tv [untitled] January 16, 2015 6:30pm-7:01pm PST
the codes before you thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> mr. sanchez you have 14 minutes. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department i'll try to be brief so the matter on appeal is the release of suspense request i'd issued last year my intention in issuing that request at that time was to compel the permit holders to file accurate plans that addresses the situation the appellants have raised issues concerning the project that was a lot of confusion that resulted from that we directed the project sponsor to submit plan that not only documentsed the adequate height of the building it was existing 34 to 37, in fact 37 to 40 pr so it come
employed with the code but we wanted them to have accurate plans on file they made the changes we learned after the issuance of the building permitted they wanted to dwelling unit issue this was submitted in the addendum so it's not uncommon we said that couldn't be processed under the addendum so we said anything you have as well any other changes you want to do consolidated in one permit and in my opinion that was not done in a timely fashion we were here for the original appeal off the federal encroachment permit last year, i felt at that time, we are. not mcprocess so i issued did suspension request they responded i think that was
a nevada us process and we asked for a lot of information there were a lot of issues that were raised by the appellant so we had plans that you know would exceed kind of what we typically ask for we wanted to documented how it was documented in the 2012 permit and how they wanted to to be there was a lot of information on the plans we wanted to aid the concerns raised by the appellant after we completed our process we approved it i felt our ordinances had been addressed that's why i choose to do that in october i would note this is a request to the department of building inspection to suspend the permit so if we are not the one side that are suspending it
is the department of building inspection who are responding to our requests and the department of building inspection has concerns about the concerns they issued a notice of correction in 2013 had told them to stop work and various levels of work necessary could continue doing but that all remains in place and certainly a released of suspensions whodunit e wouldn't preclude the suspension of work if they feel it's necessary we feel our concerned have been addressed through the permit process that's where we are again it's regarding the suspension there will be i assume an appeal on the consolidated revision permit i'm available for questions the board may have.
>> you're completely satisfied you did all the surveillance issues and addressed them and therefore our comfortable with the release of the suspension. >> weer new issues main raised by the appellant if we have concerns if he we feel we can request that suspension or take other enforcement action but we feel it's appropriate to move forward yeah. >> is mr.les in her still in the room okay. we'll hear if public works. >> you have 3 minutes. >> good evening board members i'm with public works i'll be speaking on the minor encroachment permit this is the case just to braefl give a
history when the admissible application was filed based on the proposed plans it was determined that a mirror improvement would be required from public works in other words, to permit it proposed combovp of the driveway for the new garbage public works only reviews in compliance with the p, code 88 for the travel of the public right-of-way we're not recalling to review the building plans so based on that public works determined that the proposed design was not in compliance in terms of the sloping and the amount as well as the 88 complies is to the public right-of-way based on that public works then issued a notice of intent to allow the time period for comments or objections there were objections
received because of that pbs held a public hamburgers a separate public works hearing and after that it was determined that many of the concerns were more related to minded actual building permit and in compliance with the building code so they approved the minor sidewalk operating permit was approved keep in mind that the minor encroachment was was the public works code and those issues were more related to the building code compliance i'm free for my questions you have. >> it seemed like inspector duffey want to address the board. >> technically i believe you're not a party but you have something else to add.
>> joe duffey it's not that be want to inspect feel that deploying brought up enough times and comments from both sides i'm somewhat familiar with the project i was the senior building inspector i'm not in the area but i remember the issues and haven't been indirectly involved in the past 6 months i noticed the issue of violation that addressed the height issue i will read that idea broefl the current height height is inconsistent that the height it was shown as a arrow on the existed it could be as much of 367 inches and it required a revision to correct the building height a revision pirate was filed but to date not
issued stop all work until a permit has been approved the recession go permit must be approved by the planning department the building has been raised by will approximately 367 inches there was an error on the plan the building was raised 3 feet you've heard this subsequent to it this permit that's going through it took a while to get to this point the permit is a fire permit to comply with the notice also to clarify the height of the building before or after being raised 36 inches there are additions to the site and revisions to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 permits so this permit is currently it's been approved as you've heard by the planning department sent to beginning and
currently being reviewed by our dbi plan check there have been correspond distinct giving them engineers and the architect i spoke to mr. wen and she said she's in contact with the gentleman in december she got responses to that shows pretty close to approving the site permit that's good news there's an addenda coming in for some of the work initially our notice of violation addressed the height a recession to show the sdrerpgs of the height when it came in i'm sure that will be spoke about they put everything into o through one permit which was a
good idea when it comes back we're looking at the dormer windows and roof deck so the permit is being reviewed by dbi and i think it's fair to say it's moving long and thoroughly reviewed the notice of violation is still in effective the notice of vision is a understandable the permit is not issued but planning is finished with their work so the zoning administrator decided to release the suspense i'm introducing trying to simplify it i'm available for any questions. >> did you say this accommodated building permit is the site permit. >> yes. >> it's an oversight permit because of the other work that got another perhaps the site
issue but all the things it is kind of like rather than having another two violations or revisions let's if you going to do changes get them on this permit that added nor work said have seen a permit to raise the building through 3 feet to so the discrepancy but the discussion i wasn't part of that i was led to be able they said it was a good idea let's get everything on so not to create a bigger project but it will clarify everything it probably will be appealed by it's the right permit to get. >> i know or thought the
dwelling couldn't are part of the work. >> yes. it's on the description. >> why couldn't it obey that the previous it doesn't matter. >> i--i don't know but it is no here this is the final permit so we don't have anymore and excerpt the site permit is the not the final permit. >> what we're talking about revisions to permits more revisions we hope not to see two many more it's gets confusing with revisions i'm sure you're aware of it's a good idea to put it altogether. >> okay any public comment on this item? seeing none then. >> yeah. i may i submitted two letters from two neighbors. >> comments.
>> sir this is public comment. >> yes. i'm a merger of two letters. >> hold on taylor's no p.m. public comment you have 3 minutes of rebuttal and wait a second no reason to be anger i'm saying two neighbors ask do i give you a lever letter and gave copies on their on behalf of is there something wrong with that. >> that's fine thank you. >> those letters are accepted. >> okay. that's all you need to say. >> so your 3 minutes of rebuttal are you ready to start that. >> well, thank you for mcmaking our case, in fact, that is precisely what we're saying in the documents the new commodity permit is not a new permit in fact, 8 by 8 was the submitted if you looked at the permits it
was addressed to a number of the issues for an umbrella permit so in fact, it was never a new permit but supposed to be a consolidated umbrella and that height was recommend in all the profess hearings it was from june about correcting the height of the building and it was added to it x fact two there's not an error on the original plan of the height of this it was done simply with concession they never knew what the number is this is not an error but an intentional miss statement of height 3 in the documents i've presented from ron tom today he states specifically at if 2:00 p.m. today they were reviewed by the department by diane is not final and has to be
sent to the city planning this not the financial he in fact insists, 3 the addenda permits that ms. dicks says it the whole point clearly discussed in the letter to scott sanchez when we talked about it she outlined precisely what she wanted a mechanism whereby there will be non-appealable permits not to a 311 notification or to avoid the neighbors and use those words in discussion with scott sanchez and to make sure that they never saw the light of day this is the most app ran so no one has dealt
with the problems we're bringing to you we're dealing with the process of it all the time but nothing gets to the bread and butter when are the problems for the historic building and the neighbors who have equally historic building and broderick streets are building over one hundred-year-old. >> okay sir, you have 3 minutes of rebuttal as well if you have anything to add. >> i would add that the ms. dick is trying to narrow the scope of the issue and i think that if you consider all of the factors that have been presented via this permit in beginning to the height issue there was a number of issues all
interconnected it's simplistic and it does not represent the facts that the issue is narrow as what is prepared i would courage you to consider the dissimilar it of all the issues there's arrest a an attachment of the process that is wrongs thank you. >> thank you, ms. dick you have 6 minutes of rurltd rebuttal you and i think i want to clarify the permit is a consolidated permit is enclosing close to be loud i want to emphasize to the board and has already been a project that is 90 percent interior altercations
so i take issue with the gentleman and i certifying inserting himself into the dbi routinely by suggesting percentage after beginning refunds it it about - will go to the neighborhood it is inflate the matter this is again, a building that was raised 36 inches a hifblgz building no improvement and at consolidation makes changes to the rear and again 90 percent of the work happening at the interior of the house the neighbors don't need to know about that beginning is reviewing it i'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
>> if i might finish off the the pending building issue this was a building permit that was used for other items revision number 5, 6, 7 it has its own set of plans it was subject to the discretionary review in 311 notice a stand-alone building permit pit a site permit so that's why it will be appealed to the board in terms of the height issue i'm going to choose on we'll talk about that when the consolidated building is addressed but it's at the height limit the gentleman says that's a problem but again the survey shown and mr. sanchez is gone out and basically said it's a 45
height limit even though the oriental cause of all this 0 several appeals latter was a the notion that the health of the building was listed 3 feet everyone thought it would be 37 and still complies with the height limit that's at take away of those consolidated building permits show that it's up before you and the lease is up i ask you deny those are appeals >> okay mr. sanchez. >> scott sanchez planning staff not to beat a dead horse the consolidated permit is again not on appeal just to clarify a permit that was submitted to clarify the height of the building it came to our knowledge he wanted to make other changes as if outlet
permits were filed we rescued or restricted them to put it into one permit the june juan june was done to combine the totality and ceqa this is a historic resource we want to make sure that all the work would not have angle impact to review the ceqa appeal was an appeal was made to the board of supervisors and it was unanimously especially e upheld as the board i believe in december arrest also, we knew there were concerns from the neighborhood and there could be if there were multiple permits a question of to e streamline the permits to have one hearing only
all the issues rather than having subsequential appeals with regards to having the appeals there's nothing unusual it's a typical process we make a sense of a project review the department of building inspection often they have their own codes so often changes that come about from their review and things get reoutlined often just stamping the plans sometimes there's no chang's or changes but they need a new stamp there's nothing unusual and the release avenue suspension again that's a request to the department of building inspection they have their own separate concerns about the work on the property they have ever
discretions we put this in place for them to file a permit they did we'll look at that on the recheck i'm satisfied we can move forward with the early suspension and the department of building inspection to proceed and i imagine we'll not be seeing i on the other permits. >> mr. sanchez one question there was a comment about the release of the permit will allow the construction what goes on. >> that's up to the department of building inspection and so what we needed in our release of suspension that will not authorize any activity it is not permitted any changes they're seeking in the permit not issued they can't work on that but it's
up to the deniable if they feel the work can continue not a question you know they have full discretion all so with the dbi. >> right they have authority. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners joe duffey again dbi that's a very good question i anticipated that will be an issue should the release of that suspension be upheld by the board i believe that probably both sides one side is going to work and the other side not let them work our notice of violation said stop all work that revision permit is the permit that everyone is talking
about it's has not been approved or issued we do in situation get into conversations some days there are a limited scope of work and the gentleman won't like it the footage we stop work orders but continue something not associated with an issue we'll let the limited scope of work i don't know if that is going to happen i anticipate that will be a decision happening with the day by day in the next couple of weeks i want to clarify the comments about bringing no engineers before permits are issued so they can scrutinize the plans i'm familiar with that ever happening i would courage the
permit holder to contact the plan check management and found out if that's allowed i'm not sorry. >> there was a comment about the gentleman being involved in the writing there's 0 nothing in our writing for that and we do our own plan check and approval we're a government body of people that want to come in and look at all our documents they're open to the public through the sunshine ordinance maybe that's what's been going on i encourage the approval or disapproval. >> just a clarify because of the november nothing should be done but the option to come in and talk about the samuel work that's not jermaine to the
issues in the permit and exactly but a lot of time you can't get very far i can't get cover up because problems with the roof the height and the dormers there's a roof deck i don't know how much they can do of we let them work i'm not sure but the permit the notice the violations said to stop all work until the revision permits has been done that is the permit that everybody's talking about the unfortunate thing a stand alone permit that probably would have been simpler but now the other things the unit merger and the dormers i've not seen the plans i believe there's extra work. >> we've seen in the past a limited amount of work to be
done they've gone bunkers. >> it is hard it the difficult it requires a lot more staff time and the staff time only 2053 bradyrestrict is crazy i can't tell you i get up here and say i shouldn't it is hundreds of hours i really like to get to them and i get this project somewhere down the road but i know interests probably six or eight of united states in dbi hass that has been dealing with this. >> any further from the public works so commissioners the matters are submitted.
>> commissioners. >> go ahead. >> you want to stafrt or start and no, go ahead and with you actually have two separate permits here one involving the encroachment in looking at the testimony and drawings the appellants have not raised anything recommended to the encroachment whether or not it was inner correctly issued regarded the code and sloped and thanks that are required other one deals with the release of the suspension the appellants have not brought forth whether the zoning administrator did not have conditions that were
satisfied and whether he record or used discretion at this point, i'm prepared to uphold both permits. >> as am i. >> a motion. >> move to uphold i'll do it separately ma'am. >> okay. >> the first appeal is related to the minor encroachment permitted issued by dbi i move we uphold that permit on the base it's code compliant and on the release of the suspension i would uphold the release of the suspense on the basis the da did not error or use it's