tv [untitled] May 19, 2013 9:00am-9:31am PDT
lascerus. and fong and honda and ortato. >> and robert bryant will provide the board with any legal needed legal advice tonight and at the control is victor pecaco. i am the executive director. scott is here representing the planning department and the department of building inspection. >> please go over the guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests that you turn off all fons and pagers so that they will not disturb the proceedings and please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board's rules and presentation are as follows, appellant's permit holders and department representatives each have 7 minutes to present their cases and three minutes for
rebuttals. people affiliated with these parties must include the comments in the 3 to 7 minute periods. the members of the public have up to three minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of units the members of the public wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card aboard staff when you come up to the podium. the board also welcomes your comments and suggestions, there are customer satisfaction forms on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, or rules or schedules, speak to the staff during the break or after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow morning, 1650 mission street, room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government
television, sfgov tv cable channel 78 and dvds of this meeting are available for purchase directly from sfgov tv. >> thank you for your attention at this point in time we will conduct the swearing in process and if you intend to testify at any of the hearings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight stand and raise your right-hand and i i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. >> any member of the public may speak per su ant to the rights in the sunshine ordinance in the administrative code thank you. >> do you solemnly wear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> thank you. and we will move to item number one which is public comment for matters that are not on tonight's calendar. is there anyone who would like to speak under that item?
>> seeing none, then ited em number two, commission comments and questions? >> commissioners? >> okay, then we will move to three, which is the adoption of minutes, commissioners for your consideration are the minutes of the board's meeting of may 8th, 2013. >> there are no changes, i move their adoption. >> okay, is there public comment on the minutes? >> seeing none, could you call the roll please? >> on that motion from the president to adopt the may 18th, 2013 minutes, commissioner fung? >> aye, hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> honda? >> aye. >> the vote is 5-0 and those minutes are adopted. >> okay we are going to call item four which is 4 a, b, c,
and d. all of these are at 2395, 26th avenue, steven williams verses the department of building inspection. these are appeals all if filed against the issuance of permits on december 6th, 2012 to it howard weston wanted the permit to alter a building, and new interior partition walls and one conference room and break room and upgrade the bathroom for ada compliance and the next is the plumbing permit for commercial unit number one, new ada bathroom and sink in break room and another permit, commercial unit number one, replace the heater and furnace and an electrical permit, number one, replace 24 new lights and 30 switches. these are appeals 12-158, 166, 167 and 168 and heard in may of
2013 and were continued to tonight to allow the parties time to clarify the scope of their settlement agreement and i understand that the parties have reached an agreement and if they would step forward. >> they can present what they are proposing to the board. the project sponsor, brick glad stone. >> three minutes. >> is there follow up? >> well i would like to be able to announce that both of us agree, but i think that mr. williams and i didn't have the time to communicate today. so i will tell you what we are proposing to be agreed on and mr. williams can speak for his client. joe duffy went out to the operation, went out to the unit and my client showed him this week that there are walls that
the contractor has undone, which walls were there, per su ant to permits and that gave a go and there was a bank there, for example, and then there was an educational institution. we can't get a hold of the... we could not get a hold of the plans because the plans were done by the tenant subcontractors and currently the dispute does not allow for us to get a hold of the plans they submitted. mr. duffy of course can and even for mr. duffy for him it takes a little bit of time and to get to the bottom line is what i simply suggest is that both parties agree to the following, that the permits, all permits, all four be granted in the appeal, and that on all of the permits the proposed use box what it has been for a while prior to this
permit which is retail/residential or residential/retail. that the second or the third thing that it should say is revert space back to preexisting condition, prior to issuance of appeals, permit, ending in 45434 which is the first one on your agenda which is the largest one, it is the building permit. and that it also say construct a new dad bathroom. why that language? because, i feel that that language of reverting space back to preexisting condition will allow the owner to restore what the tenant may have undone, that was wi
rmits from many years ago either because the bank did it or the subsequent tenant, the educational did it and my proposal if i could finish is that we allow dbi to look at the plans and permits for all of those previous users and i trust and i hope that your board will trust ddi to tell us, you know, what improvements inside had permits, you know, and what didn't. and such that when my client resubmits a permit, the plan is attached which shows only those things that have permits, and a new ada bathroom. and that is essentially what i wanted to put on the record. thank you. >> mr. williams. >> thank you, steve williams on behalf of the appellant.
you know, obviously we agreed that the appeal would be granted against all four permits. and i was just handed this by brett and i don't know why, i didn't get it within the last week or so. i'm a little confused by what he is requesting that we have no problem with the construction of a new ada bathroom and we have no problem, i suppose with reverting the space back to its preexisting condition, as long as that is confirmed by dbi. >> and they also indicated that they would send us a copy of the plans, the preexisting plans for the space. so nobody is going to contest what the preexisting is? >> if dbi confirms what was there, and they want to put it back, i guess we don't object. i mean, we don't care one way or the other. should we hear from dbi?
>> commissioners, this one is confusing. here today and if the construction had started there was laws with matter of stubs and the layout that looks like individual offices one open space and then on the sides there is some framed offices and there is an existing bathroom that they want to put in an ada bathroom and mr. glad stone may not remember and the moment that he came to dbi and i presented up the plans and there was a smaller version of them in the computer and those plans showing an existing layout and i helped them with that language to revert that back to the previous conditions that were shown in the plans that the plans that are under suspension, that i believe should as long as those plans accurately show that existing condition, that is okay with me. and it should be okay with them and dbi and we don't think there are any earlier permits to even go off of that we have
looked at pre1982, there might be something. but, certainly on the plans, that are under suspension, there is an existing floor plan and it looks like it was pretty much similar to what is out now and that will give one extra room built that it would be like a typical ground floor office space and any building or in that area and in that neighborhood, with the addition of an ada bathroom. so i am available for any other questions >> mr. duffy i am a little confused also. >> i know. >> because if it has already been removed, why would one put it back when the new tenant may ask for other changes, but... >> when the permit was issued they have already started construction and i guess that they moved fast and they did whatever demolition they had to do and framed up the walls. a lot of walls were in the same configuration in the plan that
was approved by dbi and they are looking to keep those which are the new walls in the old, existing locations. >> okay. >> i understand that. >> okay. i think that is it. >> mr. sanchez did you want to speak? no, okay. we can take public comment when the commissioners are ready unless you have questions that you want to pose right now to the parties. >> you stood up and is there something that was stated that you need to clarify? >> first of all i agree with mr. duffy. he clarified what i said and i like the way that he said it better. and second, commissioner fung you asked why would my client want to do that he believes that he spent the money for the previous space to be approved as it is and the tell ant looking at the space and he thinks that it would show better with some walls and that would be the response that is what my client would want.
i wanted to ask the appellant's attorney, do you feel that you have had enough time to consider this and accept? >> steve williams, again on behalf of the appellant. i agree with commissioner fung, i don't understand why you would change something in a space if you put in new walls. but the neighbors are concerned about the work going on in there, because of the pending wireless facility, and the idea that it will pull conduit through that space and build a metal troph to tell you the truth we would prefer that the scope be limited to the bathrooms and no more work be done. but just to have them back in there saying that we are putting it back the way that it was, it makes the neighbors
very uneasy. and so, but if dbi can confirm through the plans or however, that it is being reconstructed in its prior configuration, and then we have no objection, but i don't know if they can do that. i actually have a question for mr. williams. >> sorry. >> is, you know, i am new on the board and i checked with our executive director and is there a specific reason why you are listed as the appellant? >> no, not a specific reason, just ease of doing it when you are representing several neighbors. >> i mean, just for my thought process it is easier for me to take a look and see who the appellants are and proximity to the address and helps me process and but when i see that it is you... >> and i put in my brief where
they are, they live one door down, for the past 35 years. >> okay. >> thank you. >> we do our best, at dbi to assure what the existing conditions were, but we do put a lot of trust in the applicant. we don't have the plans to go off. and they come in and the licensed architect with the existing wall conditions there, and we take it at that is what, you know, should be. we trust them. and so, i can order a microphone and look forward and see what the layout was. and if there is no permit for the existing layout, then it will revert back to the last legal layout of the space and use as well, i presume and the existing they have the existing office proposed office, on this permit. so i don't know if that is an issue.
but i can order the micro film and see what that shows and revert back to the last legal layout of the ground floor space and if there are none we are stuck with what they are showing now as existing which is actually the way that they have it built now. >> okay. okay. >> yeah, we need to take public comment and it looks like mr. sanchez is leaning towards the microphone. >> thank you, scott sanchez planning department, just to clarify the use there should be no change of use on the permit that it was existing retail and the last use was retail and no change of use under this permit and the reason that we added to the appeal in the first place was the change of use and now that has no longer an issue and i want to make that clear. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment? >> okay. if there is no public comment, and so commissioners the
matters is submitted >> i guess that if there is some laws that are in the same location as previously, i am not sure why they would have torn those down instead of reuse them. however, if there are and this is going to be verified by the building department i have no problem with that. >> yeah, i, concur. if the building department was able to pull up the plans from the previous approved usage or the approved walls, knock down and go back. want to make a motion? >> i am going to move to grant appeal on all four permits. and to reinstate that portion of, i guess, it is permit ending in 634 for the new ada
bathroom. and to condition that based upon verification by the building department of what was existing walls previous in the previous use, matching walls that were recently constructed will be allowed to remain. >> okay, so commissioners, just so that we are clear, would you mind if we just went permit by permit, since there are four different scopes of work, it sounded to me that you said for the first one, 12-158, the alteration permit, that you were accepting the proposal of having it amended and the scope of work reverting to the space of preexisting condition prior to issuance of the permit with the exception of allowing the construction of the new ada baths room? >> correct. >> do you want to say anything about no change of use? or do you feel like that is already covered? >> i thought it was covered.
>> the second one you would allow the bathroom but strike the sink in the break room and i am unclear how you want to handle the third one to replace a heater furnace. >> that would be revoked. >> that one would be denied. >> duffy? >> sorry, commissioners, when i met with mr. glad stone replacing the heater is kind of maintenance and i did not see a problem replacing it when i was there today i don't think that it would effect anything, and i don't know if that will complicate things, certainly wanting to replace a heater. >> a current heat ner place. >> and it is jua tter of it out.
>> i stand corrected. >> do you want to deny the appeal of that permit and let the permit stand? >> so that the heater furnace could be replaced? >> yes. >> okay and then for the fourth one which is an electrical permit, well, we will let him comment on this, all right. snefm the electrical permit, it has been explained to me that there may be work done for the ada bathroom and do you want to limit that for the ada bathroom? >> yes tu, for being so precise. >> only to help us later when we have to write these notices of decision. >> did you want to have mr. williams? >> would you have any objections to that motion? >> steve williams. is that respond to your request? >> yes, no objections.
>> do you want some assistance in rekeying these or do you want to go for it? >> one motion, and so one motion would be to grant all of the appeals and on the first permit with the building... >> actually we are not going to grant the appeal on the third one. on the heater furnace. >> that is just upheld. >> correct. >> on the first permit, the appeal is granted. and the scope is to revert the space to a preexisting condition, prior to issuance. and all of the scope is basically struck, except for the construction of the ada bathroom. that is permit number one. permit number two, appeal is
granted, the second break room is struck from the scope. permit number three, the permit is upheld as is. and permit number four, appeal is granted but the condition, the scope remains, but it is limited to what is necessary for construction of the ada bathroom. >> okay. >> yeah. >> okay. >> so on that motion, to grant the appeal on permit number 1, 2, 4, with the conditions as stated and to up hold permit number three as is. and the motion is commissioner fung's, president hwang? >> aye. >> and hurtado. >> aye. >> lazarus >> aye. >> and commissioner honda. >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 5-0. and all of those permits are upheld, three with conditions and one as is.
thank you. >> we are going to take number nine out of order and the reason is for that is the resolution has been arrived on by the parties is that the case on number nine? >> a quick chance to call the item with appeal 13-026, joules roskum verses the department of building inspection, the project at 79, 26th avenue protesting the issuance on february 27th, permit to alter a building, addition to back all level and addition of one floor level in 500 square feet and remodel structure. >> brick glad stone speaking on behalf of the permit holder and a resolution and agreement, but the project sponsor has agreed to remove page a6 on the plans that were part of the permit subject to appeal. and it is the page that
appellant has asked to be removed and we have agreed that is the extent of our agreement. and i will let the appellant's attorney speak for himself. do you have any questions for me? >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, john appearing on behalf of the appellant. we have agreed that so long as page a6 is stricken from the permit, we are amenable to that and we will drop our request that they be required to hire a surveyer to insure that it is maintained within the envelope provided by the planning commission. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and can we hear from... >> i scott sanchez in the planning department, the department will not be opposed to the change of striking the
plan, that plan was included for reference only and does not change the scope of the project and so what they are proposing would not change it. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, then the commissioners? the matter is yours. >> i think that the condition is for the board to condition the issuance on striking page 6 of the plan set. >> any comments? >> nothing? >> okay, i will move to grant the appeal. up holding the permit on condition that a6 will be stricken from the plans. >> is that all? >> on the parties' mut
agreement. thank you. >> we have a motion from the president. to grant the appeal and up hold the permit on the condition that apple 6, a6, that the approved plan set be struck from the scope of the permit and on the basis of the party's mutual agreement. on the condition to up hold it. >> commissioner fung? >> aye. >> hurtado? >> aye. >> lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda. >> thank you. >> the vote is 5-0 and the permit is upheld with page a6 instruct and on that basis. >> thank you. >> thank you. okay we will call item five, 12-171, matthew and kristine building, 611 vista west rtment
avenue, providing the issuance of the permit to alter a building, one story vertical addition to two story residents and will include, and the project will have a basement addition. and we will start with the appellant. attorney, brandt holly. >> good afternoon, i am representing for the appeal and the planning commission granted discretion review in this mat and her made a condition that we are going to discuss which has not been fulfilled because of inadequate site plan and starting just a little bit father back, is that going