tv [untitled] May 30, 2014 4:00pm-4:31pm PDT
we're joined by the department that have cases before the bystander board and we have a representative of the planning board and the bureau managed 40 forty cents for the department of public works and representing the building inspection. two houses keeping items item 7 which the the appeal number a surveillance protest the parties have joinl requested this be rescheduled for july 2014 in order to allow the settlement term we need a vote to move it >> so moved. >> okay. thank you commissioner fung mr. packing check call the roll. on that motion to reschedule
item 7 to july 16th. commissioner hwang. commissioner hurtado. commissioner president lazarus. commissioner honda thank you. the vote it 5 to zero it is rescheduled to july 16th interest similarly this item protesting the building permitted on ethel streets the parties have reached a settlement scoring for a new reschedule. we need another motion and vote that i public comment on this item seeing none. >> on that motion from commissioner honda appeal to june 4th.
commissioner fung. commissioner hwang. commissioner hurtado. commissioner president lazarus. thank you. the vote is 5 to zero that motivator is rescheduled to june 4th and please go over the meeting board guidelines and enact the swearing in process please. please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices please carry open conversation in the hallway appellants and permit holder and department representatives each have 7 minutes to present and 3 minutes for rebuttals people must include their comments within the 7 minutes and parties that are not ffltd may not have rebuttal interest are are. members of the public who wish
to speak on an item are not required to submit a sprrd the speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium there's a customer satisfaction form if you have questions please speak to the staff or call the board office on 1650 mission street. it is broadcast live over sfgovtv capable 78 and dvds are available for purchase. thank you for your attention if you tipped to testify and wish to have the board give our testimony weight please stand
and raise your right hand after you've been sworn in. please note any member of the public may speak pursuant to the sunset ordinance. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> thank you. thank you. so we'll move to item one which is public comment anyone who wants to speak on a temp for in general public comment is now your opportunity. seeing none, xhaergz questioning commissioners. then we'll move to the minutes operative of may 17th. there's a slight correction on
item six the hearing request the vote should be that zero 2. >> thank you. we'll make that correction. >> move to adaptation with the correction. >> any public comment on the minutes? okay. seeing none then, sir call the roll please. >> on that motion from commissioner fung to adapt the may 17th minutes as amended commissioner hwang. commissioner hurtado. commissioner president lazarus. and commissioner honda thank you. the vote is 5 to zero those minutes are adapted as amended >> we'll move on to item 4 a rehearing request on post street
for the letter we've received a letter from the appellant requiring the appeal latin-american vs. the - decided it at this point the vote was to deny the appeal and uphold the permit it is code consistent is 80 demolish a delipidated deck and replace it so we'll hear from the many lamb first. >> i'm steve williams representing the lamb family that is owned the only immediately west on the post street for the last 32 years. was asked to represent the family. by noting for the board this project is not right the existing survey and deck configuration has not been
established and is entirely within the rear yard and is a non-conforming structure and the structure will expand with the aspects of the structure that requires two variance and fills the entire rear yard and moving the new stairs within a few feet of the property line and pushing it against the lambs home. that's the source of the lambs observations the concerns of security and fire safety arrest the lamb family wants the new hamburger but the new evidence from the project sponsor and that new evidences with the in the report that conforms and history of fires at the site. no one can get the 3 r report if
i can have the orderly this is submitted as exhibit 92 fires at the subject property first in 1968 and 1996 new evidence at the subject property and the plan and the use of the stairs and decks are barbecues on every level cooking on the stairs and on the wooden structure. from the beginning the lamb asks for the firewall to be increased and sprinklers will increase the fire safety. the permit is not an our it was required that a notice of special instructions be listed on the plans that were submitted for the permit that's not been
established. that the notice of special refresh my recollection will be on the plan ease been told over and over again, the site plan has been issued in mayor of 2012 that he this is the building permit that was issued for this appeal >> what really concerns the lambs i'm still not getting the overhead is there's a notification on the new permit - >> you think it might be too brightly and anyway, i have the permit there's an issue that we ask the board to rehear this you
i wasn't building you referenced exhibit 9 is it in the papers you've submitted with the rehearing request. >> i believe it was submitted. >> i don't have that either. >> do you have copies of what you put on the overhead i've had technical difficulties. >> yes. i do. >> excuse me. i want to say the 3 rs. >> i'll take a look at that. >> thanks again.
from the permit holder. yes permit holders. >> good morning, everyone. board and board president i'm the architect for the project. some of the things to address i talked to joe duffey after the last appeal that was denied and again, i affirm we've submit the required details in all that's required for the permit for the project to be built as far as the site project we're not required to submits the details of the wall essentials that's
done and this permit is not built from was to be addressed what was submitted and rewarding the setbacks and the proposed firewall and assembles that are noted. so this is a correspondence from mr. duffey confirming we'll submit all the required items for the property to be built according to code and also in regards to the argument the stair has increased no size is not true. again exhibit 4.
if it was previously submitted it clearly shows the potential deck is the same size if not smaller again not correct. again to the citing the occupant load it's not correct if you go to section 10004.8 in the california building code it states both outdoors and part of 3 and the individual groups r-2 are exempted from the occupant load so the occupant load criteria didn't fit for the outside space. so also the opinion that the project will have a harm
physical effect on the appellants property is merely an opinion we're able a code compliant firewall that's going to be thirty feet long and 27 feet tall that will improve the appellants property. so the fact that, you know, they're saying it doesn't meet the planning code is not true it's been approved by the planning department and been denied through various appeals >> thank you anything from the department mr. sanchez or duffey. >> welcome back mr. duffey. >> thank you commissioner honda's it's going good to be
back. on the permit i spoke to the architect and spoke to him subsequentially on the phone there's an addendum they can't submit the addendum but the details from the foundation from the firewall and the construction of the firewall and we could also get the notice of special restrictions on the addendum as well, i'll put it on the addendum or ask the architect to put it on for the record it's a document so it's on the forever in the records for that project and as far as i can tell their building it to code. the biggest issue ms. lamb wants the firewall to extend to her roof that's not required.
so that's it if anyone has any questions >> what's the differences within the roofline and the 27 feet. it's 21 inches more increase the wall 21 inches but the permit wasn't required at the last hearing i know that's what he wanted from speaking to them >> okay. thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you commissioner president lazarus and members of the board i'm be brief i don't see any new facts or evidence that justifies a new hearing this has been before the brazil and it's correct that as a condition of approval the nose of special refresh my recollection which was recorded for this property i was agriculture to pump pull it up
the plan was not there and the building inspector noted the process so they can satisfy this condition of approval and have it documented but that's not a fact to prevent it from being approved the fact they've recorded the s f r it's a matter of having it on the plans so the fact you can go to the careerss office there's a special refresh my recollection that's tied to the restriction is very clear and even more of a public benefit a than having it on the plan. i didn't see the 3 hour report it's referenced as exhibit 9 i don't see a exhibit 9 i want to highlight that that's in and of
itself is new information >> thank you. >> the matter is submitted. >> commissioners the brief resolves around the first one the adequacy of the permit dominates documents that's an administrative issue the department will deal with and the balance of the brief dealt with issues that are repetitive i don't see any new information. >> i'll concur. >> move to deny the rehearing request. >> before we call roll on that lets hear if there's. any public comment on that item? okay. seeing none. sorry about that
>> mr. pa check my we have a motion to deny the rehearing request. commissioner hwang. commissioner hurtado. commissioner president lazarus. commissioner honda. thank you p the vote is 5 to zero and it's denied. >> thank you. the next item item 5 is the subject property 0 and is board received a letter requester asking the board take condition over this ordinance which will oasis issued ton march 20th and the appeal end and the jurisdiction request was filed in 2014 the permit holder it, llc and the project to remove a legal unit to convert
to a single-family home we've started with the requester you have 3 minutes arrest. >> i'm nan an attorney in san francisco and practiced a long time in the city primarily representing the tenant and done other civil event. i'm not as familiar with the permit appeal process but when she came to me and received and she's here today for anyone that's lived her mom is 91 and she is 66 and have lived in the property for more than 40 years their spanish speaking family and spinal columns speaks
italian when we got the notice i got when we find out there was an eviction notice to demolish the property i want down to city planning and look at the dbi website and looked at it other dements documents. from my understanding the research that i did and talked about u talking with the planning department they've holding all discretion regarding the merger of rental unit this particular piece of property and the permit was issued over the counter i don't know if this - this is part of it i imagine you have it it says that's a
single-family home and it was recommended to me it was a house with an illegal in-law unit i went down and reached it that's actually, two flats from the front of the building looks like two flats it had two vacant units and the owner that previously lived below my clients passed and this was two generations down selling it the grandchildren. my clients unit has been there since 1912. i requested the oh, so basically, it's a two flats my client lives in one the flats the landlord pulled the permit to do plumbing and electrical and my clients was the first number in the series and the
ground floor the permit is relying on a single-family house much smaller than my clients unit and not having two ground floors. i did visit planning department they said it will go through a demolition like a conditional use authorization hearing the 91-year-old woman is unable to come because the heat her dollars said she's going to die if at the gets relocated this was a unit built in 1912 so >> i'm sorry your time is up. >> we can hear from the permit holder. >> i represent the permit holder.
really submit open the papers >> i'm sorry counselor i need to ask the city attorney a question. >> okay sorry one second so she represented me 5 years ago but it won't effect my judgment today. >> just quick we would like to submit on the record the owner bought this property as a single-family house and related on the the purchase documents during the 3 hour report that
indicated on the public record this is a single-family house and it's irrelevant how it looks like a pair of flats but it's a single-family house and treated like that she purchased it that way and it looks like the main living area that upstairs and the tenants have been living in downstairs ground floor with the illegal kitchen portion etc. we understand their clinging to the basement area because the rent is $507 there b will not that a discretionary review because denying the over the counter permit is intended for being for illegal 3 unit or more this property didn't apply there's have been tenants are
trevor with the landlords plans to rely on the city records it is a that's a single-family house she's paid the fees and i have nothing more but to submitted on the papers thank you >> counselor somewhere in the briefs. >> please stay at the podium. >> it says something about a lot split are they part of the same lot. >> it's a building open the lot they're built at separate times. >> is it a single lot and it's a single lot and i have a question too counselor so your client purchased it as a single-family residence what was the discloser. >> it was advertised as if several unit and during the escrow it was disclosed it was a
single-family house with a separate 5 unit building on the same parcel after the report came out so is he bought it as a 5 unit building with a single-family house on the same lot. >> but he purchased the building understanding it was used a is a 5 unit building. >> it's a 5 unit building and she knew there were people in the basement ground floor of the single-family house. >> two structures one 5 unit and one. >> yes. and . >> one is an actual 5 unit building. >> yes. >> and your client stating that's a single-family home knowing they're two separate families living in the home. >> actually, the upstairs is
have a doubt but the she knew the downstairs it was an illegal unit it was built in 1906 and the permit shows a single-family home house then. >> okay. thank you. mr. sanchez. mr. duffey. >> thank you scott sanchez with the planning department i mean, i'll be brief wanted to conform it only relates to buildings with 3 or more illegal units and you rove an illegal unit it will be subject to the discretionary review and give-up the history while the building on the 7 unit will be over zoned it would not b