i, you know, if i look in my mind's eye or my crystal ball, which is broken, i would i would wager that the guys that we heard from in, in public comment would be the appellants, uh, if it came back in front of us and, and we, we and the nsr, if the nsr issue were surfaced, we probably would override the nsr because we talked about that. but if the issue is of privacy was raised and we said, okay, we can fix this by putting up a requiring a condition to put up an opaque, uh, privacy fence. um, it doesn't aren't we there? and wouldn't it and where would the variance come in there if we required a privacy fence? because whenever we seem to require a privacy fence, anywhere else, it's a condition of. the our approval. again,

it's really going to depend on which approval it was added to. so, you know, if you want to if the commission if the board wants to have you know, a structural, um, opaque screening there under the current code that's going to trigger a variance, um, you know, the alternative there is we can require, you know, landscaping of a certain height, whether it's bamboo. other thing that's kind of and those don't require variance because it's plants. so if it was a if, if instead of an opaque physical thing thing we, we, we required a, a trellis with thick shrubbery that would be the same as an opaque fixed structure. then, then that would, that would pass muster in, in, in the, in the appeal. yeah. i mean i think if you, if you want to deal with the potential screening issue as

part of this case, or if you want to deal with the potential screening issue, it should probably be as part of this case, because this is where we have the flexibility of the variance. um, you know, typically like even a trellis that's not going to work. but normally if you want landscaping, that's going to be screening for screening purposes , you know, it's typical planner, but the plant itself is a is a plant that provides you not not the support of a structural support like a trellis or something like that. um, so plantings, uh, plantings of at least, uh, ten feet high or six feet high. yeah i mean, oftentimes it's, you know, something like, like bamboo or some type of vegetation that, you know, is going to be easy to maintain and grows fairly, relatively straight. um, but again, that just depends if you want to tackle that issue at all as part of this. and it's understandably a little complex because of the nuance between the variance and the prior conditions of approval. but if

we can get to yes tonight, that would be nice for everybody involved. uh, and, and, and cut the time at and i mean, we would do what we want to do. we would get rid of the, uh, the spiral staircase. we would allow the deck to be built with, with screening according to that wouldn't trigger a variance. and then the nov, which is a solarium fix, is taken care of. two. correct. um so we can get there if we adjust the words to include privacy, landscape keeping, privacy screening. yeah. i mean, if you nail down the, the screening tonight, understanding the context isn't ideal. you know, um, if you were to nail that down tonight or, you know, if you continued it and nailed it down, then however you want to do it, but a part of this case, then it would kind of wrap everything up in this one, in this one case. now kind of the i say it would wrap everything up. but to commissioner eppler's point, the

building permit still appealable to. so if we if you whatever decision you make tonight if that gets effectuated by the building permit, people can appeal that and be unhappy with that decision. but you know so the decision would have been made. i'll, i'll let commissioner eppler, uh, comment now. so and this is, this is, uh, you know, for discussion my, my fellow commissioners, i mean, since we're going to have a, an appealable permit come out of this, my preference i think, would be to leave the issue of screening by itself because we're not going to require any screening that's going to require a variance. i mean, right, i mean, so what we're going to stay within the bounds of what can be done without requiring additional process. yes. and i don't want to require something that's counter productive to all the neighbors just shooting in the dark here. so i would go silent on screening right now. okay, fine

with me. you want to make a do we do we you want to make the motion that he suggested? where am i in motion? land right now? do you want me to try? yeah, go for it. okay, so. so we have a motion from, um, commissioner eppler to grant the appeal and issue the decision on the condition it be modified to allow the roof area to be used as a deck. uh, by by removing the nsr and condition that prohibited the area to be used as a deck, which were imposed by appeal numbers 87, dash one, 80 and 90 3-2 hundred, and then you did mention the solarium, but i don't think is that relevant. we need to address issue it with respect to the issue, the appeal or grant the appeal with respect to do we not in order to get it out of jail? um, because the

work at the solarium isn't part of the trigger for the variance, you know, it's not something that has to be proactively called out, okay. for the variance. the only thing that had to be proactively called out would be the, the condition to not construct the spiral stair. right. i'm getting to that. yeah. okay. okay. so the second part is you're revising it to allow, you know, the roof area to be used as deck and also to uphold the determination with respect to the rear spiral stairs, uphold the determination denying the variance for that. and what basis would you make this motion on? um i would make this motion on, on the basis that the conditions for the prior conditions and nsr are, with respect to the deck, have, uh, been have have changed and that the zoning administrator correctly exercised his discretion with respect to the spiral staircase. okay so thank you. so on that motion, vice

president lopez, a commissioner lemberg i president swig i so that motion carries uh, 4 to 0 okay. thank you. and thank you very much for everyone who is here for item number seven. we really appreciate your patience. we're moving on to item number seven, appeal. number 23, dash 042. elena asturia and eduardo paniagua versus the planning department. subject property, 1228 funston avenue. appealing the cancellation on september seventh, 2023 of a building permit. new dwelling unit on ground floor per rh two zoning density to comply with complaint number (201) 501-4724. legalization of unpermitted interior remodeling and vertical additions at rear restoration of front facade. see permit application number 2014 0206 7948. the permit was canceled for one failing to submit the request or required revisions per planning commission

decision. uh dra 822 deadline and two other same project under duplicate permit number 2019 02153076. note on october 25th, 2023, upon motion by president swig, the board voted four to 0 to 1. commissioner trevino recused to continue this item to december 31st, so that the record could be supplemented with the dra action memo 822 and a brief from the planning department, which includes answers to the following questions. does the housing accountability act apply to this case? if so, is the planning commission's imposition of the conditions consistent with the housing accountability act and why? so thank you for your patience and welcome, and we will hear from the appellants first. good evening commissioners. my name is elena asturias and i own 1228 funston avenue, along with my husband eduardo. thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. 1228 funston avenue has been in our family for three generations. when we wanted to

remodel our family home, we approached engineer rodrigo santos, who was well respected professional at the time, to help with plan preparation, permit submission and supervision of work. unfortunately, we placed our trust in the wrong person. rodrigo santos, who is now serving federal prison time, defrauded us by assuring us that permits had been issued for the project. we trusted him and took him at his word, and as a result, have endured years of struggle and financial burden at all times. our intention has been to work with the city and reach a compromise. to this end, we have brought forth a new project that a new team and worked with our neighbors to ensure their support for the project. letters of support from our next door neighbors are in your packet. other members of the neighborhood are also here to speak to you. we are here today to hopefully find to bring an end to this difficult chapter and to offer our apologies for the burden this has placed on city resources and its impact on

the community, and to ask for your support of this compromise that adds additional living units while allowing preservation of the existing structure. thank you for your guidance and consideration. happy holidays commissioners. excuse me, ryan patterson for the homeowners. separately, i also represent, yes, in my backyard and sonia strauss, who is eligible to apply for residency and who join us in the arguments today. the issue in this case is that the planning commission applied unlawful conditions that eliminated dwelling units from the project. there's a lot of history here, but most importantly, in 2017, a previous project application to legalize the rear addition as part of the single family home went to a staff initiated doctor . the planning commission conditioned that permit on demolishing most of the rear addition. the owners could not afford to demolish the addition,

and they struggled for years to try to find a solution. they eventually came to us and filed this new application. today's application is a compromise. it creates two new dwelling units for the city's housing stock to try to make this right. if i can have the overhead, please preserving the rear addition makes the new units possible both physically and financially, and the new project is fully code compliant. the department's brief conflates today's project with the 2017 project, but to be clear, this is a new project application for three units with a new case number. five years later, the commission approved the new project, but reverted to the 2017 projects plans with conditions that eliminate the additional units. the department's appeal brief hints that the downstairs unit was actually approved, but the commission clearly did not approve the new units. how do we know? well, the department's architect advised the commission

that reverting to the 2017 plans would not allow for a ground floor unit. the commission chose this option, though, to eliminate the additional units and go back to the 2017 plans. as for the single family project , to quote commissioner braun and pertinent part, i actually would prefer that we continue with the 2017 plans and if the applicant really wants to build two more housing units in the future, then that's something they can do through a completely independent process. after the current issue has been resolved, abated, end quote. and then the commissioners motion that followed is stated by the secretary in pertinent part was take doctor and approve the project, reverting back to the conditions of approval of 2017 for option one. end quote, that was a single family project. the doctor action memo avoids this issue. interestingly but the commission's motion is what controls. we also have a confirming email from the department's doctor coordinator. in any event, the reductions to

the building envelope physically eliminate the proposed ground floor unit. there simply is not enough space. the application was for a 430 square foot dwelling unit and the commission instead approved a 201 square foot bedroom and bathroom. looking at these plans, where would the kitchen go? there's barely enough room for a bed, let alone even a chair or a dining table or a stove. it doesn't meet minimum size requirements, so those are the facts of this case. and there's a lot of it i know. but here's the law. the housing accountability act, section j one says that if the project meets the applicable objective standards, the city cannot apply conditions that reduce the density of housing. this project meets the applicable objective standards. so the law requires that it be approved as proposed. planning staff advised that the project is approvable all. so planning's appeal brief states

for 2021 to 2023, the project team works with the planning department to revise the project to ensure it at least meets the minimum requirements of the planning code. end quote and the commission staff report also notes the project quote arriving at compliance never was written. notice, given that this project was not compliant with some previous 2017 condition, that would still apply as code today. but now planning says section 174 makes the prior projects doctor conditions from 2017 into new planning code requirement so that a different application cannot be code compliant and therefore cannot benefit from state housing laws. but section 174 does not turn a doctor decision on a different application into new planning code for future projects. that is a serious misapprehension of the law. code amendments are legislative function of the

board of supervisors, not the planning commission. so what does section 174 actually mean? well, it speaks to the permit enforcement process. so for example, if a nightclub is permitted with a condition that it stay open only till midnight, but it operates around the clock 30s, that's a violation of 174. here we're talking about a different project some five years later, not subject to those conditions from a different project application. but even if the project were not code compliant under section f one, the city cannot apply nonobjective discretionary standard to a housing project. the 2017 doctor was based on subjective discretionary design guidelines that the city has admitted are not allowed by law, so that means those conditions of approval are not a legitimate basis. thank you. that's time. thank you very much and i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. i don't see any questions at this time. so we will hear from the planning department. all right. good

evening again. president swig commissioners corey teague zoning administrator another case that's got some nuances to it. so i apologize, uh, for this evening, but again, this is an appeal of, uh, the 2021 building permit at 1228 funston avenue. that was canceled, um, by the planning department and department of building inspection. uh, the subject property is within the rh two zoning district and 40 x, um, height and bulk district. um, there's a bit of a history, um, with this case, i'm not going to verbatim go over the timeline that was in the brief. um, but just to round that out, uh, this began back in 2014 when there was a permit filed for an expansion. but effectively, the review of that process in 2015, it was determined that the it had already been developed, already been built without permits. um, that resulted in

enforcement cases through dbe and the planning department. um, the property owner was was um informed at that point in time. the property the project did not meet the residential design guidelines. they did not revise the plans accordingly. it went through a discretionary review process in 2017. um ultimately, the planning commission's decision did not limit the number of units in the building. it made very objective conditions of how the building would have to be modified to come into compliance. um, the property owners did not, um, choose to revise their plans to do that work. so that permit was ultimately canceled. um and in 2019, when they came back with the permit to actually comply with that original doctor decision by the planning commission, that permit went through. the process is issued, it is still issued and active as of today. um in 2021, the newer

proposal came in, went through that process that ultimately led to a discretionary review hearing. um, earlier this year, where the planning commission, um, you know, there's lots of different comments there. we encourage you to go watch the hearing. if you have it. um, and , and there was definitely an understanding by the planning commission that, that, you know, the number of units was not the issue. um, and to be clear, the third unit that's being discussed is a separate building permit for an adu in the rear yard under state law. so that's really not the purview here. we're really talking about a permit to, um, legalize an expansion of the primary building at the front with the single family home, with now an addition of a second unit. um, so the planning commission's decision, this year was essentially to go with the same conditions they had from 2017. um which were objective

conditions, um, and also provided some other objective conditions which were timing related to make sure the actual work was there. um, you know, the planning commission kind of uniformly expressed significant frustration with this situation and with the applicants and the lack of movement. um, since the planning commission had already taken a decision on this. so some of the key points on this one, as referenced, planning code section 174 is very clear. um it basically says that any conditions of approval adopted on an entitlement or permit by the zoning administrator or the planning commission or the board of appeals essentially has the weight of code. it becomes a code requirement that, um, so that's the rationale that was used by the planning commission in this situation to determine that essentially this project is still a building expansion project that had very objective conditions of approval, that

were applied before and were kind of purposely not, um, followed originally and then had a permit filed and issued to follow them. and that this process was not necessarily tantamount to a new project, but essentially another kind of bite at the apple, so to speak. um, and i'm happy to go into more detail. i do realize that the pdf conversion jumbled some of the letters and the language in the printout for section 174, so apologies for that. um, but feel free. i'm happy to provide that in more, more detail if you'd like. during questions or rebuttal. um and so here the, the prior conditions again were objective. um, but by refusing to comply with the conditions of approval, the appellant has presented a project that does not comply with the, um, objective standards that were subject to the project. um again, there's not a specific condition of approval either in

the original doctor action or this new doctor action that specifically says the number of units is limited to x. um, if the property owner wanted to comply with the conditions of approval and the planning commission's action and put a second unit in that primary building in a different configuration using part of the garage or using other space in the building. that is something that would be permitted. and um, so, so the other issue that was raised by the appellant is that the design context around this project had changed because another project had been approved adjacent to it. um, i think they referenced at the planning commission didn't consider that, you know, that was known to the planning commission. it was briefly discussed, but they simply, you know, didn't find that moving to change their opinion on whether or not the project was consistent with the residential design guidelines or not. so to conclude, the appeal before you tonight is only related to this permit. 2021 01132631. um, you

know, it's kind of the latest chapter in a very long and unfortunate enforcement case that's been going on for around ten years. the planning department and the commission have provided clear guidance on the steps to address this issue over the years, but the appropriate action has not been taken on past permits and discretion. review decisions as outlined. um, in this presentation and in the, uh, brief that we submitted, the planning commission fully understood the proposal and made their determination upon a position that the housing accountability act does not apply in this situation. specifically because the provisions of planning code section 174. and so for those reasons, the department respectfully requests the board deny the appeal and uphold the cancellation of this permit. thank you. thank you. any questions? you look like you're thinking, okay, no questions. so we will move on to dbe. uh, good

evening again. matthew green representing the department of building inspection. um, i guess the appeal before you is for the cancellation of the building permit. um, dbe canceled the permit or actually dbe sent a 60 day notice of cancellation to the project sponsors. once, after we received a request for cancellation from the planning department. so that was the process that triggered this appeal. i would just say that, um, there is a notice of violation here from earlier this year. the as the property owner said they they went ahead and built the addition at the rear without the first addenda being issued. and our notice of violation is actually justrillionequest them to get that addenda issued. and the work, um, to be properly built and inspected. um, this is mostly planning department's concerns, but i'm happy for answer any questions you may have for building. thank you. i don't see any questions. thank you. so we will now move on to

public comment. is there anyone in the room to provide public comment? you can both come up to the microphone and if you could, after you're done speaking, if you could fill out a speaker card. so we get your name correct for the minutes, you can get it from alec afterwards. thank you. uh this is narita village. i am william village. uh, sir, i'm sorry we can't hear you. if you could adjust the microphone. thank you. i'm not used to doing this. this is not my thing. but i have a new respect for democracy. this is amazing. what you guys are doing. anyhow, uh, president swig, vice president lopez and commissioners, um, narita and i began working in the neighborhood at 11th and irving, which is a couple blocks away from the building. and we're talking about in 1982, we started working there in 1982. we moved in to a house and the

same area in 1984. so we've been very involved in the community, community relations, been involved with what we like, especially around the pandemic. we'd go for walks and look at new houses and enjoy that and we came across this one, uh, there's a very complicated but it's right down from andronikos. or if you're greek, is andronikos. and it's just we found a wonderful house, and we got to know the penalties for a lot of different ways. and we have much respect for them. we've been concerned about the neighborhood on and off for several years. want to see it build up, be stronger. and that house is just beautiful. i don't understand. and the complications that's democracy. that's you folks figuring that out. but we need more of those houses. those well done houses. and we need more people or construction people. like the panel was, uh, with much respect to them and also to thank you for the work they've done in the

neighborhood. uh so we want to support the project. we want to support them. um that's about it . that's pretty much it. i agree . thank you for your work. thank you. um. welcome. you have three minutes. thank you. good evening. commissioners good evening. uh, president rick, i'm corky zepeda. i'm a social worker in san francisco. i work for a house and people living with hiv. and i have known on the, um, paniagua asturias family for three decades. and um, and over the years, um, i have been, um, outreaching to them for support from racing and , and also, um, to give back to the community and, um, i'm here to support the family. it's a good moral character. they hold.

and also, i think that we need housing every day. i work with a house, uh, communities in the mission soma tenderloin, and we need more housing and, um, i support the project. if they're building more housing. thank you. thank you for your consideration. thank you. if you could give your speaker card. okay. buenas noches. good evening, president swig. vice president lopez and the commissioners here. my name is francisco herrera. i'm a member of the community. i also came to a, um, testify to the high moral character of the asturias. paniagua family. i started working with them as a young jesuit. i was working in human rights, particularly guatemalteco salvadorenos

mexican families fleeing the violence of war and, uh, their character for not just in supporting camp chains, but of giving of their time. i'm what i'm trying to get to is that you're dealing here with a family that has is committed to the health and well-being of our community, both in the area of working with survivors of torture and trauma and what that the kind of quality that takes in that kind of family and that kind of folks. uh, i remember at saint peter's church, we had a little basement office where we did a lot of work with day laborers, those survivors of the wars in central america, our communities working with domestic violence, uh, both female and male, actually. and, uh, through the years, this is a mid 80s, 85 through to present

day work. uh, in terms of the community work that we did in many, many campaigns, including, uh, run for mayor, that we did in 2015, in which the work was really providing, creating a progressive place form that had to do with the issue of housing, very particularly economies where our families that are making 20 to $50,000 a year have no place to live. so my job here tonight is really to share with you that you're dealing here with a family that has been committed and, uh, with their own funding, with their own time , with their own sacrifices into the well-being of this community and, uh, destroying a building that's already built is not really going to help anyone, but that extra units that they're going to be building will help at least a couple of families to be able to have housing. thank you for your time. good evening.

thank you. is there anyone else inside the room who would like to provide public comment? okay, i see someone on zoom. mr. robert fruchtman, please go ahead. you need to unmute yourself. yes. okay uh, good evening commissioners. my name is robert fruchtman. i am a volunteer lead with, uh, san francisco yimby. uh, speaking in support of the appellants. uh, i think the planning department's position, um, on the housing accountability act does not make a ton of sense. this seems like a pretty blatant violation of the housing accountability act from where i stand. see, looking at the 2021 permit, um, the planning commission imposed conditions on the on the permit and referenced old findings, old conditions that were put on a different project. um, and the planning department is now saying that these new conditions

have the same force of planning code. but this frankly, is an out and out violation of the housing accountability act, which says that, uh, objective standards must be knowable to both the, uh, the project sponsor and the department at, at, you know, when the project is filed, the project sponsor would have no idea what the planning commission would say at a discretionary review hearing, because because by its very nature, it is discretionary. the planning commission couldn't make whatever findings or set whatever conditions it wants. there's there was no way for the project sponsor to predict what would have happened at this hearing, nor could anyone. and i think i'm frankly a reasonable person. but but the planning commission has the makeup of the planning commission has changed since 2014. so so from where i stand, uh, citing section 174 here is, uh, is basically saying that the conditions from a

previous permit apply to a new permit, which, uh, frankly, i don't think makes much sense to me. so thank you. okay. thank you. we will now hear from the caller whose phone number ends in 7281. please go ahead. you need to unmute yourself. you may need to dial star six. yes go ahead. hi. um this is adam pavlacka calling in. i live in d6. um, i'm calling in support. um in part because of the hra regulations. uh, the way the law applies as the previous caller so eloquently laid out, i'm not going to repeat what he said, but i 100% agree with it. i would also point out that that, um, mr. teague and the sf planning are not entirely

consistent in how they apply the law to projects that they think are in violation. um, i do think it's interesting that this is this is something that is a home that is being actively encouraged by california state law, while at the same time here in d6, sf planning has had add a illegal office conversion in an area that's zoned for housing. by the way, um, clearly in violation in that they've had on hold for over a year. no enforcement because according to sf planning, if the supervisors are thinking about changing a law, they don't enforce planning . well, we're not talking about supervisors and supervisors. uh, uh, city law here. we're talking about state law with the hra, which applies. we're talking about hcd coming in. so i think if, if, um, planning is going to be consistent, there's no way

they should be opposing this right now. thank you. thank you. is there any further public comment on this item? please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any. so we're going to move on to rebuttal. could we take a five minute break please? sure. uh, bio break. be back here at, uh, 15 minutes of ten, 5 or 15, five minute break. okay. back at 945. thank you. thank you okay. welcome back. to the december 13th, 2023 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. we are resuming item number seven, but we need to wait until vice president lopez steps back in. and here he is. okay thank you. so we are now on rebuttal and we will hear from mr. patterson. thank you. commissioners ryan patterson, i

want to add an additional in addition to that public comment on the overhead. the adjacent neighbors support this project. um, not just the neighbors and community here today. uh, i also want to clarify that this was not mr. teague's decision. he is defending someone else's decision tonight. um, and cancellation is a procedural step as part of this appeal, the permit cancellation. so planning argues that the 2017 conditions were objective, but they were not objective. code requirements that would apply to a new project, uh, under the hra. this is a different project. it's not the single family home project from 2017. this is a three unit project. today uh, planning says that section 174 makes conditions of approval into code requirements, but not for future projects. that would be for the same project that's required with that's approved with those conditions. this is a different project years later. um,

planning says that there was no condition of approval limiting the number of units. um, and i think they're saying that because they realize there was a mistake made by the commission. um, and the commission certainly did not approve the additional units. i'll quote from planning's brief here. the property owner still has the right to increase the total unit count on the lot from 1 to 3. they did not approve the additional units, and that is the violation of the hra. and they cannot find anything in the record that says that the commission approved additional units. they approved plans for a single family home with no space for an additional unit. um, i also want to get back to kind of what this case is about. this is a family in pretty dire financial straits. they cannot afford to demolish the existing renovation, an expansion that their engineer put them in this position on. um, that's why they're trying to find a way forward that works both for them and for the city to provide

additional units of housing in a way that they can actually afford to do. so, um, you have the financial, uh, estimates for the construction in your packet. it's i think close to $1 million to demolish that addition and build additional units if they're having to demolish the addition, um, they can't afford to add additional units. so if this appeal is denied, there can't be additional housing. um, so, you know, we welcome any guidance that the board can provide, but we're trying to find a path forward that will actually work for the community, that will resolve this long standing issue. so they can't afford to do what the commission wanted from 2017. thank you very much, and i'm happy to answer any questions. commissioner lemberg. thank you, mr. patterson. i um, it seems uncontested that your clients are lovely people and upstanding members of the community. i'm not doubting that in any way. um, where i'm getting stuck in this case is. is why your

clients. and maybe this is a better question for them. were not more compliant with the planning department's asks of them considering the history with mr. santos and the, you know, the i saw that there was a case file, a civil case filed against him. um, you know, considering all of that backstory, which is important, but not necessarily extremely relevant to our decision tonight. um you know what? i just know if i were in their shoes, i would be like, okay. yes planning department. what can i do? please like, let's get this project done. and instead, it seems like the focus has been on adding a whole bunch of new things rather than complying with the planning departments and planning commission's previous orders, which are orders in indeed several times as, um, well, after mr. santos was no longer in the picture. so i'm just. can you help me understand that a little bit better? sure it's a good

question. so mr. santos, as i understand it, and it's in the brief, it's in declarations and the family can verify they told the family that he had gotten. he told the family he had gotten the permits. they did the work. and then they found out that he had not gotten the permits, but they got the violation. they got notice that this violation existed and they were told to file for a permit to legalize the construction. and that's exactly what they did. they they filed a permit application to legalize this construction, which is code compliant. um it went to the planning commission again, and the planning commission said, no, we're punishing work without a permit, and we're requiring you to demolish most of that rear addition. that was a financially ruinous decision by the planning commission that they could not afford to do. and so they they floundered around for years with different consultants trying to find something that they can do to fix this problem. um, um, and

there is a reams of paper back and forth with the planning department for all these years that i'm sure mr. teague can tell you about as well. uh, before they finally came to us, we put together a new team with new architects. santos is out of the picture and come up with a compromise to legalize the construction. and make use of that space for a new unit downstairs. and on top of that, because planning staff wasn't fully satisfied, we said, okay, well, we'll add another new unit in the backyard as a state, adu. so we took that, uh, against our will. the planning department forced us to go to the planning commission, uh, because it was different from the 2017 decision. and the planning commission said, no, we're going to apply these old conditions from the previous permit. again which again is a ruinous decision that they can't afford to comply with. and leaves us with two fewer housing units, which obviously the city

desperately needs just to clarify. so in mr. teague's brief, it very much says that the adu in the backyard was done under a separate permit this year. is that. that's correct. right. it is part of this project. and no, no, no, it's a different permit. right. it it is an adu is always required to be a separate permit, but it is noted in the planning staff report that this is part of this project, but it's not actually part of the permit. that's before us tonight. uh at all. it is a separate permit, but part of the same project. it's before us. it's okay. so what i'm trying to do is narrow the issues that are before us. and i think we can safely narrow the adu question out of it, because that's actually a separate permit done under a separate code section. and with separate plans. that is actually completely detached from the main property. i think the board could look at this as the downstairs additional unit that

was proposed. even if the board were not looking at the rear yard, adu, it's still an additional unit that was not so. i agree that the second unit downstairs, which was i believe and i'm sorry, there's a lot of permits and a lot of history here, but so the second unit was constructed as part of the 2015 permit. that's is that the second unit has not been constructed yet. that was part of the compromise proposal to legalize the work that was constructed. what was the work then? that was that was being attempted to legalize, if not that second unit? um happy to show you on plans. if that's helpful. yeah, i think that is helpful. thanks. let's have the floor plan. uh, the. three pane. i've got it in paper if we need

it. right here. okay. overhead, please. alec can you turn the light on? i think we turned it off. yeah, before seems a little gray. yeah thank you. okay. thank you. so the downstairs is a basement, right? yeah so the downstairs is the primary bedroom. uh, this is the as built condition here. and

what the planning commission required in 2017. and again in this application was to cut off this rear portion. and it might need to zoom in. but what's left is this small bedroom and a small bathroom. very little space. what we proposed was a second dwelling unit downstairs here, which would have a kitchen , adequate space for eating, sleeping, normal life activities . uh, i think it was 403ft!s versus the 201 that actually approved. so as it is now, to answer your question, it's a bedroom. we're proposing as a compromise to create an additional unit. and that was not granted. okay. so what is down there now? there is that bedroom. but what else is in that space. because it's not clear from this drawing or at least it's not zoomed in enough. but yeah. uh, elena, would you

like to address that? it's a bedroom suite, right? right. it uh, i can see if i can. so it's a bedroom or a family room with its own ensuite bath, and it has garden access. not a unit. no no, it's not a unit. it's not a unit. so. so it's not actually a separate housing unit then. because it doesn't have a kitchen or, you know, any of the things that are kind of associated with separate units. not yet. they did not create illegal units. they're proposing to give the city an additional dwelling unit as a compromise. how and that's this plan here shows. oh, okay. that's okay. right. but that's just the proposal. and that does not exist. so what was the purpose of adding the original? this large bedroom downstairs that is being proposed to be turned into a kitchen, but is not currently

a kitchen or a separate unit in any way in additional living space. right. so actually, when my grandmother purchased this property in the 1960s, an elderly gentleman lived and passed away. there it was. and we later learned it was unwarranted rooms. and so those rooms were basically turned into a bedroom. so so. but that was in the 60s. so what was there before for the 2015 edition was made? i think he's asking why you expanded that downstairs area. so there were just rooms there. in other words, if you look at what the original, uh, home in the 60s, you would have seen in a deck out back which goes as far back as the current decks do. and i think that's something that planning was never, never considered

originally. and underneath were unwarranted rooms. so that space has always been part of the house. why did you expand that space? well, no, what we needed is we retrofitted it brand new foundation so it's safer. and we put in green finishes and it's a safer, better space. it's as far as i understand, though, the logic behind this appeal is that . this this unauthorized space was added by mr. santos in starting in 2015 when he was hired. but now you're saying that the space has always existed since the 1960s, and now i'm even more confused. there's another panel on on the plans that shows the preexisting condition. that's this one here. and you can see it was a smaller area, uh, expanded as part of this work by mr. santos to create a livable bedroom suite.

so what we're proposing now is to carve off some of that single family home space to create a second dwelling unit, because the city needs additional dwelling units. okay. so so and but again, i mean, now i'm hearing that this was previously used as a bedroom, but it's clearly marked as storage. um, this is the last legal condition which is what what the plans require. okay. and when is like when was this legal condition built? uh, dating back to the 1960s. it's an old home. yeah, it was preexisting before my grandmother purchased it. it was preexisting before you purchased. okay and the before your family purchased it in the 60s. okay um. and it was just converted into a, i mean, not converted. that's a more formal than i'm used as a bedroom. it was just it was used as a

bedroom for the elderly gentleman. you were talking about. okay um. all right. i think that's all i've got for now. i'm feel more confused than when i started asking questions. but i'll pass to vice president. vice president lopez. thank you. um, just while we have this on screen, the. the one on the right here that we're looking at, there's the i see a bedroom, a bath, and then there's another enclosed area which is as it exists today. what's that enclosed area. uh, below the, the bath. this as it exists today. uh, you're referring to this space here? uh, up until the left to the left, the square that that square. what's that? a closet. okay, so then we're

essentially, uh, there's. and then can you can you go to the as proposed? yes. and that that closet becomes living space. then. correct. presumably that's where a small dining table would be placed. so there would be room for a bed dining table, little kitchen. um, so it's you know, it's a decent garden unit. it's not one of these crummy things that people just try to cram in for the brownie points with the city. this was making it something legitimate. and good for the city. and then is there anything being done to the bath in the proposal? any changes to the bath, to the bathroom? so no, the bath stays the same. okay. the bath remains the same. obviously we're trying to because it's not just the um, taking down of what the city

proposed. it's a total reconfiguration of the interior space. so the more that systems that we can keep where they are, the more affordable, more accessible it makes it to then focus on other things, to make things better on the two units. so got it. um i mean, i'm i'll turn to, to mr. teague next, but, um, it's clear to me that the, the permits are certainly not identical. um if we, if we pull on that thread, uh, are there other aspects? is it. let me ask it differently. is this is this permit, is this the only permit that's that's on appeal tonight that. yes. this is the only permit on appeal. okay. and

so we're basically saying that, uh, that the. 2021 commission applied the, the concept of this being the same project a little bit too loosely. uh i, i suppose one could look at it that way. um, but it clearly is two different projects 2017 versus 2023 hearings. yeah uh, single family home versus a three unit project. and if you could just round that out further here, if, if this is two projects, then what then today's project was approved on condition that the density be reduced, which is an oddity, uh, which exists in the housing accountability act. that's that's a snippet of language that the state legislature provided for prohibited approving on

condition of lower density. and i have not to my knowledge, i've maybe seen it done by the planning commission once before. um, and then that was subsequently corrected. um, through a quite a process with the city. but it's not a thing that normally happens. they don't often impose these types of conditions. um, but it is clearly prohibited by state law. and you know, in the planning commission's defense, they probably were not familiar with all of the new state laws. um, this is an evolving field. so you know, i can understand how they might have gotten it wrong, but this is what the law requires. so in essence, we're saying, um, to 20, 2017. and 2021 or 2023 or the hearing was separate projects. this year to pull in the 2017 conditions. uh, would, would, would render uh,

those conditions not objective. uh and run counter to, to the state law. right. more more specifically under the ha. uh, it's not applicable. it's not an applicable objective standard knowable in advance at the time of application. um as one of the callers mentioned, if you file a new application for a project that the planning department tells you is approvable as proposed, you would not know that there's some other state standard out there that's going to be sprung on you and treated as if it were a code standard that you're held to. uh, these applicants did not know that this would happen. in fact, i found out the night before the hearing that someone had cooked up this idea. there is never written notice as required by the hra. um, it's just it's an odd thing they decided to do to find a way out of state housing

law, but that's just not how the law works. thank you, commissioner eppler. uh, just a few questions. one, um, the your your clients, the permit holders or applicants have were aware of the conditions placed on the 2017 discretionary review. i mean, they didn't come into this, um, completely ignorant of any past conditions that have been set in the past, right? i mean, they they were aware of at least that now, whether that matters or not, we can talk about later. but yes, they were they were certainly aware of that. um, but i had no idea that that would apply to a different project application. well, and i guess then we get to the question about project applications. i can i can i can see very clearly in my mind when, you know, you would have two things that are completely different project applications. right? i mean, one of them would be a one story remodel, one would be a four story. those are completely different things where and then i could see something where because of a,

uh, some technical requirement, you've had to change some modest part of a project that you put in, and that would be have a new project number could be seen as a new project administration, but it's still tantamount to the same project that you had before where where does something become a new project? what's what? i mean, how do we where in the can you point to me anything that tells us where it is? or are we just kind of feeling around blindly? for what? what becomes a new project? i would say the factors here, uh, that i point to are, are it's a different number of units. so the 2017 project was for a single family home, um, 2023 hearing was for a three unit project that is a fundamentally different project. it's subject to different state law requirements. it's treated differently by the city in many ways. uh, depending on the number of units, uh, different building code might apply. um you know, there are a lot of

significant differences just in the unit count. um number two, it's a big gap in time. so we're talking about a hearing from 2017 versus 2023. so it's actually six years. so operated in time. an earlier permit application would have expired in that period of time. it wouldn't even be valid anymore. um and number three, it's a new project. that application number, the planning department was treating this as a different case number, a different case. okay. i'm sure there are other reasons. it's a different project as well. different architecture team. um you have a new legal team. to the extent those things matter. so i notice you did not mention, um, built envelope or or something of that nature does. does that factor in at all there? so the 20 1718 planning commission decision was based on the residential design guidelines, looking at the size of the envelope and then the adjacent homes. and they said,

well, it's not contextual with the neighborhood context, the surrounding homes. so the build envelope was the central piece of that previous decision. and there are two things that matter here one is the adjacent neighbor got permits to build a much larger house. so that neighborhood context changed. and the adjacent neighbors on both sides support this project. um, number two is the city has acknowledged that applying those residential design guidelines, those discretionary uh, guides lines, is not allowed under state law. and i think we showed an exhibit in our slide show of this is part of the housing element process that the city agreed to stop doing that because it's not legal. uh, and the state is requiring the city to stop applying those discretionary guidelines. so that's not a basis to deny the housing. um it's just flagrantly

illegal. okay. thank you. thank you, commissioner lemberg. thank you. i've circled back with a few more questions. um. first of all, why why couldn't your clients withdraw the original permit, knowing that there were conditions placed on it at the 2017 doctor and knowing what those conditions were? um, if the intent was to file a new project application, totally changing the scope of what was being, uh, what was intended to be legalized and, and or built, why, why couldn't they cancel the earlier permit? i think the frank answer is they didn't know what to do. they really flailed around for years trying to figure out something to do that they could afford that would make this, you know, resolve this situation and i think they came to us in 2021. we brought in a new architectural team and said, well, how can we compromise with the city and do

something that planning would actually like? let's propose new units. you don't have to demolish the space. we'll make good use of it and then we'll give an additional adu in the rear yard so that that's how we came through this. there's a whole other process of permits and an enforcement action, uh, running parallel to this, with fines accruing. um, there was a long, complex answer to that question. um, but at the end of the day, they can't build it as the 2017 commission said to they had to find some compromise with the city. okay, let me ask a slightly different question. why can't they revoked that or withdraw that permit? now they well, maybe they could, but they have a notice of violation commanding them to go forward with that older process. yes. right. okay. parallel to that, we're trying to find something that will actually work in reality, which is this permit that we're with. we're before you with today, i'm struggling.

i'm going to be frank with you. i you know, i really feel for your clients here. and i don't want to screw them over any more than they've already been screwed over. and yet, i'm not finding this argument very compelling. and i'm trying to find a way to give your clients some relief here. and i'm not finding it. and i'm i'm struggling with it, and i want to i want to find a way to move this project forward. and i think i'm willing to bet my fellow commissioners would say the same. and yet i'm really struggling to find land where we can approve this. um, you know, the state law issue ultimately, like these conditions were put on before those state laws existed. is that. that's correct. right i mean, all of these conditions that we're talking about today were all placed before the housing ability act was, was passed with respect. they were placed on a different project. um, and i can offer maybe one idea for how to move forward if the board is not inclined to agree with the state

housing law arguments. there is an equity consideration here for this family, and the board has the power to make a different decision than the planning commission made on this. you you could reverse those conditions and approve the project. reverse which condition? sorry. there's several the permit that's before us today had conditions placed on it by the commission commanding us to revert to the 2017 plans. um, this board could make a different decision on whatever basis the board deems appropriate, state housing law or otherwise. um. and i respect there is an awful lot of complexity to this. it's an unusual case. it's. truly, i'm the other part. i'm struggling with this is. your clients have

clearly poured a lot of money into this project, into multiple architects in. i'm sure you're not working for free. i'm. you know, i'm cognizant of all of this and it's been, you know, almost ten years since this since this happened. and what. was was was demolition of 414ft!s. truly never an option. it's would you like to speak to this the financial numbers are in the packet, but you could probably speak to the demolition is the easy part. but what you're taking away is literally the kitchen and a master bath and bedroom. and so it's the reconfiguration. it is literally building a new house within the new the new new allowable or whatever the planning commission wanted. that's the issue. the issue is you're taking a perfectly brand new retrofit

pitted green, because there's solar panels. and i mean, it really is a green home for no reason. it's okay. that's helpful if you'd like, on the overhead is the actual financial calculation of what that would involve. i've other one. sorry. on the computer . all right. um. we'd also been focusing on the first floor plan, and i'm realizing that it would also involve removal of the entire second floor, uh, portion of that to, um, something i maybe should have realized earlier. but, um.

all right, i'm out of questions. president swig, trying to formulate a question. so, um. um, for me, um, i mean, the. the unsympathetic side of me says it's the property owner's issue with rodrigo santos. he was he was a liar, a thief, a scofflaw, etcetera. that's been at least that's what the, the that's what the judge says when they put him

in the, you know, in the hoosegow. right. and so you got took and i, you know, i'm sorry, but i can't be unsympathetic because the fact is that this, this home was built illegally and without permission. um, and that's the unsympathetic. the sympathetic is obviously, uh, there as we've heard here tonight, at least the, the testifiers, uh, represent the this family is a great family and very contributing contributes greatly to the san francisco community. so that's the sympathetic side. then we look at the law. if this was if the same people got up and said, oh, there are a bunch of thieves , uh, then we look at this and immediate we, we would be, uh, we would say, listen, the law is you got to take this thing down. you built it illegally and, and, uh, and you got to take it down. now, the what surfaces for me

and mr. patterson, we see you on a regular basis. you know, you're my best friend. that i never went out for dinner with. you know, uh, and, you know, after all these years and never, never found you anything but honorable. uh, but you know, this. what this opens up. why does this not open up the can of worms? that if we allow this to move forward, as you are advocating, and i'm going to ask the same question of mr. teague that this sets again that famous word precedent that somebody who broke the law, they're nice people. they didn't know they got hoodwinked by a guy that's in jail. but but this sets a precedent that comes back to, uh, why does this not set a precedent that comes back to the

planning department and said, well, you like them, they're friends of yours, or they're friends came in and they, you know, and they vouch for them. and you allowed them to break the law and, and why why are we this is my unsympathetic side speaking, but it's also i'm going to be here for a little while longer. you're on this panel and i don't want to face somebody that comes in and said, well, on the funston street matter, you allow these people to do exactly what what we did. yet you're accusing us of building something and, and then asking for forgiveness later when, when it was very clear, it was an illegal action. so why should we put the city forget the this is an old this is well before the new legislation. why

should we put the city in a position that that we allow an illegal construction in, no matter how nice these people are , so that somebody who wasn't so nice. i hate to admit there's other people who are not so nice. uh, can can come in and say, well, you did it for them. you should do it for us. why should we do that? at that is what i'm wrestling with. and that i'm going to ask mr. teague if we were to allow this appeal, what are the ramifications moving forward for the planning department when those people do walk in next week and say, well, you were you did it for them. you have to do it for us that help me with this, please. it's another very good question. and i think there are two answers to that. uh, the first is to the extent it sets a precedent, it's one where they're paying almost a half $1 million to create

additional units of housing stock for the city as tenants, they're making a sacrifice to try to make this right. and it's a very heavy sacrifice. s a lot of money. it's disruptive to the home itself. um, you know, they're giving up backyard space. they're giving up that ground floor area to a new unit. but i also see it as an enhancement of the value of the home because as there is an adu being added which can be rented for revenue production. sorry, i interrupted you. right. well, and that's, that's what makes the economics of it actually possible for them to do. uh, they'd be able to presumably get a construction loan to do the work. um it would not be you know, decimating the home value. they are able to do the project, um, at major cost. so that's it's a good thing for the city, even if that did set a precedent. if there was illegal construction done, you're allowed to legalize it. if you give the city two new housing

units, it's actually a great deal for the city. so that's just one thing. the other is, unlike many of these cases, maybe even most of these cases in this case, the work that was done is actually code compliant. um, it's allowed by the planning code. they didn't build into the rear yard open space. they didn't, you know, build onto their neighbor's property or you know, do something they're not supposed to. it's actually code compliant. rodrigo santos just jumped the gun and said, start building before the permit was actually issued. so that's different from a lot of cases. and who is the contractor who was the builder on this? uh where was the builder? where was the builder? who was the responsible party to, uh, to the building owner to say, uh, he may say, you got a permit, but i don't see a permit. that's a license contractor. any license contract that i ever dealt with. uh, they they, you know, they they they have that permit in their hands before they, they move forward. that has nothing

to do with rodrigo santos or any other engineer. that's a licensed contractor. who who obliterated the law by moving forward on a permit. and where, where was the license? it was the licensed contractor. and why did they obliterate the law? were they paid off? no this is the other sad part of this saga. the other the license contractor is the other homeowner. it's eduardo. um, so the engineer they're relying on says is go ahead and start building. we've got the permits. should should have questioned it. yes, but but didn't. and they've said that already. you know, a number of times in the past what what could a shutter and the license contractor's responsibility is not to start a project, not to move forward unless they have those permits in hand. i've done a lot of building and i've never looked at an architect and engineer or other sub related to supporting a building. uh, the

construction of a building. i look to the licensed contractor whose responsibility now you're double jeopardy yourself by saying, oh, so the building owner, the building owner was the licensed contractor, and he moved forward knowingly. that he didn't have permits in hand. that scares me even more. ryan. sorry you know, and i'm sympathetic. i'm trying to still be sympathetic. yeah it's this is this is not good. i it isn't good. and there is an entire lawsuit against by these homeowners against rodrigo santos, the department of justice put them on the rodrigo santos victims list, which is also in your packet. the letter from the doj about this, um, you know, they they were taken in and should they have second guessed what santos was doing more probably so i think they admit that and they've apologized. and if you want to hear directly from them, and i would say that the i would say

that the contractor was a lovingly i would say that the contractor was complicit with mr. santos because the contractor didn't have those permits in hand. and that's a real problem. i think also, we should note that there were eight different permits. so for example, the retrofit of the foundation was a permit and that was filed. so it wasn't just one permit. so there were many permits and different job cards. everything from a new fence in in the back to a new sewer line and all of those were finaled. so it wasn't that there was or was not. there were lots of different permits that were present. okay. thank you. all right. i'm done. uh anybody else have any questions? we go to planning. okay thank you. we'll hear from the planning department. later okay. thank you again.

corey teague, planning department. um commissioner epler touched on a couple of things i was going to point out, which is, i mean, the applicants were aware of the objective conditions when they filed this subject permit because they clearly been adopted by the planning commission previously. um, also astutely, like on the ha question, i mean, i think there is a question of what is a new project and ha doesn't tell us what a new project is. um, the planning commission, you know, specifically we asked at the at the hearing, uh, the city attorney's office, you know, to give them some confirmation on the 174 premise that was supported, like the planning commission's basis for making this decision was an understanding that they were compliant with. ha. obviously, the appellants disagree, but like, that's that's that was the understanding that the planning commission had um, and the applicant was very clearly aware of the objective requirements and they did not feel that this

represented a new project, even though it was technically a new permit. um, so, i mean, i think that is a clear question. you know, before before you all tonight. and that's clearly how the planning commission landed on it. additionally yes, the state adus separate permit. there's no condition to this permit that says they can't build that by law as a state. adu, we can't not let them build that. if they meet all the requirements. um and, um, the planning commission conditions of approval, both the original and the current one, none of them explicitly state this building must be one unit or cannot add a unit. all of the conditions are specifically related to, you know, the physical nature of the building and our objective, um, and the new doctor decision was based both on the past history, but also on a determination that the project still did not meet the residential design guidelines. so i'm going to try to use the overhead. alex, if i can get

your alec. sorry if i can get your your help again with the. so just for your reference, this building here on the right is the subject building is basically a mirror of the left. it had this little multi story pop out and then what was actually built was essentially kind of like aa3 story c u shaped um addition plus decks that, you know, extended this a three story massing kind of well beyond and the, the neighbor and then the building, the properties over here had their own unique layout as well. so just to give you an understanding what the full build out was and the planning commission essentially allowed the build out to the matching the depth that existed before. so just not the full three story

build out for the complete depth. so they did authorize that's an addition, just not the full addition proposed. um, can you. so would you please, uh, would you first please complete your, uh, the point that you were you were trying to make there. yeah just making the point that the planning commission didn't deny the permit altogether when it came to them both, you know, originally. and this year, they allowed for some extensions on some expansion of the building envelope to happen to occur, um, a three story, um, you know, addition, just not the additional depth and decks that had been added on. um, as part of the work that was done without permit. um, it's not that context was helpful to understand. and again, you know, there were lots of comments at both hearings about the units and the options. the property

owner had. um, but again, at the hearing earlier this year, there was, um, you know, one planning commissioner who voted against it and the other planning commissioners who did were pretty much in, um, uniformly where not concerned about the number of units that was not the issue. it was really related to both the original decision about the massing not being consistent with residential design guidelines, but then primarily focused this time on just the context of the situation. right. the proposal in relation to what had been already required in the past. um, so i want to make sure that distinction was there, like the current, um, permit as it's conditioned, would not be prohibited from adding another unit. would they have to arrange it in a different way? yes because there's not enough room in that space back there for an

efficiency unit. um, but there wouldn't be a situation where such a proposal would be deemed inconsistent with the with the decision from the planning commission. um, i'm going to ask you two questions. one will require seeing that pretty picture up there again and, uh, and maybe while you're setting up that picture so we can see it, i can ask you the first question, which i've already asked you. uh i told you i was going to ask you. you pull it back a little bit. thanks. um so the. most important question is the if we just went ahead and approved the or or, uh, supported the appeal, um, the, the precedent setting, the ramifications, uh, for, for uh, for future situations like this

as i said, uh, next week somebody else is going to come in and said, well, you approve these guys, why aren't you approving us? so tell us the ramifications of us approving an illegal action. uh, and on, on, on planning and for future projects or situations in the city of san francisco. and, i mean, to be fair, legalizing work that has been done without permits is happens all the time, right? in various scales, because sometimes people come in and do work that would have otherwise been fine to be permitted, like they just didn't get the permits. and so when we're when we're reviewing a permit after the fact, it's a legalized ation that's meant to sleep. um, it's a legalization. um, we're looking at that permit based on what's being proposed. right we don't necessarily say, well, this would be totally fine, except for the fact that you did without permits and now

you can't have that. um so it's not really a big precedent. there i mean, if the board felt that the, um, the massing that's been built and is proposed to be legalized was consistent with the residential design guideline and was appropriate and felt like the compromise of adding the second unit was reasonable. you could grant that, um, and on the basis that you felt like it met the residential design guidelines, etc. um, and you could do that without taking any position on the hra question if you, if you so chose. um, so i don't so the precedent there, i'm not i don't think it would be to the um terrible because we know that we have a lots of different kinds of situations, like this, and sometimes projects are required to get scaled back because they would have they wouldn't have been approved like that to begin with, which i think was the kind of the premise originally we like in 2014 when the permit came in and the work had already

been done, like from the beginning, the planning department's feedback to the project was you got to scale this back. um, and then it was like, well, we can't scale it back. it was built. and so that was the premise going to the planning commission originally, too, was like, this doesn't meet the residential design guidelines. um, and so that's kind of been the fundamental issue going forward is to source. now this current doctor had the added frustration of just the history and kind of how we got to where we are, but the underlying principle is still the same. okay. uh, can you pull, uh, overhead, please? log back on real quick. you push it back a little bit. so. uh what what is the

compromise position on if there is one other than going all the way? going all the way and tearing down the structure? what? what is the compromise position that would make you unhappy and make them unhappy and yet at least move back towards what was a what the planning department really would have liked to have seen. um, for that, i may actually switch to hard copy plans, so that's okay. okay thank you .

overhead again. okay big question. so this is showing again kind of the, um, the previous approved here. and then it's kind of hard to shift it. i guess the, the i'm trying to think the best way to show this out for you, the planning commission's authorization essentially was was this right. it basically said, we'll let you fill this out on the sides, but you can't go any deeper. and you got to chuck the, the, the decks , the rear deck. and there's about a. about a ten foot

difference there. um, so that means we're dealing with, you know, that's what the planning commission removed three stories of that. um, you know, there's obviously the board's discretion to permit all of that, but it's also the board's discretion to maybe only permit some of that, like go further than, uh, the planning commission did in terms of how much to allow them to keep in terms of the massing, while not letting them keep everything. and then how that would be configured is a very different story. but in terms of if you were thinking of a position again, that's kind of somewhere between what's being requested by the appellant and what was required by the planning commission. there is that that massing gap there. i think from the you know, not to speak for the appellant, but obviously any removal of depth is going to impact the interior of all three levels, etc, but

but in terms of like a compromise position, that's between where the planning commission land and what's being requested from the appellant. that my understanding is that would be kind of the space you have to work in. and what about the keep it there, please. and am am i to understand that the if you go to the plans to the right that deck is a is a further add on to what was authorized correct. and so would it be a better compromise wise to remove the deck and, and as a condition of mercy, uh, to the property owner to allow them to keep the three, the ten feet and three stories up structure. um so you're saying one option

would be to keep the building massing, allow the second unit, but remove the rear, the rear deck structure. right. um, because that's that really extends it. then even further, the only issue i'm looking at right now is to make to see if i can or the decking, if it goes up to the second i saw it going up to the second, the second story. so there is some pain there, but i'm just looking at, you know. yeah, it would i mean, doing that would create a not ideal situation for the, for accessing the rear yard for the upper unit because then it has to come down the front and then go through the tradesman alley kind of all the way to the back, which is not something that couldn't happen. but you know, i would imagine they would prefer a direct access to the rear yard. um but but yeah, i mean, anything in that area, i mean, that's kind of to the board's discretion. if they think that's a better alternative to land than where the planning

commission did. i'm, i'm, i recognize all that. if you put that back. please. corey because each time you take it away, then i lose my point of view. um, i understand that, you know, but the hard line piece is they built something that was illegal . they built they built it without care for that is the general contractor. forget rodrigo santos. we've thrown them under the bus at least twice before. uh, since he's gone to jail in this, in this room for doing illegal acts and. and we saw him do something, uh, a previously that luckily this this, uh, this this body ruled against. um, but the fact of the matter is, the general contractor built something, uh, without, you know, without permits. and that was a licensed general contractor who should have known better, regardless of whether they were a family member. uh, the residential guidelines were obliterate and

not not respected. um, i i'm and on and furthermore, there's it goes beyond that. there's a there's a deck that extends where's the penalty here. where's the penance. you know, and or do we just say, oh well better luck next time somebody should have paid attention. um i, you know, and i'm looking six months down the line at a case that i don't know that exists. when somebody walks up and says, well, we built this illegally, but you told those people on you let those people on funston get away with 100% of everything. and so you should that that is the precedent that you set. you should set it for us that these are the concerns that i, you know, that i have and i'm real sorry. um but even even by allowing the decks to be asking for the decks to be removed, yes, it's going to be an impact, but, man, you get three stories times ten feet. that's, you know

, that's 900ft!s. and enhances the value of the house living conditions. and you have the opportunity of building an adu down below under a separate permit. i, i see that as a pretty good advance on doing something illegal. i'm taking a hard line, unsympathetic point. but this is the law. we're dealing with. and an obliteration, an act that obliterate the law. sure. and so i'm looking for a compromise that that you're not going to be happy with. and they're not going to be happy with. that's compromise. and just to your point about kind of, uh, penalties, you know, again, there is enforcement from planning and d.b, um, i don't know what the additional enforcement fees would be through d.b. i know through planning, i actually i don't have the numbers and, you know, the appellants may know actually better than i do. i didn't get those before tonight. i think the penalties that have been paid are in the $12,000 range. and then plus time and materials for staff time and again, i

don't know what will be subject to um, for, for building code violation penalties as well. so but just just letting you know that, that, that that's part of the equation too. and on that front. but i, i understand that again, i'm going to be i'm going to be really a little mean 900ft!s, which is the add on. that's, that's ten times the, the add on 900ft!s, uh, times 1000 to $1200 a square foot, which is a, a very average additional value in, you know, do the math. that's $1 million value nation at a very minimum, at very minimum, to the value of the house versus $12,000. that penalty is a walk in the park by condition, by comparison to the additional value created by just what they've done. not to mention, if you do get a permit

for an adu, which adds a revenue stream and other values to the house, i'm being really nasty here, but it's the truth. and if these people were not nice people and they had a history of being not nice people, which they aren't, then we'd be all over this. but so, uh, sorry for being kind of mean and nasty about this, but the law was broken. something was illegal, was built, and, uh, that's why i'm looking at. okay, where's the compromise here that allows 900ft!s to be continued. the potential for an adu to be approved and. and what are you going to give up for that? and where's the where's the looks like the deck or something or nothing. or we just let it let it sail. this is. yeah, over

200,000 from for us but paid i think has been paid 12. paid 12. yeah. where's the compromise? that's my question. where is the where's the potential compromise or do we let it go? i'm asking the planning department. this should be this should be upsetting to you. sure. but i, i to be clear, like i, i mean, i'm representing the planning commission which their compromise was, was what they granted which was to allow, allow a certain amount of addition to be legalized, but not the full amount. and so that's the appropriate amount that the planning department, you know, supports in this case, if you want to go further than that, then that's a question for your fellow commissioners. as. i i, i think that it would as much as i'd like to be really mean and say tear down the, the extra

ten feet, i don't want to go there, but i'd like to find another. i'd like to another find another compromise piece that that is, is account. it holds somebody accountable for abusing the legal precedence and abusing the, the planning department. so i mean, i'm looking at the decks, but maybe maybe my fellow commissioners said that you're to mean rick, give it up and just let it go. commissioner eppler. thank you. um just just a handful of questions. i'll. i'll try to be brief. um with, you know, i, i think i had you know, timing timeline wise, i think i had a little bit of a epiphany in terms of the definition of the project. and it comes from the, the actual restrictions that the planning commission placed on it in, in both of the discretionary reviews. um, those restrictions

were purely around the massing, right? the restrictions from the discretionary reviews. um, yes. except for the timelines and except for the timelines, right, that the enforcement component of it, for lack of a better terms. yeah. okay. and the reason why it addressed the massing is because that massing had already been built at the time of the first doctor, right? correct. and the reason why we were in this process is because the project was to legalize an illegally built space, right? there are lots of different ways to go about it. but the problem was they illegally built this shell of a space. and then the question is how do you make that legal? that's what that's what they were looking at. all this time. they were looking at how do we legalize this illegally built mass. is that that's yeah. their permit application is were to legalize what was built. okay. and so i mean, it's you know, even though there's been time even those have been changed in unit counts. this common the restrictions are all around. the thing that's been

common the entire time. and that is the illegal massing that was constructed prior to any planning action. that's i believe that's correct. okay um, now i you know, i appreciate, uh , president swig's attempt to find a compromise. i the way i'm looking at this is, you know, to the extent there are competing facts was to judge just allowing the planning department to legalize space as it sees fit. it has to do with the additional unit right. and that additional unit is solely on the bottom floor of this building. correct. the difference in this newer permit. that's before you today is same massing but convert um, adding the second little garden studio at the ground level at the rear. so so the additional ten foot of space at the rear on both the second and the third

floors have no impact effect on the number of units on the property. and they're purely for the enjoyment of the occupant of the larger unit. primary unit. correct. yeah. the second unit is being proposed is purely on the ground floor. okay. got it. thank you. sure vice president lopez. thank you. uh, mr. teague, um, the. appellant's counsel spoke about, uh, the inappropriateness of a applying the residential design guidelines as, uh, you know, in the most recent, uh, doctor prosser. yes. uh, and also the, the illegality of applying the regs. so can you react to that? i think what he was referencing

is, you know, um, updates to state law more recently along those lines, um, relative to the controls that are not objected live. so design guidelines that are not objective if the project is otherwise co complying. um the nuance there is that the decision the planning commission made was that the permit that was proposed. and that's before you here. what was proposed was not co complying because it violated the conditions of approval for the project prior and because the planning code, section 170 for those conditions became basically code requirements. right so you they basically said they rejected the idea that you could throw off objective conditions of approval just by filing a new permit for what they saw as essentially the same project. right from a massing perspective. um, and so that's why there's the tie back to, to the original, uh, conditions of approval, which

were adopted during a different time in state law where that was not the case. and the original conditions of approval, uh, were , were based. correct me if i'm wrong, were based on an application of the regs based on the existing envelope surrounding the property at the time, correct? yeah. correct they the original all discretionary review decision and conditions were to address what they deem to be, um, inconsistencies with the residential design guidelines, um, for the scale of the additions relative to the uh adjacent development context. right. but by, by the time of the current doctor decision that we're discussing, the, the, the adjacent some of the adjacent properties has changed since

2017, is that not there? there was the adjacent property to the north, which had the building has a building all the way at the back, but nothing in the front. they they were permitted. it's not built yet, but it's permitted to be build a residential home. um, you know, kind of right beside the subject building. um, so it did change it did change the context. um, the planning commission didn't feel like that changed the context, didn't change the context in a way that was relevant for the residential design guidelines for this project. okay. and can you show us the what's been termed the pretty picture? again which one? sorry. yeah. the one that shows the envelopes and, you know, is that the one on the computer or one on the plans? uh, i think it was a computer. okay, sure. one on the computer shows the

buildings. yeah. you want to see the building? yeah. if you want it. this is the picture. okay. this is what's built. i can toggle to what was previously there. okay. let me know. so. so which one of these got got got the approval to extend. so this lot right here uh, is what got approved to be built. and i have sorry, alec, but. you can probably see this this is, this is what got approved to be built next door, a building that is taller but not as deep as what is proposed here. um and that's, um, i'm not

sure the exact status of that project in terms of construction , but, um, it's been approved and, and can we go back to the previous computer picture? what can you tell me about it? looks looks like not not the one that used to have the identical envelope, but the one to the to the left of that. what's up with that? can you be more specific? i mean, what was was that there in 2017? yeah. i mean i believe i can go back to the other context. this is 20, um, this is technically 2004, but i don't think those really changed those adjacent buildings over here. they haven't really changed since then. so that context is pretty much the context that existed before the construction happened on the subject.

property and how about the one to the left of that was, i mean, like off screen on the other one? uh, right to the left of your your cursor. these guys. yeah, yeah, they're the same as what they've been. yeah. there's been no change because this is this is from 2004. technically this photo, but it hasn't really changed. and this is from this is current and it's still still the same. got it. okay so. so 20. so 20 2017 one. the planning commission says um, basically you're sticking out too much. the proposal. yeah, yeah. there's two the height and depth combined. we're we're too much. um, yeah. uh, but even at the time there were properties that extended further than the subject property. sure. on the

block. i mean, i think the issue is typically most relevant for these types of situations. residential design guidelines are the more immediate immediately adjacent lots and, you know, in this case to the north, you had two lots in a row that had kind of cottages at the rear and nothing at the front. um, which is kind of a unique context to kind of respond to. and the, um, the kind of previously identical building to the south that was, you know, kind of fairly less deep, um, than what was being proposed. and then so that's that's a snapshot of 2017. and then as of 2023, the, the, the property to the north has been approved. correct me if i'm wrong. it extends past the, the property to the south. it won't stand. it won't go as deep as the what? as

the proposal. that's in front of you for the subject building. but it's a story higher it. but if we if we compare it not to the subject property but the adjacent property that was identical to the subject property before the expansion. and that is still, as far as i can tell, the same envelope that this one used to have used to have the, the, the approved plans do extend beyond that neighbor to the north. right so if i can get the overhead here, um, if i can make sure this is the subject building here, kind of as built and as proposed. so you can see that the adjacent building to the south. and again, this is a massing model. it's not cement. it's not perfectly. but you can see it's much less deep. this new building here is taller, but it's less deep than what's the what's being proposed for the subject building. and i don't know the exact extent here, but i think this is a pretty similar

in terms of the depth of this building is very close to what the depth of the subject building would be if meeting the planning commission's requirements. got it. okay thank you. commissioner lundberg. uh, um. vice president lopez asked most of the questions. i want to i have a kind of an odd one, and you can punt on this question if you want to, but, um. the cost estimates are those ballpark normal. i'm trying to figure that out. i've been working on a project of my own, and i'm having a hard time pinning down prices. and those numbers sound like a lot to me, but i don't know. and you probably know better than me. and again, you can punt on this question if you want to. yeah, i mean, i'm going to be at this one because i, you know, because it's hard. anything like this is tough because there's so many factors involved. there's we don't know what solid necessary versus what

was just like, desired. and obviously the costs are tough to independently verify relative to time past, etc. okay that's that's reasonable. um. i'm sure this is somewhere in the materials, but it's late and i forgot. so um. the immediate neighbors on either side that you're talking about that the that planning considers to be the most important when making these determinations. what are do we do we have written statements from them. do we know what both are both neighbors. i see nods from mr. patterson and mrs. stories. um, yeah. i'm my understanding is that that we don't have any opposition. um, i'm not sure if the neighbors are representing the exact adjacent lots or not. um, you

know, the appellant would know would have a better understanding. i don't want to misread it just to be safe. okay but i mean, to that point, though, i mean, when these issues come up, you know, neighborhood neighbor input is obviously valued. but at the same time, i mean, from a massing and high end design perspective, like some of them meets the residential design guidelines or it doesn't meet the residential design guidelines. okay. right it's not you don't take the subjective opinions of the current. we don't necessarily say this doesn't really meet the residential design guidelines, but your neighbors love it. so you're good to go. now, what can happen is you get neighbors who may able to have kind of unique perspective on the potential impacts of a project, um, both positive and negative, that help us, you know, fully consider a project. but if something like kind of explicit and clearly doesn't meet the residential design guidelines, then, you know, adjacent neighbors support

isn't necessarily going to trump that got it. okay. that is helpful. um, and i think that's it. thank you. vice president lopez. thank you. uh, one more thing i just remembered. so um, i want to ask, do we i mean, mr. mister santos operated in the city for a long time. uh i'm sure there's a lot of projects out there for maybe not unlike this. probably most of them are flying under the radar, but do we have as has the has the department come across some situations similar to this, either with mr. santos or other, uh, folks who weren't operating above board, uh, with, with, you know, we can we can question the reasonableness of the reliance on the representations of mr. santos, given their professional credentials. but, uh, where you do have people who've relied on

a bad actor. uh, what? how does that figure into, uh, the department's thinking on on these questions? yeah. i mean, again, this kind of gets back to what we were talking about earlier. like, obviously, you don't want to be evaluating a project in these circumstances, but when you are evaluating these projects, you're evaluating them against the code, against the residential design guides, like what's on the plans? um, typically we you know, when there's been a somewhat more nefarious scenario that's brought it to that case, obviously, that may have more impact in the enforcement side of it. um, and, you know, it may have impact on the margins. right. but there's not like specific provisions in the planning code or the residential design guidelines that kind of say you should take this into account in this way. thank you. sure. okay president swig. yeah i hesitate to ask this question,

but what the hell? it's only 11:00, so, speaking of the neighbors, i'm actually shocked that we don't have a the neighbor next door normally, i'm reflecting on what would normally happen if somebody were to were to have even proposed an extension, especially the neighbor next door that has kind of the has the stubby, uh, uh, push out that, that this house originally had. but where would we be? corey and i ask you to speculate, um, if there were a approvals that that included a, um, something that was 20 foot less than actually got built and suddenly we the structure was built and the next door neighbor said, whoa, wait a moment. we had a 311 notice. there was a building envelope that said we were going to expand, uh, you

know, x feet. and now it's ten, ten feet more and it's the width of the house and they came in front of us, uh, appealing, appealing for help because these , uh, the people who are building the expansion, uh, blew right through what they were permitted. where would we be on on that if that occurred? what if the next door neighbor came up and said, listen, it's very clear here. they went ten feet further than they should have and completely abused the permit that they were. they were offered where would we be? would we would we be talking about removing that that ten feet times three stories? where would we be? well if i'm understanding correctly, are you saying what if what exactly happened happened? but the context of how we found out about it was and

says, whoa, this is this is getting built and this is not what what the 311 notice said, this is not what the permit says. this is not what was represented. i mean, that'd be an enforcement issue. be if, if, if that the that appeal was coming from a next door neighbor. well, i mean i think effectively you be kind of in the same place right. because at the end of the day, it'd be the same thing. well not exactly the same thing, because then in your example, they actually went through 311 and had a permit. they just built beyond the scope. in this case, they built it out with no permit and then got a permit to. either way, there's a permit to correct a permit to legalize size. um, that, you know, in this case, the planning commission did not support and restricted it. but in your case, maybe the neighbors also hated it and preferred that it be, you know, restricted. but at the end of the day, it'd be the same. it'd be the same kind of fundamental concept for your consideration, which is something was built

without permits, a permit to legalize either a permit to legalize that was approved or denied is before you, on appeal. but i think the general premise would still be the same. and so just the context would be a little different in terms of, you know, neighborhood position on. so what we are faced with right now is, uh, to say you build something that was not approved, take the, uh, take the ten, take the deck off, take the ten foot extension times three stories off. uh, tough luck if you can't afford it, you shouldn't have done it in the first place. and really slap them hard, or we find another compromise. his position, which may not be as hard of a slap. is that kind of where we're in the what position we're in? because that would uphold that would uphold the law. i mean, it's like a lot of decisions that come before you. it's a spectrum, right on one end of the spectrum is uphold the

planning commission's decision. on the other end of the spectrum is basically reverse it, which is what the appellant is asking for. and then there's everything in the middle. there's different ways you can nibble around the margins to do something different that like kind of to quote you from earlier, that maybe makes nobody happy. but is somewhere in the middle of where things are, where i mean, the way i see it, that's the way it is. it's like that's the spectrum where we're working on, um, and, you know, if you want to land somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, it gets more new danced and challenging. and so again, if we wanted to land in the middle, i asked you this before you punted it back to me. but now i'm going to punt it back to you. where's the where's the i hate it, i hate it, compromise. well, again, i, i'm going to defer to the commission to deliberate on that. um, because, because again the planning commission has made its position clear on the compromise they are, which is their end of

the spectrum. and that's the, you know, this that's what was approved at the doctor hearing. okay. thank you for your your great assistance. sure. i love you madly. uh, i commissioners anything further from dubai? no okay. commissioners matter. submitted. okay. who wants the hot potato first? well, we've been doing it tonight, so i'll start again. um i think i think actually, uh, mister teague just made a very, very salient point that hadn't come out, and that is that the position of the planning commission that was taken twice with seven different commissioners voting for the same conditions, only one commissioner voting against it. two commissioners voted for it twice at different times. the others were just absent at the times at which they were there to vote. that position is a compromise because of the non compromise is to go back to the original and not allow the

addition of anything else. so we already have a compromise in play right now. um, now we can talk about whether that compromise should still be applicable given changes in time and everything else that's happened with different plan sets. but to me, that's that's a hard one to bite because there are different plan sets to achieve the same goal. and that is the legalization of an illegal space. and so we talked a lot about deference to the planning commission a little bit earlier tonight. we have difference in this case to two different planning conditions at two different times. i find that to be a very strong, um, you know, indication of, of where we should go. um, so i would not be inclined to, to uphold the appeal. however i do acknowledge that, you know, it is much more economical and easier to add a unit and there is a benefit to

adding a unit. i think we all agree if we do allow the additional space, but solely on the bottom floor, that creates the additional unit. i would no circumstance allow the additional ten feet on the second or third floor, because that is purely an economic benefit that's generated as a result of violate of our code, and not just by the big bad man who is in jail, but also by by the contractor who has a responsibility to make sure that permits are are taken out before doing work. and this is not a small scale permit violation. this is a really big scale, which is kind of advantageous to the people that violated the permitting laws, because it creates this huge envelope for us to argue over. if it were a small envelope, we'd be really good at saying no. but because they did such a bad thing, we're looking somewhere in the middle,

and that confers a great advantage for something that was fundamentally wrong in the first place. you make some really good points, commissioner eppler. um, i honestly still have no idea how i'm voting on this appeal. i have no idea. um, and i'm honestly a bit of a loss for words, which, as you all know, doesn't happen very often. um. as i stated earlier, you know, i still, i feel bad for these property owners, i really do, and i, i would love to make some further compromises acknowledging what commissioner eppler just said and agreeing with him that, uh, you know, that this was the what the planning commission did was indeed a compromise. um, i would be willing to go further. the problem is, i can't think of what to actually do. i cannot think of what to actually do. and i we have asked so many

questions and gotten excellent answers from both sides and, and i don't even even so i'm really struggling to come up with what the appropriate well scoped solution is here. um, that we as a body can can do today. um. i'm definitely not going to make a motion. i don't know what i am, you know, i definitely would like to hear where president twigg and vice president lopez are at with this, because i truly don't know. i'm. i'm torn as well. um, i think, uh. i mean, the. the lack of, uh, you know, meeting the, the

responsibilities of the license contractor status, uh, is serious. um i also think that, um, you know, that that given the nefarious nature of the, the bad actor, which, you know, can't, can't be understated, they they they don't have the same freedoms, freedoms that we do today. uh, the fact that, um, there were other, uh, permits, uh, that were issued on the original project, that the fact that, um, that the construction was, was done to code. i mean, i think there's, there's a lot of there there's some shades of gray. um that make it such that

that, uh, i am i'm less inclined to, uh, take a more punitive approach here. um. i also think, looking at, um, i think what's difficult about this is this is you know, essentially in, in some ways, a referendum on the, the, the, the commission's, uh, most recent, uh, daca process. um i think it's difficult, um, to, to, to, to second guess that given that it's gone through two, but then, then i also think that from where i'm sitting, you know, having an having an over reliance on the 2017 on design

vision when a lot has changed, even just in the adjacent the nature of the adjacent properties, uh, since 2017, that doesn't seem right to me to say, hey, well, our 2017 body said that this doesn't didn't fit. meanwhile, we just gave, you know, more space to your, your neighbor that that doesn't compute for me. um because at the end of the day, uh, you know, newsflash, this isn't the first, uh, permit that's been, uh, sought out for illegal construction. um and it feels like, i mean, let's let's be honest, taking it back to the 2017 proposal does feel like a nuclear option. and i think

that's what that is. that feels punitive to me. like, um, and, and i my, my sense too is that, that there's like i said, there's an issue with just, you know, taking the 2017, uh, guidance at face value given the changes in the neighborhood. i do think that there's an argument to that, that it's that it's a different project. i mean, if, if, if we think about the present, the precedent that that we would set and even i suspect if you asked the property owners in 2014, i tell you what, we're going to do these this illegal job, but don't worry about it. you're going to have almost ten years of, uh, delays, fines, notices of violation to doctor hearings,

a decade of pain. but at the other end of it, congratulations . owns you have to close off a part of your house. and the only way that you can keep the envelope is to essentially break a piece of your house off and, and make it a separate unit. i don't know that they do that. you know, if you turn back time and ask them that, i don't think that we're going to have a line out the door of cases of folks racing to get that deal. i think that the proposal is a compromise is it's not the way i would characterize characterize the 2017 position is a nuclear option in practice, and this one preserves the envelope. but it's not like they don't they don't lose anything. i mean, if, if you if you ask me, hey, we're

going to do an expansion on your house. great. hey, it didn't go through, but don't worry, we got we'll get the same project through. oh, by the way, you can't use your bedroom anymore. you got to bring in a renter. that, to me, would feel like a separate project. that's a separate deal. so i do think there are enough shades of gray on the difference of the project question. i do think that the envelope isn't determinative. i do think that that the number of units is a key consideration here. like, i don't think any of us who are homeowners would be racing to do an expansion if it meant we couldn't access part of our house. that's a that's a big deal. and so there's the unit thing. there's the intervening changes in the nature of the neighborhood between 2017 and 23. there's the equity considerations. i mean, you know

, i think it takes more fact finding than we're, you know, able to do, um, to do you know, here tonight in terms of, you know, being actually actually being able to determine how reasonable or unreasonable the contractors, um, reliance on mr. santos's statement were, i don't know. i mean, we've had testing and evidence in other matters related to mr. santos where there's literal falsification and writing things on checks. so i don't know the facts. like what? how serious of, uh, of a transgressor was it to rely on, on what was going on there? i know we have evidence from other scenarios where santos was doing

some pretty, you know, beyond the pale stuff. and so it just seems it adds up to a situation where we have people who, by all intents, uh, by all indications or or or good folks, uh, asking them to do what the. 2017 commission asked. it does feel like a nuclear option to me at. and now we have a path forward, which is, yeah. yes. i think we would concede that, uh, the envelope stays is, uh, there are potential revenue streams associated with it, but is this the i ideal, you know, sparkly and glittery outline of a dream

project that was sketched out and, you know, a decade ago. no, i do think that it's significant that a part of your house gets chopped off and becomes a unit for someone else to use. so i think, i mean, i could i could go with the removal of the decks as an additional, um, additional kind of, uh, change to, to try to find something that feels like more of a compromise to, to everybody. but i do think loss of the unit finds everything that's transpired in the, you know, nine years plus that that this has been going on. i mean, i think those things need to be, you know, acknowledged as is uh, is prices that the, the property owners have to bear as well. i'd

like to ask mr. teague a question and also bring up, um, the, the, uh, put the photograph on the computer again . and oh, where's the one, where's the can you put the, the photo up with the new, uh, with the house? that was just approved. sorry, is that ryan? yeah. the neighbor letters are on the computer. if you need those. yeah. okay. so um, can you can you pull it down so i can. i'm

going to i'm going to and confuse the issue even more. but i don't know if we'll get anywhere. first of all, um, uh, corey. so we leave it alone. they dodged the bullet. this is a big bullet. if you dodge this one. mr. patterson, you know you're a better lawyer. even better lawyer than i think you are. um because this is a big bullet. you know, uh, but if corey, if we say tear it down, bring it back. sorry. you just lost the end of your house and your deck, right? what is there to be gained sometimes, you know . some sometimes that's that has happens, you know, uh, what is there to be gained? what do you what does the city gain? what is what what is the what is the

beneficial other than the fact that you're holding somebody accountable for breaking the law? what is gained by going back to the 2017 plan and holding them accountable? well, from the planning commission's perspective, yeah. from the from the planning commission's perspective was being gained. is ensuring that what gets built is consistent with the residential design guidelines and not authorizing something that does not meet the residential design guidelines. only because it was built without permits, that that's i mean, that's the premise from the planning commission. okay. and you understand that board? i mean, that's a very important piece of this. um, so second thing that crosses my mind. so we, we, we take that position, which is a, which is a fair position in according to the law and the owners say can't do it. we don't

have the money to do that. and we are going to have to leave our home of our family, home of decade and decades and decades, which would be a tragedy. um, and because we can't do that, we can't we don't we don't have the will to do it. we don't have the money to do it. you're forcing us out of our house because you thought we broke the law, that we actually did break the law unknowingly or knowingly. i'm not going. i'm not going to make that judgment. but so. so what is to be gained is in doing, in doing that. and what happens to that house? does some developer come in and buy the house at discount, chop off the extra 20ft, uh, reposition the house and sell it for a profit. um, is that what happens? does the house, uh, become blighted because nobody wants to buy a house that they know they have

to cut 20ft off the back of? what what what gain does the city of san francisco make when that happens? because that's what's going to happen. potentially i think the planning commission's position is they don't know. and it's, i think, fairly impossible for them to assess what would happen. um again, i said, i think their position is that they don't know and it's impossible for them to assess what is going to happen with this property going forward. obviously, the property owners have made claims about their finances and the cost to do this work and their ability to deal with that, and that may be 100% true. again, we have no way of independently verifying that. and if that is true, the risk that is taken. let's look at the risk that is it may be a situation like you said, where they where the property would have to change hands in order to have that done. one of the conditions of approval from the planning commission and the most recent um, action was to have an

order of abatement recorded on the property so that if there ever was a future owner, there's very clear understanding of what's required. moving forward. um but it is kind of a challenge for us to be able to crystal ball that and determine what's likely to happen, because, again, there's so many, so many variables involved that we don't have, you know, access to that information. yeah, i'm just looking at risk reward scenarios . you know, the risk scenario on the first one, if, if we allow them to dodge the gigantic bullet and we allow an illegal structure to move forward in perpetuity, then we open up a can of worms because we just allowed something illegal to happen. all right. and that that compromise is the planning department and the integrity of the planning department or the not the integrity of the just the, the future actions that they might take in a similar situation. if we go the other

way and do the nuclear option and it is a nuclear option, there's that's perfectly stated. uh, then the there is a risk that the building owner can't afford to stay there. we're displacing a family who's been good citizens for decades and decades. and they have to sell the house and, and maybe nobody wants to buy it because they're taking on the obligation. to tear off 20% of the 20ft off the back of the house and reconfigure it. and so there's double losers. the family can't sell it for a price. that's a penalty. you pay and or the city gets that. we get a blighted situation in the city, which doesn't do the city any good. i mean, those are both those is that that's the risks on both sides of the i mean, there's always a risk that the work won't be done in the near future. i mean, in terms of like

a blighted situation, i'm not sure if that's a huge risk in in this case with this type of property. um, but but yeah, i mean, i think, of course, there's all kinds of possibilities for all kinds of projects going forward. there are lots of projects for lots of reasons that fall on challenging financial situations and, you know, get stuck for a while or have to change hands or people find the way to finance it and make it work. even though it's painful. it's just kind of impossible for us to assess which one of those outcomes will will take place. now, if you're looking at that shifting gears. so that's the risk on both sides. you know, one, we displace a family. one, we cause a family, um, a significant financial impact. and they'll have to move out for a long period of time because you're the testimony was absolutely right. but we have a bathroom that we configured our bedroom in a certain way, and we have to reconfigure the bedroom and the whole, you know, i it's not just

as easy as cutting off the back of the house, but look at the look at the pretty picture that you put up just now with that house next door have been approved without. i mean, that that's a higher house. it doesn't go as deep. there's that 20, there's that extra ten feet again or even 20ft again. but they put it on the top. they have setbacks. um, their massing is different. but would that house have been approved in 2017 or or, you know, or what. yeah and that's also kind of really challenging to say because i can't speak for the planning commission in 2017. and what they would have, would have approved. i'm also not entirely sure if this approval was under more current provisions, where, you know, subjective design guidelines are more limited in their applicability as well. so

i think, commissioners, i was just trying to frame some considerations for us as we move , move forward. we have a big response ability here. um, um, what's really bugging me is, i mean, i, i regardless of it, they're my best friends or my worst friends. it doesn't matter. we're up here to uphold the law. and the law has been broken. that's the that's the problem. and, um, and further exacerbated. i keep on looking at that deck, which is another six, at least 6 or 8ft off the back. what is it? um, it looks to be approximately five feet. i can get maybe the top floor is five. the middle floor is 6 or 7. and it makes it even. even more of an indulgence. i believe

the deck is, uh, six feet deep at the top. um, and the second one is second floor. um it's not dimensioned on the plans, but it's the same or less . okay. same or less. i believe it's the same. yeah, but i believe it's the same. yeah. and do you think that the. and i'm going back to the deck again. do you think taking the. holding, the massing, uh, holding the massing as it is. because it would be a domino effect. one

way or the other. and the two risks scenarios that i posed. if you take off the deck is, is, uh, is that a punitive step that would cause more than a bee sting? um, but still, to the property owners would still piss you off as the planning department, you know, that will compromise. or are we just is that are we doing it just for the sake of. am i suggesting it just for the sake of doing the doing it? yeah. i mean, i think, i mean, i think that's just under your purview. i mean, obviously the planning commission felt like all of that last ten feet and decks should, should come off. yeah. um yeah. so the, the, the planning commission didn't approve the decks either, did they? correct. the decks are removed and that on and there's no there's no deck on the back of the next door. the new next door neighbor either is there, um, or not at

those lower levels, a smaller one at the top. yeah. yeah. it's not a it's not a deck that extends back. it's the floor doesn't extend all the way. so it's a different kind of deck. anybody have any further thoughts or or uh or should i you know, propose something as, uh, that, that nobody's going to like. i do have further thoughts . okay. um, i this one's so tough. um, i agree with vice president lopez that cutting off the entire ten feet is overly punitive. i don't like it. i don't want to order that. um, that being said, um, i also take issue with the argument that that the extra unit on the ground floor is, is, uh, it's societal. i'll use ability exceeds that of the added

benefit of rental income to the owners. um, and i just don't find that argument compelling. and so, uh, and i also kind of agree about these decks, and i, i'm, i'm loathe to approve everything as is. i don't think that's the right solution either. and i've been looking for what this compromise is. um, and yet the compromise to me just cannot involve cutting off the ten feet of the house. it just doesn't make sense. so, what i want to propose and i'm perfectly willing to hear feedback on this, because if we're going to grant anything, it requires all four of our votes tonight. right um, that we order the decks chopped off and, and, um, that the ground floor unit does not actually become a separate rental unit because i think the benefit to the owners on that actually exceeds the, the, the, the benefit to society on, on that particular point. um, and otherwise allowing the

addition ions to remain as long as the ground floor unit becomes part of the main house, which i assume it already is. um, that's my proposal. i'm happy to hear feedback on it. so let's go to miss. uh commissioner lopez and then come to commissioner eppler for feedback. please. uh, i'm prepared to support that. i think i have a different view of the utility versus, uh, social utility versus private benefit of the rental unit, but i don't. i wouldn't i wouldn't fight it on that basis. commissioner eppler. i see your point, and i appreciate your point. however for, um, one, one, um, i'm not wholly convinced that that that i would i'll vote for, for either iteration of that. but

secondly, um, i do think that the, the one benefit of this iteration of the project is that it does provide an additional rental unit. um i don't. i don't know, i think letting that be more additional space that they can, they can use is also a bit of a windfall. um, my own, my own, my own opinion on that. um, so i, i'm, i appreciate i do appreciate and take your point on the rental income and i do understand that, but i'm, i'm not sure if i, i wholly agree with the balance of the, the benefits and costs. um commissioner lopez, tell me about the adu. should it be in or should it be out? out. well

that feels like it's outside of scope, right? uh, you mean the you mean the first. the first unit? the. no, the should should the additional unit be added on the on the basement floor? oh, i , i think so. i mean, i think back to how i think about, about i think that's in my mind, that's, that's part of the basis for it being a separate project. right. go ahead. i just thought of something. what's behind that space. that's for the project sponsors. what what's behind that. what's what's adjacent to that space currently. and the garage. so if i am going to be convinced to support the creation of this adu, i want to assurances that it's actually good quality housing. um, and if that footprint can be expanded and i may be more amenable to this idea, um, because that is

the smallest one bedroom unit i've ever seen. um, and i have lived in some pretty small one bedroom units in san francisco, and it is not high quality housing. and if it's if we're going to go down that road, that's what i would want to see. i would support that aligned with that. um corey, can you can you can you interpret the plans, uh, with or maybe mr. patterson, we could also have them come back with revise plans reflecting these changes. let me let me ask my questions. we're going in this and i may be the answer. um, can you give me a ceiling height on the on the on the basement unit? just we're talking about quality. all right. can you can you tell me about ceiling height? is it is it seven feet? is it eight feet? what's the minimum in the city? six. nine. or for habitable space. that's not like a bathroom and stuff. a76, but, um , let me get to the, uh,

sections here. opposed as to. i believe that is eight foot eight. so it's decent. it's decent. not great, but decent ceiling height. how would you characterize it compared to the other adus, which are popping up around the city for an and to be clear, yeah, this this second unit being proposed, the rear building is not an adu. it's just a second standard unit. it's just a small unit. yeah. um and i would say that's comparable to adus that are put in behind garages because a lot of times garage levels are about eight nine feet tall. typically you're higher ten foot ceiling heights, things like that are going to be on upper levels. and commissioner lundberg characterizes for 450ft!s, thats the smallest. uh that he

criticized the size of the unit as being, um, teeny tiny. but tell me about tell us about garage conversions, which are popping all over up all over my neighborhood. how are they? uh, what what do you what are you seeing as a trend? and is 450fts a in sync with the trend around the city or is it deficient? yeah, i mean, i think technically this isn't even a it's not the way the plans are called out this studio. it's a studio. yeah. because there's not like a separate bathroom area. so i think as far as studios go, it's pretty, pretty comparable in size. typically if you're going to get up above 500ft!s or more, you're probably looking at a one bedroom unit. and once you get in that range, i think from that perspective, it's a, you know, it's a student, it's a studio. it's a

garden studio. um so it would not be substandard housing for, for an adu in this city at this point. obviously, i mean, substandards is kind of a subjective terme, you know, it's not the highest ceiling height. it's not the biggest unit. it doesn't have the best exposure to light and air, but it has enough of all those things to meet code requirements. okay fine. i have another thought. um forget what i said about the smallest unit ever. it's really not. i was looking at the diagram incorrectly. i think what the solution is, is, uh, recording a covenant, making this a below market rate. i think that's the solution. that's the better solution. if this is possible. there. i'm

sorry. can you give us the wisdom of that suggestion? and can we do it? yeah. i mean, i, i would definitely suggest some city attorney feedback on on that. i mean, maybe not. i don't you know, that's coming out of the blue. so, you know, may not be prepared to provide guidance on that this evening. um, i know there are potential limitations on the ability to do that depending on the kind of project that it is. so i think if that if you were interested in that, i think that would be it'd be prudent to not take that action tonight. um that would be my response as. sure if you would like, mr. patterson, you may request his presence a request your presence. thank you. i have

been summoned. uh thank you, commissioners. i was just going to say a below market rate recording that on title. that that is a very serious, significant burden on a property with major administrative, uh, problems. you have to go through the mayor's office when you rent your, your unit. um what the owners would like to propose is they would agree to make it a rent controlled unit. so so there's still wouldn't it be rent controlled anyway? yeah, it's a it would be a new unit. oh, yeah. i guess so. 79 cfc. even though it's part of the footprint of a, of an older building that i feel like it would be rent controlled anyway that my, i deal with that question all the time is much more of an expert on this topic than i am, but i my understanding is it's creating a new housing unit with a new

post. 1979 cfc, but they would they would be willing to put a deed restriction on on title, making it rent controlled. so i just put that out there for consideration there. also to your earlier question, they would be willing to give up that laundry room area behind and add that space to the downstairs unit. if the commission likes if the board likes, okay, what we have on the table, guys, is, um, uh, that it seems fairly. i know , i think there are three individuals that would like the removal of the decks. uh, and which would take away some of the, the depth, uh, not get even close to planning commission designation. um, and also so

that an adu or not an adu, i, i, i, i, um, i see, i see penalty, i see the knife cutting both ways on, on the 80 on the adu situation. i would support the adu simply because it adds a unit of, of inventory and if you want a covenant that it's a, uh, rent control, that's that's great. it's probably going to be rent control anyway. but i would covenant it anyway. but i wouldn't. i think you penalize the i, you penalize the city as much as you benefit the, the homeowners on that. but that's where we stand. um, so who wants to take it further or want to refine it? so, um, so i heard two offers there, one and forgive me, i was looking up the rent control ordinance just to verify, but unfortunately, we've been in this hearing, so long,

my battery has died on my laptop . um, so i would, um, you know, take, take both offers, actually. and get revised plans to increase the size of the unit by removing the laundry facility and having a covenant place just to ensure as necessary that that unit is rent controlled and if we do that and remove the decks, then i guess maybe we can move forward this evening. so moved. you want to you want to you want to repeat what i think we need to i mean, the decks were already removed under the dra action memo from march 2023. so you're not changing anything. um, but what you want to do is legalize as the current envelope . is that what you want to do? i, i think that's our i think that's our only choice. i don't i mean, i'm not sure about the rent control thing. i mean,

yeah, i mean, i unfortunately i'm not in a position to advise on that this evening. it's just not something that's come up before the board. so i would i would have to look into it. i mean if, if they're agreeing to do it, um, you know, i suppose that's, that's one thing. but i just can't give advice on it. on the fly this evening may, may we may we make the motion that is made, not vote on it tonight. maintain the motion unless denied by the city attorney and vote on this motion because commissioner trasvina has already. doesn't matter what he's already recused himself. so we can't make the motion. we could make a motion to continue it and then revisit it. if you want the city attorney advice right, i, i would suggest that based on the city attorney's advice, uh, that that we continue it. um, but that we not

allow further testing any other than that of the city attorney to advise us on a very narrow band, which is can we in perpetuity, uh, put a rent control covenant on the, um, on the adu in the expanded format and would we also want the revised plans at that time? and, and we can have the we could revise plans. sure. and you want the removal of the laundry room. yeah. yes. and that that added to the additional rental unit on the bottom floor, the sorry just relevant to the advice. can we get a firm commitment from counsel that they don't object and the party would agree to the imposition of rent control all. ryan patterson for appellants, yes. uh, deputy city attorney it's called a costa-hawkins waiver. and it's something that's done routinely for the

local adu program actually requires it. so it's in the planning code already. well, thank you. so the edu that's not being covered tonight, the one in the back the rear yard that's also covered by rent control. that is a it's a state law adu. it's a different program. it's a different program. um yeah. it's not okay then stay away from that. okay. so in effect, i mean, the goal is to legalize the existing envelope, remove the laundry room, and impose rent control on the second dwelling unit on the ground floor. right. do you want. that's the plan. um i mean, given counsel's representation that they're, you know, they're not they're not going to object to it. they're agreeing to it voluntarily. um you know, i don't have i don't have great

concerns about it. i just i haven't looked at it. let's deal with it tonight. and relieve everybody of their of their pain . um all right. i mean, i don't know that there's any legal obligation that they would rent it out. um, but if they did, they are agreeing that it be rent controlled. that's true. so should we. maybe just remove the first three conditions or i can just say legalize the existing envelope. they're talking. so, no, i think we keep it. i think she's just saying that they're there's no guarantee that they'll actually rent it out. yeah i'm just talking about the physical change. oh i see permit . so right now the doctor action memo has three conditions. cutting back the removing the

decks and cutting back. but we want the decks to so to be removed. so it would be basically only be removing the first two conditions. so removing the decks not cutting back part of it. yeah yeah that's already part of it. so we don't have to modify i mean the permit is based on the dra action memo. so i'm just asking would the best way to do this is to remove condition one and two, which was intended to cut them back. back the second and third story and the ground floor. yep okay. and then and removing the laundry room, adding the condition. we're basically can we just make the motion tonight then and be done with this? i think so right okay. if we if we're relying on their stipulation okay. and who's making this motion? i made the motion. you are. yes okay. president lopez, and what is the basis of your motion on the basis that the, uh, de sr was

improperly issued? okay. so technically, it is an appeal of a cancellation of a permit, right. so i just want to make sure we're framing the motion right in the right way. basically, the permits not going to be issued, but we're reinstating a review of the permit with these conditions because it still has to go through a number of processes. so at this point, if we're reinstating the potential for the permit is this permit now appealable by the next door neighbor or any neighbor just i would argue yes. yeah but the neighbors seem to be in favor of the project though. so the neighbor could next door neighbor could come back and say, yeah, i think seriously disagree with your point. and we're appealing this permit and we want the back ten feet of the building sloped off, but the neighbors aren't here. and they hear support. i'm just i'm just

yeah, it's an interesting question, but it's 1152 and i'm going to make the motion inviting it. okay thank you. not inviting it. are you filing an appeal. so we have a motion from vice president lopez to grant the appeal and overturn the cancellation of the permit and reinstate review the permit on the condition that it be revised to require, uh, the approval of the current building envelope and in effect, this would remove conditions one and two of, uh, the doctor action memo. 822. um, removal of the laundry room and, uh, with the condition that the second dwelling unit on the ground floor be subject to rent control. 11, i think on the removal of the laundry room, that should be an expansion of the rental unit. yep yeah, yeah. okay. removal of the laundry room and expansion of the dwelling unit, the dwelling

unit, the dwelling unit to include the laundry room space. yes. okay. and then this motion was made on the basis. yes. sorry. i think for clarity, we should state that the motion would maintain conditions. three through eight. well, i just think, yeah, that sounds good. maintain conditions three through eight. does the order of abatement still need to be recorded? yeah, i okay so three main stain conditions three through eight okay. we'll add that in there. and this motion is made on the basis that the discretionary review memo was improperly issued was flawed. and this was the 822 improperly issued. or that the cancellation was was i'm sorry, the cancellation was improper, was improper. okay. on that motion,

commissioner lundberg i commissioner eppler i president swig i okay. so that motion carries 4 to 0 okay okay. uh g should we have another hearing if you i think if you parked in the civic center garage and it's locked for some reason, there is a code on your ticket and there's a little box to the left of the sliding door when you enter that code. and there's someone there who will answer the buzzer. if you call and you tell them you can't get in and they'll tell you to punch in your code, they'll let you in. so don't worry. we can arrive. i'll be out there in a little bit, but i got to clean up a little. so.

as a society we've basically failed big portion of our population if you think about the basics of food, shelter safety a lot of people don't have any of those i'm mr. cookie can't speak for all the things but i know say, i have ideas how we can address the food issue. >> open the door and walk through that don't just stand looking out. >> as they grew up in in a how

would that had access to good food and our parent cooked this is how you feed yours this is not happening in our country this is a huge pleasure i'm david one of the co-founder so about four year ago we worked with the serviced and got to know the kid one of the things we figured out was that they didn't know how to cook. >> i heard about the cooking school through the larkin academy a. >> their noting no way to feed themselves so they're eating a lot of fast food and i usually eat whatever safeway is near my home a lot of hot food i was excited that i was eating lunch enough instead of what and eat.

>> as i was inviting them over teaching them basic ways to fix good food they were so existed. >> particle learning the skills and the food they were really go it it turned into the is charity foundation i ran into my friend we were talking about this this do you want to run this charity foundations and she said, yes. >> i'm a co-found and executive director for the cooking project our best classes participation for 10 students are monday they're really fun their chief driven classes we have a different guest around the city they're our stand alone cola's we had a series or series still

city of attorney's office style of classes our final are night life diners. >> santa barbara shall comes in and helps us show us things and this is one the owners they help us to socialize and i've been here about a year. >> we want to be sure to serve as many as we can. >> the san francisco cooking school is an amazing amazing partner. >> it is doing that in that space really elevates the space for the kids special for the chief that make it easy for them to come and it really makes the experience pretty special. >> i'm sutro sue set i'm a chief 2, 3, 4 san francisco. >> that's what those classes afford me the opportunity it breakdown the barriers and is

this is not scary this is our choice about you many times this is a feel good what it is that you give them is an opportunity you have to make it seem like it's there for them for the taking show them it is their and they can do that. >> hi, i'm antonio the chief in san francisco. >> the majority of kids at that age in order to get them into food they need to see something simple and the evidence will show and easy to produce i want to make sure that people can do it with a bowl and spoon and burner and one pan. >> i like is the receipts that are simple and not feel like it's a burden to make foods the

cohesives show something eased. >> i go for vera toilet so someone can't do it or its way out of their range we only use 6 ingredients i can afford 6 ingredient what good is showing you them something they can't use but the sovereignties what are you going to do more me you're not successful. >> we made a vegetable stir-fry indicators he'd ginger and onion that is really affordable how to balance it was easy to make the food we present i loved it if i having had access to a kitchen i'd cook more. >> some of us have never had a

kitchen not taught how to cookie wasn't taught how to cook. >> i have a great appreciation for programs that teach kids food and cooking it is one of the healthiest positive things you can communicate to people that are very young. >> the more programs like the cooking project in general that can have a positive impact how our kids eat is really, really important i believe that everybody should venting to utilize the kitchen and meet other kids their age to identify they're not alone and their ways in which to pick yours up and move forward that. >> it is really important to me the opportunity exists and so i

do everything in my power to keep it that. >> we'll have our new headquarters in the heart of the tenderloin at taylor and kushlg at the end of this summer 2014 we're really excited. >> a lot of the of the conditions in san francisco they have in the rest of the country so our goal to 257bd or expand out of the san francisco in los angeles and then after that who know. >> we'd never want to tell people want to do or eat only provide the skills and the tools in case that's something people are 2rrd in doing. >> you can't buy a box of psyche you have to put them in the right vein and direction with the right kids with a right place address time those kids don't have this you have to instill they can do it they're

good enough now to finding out figure out and find the future for >> [music] art withelders exhibiting senior art work across the bay for 30 years as part of our traveling exhibit's program. for this exhibits we partnered with the san francisco art's commission galleries and excited show case the array of artist in historic san francisco city hall.

>> [inaudible]. call me temperature is unique when we get to do we, meaning myself and the 20 other professional instructors we are working with elders we create long-term reps i can't think of another situation academically where we learn about each other. and the art part i believe is a launching pad for the relationship building:see myself well. and if i don't try when my mom again. she may beat the hell out of mow

if i don't try >> seniors, the population encounters the problem of loneliness and isolation even in a residential community there hen a loss of a spouse. leaving their original home. may be not driving anymore and so for us to be ail to bring the classes and art to those people where hay are and we work with people in all walks of life and circumstances but want to finds the people that are isolated and you know bring the warmth there as much as art skill its personal connection. men their family can't be well for them. i can be their fell and feel it. >> i don't have nobody. people say, hi, hi. hello but i don't know who they are. but i come here like on a wednesday, thursday and friday. and i enjoy.

>> we do annual surveys asking students what our program does for them. 90 plus % say they feel less alone, they feel more engaged. they feel more socially connected the things you hope for in general as we age. right? >> and see when i do this. i am very quiet. i don't have anybody here talking to me or telling me something because i'm concentrating on had i'm doing and i'm not talking to them. >> not just one, many students were saying the program had absolutely transformational for them. in said it had saved their lives. >> i think it is person to

support the program. because i think ida elder communities don't get a lot of space in disability. we want to support this program that is doing incredible work and giving disability and making this program what supports the art and health in different way bunkham art as a way of expression. a way of like socializing and giving artists the opportunity also to make art for the first time, sometimes and we are excited that we can support this stories and honor their stories through art. we hope the people will feel inspired by the variety and the quality of the creative expressions here and that viewers come, way with a greater appreciation of the richness what elders have to share with us.

[music]

to introduce our discussion this afternoon, please welcome to the stage