tv [untitled] May 16, 2014 6:00pm-6:31pm PDT
building there will be a minimal impact of light in the morning but. >> that the part you've done the light no such. >> would you like for me to show you. >> yes. i don't understand all the light implementations. >> this is an exhibit in our brief; right? and so i can see it. >> i can use the overhead. >> my vision isn't perfect. >> okay. i'll use the screen. >> tell me which document. >> sheet one point zero the site plan and the next is 8
point zero and the lower plan is the garage and the upper that's mr. chang's at 8 flood. >> are you referencing. >> i'm sorry 8.2 zero i apologize. >> so the bottom what does that reflect. >> on the bottom it's the adjacent ms. chang's building there's a door we've notched that portion of the building up to the sky and the notch on the second floor too. >> could you point to it open the overhead. >> sure. >> okay. >> this is mr. chang's house this is our no such in our
building here it continued up to the building on this floor the back of the building this is the back of our second floor and here's the back of ms. occurring religious house and mr. chang's house. >> so on mr. chang's side is the 8 flood avenue there are windows in the light well. >> there are no windows here. >> so why would you no such it. >> it was a gesture to mr. chang's house. >> on the other side is the appellants property. >> correct. and where are the windows impacted here >> let me see if i can have a
photograph the white trim those are the windows. >> okay. >> all right. and when you take a look at the site plan there's a space between the building here's that feet and the building is not at 90 degrees to the property line it gets bigger as it moves out to the street this is the set back at ms. occurringries house. >> so whatever the yard are they impacted at all by the structure. i see the deck >> this is a deck correct. >> so is the structure of the proposed project going to impact the light on the deck. >> i'll show you a drawing that's a good question. as you see here in the east elevation of our building this is the online in ms.
occurringries building the heavy doted line this is her deck right there that's her deck the top railing our survey surveyed that point our deck is maybe 6 inches >> show me your deck again. >> our deck is actually that property line wall that you see the heavy doted line is ms. occurringries deck. >> what about what further extends. >> that's a fence on the property. >> we didn't label it we apologize. >> okay. that's helpful any other questions? >> anything else mr. sanchez.
>> thank you scott sanchez much discussion about the residential guideline and so if i can have the overhead if this is successful. so there's a several examples nicole they show a 4 story buildings next to a row of 2 story building this is not an appropriate design it doesn't it is not capable with the neighborhood but the sets back the 4 story in this location there is an existing 3 and two-story building and an immediatelyy building not to transition from the 3 to the 2 story building and what's a
textbook example we have a row of 2 story building with a 3 that's set back from the proposed line i see a dashed outlining u outline of the fourth story with the 2 story buildings that's possible to set back the third floor, however, for the fourth floor it must be eliminated so the guidelines have expressing considered such examples you've considered here today, this is a textbook example when the guidelines so additional in regards to the setbacks that's been 0 made one of the issues and we can see it on sheet a .2.1 that shows the
third story. but we have the setback of the third story set back to line up with the appellants property and also a notch at the corner you'll see the sun again, this front property line is facing the south so as it streaks across the line in the afternoon hours it will get light and the setback on the third story is to help with the light with that, i'm available for questions >> okay commissioners the matter is submitted.
>> i guess i'll start i seemed like this preliminary concern is the light issue and based on the fact there is no analysis of impact on light by either side i would defer to the planning department determination a minimal impact on the adjacent property lines it's not out of scale based on the residential guidelines so i'll be prepared to uphold the permit at this point. >> i would concur with that.
>> i think it's probably different than a light issue more of a vision issue in how those neighbors see their own neighborhood. as mr. sanchez knows we've gone through the neighborhood fights subsequentially and there's been a couple of height limit changes to address some of the issues in rh2 zoning. and so in looking at those things and i'm trying toy determine how objectionable this third story is over the balance of the other buildings.
i understand and i'm hearing with the neighbors that saying i'm not i agree with them it's obviouslyable i think whether you want to do the little things that the rtc has or whether you want to bite the bullet and say is a third story inappropriate with this neighborhood i agree it can be appropriate and therefore i'll vote that way >> make a motion. >> all right. i'll make a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it is code compliant. >> thank you. mr. peck check
>> we have a motion then from the vice president to uphold it is code compliant. >> on that motion communicating commissioner fung. commissioner hwang. commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda. thank you. this vote is 5 to zero this permit is upheld take. medical cannabis of the san francisco board of appeals i'm calling the next item 10 is neighbors of the green street garage the property as 1776 green street protesting the ownerships to larry of an
alternative process for the heat detergent we should wait for the fifth commissioner to return to the seat. >> mr. patterson ask i consultation the second swearing in. >> you can do that. anyone else >> do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. >> good to see you. >> so with the communicating in the room we'll begin with the appellant. you have 7 minutes >> thank you commissioner president lazarus and commissioners ryan patterson for
the neighbors of the green street garage. this is one of most interesting appeals but i represent a group of 25 neighbors that live around the green street garbage that's an automobile body garage only for parking. it's for a new water system and heat detect our we suspect something is being done the plans for example, don't show
the spray boothd that's been heat by neighborhood we actually decided to withdraw the appeal no since fighting over nothing about the appellant attorney said this permit is used to entitle the spraying. i was national fy naturally shocked the permit holder cancelled the meeting. on a related note i'm told the dbi inspectors can't getting get into the garage. this appeal is simply this permit is for a fire sprinkler monitoring system that has two
restrictions the first is a fire permitted sprinkler and if the system is going to monitor the spray green booth neither have a permit the sprinkle system had a permit but the permit was cancelled. this permit depended on on the integration but those prerequisite systems don't exist. i directing your attention e direct your attention to the permit holders h. a letter if the san francisco fire department from 1994 and he quote therefore the spraying operation must be permitted or
removed the spray booth was never installed or permitted. you may be wondering why the neighborhood cares and the answer a this. the garage is spray exhaust is in the middle of the neighborhood and the paints comes into the neighbors homes so the permitting fire systems is very, very important. i respect what they say by she is incorrect. i'm going to turn it over to mario the fire captain who was in charge of the fire planning review and ask him to talk about the details >> commissioner president lazarus and members mario
balanced arrested as mr. patterson states that's a simple matter a permit was put in but the system was permit process was never completed and not reported as being complete the permit expired my so again in essence any additional work to a system that was not signed off is illegal. unfortunately, the permit process the fire department that approved to permit the permit hadn't expired they'll ask the building department will tell them to reinstitute the permit.
and lastly in rectifying the fire department records there is no permit but the process was never completed and to date there is no legal permit for the spray booth at that address. >> i'm sorry, i think i miss our authority what's our background all i'm what i'm retired from the san francisco fire department for 14 years and managed the planning definition. >> so your statement there's no legal permit from the fire department did you do a review. >> that was part of the scope of my work i managed. >> you recall from 1994 there was non-existent. >> we looked at he history.
>> i - >> i wasn't directly involved only through the history. >> okay. thanks. >> i'm pat i'll be quick i went through every permit all the way back to the permit to build this building no permit was had and there's no permit from the 20s and the building department said they issued a notice of violation telling them to get a permit which will require a mechanism review so putting in the proper filters. >> raining an paertd son there are two appropriate course of
action to revoke the permit that's appropriate if the board didn't want to do that the appropriate could you say would be to continual this permit open the permit holder obtaining a permit holder first to legalize the superstitiously and the spraying booth. >> i'm yield the remainder of my time. >> doug how do you correlate the permit with the spray booth booth. >> commissioner i'm sure how they plan to do that. >> your fighting this permit how did this permit - >> right public school. the sprinkler system has begun 20 years without being permitted
or to date they've not been goes to obtain a permit the spray booth dates to the 90s and never a permit from dbi for that. it is easily con essentially once those questions are asked they can come with the permit on appeal today, this fire monitoring permit ties into the spray booth therefore the spray bloo booth must be legal >> is there a reason you didn't brief the case. >> we decided to withdraw this but after the appeal the attorney told us. >> it's a highly technical point you bring up it's hard to analyze without the documentation. >> understood.
>> we can hear if the permit holder now. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and members ilene on behalf of the many - the permit holder. i'll respond to the statement when i spoke to mr. patterson the day after the appeal was done he didn't tell me he was withdrawing and i was psychiatric i'd be living in paris but it's comments were focus on the spray booth i don't believe it's in use that's the reason any client is appealing that with regard i want many
macy's to talk about his experience prosecute the fire department and jurists appeal was filed >> i'm here because the san francisco fire department wants me here by the way, they called me open the phone officer jack and said the automobile business has to be spishd and the building was closed because i close it up to clean it up the tenant had been there are no 15 years and when mr. jack said it's time for the inspection of your sprinkle system i took the building over the tenant had it for 40 years i want it in my
name the tenant want a consul use permit they said you have to install the superstitiously system and officer jack said because it's been a while since the 5ier test you need a 5 year test i said okay. i called up the company to the 5 year test part of the requirement is to make sure that the outside works and the alarm company is out of business and the alarm didn't work so the test failed. the officer said why not put in a new staiks system i'm all for safety god for bid having an fire in the building and not have to invite the neighborhood
the permit is implied for that's why we're here. the sprifrnl system was installed i'm here e the fire department instructed me to get the tests done and all the stuff will the permits i've never received any letter and the prior system been tested every year since 1994. >> so 0 with that, mr. patterson brought up the past action it's mr. macy's only building in my brief only one complaint and
with loud construction noise. this came to be and again, i find it hard to believe that mr. patterson was going to withdraw the appeal because of the olympic threat earlier this year by ms. ledbetter and suddenly we got the word that they received complaints and itself dbi received complaints and it's been closed as a car ambulance he has contracts with triple a and so forth. with that said i'm at a loss to understand what the neighborhood p are concerned about no complaints to the city or many macy's or made to the tenant
that there was somehow hard effects from the spray booth additional now the spray booth is unknown operational and complaints when no activity going on only basically for parker that's for tow damaged cars arrest then the fire sprinkler permit is appealed. it's hard to imagine that if, in fact, the concern the repair the operation you'll royal one of the key permits to assure the safety the sprinkler had been operational the strishlg was operational and the inspections
was done so again, i'm at a loss if i had known all this i might have prepared defendant's guilt differently they've thumped their nose at the process i appreciate what under patterson's son said it noticing was not concentrated to me in no way, shape, or form how often do you plan on using the spray booth this was about the operation of the spray booth this was to speculate what the brief was and again, i know the focus is on the lack of - i would you have taken another route and how absolutely shoddy
this is we have gone over the permits didn't mean one didn't exist it's inaccurate permits get lost and documents get loss so it doesn't mean the permit for the booth was noting never applied for >> >> thank you scott sanchez is the appeal wish or for a permit for the sprinkler whether land tissues is an rh2 zoning process and a non-conforming use we don't see any issues even if the spray booth has been add it's clear their rod noting they
could, in fact, have a spray useful under the discretionary review authorization so other than the spray booth is whether or not there's a city agency that will require a permit and the planning department didn't require a permit but if there's another city agency that needs a permit we'll not be opposed to that if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> mr. duffey. >> commissioners on the building permit that's under appeal is a typical sprinkler type of work it's a with the fire department plan check. there isn't building approval apart from