Skip to main content

tv   Board of Appeals 72215  SFGTV  August 16, 2015 3:00am-6:31am PDT

3:00 am
"need your supervisor." we will be back with one of our 11 city supervisors. ♪
3:01 am
. >> good evening and welcome to the wednesday, august 5, 2015, of the san francisco general hospital the presiding officer is ann lazarus and joined pie commissioner vice president honda and commissioner swig and commissioner bobbie wilson to my right is tom owen the deputy city attorney that provides the board with legal advice and the process clerk i'm cynthia goldstein the board's executive director we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board scott sanchez planning department and representing the planning department and planning commission and joined by joe duffy representing the building
3:02 am
inspection the completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the permit holder have 7 minutes inform present their case people affiliated with the parties must be conclude their comments within the 7 minutes and please speak into the end of the microphone to assist the board with the preparation of minutes you're asked not required to submit a business card to board staff they're available on the directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process.
3:03 am
if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. please note: any of the members may speak without taking mroound and rebroadcast on fridays channel 26 now we'll swear in or affirm all who want to testify mroound if you intend to testify and you wish to - arranged and say i do after you have been sworn in please remain standing do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? okay. thank you commissioners we have one
3:04 am
housekeeping item this evening thank you we have one this has to do with item 7 ab we justify received a withdrawal of those appeals will not be heard this evening back to number one general public comment if anyone would hike to speak on a matter between the board subject matter jurisdiction not on tonight's calendar anyone for general public comment seeing none, we'll move to item 2 commissioners questions or comments commissioners. >> yes. i would like to thank mr. pacheco our past clerk for all our service that that was and wish him all the luck in florida. >> any commissioners comments
3:05 am
any public comment on item 2 okay item 3 the boards consideration of the july 22, 2015, minutes commissioners any additions, deletions, or changes deletions to the minutes if not may i have a motion to approval of the minutes. >> so moved. >> we have a motion from commissioner vice president honda to do you want the minutes any public comment on this motion? seeing none, then we will call the roll starting with commissioner president lazarus commissioner fung commissioner wilson commissioner swig thank you the that motion carries 5 to zero i'm not sure what to do with the next item without inspector
3:06 am
duffy here he's been detailed commissioner president lazarus it's a short item item number 5 for two rehearing requests on eureka street the board received a letter from the appellants for the appeal number 071 and 2 for the dbi actually now i'm reading this may be we can't hear that one either. >> that is also dr related so the only one that isn't involving the department of building inspection is item number 9 so shall we move on to that one. >> okay
3:07 am
all right. my apologies to the audience we'll call the next davis versus the zoning administrator on beach street protesting to b.j. request for release of superstition asking the department of building inspection release the suspensions because the planning department is saying the elevator is constructed in substantial conformity with the approved plans >> i wish to disclose he have an existing relationship with the reuben, junius & rose as council on a separate project reuben, junius & rose of the entity will not have any effect on any decision today. >> madam clerk perhaps check to make sure that both parties are
3:08 am
fully represented. >> is the judge checking to make sure that the parties are fully here and represented. >> i see so and is there someone representing the permit holder okay i understand i mean - to be clear we do tell all parties to be here anothers 5 o'clock for those types of situations. >> do we know how long mr. duffy. >> i'm texting him right now. >> okay. >> scott sanchez planning department while this is an appeal regarding the release of superstition for a building permit is involves the building
3:09 am
permit i don't know if there will be questions about the building department it gets into the details of the agenda i know that inspector duffy is valuable in all those decisions. >> actually, we don't need his presence here we can hear the case. >> your california i prefer not to have us sit here for business i think there's no guarantee as to what time any item will be called. >> you want to proceed with the first case on the calendar item 4? okay >> we will then call item 4
3:10 am
which is appeal clemente versus the department of building inspection the property on presidio avenue protesting the project of on altercation permit remodeling the exterior walls on the fourth story on the 12 story front yard no work to the front facade we're going to proceed shall we begin? >> but before he do i need to recuse in front of because of a financial issue i'll ask someone to chair the meeting. >> so the appellant for item number 4 appellant please step forward.
3:11 am
>> okay. so you have 7 minutes to present your case. >> good evening madam president and members of the board i'm laney architect for the appellant angle who are neighbors to the north of the project site we roll call request new conditions be placed on the permit along the northern property line that addresses privacy light and air for the walkway will be implemented on two levels under the expansion we filled the appeal because the project was not represented to the planning commission and design review i was not the architect at that point, the professional was turned away at
3:12 am
the podium due to a procedural times allotment i was retained shortly thereafter more recently, we had to handle the appeal when the - we had been hopefully, when contacted on may 29th they were trying to settle on the first 3 issues that were initially filed it would be amiss characterization to say we were the only one adding to the settlement we expanded simply to revolve any and all issues between the parties we're not here to challenge the envelope but to request the conditions on the project that a refinement to cite specific issues the money indications you have all the documents there.
3:13 am
>> you need the overhead. >> i'll continue because of the first condition. >> overhead. >> don't touch that, please. >> on the fourth story by removing the closet by the larger lightwell the scope will bring in more light and air to the staircase we were willing to accept a modification represent by the permit holder on may 29th that was issued before us and the second condition to add a note to the protrusions of the deck along the northern property line and the 3 foot setback was required by the projector planner no november of 2014
3:14 am
specific revision is consistent with the san francisco planner to reduce the intrusion on the second-story and insure the air clear of the features we know that vents and decks and things on elevations sometimes pop up unnaturally and the third condition to have a distance between the property this treatment will not meant to be requested as the our values will require installation of the exterior walls fourth condition to remove repair and replace the existing vents along the northern property line and an initial survey done indicated that the property line was - that the fence that is on the common fence on the property
3:15 am
line was there was encroachment and it was on the appellants property so, anyway we believe those conditions would have been well received during the residential design their humble and clearly don't impact the development i've watched the appellants but not seen it so for that extends to any concerns of the measures i've watched the board on complicated issues but modifying walls this is an opportunity to make an immediate impact to balance between the neighbors and refine part of the codes that codes that are designed to do large things to maintain the open factors of the city we have smaller goals i believe that codes can be refined in specific
3:16 am
ways to accommodate specific site issues we thank you for the opportunity to present i do and hope you'll be compelled to refine our code and restore neighborhood respect i'm going to turn it over to angle a dear members of the board i'm angel one of the owners of the presidio avenue thank you for the opportunity to be here tonight with any husband clemente our architect lonnie our neighbor john to appeal to you to please consider the modest concerns as a real estate agent of years i know the value of light every buyer i've helped to purchase asked for light as a owner of presidio for 4 two years i appreciative my clients request
3:17 am
and put o is it on the top of search list the classification is not correct our new attorney dennis has exchanged many e-mails and phone calls and a meeting with mr. silverman in an effort to resolve this matter the negotiations were stand to resolve all issues between the parties and insure that the construction project itself preceded without problems because the project will block assess to the fence between our properties and the damage to the retaining wall that was important to correct that issue as part of the negotiations in that regard we understand the property owners we sent over an agreement an agreement that mature roof encroachments that
3:18 am
will be acknowledged they responded on july 13th we need to remove part of the roof when by the suggested to understand how that would negatively impact they said no negotiation thank you very much for your time and attention ma'am. >> yes. >> i did not understand that part about your roof is that encroach over the property line. >> well, the 3 homes were built in 1939 to 44 those are the original roof the encroachment each roof is encroaching each other slightly about an inch and the surveyor told me that happens a lot what was important to us in the back and i've shown a picture there earlier sorry
3:19 am
i'll put this back our house is you see the white trim there and the fence is actually sorry i'm sorry i'm not vaccinated at using that the fence comes into our building that is how i actually. >> i understand i wasn't sure about that. >> the boundary line thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. we'll hear permit holders i'm sorry. >> i'm john. >> your time to speak b will come up in a few minutes we need to hear from the permit holder. >> i'm here on behalf of prorldz john and janet i have a power point presentation if you
3:20 am
could bring up the graphic please mr. vice president and commissioners, thank you for hearing us tonight i want to briefly review the project graphing to you understand the volumes and the minimal impact on the neighbors project review from the very outset for a modest with a ground story an upper store that was setback to minimize impacts on adjacent yards what you see is an excerpt of the residential guidelines it shows a prevailing wall a first-story fourth story
3:21 am
is permitted if it is setback to be subordinate and fairly invisible from the public right-of-way here you see the subject property in the middle surrounded by the adjacent buildings on the left is the appellants property and shaded you saw the new upper story edition it is heightened behind the participate that is shaded areas in green show you the addition you can see the ground story pop out doesn't extend into the rear yard and this you were story edition is set away from the main building wall to the rear making it less intrusive you've heard about the appellants 44 requests they called conditions the first
3:22 am
thing is enlarge the lightwell our response is that lightwell is redesigned it and meets the residential guidelines it was supported by planning department staff and approved unanimously at a public hearing by the planning commission that will have some effect on the neighboring light in the lightwell but many effect is minimal it is a common place thing offer made the the family earlier to enlarge the lightwell more was contingent upon the appellants what are you this appeal and avoiding the appeal since that didn't happen that offer was pulled if the table on the left in plan out proposed building next to the appellants their lightwell or proposed let that matches in width the depth required by the guidelines the
3:23 am
guideline excerpt on the right shows you an identical situation it is not as deep always the existing but meets the standards of meeting light and air to the lightwell second condition was to insure that there restrictions on any minor plumbing or mechanic or other pro tuitions from that area at the second floor depth we've already set the railing on that roof deck away from the property line at the request of the planning department and provided a glass railing there both to minimize the intrusion maximize privacy to the yard blow and that translucent allows the light that separates the house per all new construction meets the current code we expect that new construction will
3:24 am
steady the noise on the properties of existing - the property line with the restrictions took place with the appellants property is a bedroom we don't expect to have plumbing vents or other vents penetrating this location there are no restrictions on this property for those assembles and the code requirements that require fire resistant between the properties are adequate and on place on thousands of properties throughout the city nothing special the thirst condition is a similar one to isolate the prompt property walls will be with the code san francisco requirements there is no reason
3:25 am
to do anything special outside the coincide requirements to protect the adjacent properties again, no special circumstances so moving on to the fourth condition the fence along the northern property line that fence was recently replaced the construction cost was shared by both neighbors the folks were involved in the construction process and at the completion of the fence sent a letter or e-mail they felt the contractor did a good job and happy with that as it turns out the survey shows on obstruction with the property line fence that fence is not part of psychologically scope of that permit not before this board and typically alleged
3:26 am
the property line encroachment should be resolved outside this commission and that should remove the roof encroachment that is considering ably larger i have a photo that the commissioner is looking for in short, we're sorry we're unable to resolve this negotiations broke down and this project is modest entirely approvalable the planning department made no error and the unanimous approval not to take dr shows the planning commission supported this project so we respectfully request that you uphold the permit and allow this edition to proceed and then that shows the front property line encroachment of the ease of ogden property on
3:27 am
the left thank you for your time. >> thank you sir, the drawings don't talk about the party - property line wall that much the installation you referred to are thermal installations very little acutely value. >> there are limits to the noise transition on the property lines an s t c. >> that's on for condos. >> that's only for condos. >> that's right. >> any, any case the chaublg have an can you feel benefit. >> mr. sanchez
3:28 am
thank you scott sanchez planning department that property is located within an rh1 sdrrn with the notification last fall between september and october of last year there was one discretionary review filed that was by the appellant the project was reviewed by the design team prior to notification and after filing the discretionary review request the second review the design team was taking into consideration the concerns by the appellant and requested that the first year deck railing be setback the project sponsor made those it went forward and it was approved and didn't take discretionary review and no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances this is a fully compliant the residential design team looked at this twice both times with the change after the
3:29 am
second review met the residential guidelines the commission uphold that commission and now before i on appeal very specific changes the department didn't find exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that warrant imposition of the conditions we don't agree with the presentation by the permit holder those conditions with not necessary it is a straightforward matter but available to answer any questions you may have thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> good evening, commissioners joe duffy dbi building permit has been issued as a site permit for the scope of work described and currently going through the addenda
3:30 am
reviews an old because of the superstition i did not see anything that would alarm me on building code issues i've heard about the termination of the vents those are three to four feet depending on the type of vent used they would not be allowed to encroach above a property line but can't terminate on property line bring them up to the building to the roof at least three to four feet uaw from the property line no requirement for s t c installation in the walls not that i'm aware of there's a a entitlement for thermal installation and, of course, the typical property line with the requirement for the zero lot lines it is sheetrock on
3:31 am
exterior and interior as well as siding on the outside so i'll be happy to answer any questions sorry inspector duffy does the sheet rocks add any core value. >> that you're aware of. >> not that i'm aware of unusual in the installation. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you now we'll take public comment. so - vice president honda 3 minutes >> 3 minutes. >> thank you members of the board i'm john, i live on plain street i do have the common sense with 238 presidio fence when on 2014 we were called to having a premeeting to see what
3:32 am
was going on i was assured that some sticks were going to be put on the property so we could see how high they were going to go and what impact of light, shadow and sun and everything else i've not seen anything i'm asking that i have - the thought that my light and my air would be impaired also i heard there is a city of fences we the take away one foot of our fence in order to give more space to the property at 2 they've is that that on the configuration if not, i have an encroachment of one foot from my property to their property thank you very much for any -
3:33 am
>> sir if you haven't filled out a speaker cards please any other public comment seeing none, we have rebuttal from the appellant. >> 3 additional minutes. >> as an architect i release this is you know we've gone further in the process for doing the design modifications he must admit to being dismayed a simple lightwell they're blocking on the third and fourth story if you look at it, it is so little to ask given their house is doubling in size so i'm sort of dismayed as the san francisco is built and getting more dense and some people can afford more and some
3:34 am
less small things that keep our city vital and respectful to the community that live there i guess that's all i have. >> i think that this is something very personal so therefore i'm not sometimes overly emotional but i heard a couple ever words i thought i'll try to clarify i heard the word alleged it is not alleged the boundary line we didn't do the survey if - i'm sorry the fence fell down in december of 2012 we agreed like good neighbors to rebuild the fence and share the expense it didn't cross our minds where the boundary line whether or not it was encroaching not until last year they built ill up to the
3:35 am
property line we became aware the picture i showed you how can our if he has be building into our building that's the reason why we ordered the survey and discovered we have the retaining wall which is totally on our property line and the france built under the retaining wall about 8 inches sometimes 7 inches encroachment into our property of the fence that's why we ask for it to be corrected they're building up to the property line and the other thing this is a modest project is not they have about 2 thousand square feet and adding 2 thousand square feet they're building twice the size that's not modest i'm glad they're doing it and happy but i wish they'd give us the neighbors a little bit of consideration
3:36 am
that's all thank you. >> thank you. >> sir. >> you have 3 minutes of rebuttal. >> thank you, commissioners i'm not going to take along this is a code complying project the existing home is 26 hundred square feet with the annexation about 39 hundred square feet you saw from the rear perspective it the modest not a lot of bulk on the roof it is assemble substantially we don't believe this is the vine to settle either the events of roof encroachment and respectfully request you uphold the project if you have any questions, mr. silverman is here. >> i have a question sir, the fence permit is not in question here but if there is an
3:37 am
encroachment and there's further litigation after the matter how does that effect the construction. >> i'm not sure it does where the new wall would overlap the fence increase like i think a 4 by 4 member that is bolted in board on the side of retaining wall that goes up a ways and the fence support is lagged into that if any is absorbed by the new wall it can't be cut on the other side if the fence is to be moved. >> okay. thank you. >> uh-huh. >> anything further if the department mr. silverman is there still time. >> affidavit silverman for the sponsor just to clarify there's been a lot of discussion about the fence the fence we're talking about is in the rear
3:38 am
yard the appellants told us they intend to tear down the fence we have no objection no issue about the fence today thank you. >> okay commissioners the matter is submitted. >> well, you know there's a couple of points one is you know the old concept of a bird and hen probably should have been taken the question is whether the proposed plans volume does it present extraordinary circumstances with respect to the neighbor i don't think so i would have throughout the project sponsor would have
3:39 am
wanted to create as much acoust acoustical isolation but one wall doesn't do that much it is up to them it is relatively easy to spend the to provide the acoustic separation for both parties other items i find not to be extraordinary in terms of us taking further action. >> i also concur with commissioner fung unfortunately, it guess not more good neighborhood relations and hopefully going forward something can be worked by the permit was issued enrolling and no department record in issuing this. >> i'm in agreement move to deny the appeal and
3:40 am
uphold the permit is the code compliant. >> thank you. we have a motion then under commissioner fung to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it is code compliant the president is recused commissioner vice president honda commissioner wilson commissioner swig okay that motion carries with a vote of 4 members thank you. >> would you mind commissioner vice president honda thank you very much while i call the next item okay. >> so we're moving back to item 5 the rehearing of the subject property on eureka street the board received a letter if the appellants requesting a rehearing of the appeal versus
3:41 am
beginning july 1st, 2015, at that time the board voted 3 to two to uphold the permits on the basis their code compliant the permit holder is charles and to remove the gas stove and pipes and update to code and the project as per notice of violations we start with the queries there are two items they have 6 minutes. >> good evening thanks for hearing us tonight members of the board could i have the overhead. >> please state our name i'm one of the tenants on the overhead i have a letter into supervisor john avalos given to the committee the commissioner have to agree
3:42 am
whether or not to receive a new submittal. >> two different supervisors supervisor campos and supervisor avalos in support of our case most important document in the brief that i wrote is on the second to the last page you won't mind looking at that it's a summary of the the building inspection the department of building inspection looked at the 3-r that was issued and on piece of paper they looked at the san born map in the previous times we've discussed how sand board maps may be wrong the change of use was not required by the city and another indication if the assessor that
3:43 am
choose the two units i imagine they assess whether or not the tax are made and on the card it states 57 u represent streets 2 flaps 1987 the last time we didn't have this piece of paper but we didn't have it so we're hoping you get look at it and see that the assessor property card we were talking about whether or not to look at that card or not if you put it altogether on the one side not positive evidence but on the other side of this question we say positive evidence that the assessor office has considered two units for tax purposes that an actual assessor visited the property in 1937 and decides
3:44 am
there were two flats on the bottom it says recommendation to determine the legal occupancy in 2013 that inspection didn't occur the dbi made the decision of a single-family dwelling based on a permit filled out but a window contractor that installed 3 aluminum windows probably took him two hours. >> 3 hour report. >> and you can see the roofing never had a cross section and you know the building garage was put in under the how is it was actually put in the concept that was put in illegal behind the garage our house is the original drirm was evidences last time and it was testified to so this is a garage was put in
3:45 am
into our apartment and you said last time you don't take assessor's cards right here is evidence in the planning committee i don't know but it shows several things there is water taps are assessor's records and sand born maps to make determinations about old houses so i hope you can take into consideration and we've been informed i have a disability here a note from my doctor asking to consider my well-being i don't know if you can read that or not sorry i really am amazed that board is willing to allow this to be
3:46 am
removed without a walk into the dwelling how can a determination be made and - as we showed you dpi sdp have convincing evidence for the manifest of injustice is happening here we ask you to look at the documents it need to be investigated i there's a will that here in the system that is going to allow several apartments with the a next to it i'd like to show you in a 15 walk through of my home there are several units 12 of them just from a 3 minute walk through all those houses have unit a we called dbi because of a health issue the landlord will be able to get rid of thousands of people with unit
3:47 am
a's this is unfair to us and unfair for the rest of the people living in unit a's i'm binge you to take time to bring time to evaluate the actual records and use your power to correct this situation and stop the manifest of injustice the city deserves better and you guys have the power joe duffy testified when you asked mr. fong directly if he's familiar and not familiar with this case his testimony is strongly enforcing the decision of this court and it is clear that he's stated last time is was it was not the case i ask you to do what's right as our supervisors.
3:48 am
>> thank you. we'll mare from the permit holder. >> we also have 6 minutes. >> 6 minutes? >> uh-huh. >> ladies and gentlemen, of the board my name is charles the property owner we're now back at a fourth hearing concerning the permits recommended to my property on eureka the first hearing was held on april 29, 2015, in which the board upheld my alteration permit and a second hearing was held on june 3rd, 2015, in the same case because the appellants
3:49 am
requested a rehearing this rehearing request was denied and my alterations permit was conformed by this board a third hearing was held ton july 1st, 2015, in the present case because the appellants appealed the electrical and plumbing permits required by the dbi in order to fix the attention permit the appellants made the same argument in their prior case and my permits were upheld by this board now the appellants have forced this fourth hearing bans a rehash of their previous arguments section 9 of the rules governing
3:50 am
a request for hearing requests the health commission board grants the hearing request upon a showing of new or different material facts and circumstances have arisen and those facts are material furthermore, the appellants must state why any present was not produced at the prior hearing first, the review of the appellants oral arguments in the written briefs there is nothing new and if not all the arguments and obligations are already reviewed at the prior hearings even the exhibits attached to the requests for rehearing are basically the same as the exhibits in their prior mrooekdz
3:51 am
excuse me. the appellants are here again simply for the purpose of detailing my compliance with the notice of violation their appeal must be denied based on the following appellants arguments have previously been addressed by the board in prior hearings both in the appeal case number 15043 and then the present case two, no new evidence or circumstances have been presented today appellants arguments is a wishful speculation without any documentation or support to support their position no manifest injustice to the appellants if their request is
3:52 am
denied i'm 71 years old and retired and have been suppressed beyond reason by this details in that matter appellants action to date is the real injustice and can't be allowed to continue i therefore respectfully ask this board to deny the appellants request foyer a rehearing and allow me to proceed with the necessary work in order to abate the notice of violation thanks thank you for your time and consideration any questions? >> thank you mr. duffy. >> commissioners joe duffy
3:53 am
beginning on this case i think we've all heard a building permit that was upheld this the electrical and plumbing permit a rehearing request on that i the raise in the brief some comments i'm not familiar i'll skip that my job up here is to look at what, if anything, action the department took in relation to the complaint notice of violation on a permit in this case not my job to know everything about the case in the last case i knew the details but that doesn't mean i know everything about the permit so the appellants were informed by senior housing inspection
3:54 am
davidson if they got new evidence to bring it back to housing i believe the chief inspector was involved in that discussion as well a few months ago i'm not sure why they haven't gone back to dbi with the information dbi have not reversed the notice of violation so therefore in my opinion all the permits are valid and the work needs to be done i'm not saying that to have someone evicted from a like where they live but i'm really saying where we have in that case a complaint filed a notice of violation issued and permits objected i'm available to answer any questions but up to the board in this case. >> actually mr. duffy there is
3:55 am
a big difference between the appeal of those two permits and the hearing requests and the first one the first one has already passed that appeal was denied rehearing request was denied that being the removal of the unit whatever it took i don't know specifically you don't know now remaining the walls or cabinets that's in effect should the permit holder want to do this if we took this on and revoke this the only thing we can deny the new appeal or revoke an electrical and plumbing permit that means that the pipes can stay. >> i know i agree with you.
3:56 am
>> i had a question the last time in regards to the gas meters there were to on the property i ask do the question on the notice of violation for remove what was the determination regarding the second meter are they good evening to cap it or have the meter removed completely if it is a single-family home why have a secondary meter. >> we have single-family homes with secondary meter but it is capped to the source so wherever that source is it has to be capped i'm not sure that means losing the meters or not. >> thank you. >> i do have some information as well today he went to the planning department for the sand born map only for information it
3:57 am
it doesn't matter if i can have the overhead the sand born map from 1950 has it it down as a dwelling it was in the brief as well document as well implicit i a document we used whenever there's a unit for clarification request greater a project sponsor and there - i couldn't find any action sometimes, we when people obtain a permit to get the use of building and give them a new cf c i the a permit search that doesn't happen the permits were saying no action but if there was an ax it changed the 3-r report to a one single-family dwelling. >> following up on sxhunz
3:58 am
question i think somehow to deny those permits then the project sponsors sitting with the permit to correct an nov but no ability to correct the nov; is that correct. >> he's between a rock and hard place. >> yes, sir. that's right there's another avenue they were given the opportunity to go back i'm not sure if the assessor's records will make a difference and where that would go if they got the notice of violation overturned by dbi maybe dbi will do something with the electrical and plumbing permits themselves i believe that recently, there was a case brought to the department of building inspection something similarly on the gerrero street there are avenues that they could go to if
3:59 am
they so wished occasionally the department will reverse it's call on some permits so maybe that might be an avenue for them as well i'm not sure there was nothing to stop them contacting housing services in between the hearing and the rehearing request i'm not sure why they didn't do that maybe something they'll follow-up with i'm not sure but a thought i had myself maybe that was possible an option for them. >> okay is zoning administrator says he has nothing to add we'll call for public comment is there any? thank you. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus pardon me i'm jeremy a legislative aide to commissioner avalos and he
4:00 am
brought up shortly you'll be getting a letter from commissioner avalos we've become aware of this last night and trying to get my head around you have the opportunity to look at it more thor that issue raises concerns going back to the resolution you pass in april about this issue of notification 2, 3, 4 people if unpermitted unit and the lack of demolition permits and supervisor avalos is very concerned about the legislation in the lots affordable by stop sign and rent control housing in the city the appellants raised serious questions about the history of that unit and whether which switch kitchen is 9 original kitchen in the unit it doesn't seemed to me that has been fully roved commissioner avalos buildings this is a loss of one
4:01 am
dwelling unit removed is hard to bare obviously we defer to yourselves and the bishgsz and glad to work to facilitate some resolution there is another way david chiu loud for the legalization of a second unit and from our reports this is an excellent candidate that wouldn't require too much work take into consideration. >> any at public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners the matter is submitted. >> nobody. >> okay as mentioned before here this is
4:02 am
before our board four times at this point our requirements for rehearing are very district requiring manifest injustice in that form has been brought before us in the past i the support and i descend on the last vote in this particular case i feel that this case has been properly vetted already. >> i feel the same as my fellow commissioners, i suggest the appellants follow the advice of mr. duffy if they choose to go and take this any further i'm sthimic to the legislative
4:03 am
aide and the points raise by mr. al loss but i don't see a clear manifest injustice we've vetted this properly on multiple occasions therefore unfortunately or unfortunately, i think that i'll side with my fellow commissioners on this one. >> go ahead. >> you had a better job than i do thank you move to deny the rehearing request no new evidence or manifest injustice. >> thank you a motion from commissioner president lazarus to deny those to requests on that motion commissioner fung commissioner vice president honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig
4:04 am
motion to deny the request passes and no decision will be issued the next item is item six the jurisdiction request the subject property on 20th avenue board received a letter query that the boards take jurisdiction over the application which was issued on may 14th the appeal period ended in 2015 and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on july 14, 2015, the permit holder is sarah o'connor's treaty with the compliance to replace the kitchen sinks and removing the gas line and improve the carbon monoxide detectors and with hardware mr. nolte you have 3 minutes. >> i'm representing the tenants
4:05 am
on this property can we turn this overhead on. >> you need to refer to it, it is working. >> what we're here about is this building permit to remove a second lot in the building this building permit was filed to comply with the notice of violation and on the permit in the notice of violation clearly states there are two units on in the building now if you look at the permit applications it shows on line - under present use it shows simply residential and on line 98 one unit interest if we go down on the next line it is r-3 single-family and it does indicate on line 161
4:06 am
is in compliance of the notice of violation here's the second page to this permit application is it coming in okay you'll note that this is the box for the city planning to sign off in ink they did sign off and here is the notice of violation which indicates i don't know if i have it in the right place it indicates there is field inspection sacrificing i says there's to dwellings therefore this is a removal of an illegal unit were asking this permit be south sent back i've not looked at the plans on this as indicated on the permit two sets
4:07 am
of plans i've not seen them i've not be able to review them i went up to micro film today they're not able to be reviewed that's the purpose for this being late because of the tenants were never notified we were not aware of this situation simply not aware even though there's a notice of violation they were not aware of the permit coming i have the tenants with me and they can say a few words. >> good evening my name is a jimmy a tenant at 20th after the in-law unit i do not want to leave yeah. thank you. >> i'm also living with him and same unit we don't want to be
4:08 am
evicted that's our home. >> thank you okay. thank you we can hear if the permit holder now. >> good evening, commissioners i'm jerad henderson the representative of the permit holder i want to point out that is a formally contested unlawful permit the tenants with the tenants and the occupant under sdor are is not a tenant have been represent by an attorney since january 27th advised them to talk with the dbi we've engaged in settlement discussions when my client which
4:09 am
we thought was a legally created room within the building we found out that mr. czar had put in a stove and vents not proper we had to start over and engaged in more settlement discussions got the permits to comply with notice of violation that was posted out at the property jimmy knew about that jimmy right there and the attorney know that this and known about the first duty it ended up dismissing we're going to file a second one nothing they've not been aware have to say their surprised by all this it highly, highly unlikely it is basically, their using this as leverage in the unlawful detainer it is made in litigation they're aware of this
4:10 am
and filing in request almost two months after the permits were obtained so i just think this is not the proper femur the superior court of california is the proper forum their misusing people's time it is not about the permit but the settlement with an unlawful detainer case so counselor are you finished. >> yes. so your saying they have full awareness that the permit was issued. >> jim i didn't see name is on the complaint which i submitted in any paperwork if i could put it on the overhead. >> i read on the brief this is a family dispute. >> every predating the eviction notice it is also regarding who's the representative of the
4:11 am
estate and the probate attorney is here could a tell you about that as well. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> skwoomd so the subject property is list on all records we have as a single-family dwelling the planning department did review the permit in question that's noted in the system, however, staff did put on a and not access a fee for the review of it no notice required nun performed in b b n request on the property no reason that mop would have gotten notice if the planning department of this permit and no discretionary review for the this permit and as the case of the previous matter
4:12 am
so with that, i'm available to answer any questions. >> are they required to sign not under the planning code no, no requirement for posting are for mailed notice. >> no on the back of the permit apathy put n a and you said they reviewed it. >> they put their initials. >> oh, that's their initials. >> so mr. sanchez is the square feet on the property it is the planning department is the room illegal as well or the kitchen facilities. >> whether or not the kitchen is illegal or not is a matter for the department of building inspection. >> okay. thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi i'll read the words on the
4:13 am
permit and answer commissioner vice president honda question i think it will answer itself thanks joe to comply with the notice of violation replace the kitchen sink remove the gas range and gas line to installed the approved smoke alarms and fix cabinets so the notice of violation was as a result of a complaint filed i thought i had the complaint and the details so the notice of violation startles off that positions by the housing inspectors inspector making the last legal use of the building is an r-3 single-family dwelling with the permit application the
4:14 am
ground floor consists of a ground room and two dwelling units the ground floor is convert into a separate game room as a bedroom and bathroom and kitchen and garage the permit research failed to produce the plans to remodel it to its present use this answers the question a permit in the 7 that was completed for rooms on the ground floor for a sfwrnl and earlier was converted to the illegal unit that was the subject of the permit to remove. >> are you done. >> yes. inspector. >> so the rooms down are legal. >> that's correct. >> the rooms and the bath are legal on the presence of the kitchen that is legally
4:15 am
permitted; is that correct. >> that's what it seems like yes. >> thank you. any public comment? seeing none, commissioners the matter is submitted >> the reseem to be getting a lot of cases involving evictions and therefore the co-sponsored nov and the permit appeals and the question. >>was this permit faulty in its issuance i can't find it so i'm not prepared to submit to support the appeal
4:16 am
director >> just a reminder a jurisdiction request so the issue was interest any our on error on the part of city in filing. >> i see what you're saying. >> i find no error on the part of city and therefore i cannot support of jurisdiction. >> any comment. >> move to deny the jurisdiction request. >> okay. thank you so that motion by commissioner fung to deny this request commissioner president lazarus commissioner vice president honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig okay. that motion to deny the request passes with a vote of 5 to zero item 7 ab have been withdrawn with the valencia street not heard tonight we'll move on to item 8
4:17 am
young versus the department of building inspection with the planning department approval the property is on muniic street to alley wu of on alternative to remove the rooms and separate electrical permits are required we're starting with the appellant you have 7 minutes to present our case. >> thank you. good evening i'm here here on behalf of the appellant requests the board of appeals deny the respondents application for the permit for additions and alternatives and repairs she's a chinese speaker living on muniic street with her husband and children she moved into the occupant in 2011 it is habitual except for the kitchen
4:18 am
it will modify the kitchen this unit could be legalized the under the influence on creating the dwelling units in the maintaining of affordable housing removal of kitchen would be in direct contradiction to those policies additionally ms. shoe appeals the application inform demolish the unit because the proclamation cantonese certain inaccurate information the first item of inaccurate information in item 9 of the application only one dwelling unit in the building dwbl is legal unit and illegal unit there are 3 units in the this are buildings one on the top floor one someone lives in and then the family of 3 on the
4:19 am
ground floor and ms. shoe lives in the basement there's also separate tenancies in the basement rooms that is not related to must shoes tenancies the second item of inaccurate information is that the respondent claims no change in occupancy there will be a change in occupancy because 8 people living on this and 4 of them in ms. shoes units she's received several letters that indicate that her landlord intends to evict her and precede with the demolition wu complains no notice the kitchens were built because she
4:20 am
was residing in pier 30/32 that a family friend took it upon himself to modify the kitchens never saw the rent we find it highly incidentally probably her son lives in the top unit and still is in and out of unit also, we don't think her knowledge is relevant because her son is the landlord he owns part of the property and she had a property manager working for her we do think this is relevant that by allowing her to don't worry about the kitchen we'll be allowing the removal of another affordable housing in the city and in referencing what is already been said that the san francisco housing crisis mayor
4:21 am
ed lee in 2014 acknowledged we need to preserve the affordable housing for low income households and legal listing the dwelling units are important in the housing unit currently, the housing like ms. shoes is not available for the price she pays $650 a month that costs upwards of three or four thousand dollars in the city of san francisco they she is likely to lose this units but the possibility of legalization has not been determined by the dbi inspector and given the shortage of affordable housing in san francisco we could make some sort of effort to encourage
4:22 am
legalization from door-to-door we thank you for the opportunity to hear our appeal tonight and asking you to deny the application. >> please state your name for the record. >> i'm f. >> there are 4 separate tenants here aren't there. >> a hotels. >> 8 people who live there. >> tenants or separate tenants isn't there. >> in ms. shoes units. >> in this building. >> in that building 8 separate tenants. >> oh, 8 are separate arrest 8 occupant how many groups. >> okay 3 groups of occupant was is a family of 3 that lives on the empowering one a family of 44 in the basement and a separate tenancies in the
4:23 am
basement a room that is rent and that person has a separate relationship with the landlord. >> okay. but i thought the top floor the second floor has - >> united states top floor is the landlords son that owns a part of building i don't know what his ownership interest is. >> are you aware sorry of the configuration is there a kitchen on the top floor as well. >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you no, but if you haven't filed auto a speaker card you have okay. great we'll hear if the permit holder. >> be prepared good evening. i'm jamie i represent the respondent permit holder chow wu we're respectfully asking the
4:24 am
board uphold the permit that is approved without conditions my client may moved to remove two illegal kitchens from the basement and ground floor levels on muniic street very quickly in response i want to point out my client more her son korean resides in the single-family dwelling the top prosecution or portion is vablthd and the ground floor is occupied and ms. shoe occupy a basement level with another tenant legal use of this premise as a single-family home with one dwelling unit, however, as you may know it is used by at least 8 people as several separate dwelling units due to the presence of illegal kitchen on the basement tea ground floor levels of the home
4:25 am
appellant appeals that alleging two permits in the position navigate the appellant is incorrect that was issued in cornerstones with the law and as a necessary step to convert the ground floor back to they are last legal use mistakes in the permit application that appellant allegations are actually not mistakes at item 9 a of the permit application the application asks the applicant to identify the number of dwelling units the number of dwelling units on the permit application is one i've stated the legal use is a single-family home second point that appellant allegations a mistake on item 24 that question asks whether or not the alteration will
4:26 am
constitute a change of the occupancy that was answered in the negative that entertainment commission will not constitute a change of occupancy as restoring the premises to a single-family home i'd like to point out that it is highly unlikely that the basement level of this single-family home that ms. shoe and her family could be legally occupied there is a kitchen it is my understanding it would be impossible to legalize the basement with a kitchen. >> i would like to highlight as i've done in any brief it situation is slifth distinguishable from on the board heard my client was not responsible for the installation of those kitchens or the leasing of this premise to appellant or any of the other tenants at the
4:27 am
house my client made the unwise decision to leave the house under the control of a family friend to return to procuring that person installed the kitchens she leased out the spaces o to all those people my client is 62 years old not new desire to reside with a group of people she didn't know and would like to remove those kitchen to take position of house with that, i'm free to answer any questions you may have. >> the basement has two tenants are there too kitchens? the basement has one kitchen it is our understanding there are two separate tenancies in the baseme basement. >> there was another question
4:28 am
but i cannot i'll wait. >> i have a few questions counselor it was stated by the appellant earlier the landlords or the owner felt proposed lives on the top floor is that true or not. >> not true. >> the owner never lived on the property. >> she the for a short period of time. >> her son. >> i believe he lives with her and he's the co-owner. >> how long did he live on the property. >> my client and her son purchased the property in august of 2009 lived there are inform a short period of time to take care of the sick friend. >> the son is pier 30/32. >> is there current any litigation. >> nostril killer but we already engaged in a brief bout
4:29 am
of litigation in san francisco small claims court. >> the rent that was received on behalf of was illegal taken by the project manager and my client has not seen a dime of that rent money and not septsd rent from the tenants residing in the room and pays for all utilities to the premises. >> thank you do you remember. >> yeah. >> in your brief you indicated there was some difficulties in procuring this permit can you elaborate on that. >> i cannot i brought a representative from our contractors office perhaps he can it's my limited understanding that there may have been some other type of illegal construction at this home i don't believe it was done by my client maybe the previous owner and only came to light
4:30 am
when in issue arose. >> thank you. we'll hear from the building inspection. >> a couple of questions were the improvements made - the improvements of the illegal kitchens or kitchen made since 2009? >> yes. they were we're actually not sure when those kitchens were installed i can tell you that prior to my clients purchase something actually made a report of illegal units at this property it was a fooshd property maybe prior tenants after the property was purchased they loud the dbi to inspect and the floor plan and consistent with a previous floor plan signed off under previous remodeling. >> who funded the kitchens. >> it would have been the financial friend and project
4:31 am
manager so no record of no record of funding the construction, the acquisition i'm assuming of equipment goes in the kitchen a ghost. >> this year's nothing and trying to get information from the prior prompt manager has been difficult. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi the building permit over-the-counter approval on the undocumented level for kitchen determined for the plumbing and electrical separate electrical and plumbing primaries are riders the permit was actually
4:32 am
filed in march of 2015 and issued in june 2015 there are no active complaints on the property i checked that today, there was a previous building permits on in 2005 to add a half bath and floor remodel the kitchen, kitchen slash bathrooms and fourth floor at ground floor and basement floor we signed off on august thirds 2005 given a certificate of final closed sessicompletionr remodeling the kitchen and abandonment by the dry rot that was in 2005 as well and that permit got signed off
4:33 am
as well i'm available to answer any questions inspector duffy what physical inspectors have bun done to the property to date. >> the only physical inspectors i could tell you was for the building permits i referenced in 05 we haven't been - i don't think we've done inspections on the new permit it would have been suspected it maybe 10 years. >> it looks like someone is running a hotel out of a single-family dwelling and two units and someone has collected rent and no responsibility for the issue at hand. >> okay. thank you. >> anything mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department the subject
4:34 am
property is locate with the rh1 that allows a single-family dwelling has been noted the permit seems to remove two illegal units from the building they may be able to avail themselves to legalize one unit one of the two units because of the limbs bans all the historic records we have it does appear to be a single-family dwelling the planning department reviewed and approved the permit no nos and no dbi on the proposed no notification is required no complainants on the property requiring illegal use the department came in separate i'll be happy to answer any questions you're looking at me scott. >> i don't know if you have any other questions. >> i do we have two in-law units on the bottom level and according to the appellants they said someone living on the top
4:35 am
and on the main level i mean what i mean since the legislation at that point supervisor chiu was passed in october ever 2014 we'll have many, many case 3 in a row to this point i think that the legislation is flawed but i mean what does planning have to do we have three or four dwells doesn't planning have something for running a hotels i mean. >> certainly they have been operating in violation of the planning code this violation corrects that violation we kanltd retroactive penalize them we don't have this ability there is due process concerns i don't know if we can character the chiu legislation people are availing themselves people have to choose to 0 come in to
4:36 am
legalize units people have contacted the department of building inspection that go through the check list to see if they can't legalize and probable had seems more people coming in to legalize than to remove that's the gut by the number of appeals. >> do you you know how many have been approved. >> i'll get the reports and look at the numbers and get that information to you on rebuttal but i think that doesn't may have been approved typed. >> was the the notice of violation a building or planning notice of violation. >> no planning enforcements on that oar would planning issue a notice of violation on that. >> yes. it certainly could be you know we didn't have a lot of information on our end but two issues one the illegal unit only
4:37 am
zoned important one unit and anything more is a violation and the concern perhaps to groupings is it being broke down or a hotel short term stays but certainly how it is described it violates the code but the permit corrects the violation so share your concern the people have profited from violations and maybe the time is convenient to correct it i wish we had the ability to access those penalties. >> but unfortunately, it boarded didn't see the ones that are trying to add only the ones trying to remove so from our stand point it is zero on the other. >> we have had a unit that could be legalized that could come here one day.
4:38 am
>> any public comment on that item. >> okay seeing no public comment we'll take rebuttal from the appellant. >> i'm sorry from the appellant first. >> first oh. >> you have 3 minutes for rebuttal. >> so first, i'd like to is whether or not the son or the co-owner resides in the top unit is irrelevant must shoe and the other tenants in the building seen him come in and out and he resided there while there were illegal kitchens as far as the the responsibility is claiming her client has no knowledge and didn't contents consent i find this highly, highly unlikely a
4:39 am
property owner with thousands and thousands of units for her so see no rents i think is also an inaccurate statements they've only returned rent for the last year. >> finally as far as benefiting from door-to-door those unions in 2015 the landlords told ms. shoe they're going to sell the house they'll be evicted at some point it seems as though they bought the property as an investment property and now convenient they're trying to sell it, it is unfortunate for must shoe and the other tenants in the building
4:40 am
because they approve the from the illegal units and benefiting them into bringing them into compliance with the planning code. >> are you done. >> question. >> yeah. >> who do the tenants pay rent to. >> i believe that was the property manager for a long time. >> is that paid in check or money order, cashier's check. >> i can check that for you - i believe they pay in money order. >> in cash. >> hard cash? if you don't mind the crisis
4:41 am
clients i can - is that okay >> yeah. thank you. >> we'll take rebuttal from the council my client didn't dispute that is a unfortunately situation unfortunately for the tenants and my client but i would like to remind the board that the question before you here tonight was whether or not this permit was faulty if it's issuance and the we are is no my client someable allowed to remove the kitchens her testimony the presence of her units creates a liability for her no notice of violation issued on the prophet one can be issued by the planning department and the planning department those concerns in addition to the ones regarding safety with
4:42 am
having a kitchen on the ground floor level where it doesn't belongs concerns my client very much. >> what about legalizing one of those. >> i don't believe my client would be open to that as i've said earlier she - this property was never intended to be chopped up and leased out to tenants she purchased that with a purpose of a single-family home. >> who paid the mortgage. >> she pays the mortgage. >> and i have not yet seen evidence that the appellants could produce to show they've made rent pavement to my clients directly or indirectly according to my client she's not seen any a payment. >> she was gone from 2009. >> from us from 2010 until 2014 a very a long time
4:43 am
she was in touch with the friends and family regarding the property with no idea those units had been stalled and the house leased out discovered ♪ february of 2014 and immediately fired the property manager then he attempted to sue her the property manager alleged she was severed a no fault judgment and the court said she doesn't owe the property manager anything >> in 2013 did they do anything. >> it was only a short visit and retained my office in the summer. >> when they fired the property manager what happened to the
4:44 am
rent and the tenants stopped paying represent they attempted to tender it on a few occasions to take a look around she wouldn't accept it recently - >> then the last question is the appellants have said that the owner has been into the property many times and he's been peru. >> in the united states supportably and at the property. >> sponsorly once or twice. >> i don't know for sure it had to be at least a half a dozen times. >> the son was aware of the kitchens from quite a long time ago and the mother. >> they both discovered the kitchens in february of 2014
4:45 am
they didn't know up to this time it had been done to the house. >> thank you. >> are you ready thank you. >> thank you so they were paying in money order to the property manager until august 2014 when that they attempted to pay the landlords chung wu not her son chung wu responded she wasn't going to accept the rents. >> it was an eviction. >> she was going to use the non-restricted payment of rent to offset any rent board mandated payment for evictions. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> scott sanchez planning
4:46 am
department in response to commissioner vice president honda's question about the legalization process as of last week on july 30th the department of building inspection had received 2 hundred and 7 screening forms this is the first step to determine if someone is eligible for legalization 2 hundred and 13 followed through the building permit and 35 of those permit were about associated with notice of violations to correct and they choose to legalize the units rather than removing them of the number of permits issues or issued are 47 and further 11 more permits approved and ready for issuance waiting for the owners to pick up and pay the fees. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> mr. sanchez just to refresh me there is an rh1 it is allowed one additional unit. >> correct there is a been
4:47 am
described as an amnesty for illegal listing units they can do it up to one unit. >> legal non-conforming. >> legal non-common right. >> up to two units. >> i believe up to two units but increases when you have 10 units in the building a they told her to go to two more that's our recollection but they can only legalize one. >> mr. sanchez in this case we have an appeal by one of the tenants and have you knowledge or should we ask someone else where are we other two tenants in that picture. >> i don't know what the status is i think one of the parties to the appeal would best know the status of the tenants in the
4:48 am
building. >> mr. bottom of the hill barred so you - there are 3 tenants currently two downstairs and one on the main floor, one is the appellants where are the other two? >> i don't know the answer to that question. >> we talked to those attendance multiple times and didn't receive a response. >> have notice of evictions offend to the remaining tenants. >> the permit was superintendant but given a 60 day with the relocation experiences and my client will be paying at least $20,000 and then she'll payouts the other tenants. >> can he hear if the appellant on that matter please. one of the tenants that lives
4:49 am
think the ground floor is here lee chung i'm not sure whether the last tenants who lives in the single room on the basement. >> but both of the families have one person here and what about the main level someone on the main level. >> i referred to the ground floor is what you're saying is the main level. >> the main level and garage level so - thank you. >> i have the last question. >> yeah. >> your appeal in our brief your request is only that we revoke this permit or deny the permit. >> uh-huh. >> what about the oh, never mind okay. it would be been a
4:50 am
rhetorical question. >> i'm glad i can bring some joy. >> mr. duffy anything. >> there's a question for you. >> actually not quite sure how to phrase the question what's the proper way to file out this permit when you've got a illegal people in there. >> that's a good question the building permit is filed out correctly when you fill out a building permit application it asks you for the legal distribution of the building the legal description is at single-family units with one dwelling unit known as an r-3 and a legal 3 unit would be an r-2 from 3 to one it legally
4:51 am
will be a change of occupancy or adding units from r-3 to r-2 in answer to our question had you fill out the box the number of illegal units it is the legal number now how many are in the building. >> and the same for the number of occupants. >> they're not dealt with they're talking about the occupancy whatever you're talking about the building code the occupants under the building code so the residential is r-3 or r-2. >> what we see sometimes, people adding units to say they've legalized it when they bring in the permit. >> sorry. >> what they're saying is 2 units we see that in reverse. >> in the description of the work that's where you describe
4:52 am
your removing the kitchens sinks it sometimes says illegal unit but not rescued in the permit like you're losing a dwelling unit not the proper way to do it. >> mr. duffy permit language is terminate the gap what does that mean to you. >> we spoke in one of the earlier case that was dealt with the plumbing acquisition but cap the gas lines to the source you have to remove the source. >> where it candle stick park at the source that would be a few places but usually it means to take the gas piping whoever the work from an illegal area to a legal remove the gas piping to
4:53 am
wherever that gas stove it might not be far but not putting a cap on the end of the gas pipe if the gas pipe was installed from the mainline. >> in the olden days they'll by the time let you cap it behind the stove. >> it is remove any work without the benefit of a permit. >> that's likely the water heater is down there. >> okay. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i guess i'll start i was going to share my rhetoric alter question it is a volunteer i understand program and you know the fact that a supervisor would want us to take over and
4:54 am
basically take on a policy position it does reflect their flaws in the city in what the city is trying to do, however, the question here an actual two-fold the question is whether this permit was issued in error but the rhetorical question if you've got of the property owner wanted to legalize it 2 people or tenancies are out related to our question it is same thing who gets to pick that at this point, i'm afraid i canned support the appeal. >> i concur with a slight variance i think with because of history of that property and the amount of occupancy and the level of occupancy i'd like to see the building inspection make a inspection on the property to
4:55 am
determine what is physically there so the permit is we don't do this rhetoricly and find other kitchen on the property and other non-permitted and illegal usage i would i personally feel to continue this until the building inspection can make - >> perhaps what i was dind to do also to condition this permit that utilities be removed from the basement. >> you want to mr. duffy move that on? >> and just i want to respond to commissioner vice president hondas request if the building inspection wants to go out there as of this time no active
4:56 am
complaint on the property if we go there and see the illegal conditions are we writing a notice of violation then we're back with the earlier permits it sounds like dbi has not seen the conversion apparently we never got called out. >> even after this hearing because of this hearing the tenants can call 311 and file a complaint and those permits would be appealable; right? >> exactly. >> this could gone for quite a few. >> it will more likely come from the tenants. >> why issue an nov if there are a permit request to get rid of everything illegal. >> it is illegal until removed. >> they can't remove it you're
4:57 am
putting them in an awkward position. >> but that is - if - >> i i mean, i feel someone is profited gridlock at someone expenses at someone's expense here you know and when you ran a property not everybody is completely aware that the unit is legal or legally some people go into non-permitted and illegal spaces we're in a great shortage of housing in san francisco and we've seen them with valid lowe's leases 26 years and they felt that was a legal property and unfortunately, this legislation has caused a loophole we see our board actually sent something in regards to that i mean, i understand but like i said after
4:58 am
this hearing the tenants could call 311 and ask for an inspection and that permit is then appealable as well. >> that's right. >> only in if a new permit if this permit corrects it, it is before you. >> unless they find anyone else anything else view the property to make sure if someone as blatantly done that amount of work it's not held to that area i imagine that a house has electrical plumbing and heating that several of the other aspects and systems have been affected legally. >> i have a question for the permit holder attorney excuse me. mr. duffy unless you have - you filed for a permit to take
4:59 am
out is an illegal kitchen to the best of your knowledge is there other work to convert this to a building occupyly. >> my understanding dbi was given plans of the allowing lay out of the house and no other violation were identified. >> that was i'm sorry. >> no, i'm sorry to interrupt they had an issue with what should be storage rooms uses and bedrooms. >> you said earlier in your statements that your sellers were unaware of the what had been done to the property no, if idea so how do you know the electrical and plumbing and roofing and foundation has not been scombrauftd if you didn't, 3 other illegal units. >> she's conducted multiplied
5:00 am
inspectors r inspections having contractors. >> do you have a written inspection of the property. >> i don't the contractor doesn't prepare one. >> a verbal situation. >> inspector i'm sympathetic to your point of view and in support. >> you're still going with that; right? >> no, i understand where you're going with that i'm trying to provide a condition that will help you with that i'm sort of in commissioner president fongs position the condition on this would be very simply because as mr. duffy spoke of theirs a litany and significant documentation of upgrades and permitted construction just prior to the purchase of the home in 2009 so
5:01 am
the condition might be to remove the kitchens and back to end and the home back to the permitted conditions through as of the last legal permit. >> that actually is my clients intent. >> well, what i would do noted even give them the option of that intent but make that a condition of this ruling and deny the appeal with the condition that the that intent become a requirement. >> certainly. >> is that a motion. >> i think i'll make that motion. >> and deny the appeal with the condition that the home be
5:02 am
returned to the standard that was last approved by the department of building inspection during the last permitted renovation. >> i think mr. duffy has a question. >> whilst he gets up there it it was me and i was the tenant i would see if there is anything on the permit and file a notice of violation if there were me. >> just i do agree with commissioner swig and commissioner vice president honda that is does seem to have a valid permits and signed off and it looks like the installation of kitchens we're dealing with here maybe the using the storage room as a breem and stuff like this but the fear we have they get the permit and never do the work and never complete the work that is what happens someone else moves
5:03 am
in the market that is can we put this permit is good for 12 months that gives them 120 months no standing violations i don't know if the board can put restrictions they complete this work and show evidence that the work is completed within a framework the permit code will expire. >> what would be if we conditioned it what is the penalty any penalty it is the same as the permit had expired. >> yes. >> it certainly it seems to me that the permit holder is intending to restore this i'm not quite as skeptical as everything else. >> i'm not skeptical but a fair point i am not skeptical but my motion i'd like to ask of the
5:04 am
city attorney can we tighten the condition- >> you'll make me work for my money tonight. >> within the 12-month period that that is a condition of the motion be implemented and well sorry to interrupt but what a notice of violation on the property a that's the deeds restriction they'll not been able 0 refinance or sell now and then none of that is applicable with the deed restriction sorry. >> tom owen city attorney's office i'm afraid that once you deny the appeal you basically will given up jurisdiction over the matter i'm not sure how it comes back to you how we would enforce it. >> if we put a condition that's
5:05 am
my motion conditional on returning the home back to the most recent approval by building department i'm trying to pit teeth. >> no teeth. >> plus the fact that it gives it a blanked permit we don't know what has been changed since 2000 whatever we disapprove with the tenants. >> no. there's no question for you i'm sorry. >> so is- do you have a motion then. >> yeah. i made - >> so my question for your motion in order to make it is difficult 90 to not know the changes if necessary to in order to bring that back to its
5:06 am
previously condition i think that is your motion. >> if this is difficult deny the appeal. >> okay. it would be - we'll need to coordinate with dbi to find out what recreations are needed to the permit that's the challenge. >> i understand i'll change my motion deny the appeal based on that is. >> permits ways issued correctly. >> so the motion from commissioner swig to deny the appeal and uphold the appeal that was properly issued. >> issued. >> okay on that motion marry commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus commissioner vice president honda and commissioner wilson no arrest there's a vote of 4 to one that motion does carry and the permit is upheld.
5:07 am
>> quick break okay quick break. >> welcome back to the wednesday, august 5, 2015, meeting of the san francisco general hospital we're calling item 9 again appeal todd davis versus the zoning administrator the property is on beach street for b.j. real estate for a request of a release of superstition release the two permits the planning department includes that the penthouse was not removed by the planning department and in conformity with the approved plan. >> director i made an earlier dloeshg demolish i have an
5:08 am
existing existing relationship with the reuben, junius & rose i hired the reuben, junius & rose for appearing before the board will not have any effect on any decision today. >> we'll hear if the appellants attorney you have 7 minutes. >> good evening, commissioners i'm showing 3 minutes on this i don't know show i oh, there you go i'm nicely and i represent the appellants todd's district attorney's office davis an the overhead is a picture of the project overhead please. >> it is 721 beach street right next to breft breft cafe a
5:09 am
penthouse on the 40 foot tall building and todd davis is asserting that both the neighbors and this commission this board was deceived in the prior hearing led to building this would be just 8 foot high penthouse the small as needed to be on the lead up the project neighbors appeal to this board following the approval the project by the planning commission when the project sponsor was meeting with the commission on the bulk and scale the project sponsors lead the neighbors to building that the project sponsor has removed
5:10 am
the large penthouses from this units from that building appellant and i sincerities that that deception deseat continued when they presented plans given to this board that do not reflect what was being built which was exhibit c to the appellants brief which shows as you can see and roofline there's no elevator penthouse shown that is the first page of exhibit c no elevator penthouse this is what the project sponsor presented to
5:11 am
this board that the penthouse was minimal if it was even existed at all project sponsor in their brief assert that the drawings in our c exhibits of our brief were just wrong because of the facts or copy this was what was presented to this board slowdowns showing the elevators did not appear the version in the c exhibit is in color but it is what this shows i have the color version for the board if we want to take it. >> project sponsor did not provide the approved planks we never saw the approved plans more did this board at the last
5:12 am
hearing which say was the attachment a i believe to project sponsors perceive on this and but - this is what the appellant or the board - project sponsor was saying what was going to be built project sponsors incorrectly when it and i sincerities that page 3 of b of their brief the skater penthouse is constructed consistent with the plans by the planning commission and by this board this board approved plans showing no big penthouse at project sponsors exhibit c page one the penthouse is shown at the merging is only 9 feet
5:13 am
tall so the planning commission didn't approve that penthouse project sponsors at neighborhood merging repeatedly lead the appellants to building this would be 6 to 8 feet tall penthouse area and that was at 3 different meetings at least and we have in our exhibit e we have 3 people that are attest to that project sponsors have never stated how it is that a penthouse over 8 feet is required under the ada the rational being used in their hearing before when then commissioner fung was asking about that they don't touch on that now the ada aushlt can be
5:14 am
viewed as a red herring because in their page 19 of their exhibits showing the approved plans only a residential rooftop only a residential rooftop for the one residential unit being built any number of single unit buildings don't have an elevator thirty to their rooftop roof deck that was repeatedly saying that penalty would be 8 feet tall in the brief that project sponsor attached as exhibit b at page 2 at the bottom of the second line it states in they're in writing the penthouse is supposed to be 8 feet tall now that was a neighbor saying it go nobody disabused the board
5:15 am
of that notation that was an 8 foot tall penthouse so it gets to be a problem that the integrity of the hearing the last hearing is really in question and if why have neighborhood meetings, why have a planning department review this when we can bring us documents that show there's no opinionated going to be up there neighborhood meetings where it is lead to building 8 feet tall, 6 feet tall the planning department failure not to point out that discrepancy in the prior hearing that's why the permit should stay in place.
5:16 am
>> thank you. >> thank you commissioners john with reuben, junius & rose on behalf of the folks jeff and eileen have a long presence in the neighborhood for thirty years jeff was on the fisherman's wharf with the appropriate development i have to frankly say i take it a bizarre appeal to respond to it is absolutely false the elevator penthouse is not indicated in the plans they've been in the building permit plans the plans that the gentleman showed i don't know if it is- there showing those plans in each elevation i can point to him in my brief there is what appears
5:17 am
to be a photocopy version in his brief i'm not sure where that came from two or three years ago the red marked plans were before you and showed an elevator outline and the mechanic systems on the roof the essence of the administration that the folks made to the project prior to the wroolz hearing we removed the structure and the apartment was spoken to bit commissioner president fong was referred to incorrectly about the height and this is absolutely this is benefit in the plans you know what the gentleman said we will speak to all but the most risk tolerant folks drawing
5:18 am
the entitlements is two costly as typical once the entitlement was approved that was ultimately by this board the site permit the construction drawings were development and during that process realize in communication a different type of elevators that was slow down in the site permit a 9 foot 6 inch penthouse and a different type of elevators that requires a different height 14.5 feet to start this they went through the precise process you get our site permit and get the addendum it was reviewed by planning and approved by planning and issued bits department of building inspection that was the process you'll go through in that situation despite the fact those procedures were properly pursued
5:19 am
jeff and eileen were sensitive to the issue the penthouse when they saw the bulk of it two or three months ago and prior to the appeal being filed begun to long time ago how to reduce the size the penthouse we've now reduced it further what we've shown in the plans and brief i've got updated drawings if you're interested the bulk of the penthouse is 11 feet 24 inches that is just about under 2 feet turn around approved in the site permit and a small two foot by 3 foot block that are 12 foot at all and less than 2 feet turn around and reminder 3 feet turn around we're not talking about large amounts and the planning code up to a 16 footed
5:20 am
elevator how is it is riders to make that ada jeff's father relies on a wheelchair delay has caused the experiences and detailed the waterproofing we ask the appeal to be awarded and have jeff and alana come up he speak to you directly. >> good evening commissioners my name is jeff mooifrn are the property owners i want to make clear to the board the stair and
5:21 am
elevator a penthouse have also been constituent for the plans and absolutely discuss those are community meetings in fact, the significant modifications we made to the project in response to the neighborhood and prior to the planning commission hearing was to remove the two stair penthouses having said that we've worked to minimize the bulk of the penthouse as much as possible and taken it up we see the project is a perfect opportunity to grow our business and move back into the neighborhood we love we've not been able to make everyone happy we hope you see we've done our best to make that project possible for the neighborhood thank you. >> with the last thing i'd like
5:22 am
to have our architect steve to speak to the drawings it make absolutely clear. >> good evening, commissioners steve dbe'ser architects interesting seeing that the graft the appellant brought up this is what we removed if the building all in red was previously proposed this process has gown through painstakingly review the planning department has looked at this project a number of times as the planning commission approvals drawings are we're looking at reducing the height and bulk of the elevators by the assessors in good faith of the neighborhood we've gone balk to the elevator company they've
5:23 am
give us the opportunity to drop it down with a small piece with over running have the opportunity and refuge with that, i'll be happy to answer any questions to the process or plans in general. >> did you ever consider the under slum elevators. >> we worked with a number ever different elevators that is a piston driven not as far as we know the lowest tolerance available. >> thank you. >> i have a couple of questions counselor as well would you be able to chime in mr. dbe's sincere can stick around i've watched you guys on that hearing i decided to role play with in front of how would i
5:24 am
have ruled and what what i have heard i heard clearly a 6 to 8 foot elevator i heard clearly if i would have been on this commission i would have absolutely heard and absolutely ruled in consideration of a 6 to 8 foot elevator everybody was commenting on the elevator and height referred to it as a 6 to twenty-four hour and now coit tower on the top of your building. >> i'm going to interrupt and waving that around is not appropriate. >> not fully appropriate. >> so i sit here confused because had i - had i been on this commission i would have observed what my fellow commissioners observed a 6 to 8 foot elevator as the testimony
5:25 am
and suddenly a lot larger i wonder how did that - i'm trying to refrain from the phrase bait-and-switch occur but that concerns me also i'm concerned as to the size of the elevator if indeed 6 to 8 foot was commented upon throughout the testimony then what elevator could be placed - the issue not whether there was a structure i mean there's a structure everybody talked about 6 to 8 feet but 14 that's confusing and what efforts to minimize the size of the elevator to get within the 6 to 8 foot envelope that still the community didn't like but was agreed upon from my
5:26 am
point of view. >> commissioner swig if i may so as an architect we rely an drawings and dimensions the drawings that came before and actually passed by the planning commission they show a 9 foot penthouse that's the dimension there is a dimension off the parapet it is 9 inches according to the drawings 9 foot 8 inches tall i don't know what words but we use the dimensions that was what was intend and passed by all commissioners all the way up through. >> my question is i don't want to be argument active but get to the point both sides talked about a 6 to 8 foot twenty-four hour that suddenly raised to 14
5:27 am
feet i've built building and i know that you know when our building a building and going for the permit you work you're going to have an elevator or not not an elevator shaft and propose the elevator unless you've done due diligence to the modeled you're going to put in for budgeting purposes you have to know when our financial budget is for the building what confuses me, i'm sure our skilled wouldn't have been arranged for the building shouldn't someone have inspected an model or two to understand, in fact, that was a 6 to 8 feet and suddenly instead of
5:28 am
surprise, surprise, surprise we have 14 that's what is bothering me. >> i understand that is bosht you if that's the course we took we the do the research regarding that that's why in the approved set of drawings 9 point of feet parapet and did research i know you had a sight permit a general set of requirements and flush that all out during this process in flushing it outs wisp required to change a door locations and size of elevators by the building inspection we went from a standard smaller elevators to germany i didn't
5:29 am
elevators. >> i've commented on any concerns i mean, i'll let the course. >> you weren't required that the elevators was required. >> think what happens when we the a preapplication that is interesting we are under a different code the codes were still - there was some interruption interpretation as part of our existing existing if other interpretation we had to increase that elevator. >> it has gone down to 14 feet including the pipes above. >> sorry took my glasses off here and from the roof is a little bit different from the parapet the parapet is for all 11 foot two
5:30 am
to the flat portion and another 12 foot 8 to a small piece that is 3 feet by i believe 3 foot by 4 foot. >> your back up to 14 feet. >> that's 12 foot 8 minus the parapet. >> total including all extremities on the elevator. >> that's what we worked on to reduce generally, the whole area and able to reduce that bulk dramatically. >> maybe the department can shed light. >> how does something that was clearly represented and understood and assumed by both parties in the last hearing is 6 to 8 feet suddenly goes to 14
5:31 am
feet that's a big gap where did the 6 to 8 feet come from that of those what everybody was talking about at the last hearing and commissioner president fong and commissioner president lazarus can comment i wasn't there i only watched it on tv over the weekend. >> steve eye with confused about the reference the drawings is 9 to 6 inches there maybe been comments a lot of projects only so much time to respond to them what we emphasized the removal removal from the roof one last thing we appeared before this board quite often in the appellants brief no where was it brought up about the 14 foot nothing shown under the drawings what we brought we came
5:32 am
out and told you about the post site modification i want to make sure we're in front of the board a bait-and-switch is nothing we will attempt to do that make that clear. >> don't leave i was going to hold any questions until we went through one full round but i'm going to raise them now one is the jersey sized elevator is only required by code that when you provide equal access to the public is this elevator is for the father-in-law to be able to go up to the roof you don't have to provide that your plans early on does show an elevator that size that's one issue second issue one of your
5:33 am
documents i wouldn't track where that came from it showed the width of the elevator shaft on the south at approximately 8 feet is this 8 feet? you have 0 look at arrest the width >> yes. which is what months people are looking at a view of the address. >> so the engineer injure i didn't. >> please speak into the micro. >> the elevator he serves one - all the floors. >> not just access to the - >> what about any second question. >> you want to - >> i'll have to. >> take into account that. >> shall we precede with the
5:34 am
zoning administrator. >> mr. sanchez we're ready for you. >> scott sanchez planning department the subject property within the zoning district i don't see many permits within the zoning district that was brought to the planning commission in 2012 a mandatory discretionary review dr because there were concerns about the project at that hearing and the plans that were presented to the commission at that hearing two staircase penthouse and an elevator penthouse i believe the stairway were 8 feet and subsequent to that the hearing the planning commission took discretionary review and had some modifications to the project they wanted to project sponsor to work with the department reducing the quack
5:35 am
including the removal of stair penthouses and the stair penthouses could be removed will be removed and substantial to that we reviewed the plans that had the elevator penthouse and made other changes that the staff approves and appealed before you the project that was before you contained the elevator penthouse that was referenced in the appellants brief and made clearly in the plans that were submitted by the permit holder and the appellant and their brief copied the permit holders submittal and the very last page shows an penthouse extend above the roof of the building that is a clear top of i don't know if 6 to 8 was recommended to be the
5:36 am
overall height of the elevator their deal with more than like like 10 feet but maybe the 6 to 8 was in reference more whereof the parapet but that was before you the board did not grant the appeal and the project was approved substantially in the addenda what the changes occurred from 9.6 to an elevator penthouse that was approved and constructed our office was maids aware of this we acted a entity in hafts because of the members of the public this violated the planning commission that said no penthouses we looked at the motion and saw it said stair penthouses and the project sponsor prontd promptly we have
5:37 am
actually elevator penthouse that was not removed by the commission that was maintained in the approval and with that, we released the suspensions we felt that was on the plans the department approved and the height whether or not it was properly represent by this board that is a tall penthouse than that board previously considered with that said this didn't board didn't take any change that was done as parted or part of the addenda we didn't believe there was a need for the new notification we felt that since the planning commission didn't limit the mediate of the elevator penthouse that would be appropriate for that board the matter is before you again, you
5:38 am
have the ability to being if you feel this is not in conformation the project sponsor has tried to reduce the height and massaging it doesn't require notice but if this board feels there should be further changes or if the changes are adequate then i think we go go ahead with the release of the suspension and document that with the proper plan changes with the department of building inspection so maybe a little bit more complicated than the cases this evening i hope that addresses any comments. >> mr. sanchez. >> so the explanation for the increase in height in the elevator shaft or the structure that maintenance or maintains the elevator that has to go from a regular have a right to a
5:39 am
injure i didn't size did the department not know there are to levels of public occupancy and wouldn't that trigger the engineer new at the time of the review. >> that's not something we regulate. >> yeah. again in this district there was no notification requirement. >> okay. thank you arrest. >> mr. sanchez is the roof legal for public occupancy increase in scenario. >> under the planning code their permissive so no lower
5:40 am
level of commercial use not have this for open space want to check the calculations but generally minimal so i can double check the calculations she should meet the spaces for the residential unit with the roof deck. >> my another concerns for the neighborhood is the opportunity i mean, i have two the san francisco's finest enterprise thank you for that wonderful success and it would in any entrepreneural spirit but whether it be the fleet week or the fireworks or whatever
5:41 am
happens to be and that concerns me for the residence and the impact on the residents who are obviously concerned this is significant change to the character of they're residential experience so that's why i ask the question whether the restrictions on the commercial use of that roof and you're telling me it is really flexible. >> yeah. >> it could. >> this is the first time eave heard that concern come up but you know, i certainly will review the code and make sure that is correct but the 2 c zoning district is allowed particularly without notification to allow something like that and there are no conditions in place that prohibit that. >> question mr. sanchez would you consider it unusual to have
5:42 am
this kind of change for this kind of a project when you come back with the agenda there is significant that is shifted you see all sorts of changes on addenda but in this case given no flying notification requirements not as much as a concern as the project that required a 311 notice it goes on to the department of water & power they need a firewall within the required rear yard so those cases where the code restriction are more reflective we've seen people add another floor to the building generally in those cases one case i recall in an rfp district they had to go back and go from the neighborhood notification again
5:43 am
so in this case we have an existence that is taller described as a code requirement kind of deviation is not a typical. >> just to clarify i don't recall there being objections to the redistributing so the issue of how the redistributing is used i suspect was how it is assessed; right? and the stairwell. >> my understanding. >> not the roof deck itself. >> that's that's my recollection. >> the question is to the building department they look at the ada requirements and that's a cue for mr. duffy. >> so i've learned to what was
5:44 am
the been said i agree sometimes, we do so those permits going onsite permits and go the, department and someone has missed something small in this case it is big a impacts the height and you know what wasn't previously agents on you stated ada is very important has to be compiled with so in this case it sound like dbi was requesting a bigger elevators than previously shown on the site plan and again mr. sanchez said the plans are normally not details they're for the planning department to get the prong out so they can do the addenda they will be approved on appeal and the directors hooerlz and stuff like this in this case
5:45 am
there was a bigger elevators required i don't know what size of an elevator it depends on the code, etc. i need to know more detail so does that answer your question. >> okay. >> okay. we'll take public comment may i see a show of hands how many people plan on speaking on this item thank you. >> commissioner president lazarus if i can ask you to fill out a speaking whoever wants to speak i appreciate it to line up on the far wall it helps to make things move faster than. >> madam president and honorable commissioners i'm the president of the aquatic park association he represent been hundred and 80 people that live in the neighborhood and i would like when i stand
5:46 am
here to see the 2 hundred and 80 people behind me that are disgusted and upset about the elevator our board voted last week unanimously to deliberate of the monster of the shaft we were being shafted sorry no pun intended this shaft is permitted to be forever and modified the public shed that is really important to our association and we think that blights the historic neighborhood because when you look at it from the waterfront which is all of us do we walk in the aquatic park and the visitors and other areas of the city that's what you see this huge shaft of the elevator that with all
5:47 am
due respect no disabled person will go on this roof this is the windiest part of the city it is impossible to remain on the roof deck for a long time the intent of that is for mr. sears to respond to say questionable in my view it will harm the neighborhood and the waterfront i'm just going to be brief and say we whorling support the appeal and urge you to consider it. >> okay>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> overhead. >> that's what we're talking
5:48 am
about. >> please identify yourself and i'm greg olsen he live in the neighbor neighborhood for thirty years my friends are asking me what's is gone we see the tourists and they're looking at it i go up on my roof three or four times a year it is as tonya said cold and windy that project keeps mohr we heard 6 to 8 feet i was not confused we were told that was reducing the if not 67 to 8 feet tall for the variety that's clear their boosting about the removing and i said thank you for that we're here to discuss the bulk of the building and hoping it comes down and we
5:49 am
weren't focusing on an elevator and new all of a sudden it is a public assess escalator i was not - i heard 6 to 8 feet we were all thinking that thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> any i'm a neighbor i mean, i'll be brief but i recall the focus of the original hearing being the height and the effect of the change on the neighborhood i also recall 6 to 8 feet i witness the structure okay. this is happening then i saw the elevator shaft appear one day i was somewhat taken auerbach we checked with each other and ask you being so large
5:50 am
it is more twice as we imagined it would be we discussed it originally that's my recollection also i notice that every time i walk by so it is important to me to come here thank you. >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners i'm kathy i'm a property owner in the neighborhood i spearheaded the efforts last time we had over thirty people here we were disappointed the permit was allowed we're emotional about it but pleased with the board said we have to work on the elevator we're pleased so, now you can imagine our dismay and surprise with we thought it was a bit of a
5:51 am
compromise and now this huge elevator shaft and surprised to find out that might be a public roof deck i'm not the the sears were ware of before this meeting that is going - i don't know that is going to look like if that's the case so we hope utensil reconsider and help us with this issue. >> thank you very much. >> did you have a speaker card to hand in. >> thank you. next speaker, please >> good evening. i'm - i moved into the neighborhood two years ago prior to the discussion of the plan my perspective it a little bit different that is an international landmark and people come from around the world for pictures when you get
5:52 am
a infrastructure it interferes with that it impacts someone who would say concerned about the city i see that is a negative view we'll have i'm proud of your city but that is something thanks. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and commissioners i'm bernard my family and i live only north point street parallel to the street i'm here on behalf of another neighbor given the questions regarding the representations made to the neighbors and more importantly to the board the unique location of the site the impact on the waterfront by the park and the long lasting consequences of the
5:53 am
board decision will be at the waterfront most likely after we're all gone i urge the board to leave the suspension in place and allow for further hearing on how the building permits was initially obtained a night for this elevator shaft i compared to anyone else the elevator used by the safeway at the north pointed shopping center it was that wide and deep so one individual to me seems it will be used for commercial base i ask you to allow for further time to resolve this issue in the meantime, i hope that mr. and mrs. assessors with nice people royals what a great opportunities and how fortunate to develop a unique visible site
5:54 am
on san francisco water area so they will be proud to leave a legacy to their family to north beach, festers, russian area and the city of san francisco but we rely on t you thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm shawn the son of jeff and eileen. >> your times to speak would be as a family member if you want to speak during rebuttal you can do that anyone else to speak under public comment. >> no. you may not. >> okay. any other public comment. >> my name is should he be i
5:55 am
haven't filled out a card but i will there are several buildings in that area as many of you may know one of our big concerns that came up repeatedly during the hearings and neighborhood meetings this sets a precedence that pretty much changed the character of that waterfront i think you ought to take into account this building is really so much different than already there so my big concern i think we're setting a precedent from here on we like an open season on the wonderful waterfront that we have thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment. >> if you're going to speak please come forward.
5:56 am
>> my name is danny hoe fortunately, there are my customers i own the chinese restaurants in fisherman's wharf so for me is i want everybody happy so i hope everybody compromises you know we negotiate and compromise whenever ways we e because we want the city and beauty everybody have their own view i wish we solve the problem and that's what i'm saying you know that's my customer and those are my customers he hope everybody compromises something so what's happening thank you. >> any on the. seeing none, we'll start with the rebuttal and that will be
5:57 am
with the appellants >> hello niles again there are two main points i'd like to bring up, first of all, the drawings i attached the drawings presented to that board reference by the zoning administrator in the 3 drawings two of them don't show any elevators shaft a little owl you can't tell what it is so the drawings i presented to this board a correct example of the exhibit d drawings they're the before drawings not the big elevator penthouse the c drawings the
5:58 am
within that was brebd to this board were after they told the pay your fair share told the neighborhood we're getting rid of the big elevators the second main issue i have with the logic being presented about the elevator is boat strapping they presented an elevator to this board based on ada requirements that had to go to the roof there's no ada requirements this elevator has to give access to a residential recover it maybe needs an enginegesture i didn'ts but the roof deck needs to be the same elevator a number of ways that assess can be granted
5:59 am
for the people that you're going to live in that residence whether a list through a staircase or smaller elevator at a different location the ada issue presented to this board was false that they had to have the elevators penthouse on the roof for the ada is not true and it only has to be in the commercial areas so there's beside the bait-and-switch on 9 foot 6 has nothing to do with with the parapet only 9 feet 6 you've got them using code let's get this big commercial elevator and binge it up to the roof for us that's our concern thank you.
6:00 am
>> sir. >> thank you, commissioners john here again i can walk those plans i'm looking at elevator plan on the east and north and west elevation those are the plans if there's a question, please we'll point them out steve and i were discussing the discrepancy of 6 to 8 feet part of the miefks prior to the planning commission hearing not to get rid of the stairways but removed we reduced a 42 inch parapet to 12 inches 12 foot parapet down to one feet 3 and a half bus 6 is 9 and a half what is being showed a 6 to 8 feet above what the parapet
6:01 am
was must have been referenced to the previous parapet and at this point, we're at within two or three feet above 9 and a half you add 3 feet 3 and a half feet i believe that's where the discrepancy is i don't want to question the board athletic determination i want to make sure we've been consistent on the plans and this is has been the center of the discussion the whole time and commissioner president fong and steve went back and measured the width of that penthouse 8 feet in change so i guess what i want to say that you know this is because of situation with the penthouse in view of a number of homes in and about it is visible more than the inadequately modifications
6:02 am
to a project but i again, i defer to the board on its determination about that athletic qualities but want to emphasis the hostage and truthfulness that jeff and i have put forward that was discovered on the sight permit we realized there was some movements 6 to 8 feet and that was a modification made in the addenda not typical in that public fashion i wanted to finish as well i don't feel terribly comfortable talking about the limits of the board's jurisdiction and i'm not going to arrest i'll defer to the city attorney on this this is a project that has been accomplished and invested under state law a valid building permit and significant
6:03 am
signatures into the building including the payment for the slate and construction and expenditures have been made this i don't want to august that i'll leave that for the attorney and questions. >> the 8 feet you referenced was your architect measured it from the plan is the 8 feet width. >> this is the addenda plans. >> yes. i don't have is scale we the another set of drawings to reduce it the same wicket as 8 feet 8 it was in the original and the addenda was 8 feet wide that didn't change that. >> do you have a vested rights you shouldn't have built something in the first place. >> no. >> i'm funning since i was
6:04 am
mayor why is this elevator to the roof first place and why wasn't i think so it has to go for commercial use but why does this elevator have to go to the roof in the first place and a structure on top of the roof if the elevator going interest you'll have the mechanic system but why a full sized elevator go there what's the necessity. >> to speak to the point about the commercial elevators going to the roof the whole purpose of the modification prior to the planning commission ways to reduce the budget on the roof as much as possible so you know putting a second elevator in this this mark farrell for that was not really - >> your miss hearing me
6:05 am
why does an elevator have to appear on - to go on top of that roof what's the purpose of this elevator openly on top of that roof understanding the structure was they're going below you have the mechanics but what is the purpose of having an elevator open on to this roof at this point, a fundamental question. >> the shorts answer to provide the exact date access to the roof in which jeff's father is in clear. >> i'm having a hard time here. >> so one person in a wheelchair needs to get into a roof where the wind gusts to high elements i live 3 miles
6:06 am
away i know the i know the weather and i used to work at 450 beach front street very familiar why does anybody needs to get on top of that roof by means of an elevator that's a fundamental question with all due respect to jeff's father. >> the answer explicit change they sdandz this for the business and family there's no other explanation. >> and it would be possible in the spirit of neighborhood concern in the spirit changing the character of the architecture on an internationally known location it be wyoming be a postal to connotation compromise and not have if elevator to open for a
6:07 am
minimal purpose is that true. >> the design and construction of a different elevator could provide absolutely without going to the roof yeah. >> okay mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department so we reviewed it was stated clearly this is a residential roof deck the site was issued the site roof deck and the addenda says it is a residential roof deck with the dwelling unit no authorizations to have any other type of use the permits don't allow if so just wanted to state that this was a suspension that a permit that was approved the addenda shows what they're building they're building
6:08 am
matches and issued an addenda it was approved by all agencies as part of and i deny process there are changes not requiring a new notice no board put a refresh my recollection restrictions so that's where we are today a question whether i reviewed them in my discretion this before you to consider but know i appreciate the concerns regarding the potential commercial use the project sponsor and their person said no attention it requires a change the permit didn't allow it if there's a proposal we'll need to prove review that it may
6:09 am
require a discretionary review authorization but there's no proposal not on the plans it is a clear residential retirement board that provides open space and yeah open space for this units i'm available to answer any questions. >> i have a question not this is going to get us anywhere if you hadn't mistakenly issued the suspension we couldn't be here; is that correct. >> joe duffy reminded me (laughter) well that's two of us. >> i have a question mr. sanchez. >> so since this is eventually a iconic part of san francisco lots photos this will change the sceney you have the flat spots
6:10 am
this 8 foot 8 by 8 foot foot 8 can they can advertising or logos or lights. >> any of the signed permits again in the district it needs to be a business sign potentially but we would again that could be required a permit so there's a lot of speculation against what may potentially happen but we'll need to review the signage and proposals that is potentially lauding allowed to rereview. >> you look at the congress. >> no different on a stairway penthouses from the building wall as opposed to on the building wall that is not a new
6:11 am
structure that was a structure on the approved plan it is clear on all the plans that i've seen an elevator penthouse 9 foot 6 on the plans it is taller on the addenda went up to 14.6 i heard down to 11 or telephone foot so a couple of feet turn around reviewed by the board at the previous hearing maybe a concern or issue about whether it is or 8 feet it is clear if the materials the basis of appeal and the reference was concerned about the elevator penthouse how can someone say never a penthouse here. >> even though the plans and the permits clearly statistics 9.6 according to everybody when people say 6 and 8 foot that permit holders eventually know that was 9.6 with the contention
6:12 am
because i was there will was quite a few of the folks in the audience that night if there's a misconception it should be cleared up now we've got a bigger issue. >> i agree that is a lesson i don't believe that the full approved plans were provided to the board for this hearing the project manager made and i abbreviated submittal but insuring the board has a complete plan with making a decision that would be helpful if we can get to the bottom of things at the hearing and i think the sensitive expressed here a reasonable and responsible we're here to i think protect the public trust we're here to protect the city of san francisco this is one ever our
6:13 am
iconic neighborhoods not to be messed with lightly sears made this i can only compliment them to what they've contributed to a business stand point but they'll sell the building because they won't be here on the earth but that is a business they may decide to sell the building sears will be here for the longest and a sensitivity to the few feet is important and to raise as my fellow commissioner said what about the advertising and emphasizing it at in light and the conversion is a public elevator but the conversion to a commercial use on top of that roof we'll be here for a a long time this is why i'm no action
6:14 am
to grinds i wasn't around at the first hearing but i have an ax to grinds what could happen especially we're here for a long pet it wasn't interest now it is prominent if this was six or eight feet now we're over 12 feet or approximately 12 feet that gets big and prominent and that's an important change to the to the look of our waterfront that's where my sensitivity is that's why we have to take this so, so seriously that's where i'm at. >> i appreciate i'll add the permit didn't include the roof
6:15 am
deck. >> let's go back to the process a little bit i'm going in agreement with you yes there was an elevator whatever the metrics that were applied to that at the hearing it wasn't actually kwhafls built in terms of the process from your staff when after the site plan was approved the addenda goes back to you folks for review admittedly the ada elevator or stair penthouse can steady the height limits that's part of the code but does our staff look at something that changes from a volume metric projection on the sited document
6:16 am
to what becomes part of something much larger? >> yes. i mean, i discussed this with staff i believe that the explanation was they felt it to be in conformity with the approval and noting there's no separate notification required the expansion of the envelope didn't appear and the staff noted the commission did not restrict the height of the elevator penthouse and that the subsequent change was appropriate it is code compliant. >> i have one more does the historic review look at this. >> the historic preservation commission approved. >> sorry they approved it this one in particular i--i don't know the level off the top of my head they the review it. >> are they required to review this.
6:17 am
>> i'll need to take into account the notes what level if any preservation review is required. >> we look at the buying the windows is not to the effect of how it effects our city look but we have a skyline roof of one of the most famous cities in the worlds should be some overall view. >> i appreciate that is the rooftop compliance it is complying something not unclassification of the neighborhood they have penthouse but they want a larger one not the only penthouse in the neighborhood. >> thank you. >> commissioners the matter is submit. >> does anyone have anything to say. >> i've heard that before.
6:18 am
>> i have a question. >> i'm curious mr. duh if you looked at this photo i'm countering plywood sheets does that look like 8 feet to you. >> the photo. >> uh-huh. >> sorry what was the photo. >> not sure which photo. >> in the brief. >> that photo there. >> no, it didn't look like it is solid. >> in terms of the width. >> offering sorry 4 feet width looks like 3. >> a little bit less than 3. >> maybe a little bit more than 8 feet but not much. >> they said 8, 8 you the flat
6:19 am
is 4 by 8. >> it is hard to photograph i'm renewal to see how we hold the camera and things like that. >> is it on us. >> yeah. >> i mean, i think that and unfortunately circumstances that the elevators needs to be switched because of lack of overview when it is there i would only be willing to agree if there are additional conditions or special refresh my recollection no commercial use on the roof deck, no use of advertising and that it is 12 foot one at a maximum height agency the architect caught. >> counting from where they talk about the roof and the
6:20 am
parapet. >> actually, let's go through i have a different thinking outside the box opinion. >> commissioners that is the zoning administrators discussion. >> whether to keep the zoning commission or not. >> to me the process of a site permit is one you're showing the extent of with what your proposing therefore an obligation to hold to that i don't think they held to that i don't accept the arguments just because a mustache or manufacturing can't give them what they want is a relevant excuse we brought that up at the previous hearing they said well this is a what we went with that's a volume metric agreement made the project sponsor and
6:21 am
planning should have made that kind of review whether switched from 9 up to 14 to me that's not part of the agreement so therefore i can't support the release of the suspension. >> so if the suspension is kept in place what are the consequences ever that maybe mr. sanchez can answer that since he got up. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department so the board does want the suspension to remain in place there is a ultimately released if suspension it could be they're required to get a revision permit so document the height my understanding they're proposing changes to reduce from the 146, 6 authorized if the addenda a
6:22 am
separate proposal and you know we could reapprove that and it could get appealed to this board but i mean it's a little bit of a pickle. >> pickle. >> yeah. >> one possibility if the boards identifies the reason with for the zoning administrator, what say you? error and that could be corrected then that would address the problem so if he record because of finding the height was appropriate and disagree with that then they can correct that. >> - >> we need. >> as absolutely that's an example. >> i think that was the direct a that's what he heard in the
6:23 am
direction commissioner fung that the an error was made. >> what was agreed to, what was accepted was something significantly different than what has emerged navigate he gave a lot of reasons it shouldn't have but, in fact, what was accepted what was approved and what was what we're talking about now at 14 or 12 feet it is different so you know that's where the error is. >> so on that go ahead commissioner. >> i'm struggling because he says that he might have made an error in send it in the first instance. >> he misunderstood.
6:24 am
>> so i'm struggling where that falls here. >> under our analysis. >> so it is what it is now we are sort of handed this opportunity in a way; right? but we don't want to go back and revisit the structure in the first instance; right? >> talking about is did they violate the deal whether six or eight or 10 whatever; right? that's where we are at. >> we're where needing to decide whether the zoning administrator record. >> right. >> could i because i'm formulating a thought if we do reverse this da and maintain the
6:25 am
suspension maybe that provides them the opportunity for continued discussion and some attempt for compromise. >> right. >> which i think of necessity will happen in the suspension is - if our comfortable with saying the record. >> another a anytime that creates for the discussion at a minimum. >> even the 11.2 height. >> part of me is saying i'm not sure what the numbers are you want to see everybody work this out if it is only a couple of feet turn around like that not that serious i'm not sure that's
6:26 am
a safe promise. >> we can continue; right? or we can uphold the suspension and let the departments and the permit holders and public i think i'm sorry. >> why not finish our our thought. >> i want to ask do we have a concern of vested right issue or - >> it is something we could look into in not based on what is in the record. >> i want to make a suggestion yeah. >> i'm not sure if this board is comfortable so as of right now you are permits with 14 and
6:27 am
a half penthouse go in front of ever you, you we have drawings but nothing else on file we can if you want to continue this for a short time we can put a building permit on file that reduces that 14 and a half feet down to the 11, 2 and the 12, 8 for that small box that is the two or three feet turn around approved last time that you know puts the permit will require that's what we have to- unfortunately, we might end up in an appeal of that permit i'm not sure there are ways to process that more quickly but that is just a thought that it would think that is guaranteeing the fix we're suggesting. >> counselor. >> you just states the whole root of this problem you just said 12 point whatever
6:28 am
is two or three higher than what was approved by this board before and that's the root of the problem this board by my observation by our statement just now approvals something 6 tool 8 feet and now come back with something at 12 foot one or it doesn't matter it is two to three feet higher than than approved the issue how to get back to what was approved by 2, 3, 4 this board first place the two to three feet lower i'm quoting i directly. >> i don't want to august with you i'm saying the permit has gone through the process and approved as appropriate as unfortunate i'm not arguing you,
6:29 am
you but trying to suggest an idea how to move forward here but obviously i can defer to this. >> and 8 foot 8 as the dimensions for the guernsrnegur >> the reason with the newer trends in the elevators i was surprised you know even if they screwdriver original they're talking about voice type elevators that penthouse would have been 21 feet to get the equipment up there and it changed to you can where those days you'll get they looked the motor is at the bottom and stuff
6:30 am
like this but you still require a significant penthouse up above so when we went through this discussion before you know and they proposed that dimension i don't think it could be done they proposed that that was an acceptance of what the volume was being requested and therefore i think what we should do is go with our thoughts on the das release of suspense and they'll need to do what they need to do because if they make any changes a lot of revisions to the permit and that's appealable. >> so i would move to grants the appeal and


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on