evening, but we are here to speak on the stair issue. >> we incorporated into this
5:52 am
permit a special conditions permit which would help us to get the issue corrected. >> can get mr. duffy to answer your question? >> joe duffy, d.b.i. i believe the question is whether a firewall is required in this case. if you are rebuilding a stairway , existing in-kind, same size, same location, not any different, you would not require firewall. that is kind of a maintenance thing where we are not making people reinvent the wheel because we are just replacing a stairway. we do ask that the guardrails and handrails be updated. does mean that they still have winders and stuff, which are a little bit more complicated to manoeuvre, but in san francisco, zero lot lines and short rear yards, there's not a lot of room to bring them up to current
5:53 am
codes. if you do to bright -- tried to bring them up to current codes, then you are in the firewall. if they put that back the way it was, there is no requirement for a firewall. >> have you had a chance to review the plans? >> just briefly. >> in your review, are you able to divide it -- decide if they do or don't need a firewall? i don't want us to be allowing something -- >> from what i saw, it would not require a firewall because a budding back exactly the same as what was there originally. that is what the architecture was as best as they can. i'm confident enough that that would be the case. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. >> thank you. i am the architect. thank you to mr. sanchez and mry
5:54 am
and responsiveness this week. we have worked very quickly to come to resolution a resolution, which i am happy to outline for you. we were able to do some research to try to establish, at least within the level of certitude that was satisfactory to mr. sanchez, the original footprint of the 2008 staircase. there are no reliable drawings, but we found an appraiser's photo from 2007 and we took it as evidence. we found solutions to -- i'm sorry. just slide it up. >> these are a copy of the permit drawings that we are able to submit. so we are removing what is an excess debt that was not
5:55 am
minimally required, so there are areas that bring us back from the property line onto the second floor. there is an excess -- we shut everything down to what planning was satisfied and it was a code compliant minimum. so we want to work with mr. duffy to get his best opinion on what we have done. i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you. i don't see the appellant here, either. is there a representative from -- for the appellant? is there any public comment on this item? commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> we grant the appeal and condition it on the revised drawings. i will move that we grant the appeal and the permit with the revised drawings. >> can you clarify that for the
5:56 am
record, are those drawings dated august 7th, 2018? okay. thank you. we have a motion from vice president lazarus 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 and which are dated august 7th , 2019. it is a condition. when there are conditions, we have to grant an appeal. >> on that motion... [roll call] on what basis is this motion made? >> on the basis that it satisfies the planning and building code. >> it makes the project code compliant. >> on that motion... [roll call]
5:57 am
that motion carries 4-0. okay, thank you. we will now move on to item number 7. protesting the issuance on june 18th, 2019 of an alteration permit to comply with the n.o.v. , the reinforced existing fence, added a new post and install new fence boards. we will hear from the appellant first. [please stand by]
5:58 am
5:59 am
6:00 am
>> order a new post but the older post which is in the application. the owners cut the new post permitted. after the original allowed the posts based on the lie. 7 feet fence. not only did it have the permit but also went ahead and cut the posts and that agreed to be cut. additionally, it was about 7 feet that they didn't agree. the owner also lied on the permit application. this provided from the respondent's brief. you can see here. this is a grade and

16 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on