tv Government Access Programming SFGTV April 6, 2018 5:00pm-6:01pm PDT
calle 24. i've been on this street since 1997. i know all the merchants and all the merchants stand with us. this say business that is gentrification. it's too expensive for the neighborhood. i ask you to uphold the appeal and deny the permit. i'll go one further, eric aguillo said let's close earlier and go with the neighborhood, right? every time we met with him he catered it to look like he's doing what we asked. he's not done anything we asked
and he says you'll look crazy. i'll add support on my own and go forward. yet, i hear him say he's willing to work with us. if he's willing to work with us, two years ago, hypergentrification was happening so bad there were businesses that are gone now and it was displacing several other business. now it's slowed a little bit. it's a different atmosphere but same kind of business. it's going to bring the same type of displacement. let's see what he wants -- if you're a new business you have the right to be there but should they get everything they want because they can? no. he should have to prove he's really willing to work with us. say he closes at 9:00 for the
first year. he takes two tables away. if he does that for a year and still there and still going all right, then, let's have some lateral moves to show he's willing to work with us. i see the guy every day. is he willing to work with us? like can we work something out or come to some agreement. calle 24 has come from a place where they didn't listen and trash was on the street and services weren't given to our neighborhood. violence and yes, our neighborhood was dangerous. those who have been here five years that think the neighborhood's dangerous should have been here five years ago. we're always looking for a solution. i don't see him trying to work with us. >> your time is up.
>> the clerk: any other public comment, please step forward. >> good evening, commissioner. i'm patricia delgado from the restaurant and here to support their request for outdoor seating. i've been to the restaurant and taken my family to the restaurant. it's a good location and welcome location. there's lots of things that could be improved on the street and it's a good fit to the neighborhood. i think it's a good thing and uphold the outdoor seating. thank you. >> the clerk: thank you. any other public comment. please step forward. >> it's somewhat bitter sweet. i've been 30 feet from this place since 1969 and my family's
been there since the '20s. i was one of the founding members of calle 24. i was one of the leaders with eric about the creation of a cultural district. i was one of the thought leaders about the creators of legacy businesses. something i'm very proud of. i was skeptical and remember taking a picture of the permit and calling eric and saying there's a business coming in, what are we going to do and how can we fight this. he said let's wait and see what happens. i'm glad i did because i kept seeing anna and nick walking to their business as they were scrubbing the floors, putting in tile. i thought, hmm , i said are you going it talk to calle and he said i already reached out and i was privy to the meetings where
discussions were had. on 24th and harrison i was taught you stand up for what is right. you look at people where they have and you meet them. i have to say nick and anna have met us more than halfway. they hired local people. they're a mom-and-pop shop. the price reasonable. i've seen many people of color there. what they are accused of is opening up a business and trying to make it work. again, it's bitter sweet because this is family but even within families you don't always agree. i hope nick and anna continue to not lose fate in calle 24 because i think we serve a purpose. i think it's a great organization and think the mission is very important. i see they're willing to help us.
and i know that eric and many of the members here have fought hard and will continue to fight hard but whether it's five seats, two seats or four tables, there's a business that's there it's serving a purpose and creating jobs and i live closest to that business. probably less than 30 feet away. i'm two doors down. i ask you uphold the permit. they did everything right. it's your job to decide but know there's varying opinions but as an individual and a former member of calle 24 and as a native san franciscan permit the restaurant. thank you. >> the clerk: any other public comment? seeing none we'll take rebuttal
starting with the appellant. >> i'm not surprised every time we talk about culture and identity it's always equate to trash, gang violence, poop. that's why we work to change the identity of us in the neighborhood. it's not about the trash or how people see us. it's about outdoor seating. this is about the business and what's outside to affect the latino culture identity. we want him to fit in better to the plans we have for the neighborhood. the seats we're talking about that have outdoor seating, close early. all we're trying to do is make sure it aligns with the rest of the businesses on 24th street which is breakfast, lunch and casual seating.
a lot of the businesses allow strangers to sit down, rest, our seniors to sit down and rest. that's what we're asking for. we're not talking about what's going on in the inside. if he can do that that's all we're asking for. we're asking to negotiate, if he wants to be part of the community to meet us halfway. thank you. >> commissioner: excuse me. what is the status of these design guidelines? >> last month we had a tour with the planning department and brought about 12 planners that toured all the buildings, all the storefronts all the way to harrison street and took pictures of the area. we were and --
>> thank you. >> the clerk: we can take rebuttal from the permit holder now. >> thank you again. i don't really have really where to start with some of the comments. it's nice to have support. we didn't think anybody would come. this is ann and i doing this so we wanted this to be us. it was nice to see that.
as far as the concessions, i state before we'd work with the city and i'd it would be a good idea with dividers. the limited seats we have already done and our hours of operation go to 11:00 that was another concession. we set we wouldn't seat after 10:00. i understand. we're changing the argument every time we meet with them to corner us so they can say no but we've addressed the issues and reached out as much as we thought we could. i know people get up early and i work 8:30 to midnight, six days a week this is a chef's life. i employ the people that live there. we know because we work right
next to these people. most them work two jobs and work for me the next day. i understand. it's not as though people are saying these things and i sit back on my throne and collect money. this is me working, employing the people i work hand-in-hand with that get up early every day. that's it. i wanted to address the woman if my language was not good, i mafioso just came out. i wanted to apologize. it's what it's come to. naively i went into the process thinking i would be welcome as a latino business owner coming into 24th street. naive, i know. it's not been a good process. it's been intimidating. it's been everything. i apologize if the language was
inflammatory. >> commissioner: i have a question, sir. >> please. >> commissioner: one, i enjoyed your brief. i enjoy a latino coming back it the community and doing local hiring. 24th street is one of my favorite streets. i've been going roosevelt 24 years though it's changed owners 24 times and i had a favorite place there but 10:00 in a residential neighborhood, are you negotiable. ambient noise tends to travel up. >> i thought i was negotiable before. we wanted to seat until 11:00. again, that's not every day theft week. we close earlier but we're talking fridays and saturdays. >> have you interior seating?
>> we do. >> commissioner: it's just is the exterior portion where you can't control the voices and the ambient sound that flows out to the neighbors. >> commissioner: unless i'm misreading it, are you seated outside 11:00-10:00 every day. >> we close at 10:00 p.m. every day but friday and saturday. our original permit was drawn for 24 seats open to 11:00. when we met with them the first time was mid march and he e-mailed me and said we have concerned neighbors. i met with them and some of the points made sense so we reduced the hours to 10:00 and reduced the seats. >> commissioner: i'm still confused. >> commissioner: >> friday and saturday are the only ones we're open late.
the other days we close at 10:00. >> commissioner: a hard close, everybody's gone. >> it's bad policy to not seat somebody late because i myself have to eat late but those the nights we said we would not seat after 10:00. >> i was going ask the same question. is last seating is at 10:00. >> the clerk: any rebuttal from the department? >> we don't have a rebuttal. >> commissioner: i have a question. so one of the conditions has to do with not using the permitted area during neighborhood festival or street fairs, parades and similar events. i'm not sure how that works and
is there a list of days or events because i would be concerned that there's going to be challenges to the permit on days that perhaps don't fit the definition. >> it's when the events are permit from m.p.a. where they would close the street. >> commissioner: that's what's envisioned? >> that's how i would envision it. >> commissioner: we might be able to put language into a modification as well. >> we could clarify more.
provide more clarity on the condition if it's a concern. >> >> commissioner: thank you. >> the clerk: the matter's submit. >> commissioner: i have a question for planning. can you discuss cultural districts and how the city's involved and what are you folks doing with this particular district? >> i can touch on it. the department's been involved in the cultural district here the last several years. we were involved in the creation of the district that existed there now. there's mention of addition work for design guidelines.
i'm not super familiar with the progress. in the interim there's no moratoriums on these type of activities while the design guidelines are being worked on and working towards an eventual adoption but the city has been very involved and the department with the cultural district in this area and other areas and in a variety of ways. i'm not sure if there's a specific section you have questions about and the appellant may be better able to speak about the involvement. >> commissioner: is the department staffing the development of the design guidelines? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> commissioner: okay. >> commissioner: that would be the only one -- my discussion is
we're going to get it done and from the planner's point of view, let's have another meeting on the subject. i would like more clarification, if you can provide it. it's a discussion because folks from an advocacy group are coming down to advocate design guidelines or is it something on an agenda, specific agenda at planning? maybe you can't answer that but i want to forcefully ask it. >> not being a party to the appeal i didn't look up our involvement in any work related to this cultural district or design guidelines now.
i don't have the level of detail to provide anything really meaningful here. the department's been actively involved with the community on the overall work for the cultural district there in a variety of ways. >> commissioner: commissioners. >> i think the restaurant has gone through the proper channels. i think they've had the proper hearings. i think the community has had their day in court and a fair decision was rendered in a fair
hearing situation. i don't see us messing that up. i would deny a motion to deny the appeal because of the proper process has taken place and it was issued properly. >> i conquer but i have a question on the specificity on the permit and i don't know if we should say the closures relate to when the city permits -- when there's a permit to close the street for sidewalk. >> commissioner: i think that's very wise and would be open to a condition. my motion to include specific language on that.
>> commissioner: i don't disagree the permit was improperly entitled but i will be consistent as i've been with a number of restaurants. i find the outdoor potential for noise late is not something i can support. i think a 9:00 last seating is reasonable. >> it's nice to see a business on the corner. it's been vacant. i'm on the clock a lot. the ice cream shop is tasty as well. my only concern is harrison and 24th is kind of a busy street, but at the same time there's still families and children there and as you're having dinner at 9:00 at night and sipping some wine, your vice will tend to carry and get louder through the evening and
this body has traditionally upheld shorter hours that are in residential neighborhoods. so i think the permit was issued properly i would like conditioning on the hours of operation and the suggestion the president made would be in line with something i would endorse or vote for. >> i hate to negotiate with you guys but i'll split the difference at 9:30. i think it's a big difference. being in the hotel, restaurant business it's a big difference. the last seat at 9:00 is limiting to a small business operator and i think a last seating at 9:30 where the potential -- the worst exit would be 11:00 at night for somebody having dinner -- it's
not horrible on a friday or saturday night. >> we had the deck that came up in a fully commercialed zone and we limited that time as well and that was in a fully commercial zone. >> different set of circumstances. >> commissioner: do we have a motion? >> a motion to deny the appeal -- grant the appeal and condition the permit -- you never trust me doing these things. a condition of the appeal with clarification that they cannot do outdoor seating when there's city permitted events then last seating friday and saturday night be limit to 9:30 p.m. >> how about the weekday? >> seven days, 9:30 i, i don't
care. >> 9:00 on the weekdays. >> 9:30 p.m. on weekends. >> friday, saturday. >> yes, thank you. >> commissioner: do you want to repeat that. >> the clerk: so also to clarify the days they can't operate outdoors is based on city permitting to close the street at 24th and harrison? >> permitted events on that block. >> i wanted to clarify the permit they have to remove the table and chairs at that time. you can stay until then.
>> the clerk: you're saying the conditions require they remove the tables and chairs by 10:00 p.m. monday through sunday? is that right? >> at 9:30 you won't be sitting after 10:00 p.m. let's stick with what it is i would recommend, given that clarification. thank you very much. >> for clarification -- >> the clerk: you have to come to the microphone. >> sorry about the confusion. original permit was to keep the
chairs out there until the last seating if you want to do 9:00 p.m. on weekdays is reasonable but the permit we filled out and originally discussed was to keep the seating out there until people finished. it's strange to limit if you seat at 9:00 and somehow you continue to eat until 10:01 we have to pull the chair -- >> we'll get clarification from the department because the department just said to the contrary right now. >> so the fer -- permit is for the set hours of the permit. so it's not allowing you -- >> at 10:00 all table and chairs need to be removed from the sidewalk. that's the original permit was issued. >> that's how the permit for the right of way are supposed to be. >> commissioner: so it's already adjudicated properly. >> the clerk: so your motion is
to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the issue it be revived to clarify the days the permit are inoperative are when the city has permitted event on the block? >> yes. >> the clerk: are you ready to have me call the roll on that? street closure. what is the basis for your motion? >> commissioner: the permit was properly issued. >> the clerk: okay. on that motion by commissioner fung. aye. >> the clerk: commissioner honda. >> aye. >> the clerk: the motion passes. thank you. before we call item number 7, i understand there's someone here who may want to withdraw item number 8, is that correct?
if you're just here to do that you can come forward if you have more to say we'll call your item in order. >> thank you very much. president fung and commissioners, ryan patterson on behalf of the appellant here to report we've just negotiated and executed a settlement agreement and we have our withdrawal request form. i want to thank executive director goldstein for her help in this and her many years of you've been here as long as i've been practicing in front of the board and have been a tremendous positive influence on how i practice job and it's true for many attorneys who practice here. thank you very much. welcome to the new executive director. thank you. >> commissioner: we'll accept the withdrawal. >> the clerk: item 8 is
withdrawn. we'll call item 7. john paxton, appellant(s) vs. dept. of building inspection, >> welcome back. [gavel] >> we are going to resume our meeting of march 21, 2018. we are on item seven, john paxton versus department of building inspection with planning department approval. protesting the issuance on january 11, 2018 to 330presidio avenue llc of an alteration permit. seismic application on bpa no.
2015/09/04/6211. >> i have a disclosure to make, i'm sorry. i want to disclose that i have in my past retained for lebron for legal matters, but that previous relationship will have no bearing on my ability to make a fair decision in this matter. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is john paxton. i'm asking the board to revoke the building permit for the proposed addition of two new accessory dwelling units a.d.u.s in the building where i reside as a tenant at 330 presidio avenue. there are three primary reasons. the first objection is the project applicant is proposing to wrongly take space leased to me and also other tenants in the building. exhibit j to my brief shows what space the project applicant is
proposing to wrongly take. it is well founded in california case law that a distinguishing characteristic of a lease estate is the lease gives the exclusive possession of the premise to the tenant against the world, including the owner. in other words, once the property owner has entered into a lease t property leased to the tenant is no longer available to the owner to lease to somebody else. sound rent control ordinance goes a step further and clarifies that the leasehold includes his or her use of housing services, which includes garage, storage, and laundry facilities. the ordinance is clear that the landlord may not terminate or sever the tenant's possession of all or part of his or her leased premises unless the landlord does so by virtue of one of the 16 just causes listed in the ordinance. with regards to the severing of a portion of the space for the purpose of accommodating an
a.d.u., the department heads of building, planning, and the rent board jointly promulgated instructions that a property owner must have one of the 16 just causes to sever garage storage or laundry space from the tenancy. these instructions are set forth in building department information sheet g23 which i attached as exhibit h to my brief. i do not agree to the applicant taking my space and that of other tenants in the building who have expressed similar feelings. my second objection is the proposed work to construct the two a.d.u.s will comprise the structural work performed to satisfy the city's soft story retrofit ordinance. for 330 presidio, mercury engineer required shear walls in the drawings which accompanied the application to meet the city's mandatory soft story retrofit requirements. mercury also drew the two sets
of plans accompanying the permit application for the a.d.u.s. not only the plans of the existing conditions misrepresent the configuration of the building along the northern property line, but the plans failed to identify the exterior eastern wall and the newly constructed wall at the eastern end of the garage as being shear walls. beyond that, the plans for the a.d.u. called for installation of windows and doors in the middle of two of the shear walls, changes which would substantially weaken the wall's ability to resist seismic forces. further f the structural integrity of the newly installed shear walls were considered sacred, as they should be, the project applicant would be precluded from installing a 6 foot wide window in the southern unit. in that case the unit would be unable to meet the city's exposure requirement. my third objection is the proposed project violates the requirement that a.d.u.s be
built entirely within the existing building inve lope. in the -- envelope. in the reply brief, it was acknowledged that the project you would wo include a small expansion of the ground floor beneath the second floor, except that expansion is instead outside of the existing building envelope. i call your attention to that small expansion as drawn in red in exhibit j of my brief. the most troubling part of this is the status of the existing building was misrepresented as having one straight, continuous wall along the northern property line. the planning department relied on that wrongful representation in reviewing the project and granting the waiver's unique to a.d.u. u.s.s and ultraviolet ma approving the project. only a little bit of cyanide in the water? exactly. any expansion triggers several consequences. first t project sought approval of the a.d.u.s pursuant to ordinance 3015, exhibit g to my brief.
on page five of the ordinance, it establishes the definition of accessory dwelling unit as being constructed n entirely within the exist iin existing build en an existing building. sectly, the definition of an a.d.u. from section 102 of the planning code is a dwelling unit that is constructed entirely within the existing build envelope. because the project would extend outside the built envelope, it no longer qualifies as an a.d.u., and is no longer eligible for the waivers provided to a.d.u. -- provided to a.d.u.s. and thirdly, section 3.11 of the planning code provides for notice to nearby property owners and most instances when new construction is proposed. in this situation the expansion of the building envelope triggers notice provisions of section 311, which the project applicant failed to do.
in his brief, he suggested that the small expansion of the ground floor is allowed since it is an open area under a cantilevered room or rooms built on columns. in this situation there is no cantilevered room or room built on columns. above the proposed expansion. if the project applicant recants and says the unit would be contained entirely within the existing building envelope, he runs into other problems. for example, the bedroom on the northern unit would be reduced by approximately 20 square feet, reducing the area to less than the minimum 120 square feet needed for it to be eligible as a qualifying room under the city's exposure requirements. thank you for your time, considerations, and thought. >> thank you. >> mr. vettle.
>> good evening, commissioners. steve vettle of on behalf of the permit holder and the principle of the ownership of the project. just a couple of housekeeping matter. i do have copies of the permit plans. i apologize for those not being included in our submittal, but these are the complete set of plans if you need them. a little bit of background, planning code section 270 -- 207c4 was enacted in 2015. it's been amended since then to encourage the addition of accessory dwelling units in existing apartment buildings that are undergoing seismic retrofit. 330 presidio was a soft story building and the prior owner completed the retrofit work in
december of 2015. the building was purchased in october of 2015. he was not involved in the prior seismic work or any prior disputes between appellant and the prior owner. mr. teboney applied for this permit to add two a.d.u.s on the ground floor in january of 2016 located in a large room behind the existing garage that opens on to the backyard. the zoning administrator issued an action memo waiving density, parking and open space requirements for the two units in july of 2016, and mr. teboney recorded a regulatory agreement in may of 2017 requiring the a.d.u.s to be long term rental units. as required by the code, no habitable space in any of the six existing units would be removed to build the a.d. yuchlts. there are currently five storage units in the room behind the garage approved for conversion to the a.d.u.s, four of which are used by the tenant including
the appellant. when he received the appeal, he realized the storage units should be relocated in order to not to remove housing services enjoyed by the tenants. revised plans in exhibit f in our brief show how the storage units will be relocated and all other housing services including parking, laundry, and bicycle parking are maintained. first point, the zoning administrator and d.b.i. did not abuse their discretion in approving the proposed a.d.u.s. the application met the requirements of the planning code and the decision to waive density, parking space were expressly authorized by section 207. there is no code-based reasons for this board to disapprove the permit. secondly, the revised a.d.u. plans preserve appellant's and all other tenant's housing services. section 207 prohibits construction of a.d.u.s within an existing dwelling unit when other inhabitable space, but the code permits and in fact,
encourages common areas to be converted to a.d.u.s. in fact, it would be almost ill possible to do so without modifying common areas. appellant disregards the distinction and asks to revoke the permit because he claims he has the right to possess the building's common areas. and that the permit would result in the loss of housing services. it's important to make the distinction between space within a dwelling unit, which cannot be converted to an a.d.u. and services provieded by the landlord and common areas such as louaundry and storage and th space converted to an a.d.u. we are talking about services in this case. appellant makes a claim actually that he has the right to occupy all of this common area but his lease is not to provide the use of two parking spaces for the three-bedroom unit on the fourth floor. and access to one of the storage units which will be maintain and relocated.
we agree the rent control ordinance requires a just cause eviction when housing services are removed from the building, but the ordinance does not prohibit a landlord from relocating housing services. when mr. tebboney became aware of this rent control, he advised the engineer to revise the drawings while retaining or relocating all existing housing services provided to his tenants. to do so we propose that the board accept the appeal only for the purpose of ordering the plan's modified to relocate the housing services and maintain an equivalent level of housing services for all the tenants. with this revision, he is directly addressed appellant's allegation of a loss of housing services, and no loss of housing service wills occur. in the event that appellant believes the relocated storage units, laundry, and bicycle parking still represents a reduction in housing services, the remedy is to seek a rent
reduction from the rent board by filing a tenant petition. the remedy is not to seek the denial of a properly issued a.d.u. permit for two new units. thirdly, appellant's complain about the prior seismic retrofit work are irrelevant to the a.d.u. unit and does not comprise the integrity of the seismic work. we stand by the permits that were approved. the last point is the allegation that the physical dimension of the proposed a.d.u.s do not comply with the planning code. appellant claims that the a.d.u. unlawfully authorizes an expansion of the 330 presidio building. appellant is correct that in some -- that some areas of the first floor under the second floor will be filled in as part of the a.d.u. construction, but that is explicitly authorized by section 207. it states, quote, an accessory
dwelling unit shall be constructed entirely within the built envelope of the existing building. for purposes of this provision, the built inve lope will appear under the cantilevered room or a room built on columns. that is the situation here with a small area of the ground floor with a cantilevered room or a room built on columns over it. the a.d.u. ordinance allows that area to be filled in as part of an a.d.u. permit. and section 311 of the planning code does not require a 311 notice for that kind of small n infill from the lower unit completely beneath rooms above. accordingly, our position is that it is thor authorized by t planning code and properly approved by the building permit. to finish on a policy statement, the city is making every effort to increase affordable housing supply by encouraging small, affordable by design a.d.u.s,
particularly if existing buildings undergoing seismic retrofit. we urge the board to implement that city policy by affirming the permit, granting the appeal only for the purpose of allowing us to relocate the storage units and other housing services. thank you. >> you are asking this board to grant the appeal and issue a special conditions permit? for the revision? >> correct. >> and that is reflected in those drawings? i didn't accept those drawings, by the way. >> it is not reflected in the drawing, but reflected in exhibit f to the brief. would you like me to put that on the overhead? >> no, i don't need that. i saw that. has staff put that down? >> next question please. >> mr. vettle. >> under the so-called cantilev cantilevered overhang, what -- by doing that infill, how many
square feet are we talking about? >> less than 100. maybe 50. >> okay. so tiny. >> pardon? >> about the size of his desk. >> yep. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. teague. >> good evening, again, president funning and commissioners. -- president fung ad commissioners. the permit was originally filed in january of 2016. it was reviewed by our flex team in the department which reviews essentially all of the a.d.u. permits. it was required to receive an administrative zoning administrative waiver from density, open space, and parking. it did receive that in july of 2017. it also met all of the code
requirements for the creation of new a.d.u.s in this situation. the a.d.u. allowed in buildings that have already four or more dwelling units and unlimited amount of new a.d.u.s as long as you meet all other code requirements. this is the existing building is a six dwelling building and they were allowed to propose more than one. it required the waivers for density because the maximum density is four dwelling units and the current building already contains six and open space and parking. there are also eviction controls for new a.d.u.s, if any, owner moves in within five years of the application or in the thought of eviction within the last 10 years of the application and the a.d.u.s cannot be created. we requested an eviction report from the rent board, and that did show no such evictions had occurred. so again, the permit was
reviewed and determined to be completely compliant with the planning code. the issues raised regarding the housing services are not generally under the purview of the planning department as a real estate and rent issue which is handled by the rent board. the d.b.i. bulletin g23 referenced as well as the a.d.u. fact sheet call out this issue specifically so that project sponsors and building issuers can be aware of the issue to deal with that situation. there was no representation in the plans that i saw other than the actual space containing the dwelling unit expanding. i am a little confused by the
cantilevered conversation and happy to look at that further. but it is true that the a.d.u. program was amended last year to actually allow certain types of in-fills of space such as under cantilevered structures for the creation of a.d.u.s. just the addition of a retaining wall that is outside of the actual habitable space of the a.d.u. is not an expansion for that purpose. any structural questions that were raised, i will obviously defer that to my colleagues at d.b.i., and the only other point i would make regarding the permit holder's proposed revision is the way they propose to move things around t four required bicycle parking spaces are proposed as vertical. zoning strait administrator bulletin provides all the requirements for the dimensional and locational requirements for bicycle parking spaces, and that states that only 1/3 of your required bicycle parking space
cans be provided in that way because obviously those are -- you have to be able to lift and pull those off a hook, and not everybody can do that so easily. and so it seems like there is plenty of room within a garage space along the northern wall to do one vertical space and a few regular kind of at grade spaces. i just wanted to point that out. otherwise i didn't see anything in the permit holder's exhibit and proposed revision that would be inconsistent with the planning code. that concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> i have a question. >> sure. >> so it does not require 311 notification on expanding on the footprint? >> no, you are not expanding the actual building envelope, and if you are in-filling under a cantilevered room on the ground floor up to a certain height, that does not trig err neighborhood notification. >> the other one is more general. so are the a.d.u.s covered in
rent control? >> they -- in this situation, yes, they will be. >> there is another situation where they're not? >> there are some types of a.d.u.s where they are not necessarily covered by rent control, but in this situation, they will be covered by rent control. >> last question, do you know roughly how many a.d.u.s that the city has right now and how many have been approveed? >> i don't have those numbers handy, i'm sorry. >> can you have an approximation or look that up? >> i can look it up if our system was working right now, which i have been working with, and -- >> the city is not working? >> sometimes we have some technological glitches, unfortunately. >> thank you. >> sure. >> inspector duffy. >> see if we can hear your voice tonight. >> thank you, president honda. joe duffy, d.b.i.
the building permit under appeal addition of two units on the first floor per ordinance 3-15 seismic application is referenced on a 2015 permit. the permit was reviewed by housing inspection services, building inspection, city planning as you heard, building department plan check, and also went through mechanical plan check, fire department, d.p.w., and our central permit. it was filed on the 11th of january, 2016, issued on the 11th of january 2018. and suspended on the 19th of january. the only issues that i felt was brought up that had a building department issue and if i can get the overhead please. put that up a little bit.
so on grid line four, on the plans, and grid line six, if you see the existing first floor plan, we have a solid wall going on totally along grid line four. and along grid line six. and on the new floor plan, we have windows now installed and doorways and one doorway, window, and window, and a door. and then on this side on the back here there are two windows as well. i know the attorney for the appellant brought up points on the shear walls. i don't see any structural drawings on the plans. that can be an issue. it was reviewed by building department plan check, but without seeing the earlier permit for the soft story, i am not sure if those would be actual shear walls. i would assume that was taken in into consideration by the engineering firm who designed the project, but i don't have the original plans to verify that. i think it was addressed by the attorney for the permit holder, but it's just something i wanted to bring up and looking at the
the notice of violation came in part because of the 30-second inspection i did. it was not hidden. we had an obvious -- >> the clerk: are you a representative of mr. paxton ten? >> no. >> the clerk: but you did work on his behalf on this matter? >> he asked me to look at the work that's been done. >> commissioner: you did it for free? >> yes. we were colleagues. i walked in and saw the plans did not match the building. the construction didn't match the plans. it took 30 seconds to get notice of violation after a c.f.c. had been issued. so i'm here only to make the point that john referred to a tree argument and i'm here to
corroborate the plans. i know in the conclusion he asked for the board to grant the appeal. i concur to that. you should grant the appeal and deny the permit to revise the plans. my concern was to the special calculations and my concern is that the despite the ownership change the engineer and design professionals involved are exactly the same. they've made four our five revisions from two different projects over time and to rely on the idea you'll grant the appeal and let them revise the plans and rely on the approvals by planning and building, if they had not been to the site
gives me pause and i want to bring that to your attention. why? because exhibit f is already incorrect. that's proposed as what they want to revise it and it's wrong on its face. line 1 does the not look like how it's drawn and line 8 does not look like how it's drawn. this is a concern on approving the revised plans without going to the site. i can't fault anyone if they get a set of plans and without going to the site to confirm it matches the plans i can't blame them but you're getting bad design and construction and the design professionals in question are exactly the same. thank you.
>> the clerk: next speaker, please. >> commissioner: don't be shy. >> the clerk: can you state your name. >> i'm a condominium owner of next door, 332 presidio. we are native san franciscans. we have a big problem with the expansion of the footprint of the building. one, there's a light in the back and i printed pictures off google earth. it happened recently and non-notice without mail and there's a 70-year-old person -- >> face it as if you're looking at it, sir. >> you can see this is facing up here. there's an area in the back and this is what we're talking about
and it has to go through the front of the buildings. on my side this is what it looks like. when they come in they'll see this and it goes out to this other area and now all of a sudden we're expanding this whole wall. there's no room. how does a ladder get through there. there's no fire escapes, there's seniors, there's 15 people in my building, six units, all condominiums, very concerned with fire safety. i've lived through fires. my sister had a five-alarm fire on union street. i'm very concerned about this with the impact of fire safety and seismic work. thank you for your time. i hope you revoke the project.
>> the clerk: next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm david moody a resident of 330 presidio. i've lived there over 20 years. first thing we'll talk about is the storage space and i know they've talked about allocating or re-allocating it once you maybe approve the plan. currently i have an 8.5' x 5'space. that's a 60% reduction in space so that's a concern. and we heard about this northern border wall mr. arigati and mr. paxton talked about about the cantilever overhang. there's no such thing. if you look at the google maps the northern wall runs from the dirt straight up to the sky. there's no