>> president jose lopez the presiding officer joined by vice president lemberg. swig. traz vina and eppler. also city attorney will provide needed legal add viechls the board's assistant alec. we will be joined by representative from thes city departments that will present before the board this evening. corey teague reporting planning. kevin birmingham building inspector with dbi. john in engineer with public works. and we expect chris buck, san

francisco public works forestry. upon surgeon off all electronic device. no eating or drinking in the roomful the ruleers as follows. appellates, permit holders 7 minutes to present and 3 for rebuttal. people afill yatd must include comment in thes 7 and 3 minute period. rehearing the parties have 3 minutes each with no rebuttal. >> members of the public not credit parties have 3 minutes. and though rebuttal. time may be limited to 2 minutes if the agenda is long. you will get a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing e mail staff at board of appeals.

now public access and participation are of importance. sfgovtv is streaming and receive public comment for each item on the agenda. sfgovtv provides closed captioning. go to sfgovtv channel 78 will be rebroadcast on friday on channel 26. opinion comment can be provide one, in person. two, via zoom. go to our website and click on the zoom link for the date. and 3, telephone. again. sfgovtv is broadcasting the instructions on the b. screen if you are watching the broadcast. to block your number when

calling dial star 67 and the number. listen for your item to be called and dial star 9 equal of raising your hands so we know you want to speak. you will be brought in when it is your turn. dial star 6 to unmovement 2-3 minutes depending on the length of the agenda you will get a 30 second warning before your time is up limp is a delay with live proceedings and had is broadcast and live streamod tv and the internet t. is important that people call nothing reduce or turn off volume on television's and computers otherwise well is interference with the meeting. if the participateos zoom need an acamidation or assistance question in the chat to the board legal assistant or e mail to board of appeals. chat cannot be used for public comment. we will take comment first from members present in the room. now we will swear in or affirm

all those who intends to testify. any member may speak without an oath. if you intend to testify tonight and the board give evidenceary weight raise your right hand and say, i do. >> do you swear the testimony will be the truth and nothing butt truth? thank you if you mean are pavement and not speak put zoom on mute. we have one housekeeping item. parties for 8a-d, appeal numbers 2417, 2418, 19 and 20 propertyos al mainy boulevard asked to continue to august 14th we need a motion and vote and call for public comment. >> i move we continue items 8a-d until the date mentioned. is there public comment on this

motion? raise your hand. >> on the motion. >> i don't see anyone on zoom. on that motion to continue president lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner trasvina. >> aye >> lemberg. >> aye >> swig. >> yes >> that motion sxaers they will move to august 14th. >> item 1 is journey public comment upon an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak in the board's jurisdiction but not on tonight's calendar. is there a member who wishes to speak on an item not on tonight's agenda? thank you for letting me speak. i'm mark bruno i appeared here many times i have been told you are reviewing the rules and how it interfaces with the partial my nltdzing from a recent

communication from julie rosenberg it is allowable today for this board to accept testimony from people through the internet and zoom? whether or not that is true, i believe it is true i was asked to do that. or offerd that. i think from appearing elsewhere and many committees and boards i'm involved with. none. them allow that anymore. i don't know what the answer is, if you are going to do that you should have a way to swear people in who are on zoom if people testimony on something important they perhaps can be sworn in, i don't know if that is possible legally that is an issue to consider as you consider new rules it seems fair that if we are sworn in, others should be given the same chance. thank you. >> okay. thank you. any further general public

comment? raise your hand. we will move on to item 2. commissioner comments and question sns >> commissioner sns move forward >> okay. thank you. item 3. the adoption of minutes. before you for discussion and possible adoption are minutes. june 12, 2024 meeting. >> i move to adopt minutes of the june 12 meeting. >> any public comment on the motion to adopt the minutes. >> no, so on that motion, president lopez. >> aye. >> vice president lemberg. >> aye. >> commissioner eppler. >> aye. >> swig. >> aye >> the minutes are adopted. we are moving to 4. rehearing request for subject property 472 union mark bruno is comb requesting a rehearing of

24-023. at that time upon motion the board voted. to grant appeal permit on the condition revised to require that the permit holder post notice of the work 48 hours. repair stairway less than 50% repair door and back and notice of violation item numbers 6 and 72023 to comply for violation back stairway. and a matter, commissioner, did you have an opportunity to watch the video for the hearing on may 15th. >> yes, >> thank you. we will hear from. >> i have a submission from the requestor before >> president. >> what is the submission? >> my testimony today. >> it is a testimony from him >> that is fine. >> we will accept it.

i have 3 or 7 minutes >> 3 minutes. >> okay.

this statement by commissioner lemberg on the 15th when we started. [inaudible]. so. [inaudible]. this was at the hearing on the matter that julie announced for my rehearing appeal today. >> we can't hear it. >> take the microphone there. agree i apologize. >> so, i will read the first edit referred to my 3 minute statement today. >> speak in the microphone >> i'm mark bruno we know why we are hear.

commissioner lemberg pointed out on the 15th to the permit holder why are you not communicating with what is going on in the building with the tenants. that is in the just mr. bruno it is i'm talking about all of them and repeats this later on and repeated by commissioner swig when he makes the motion to accept my appeal of the permit. we are all on the same page it was accepted you voted to accept my appeal. why we are here today the basis for rehearing is xoord case to prevent manifest injustice or new facts arisen inform in case it is both. notice, part of the justice required for building project. part of the justice. your standard used at the time on may 15th, you asked at that

time, in order to reduce the notice required was after all, it was said by a commissioner, this seems to be a case where everyone seems to as well notice. but in fact there was no evidence at that hearing on may 15th anyone had notice. the notice i was begin was a buzz saw. break off the stair case i lived for 32 years special nothing else. a buzz saw is the opposite of notice. >> notice is part of the justice required. i don't believe this board has the authority to reduce the notice. evidence presentd that day of someone else who might have been given a notice was a letter tainted the factual part of the rehearing criteria is that the facts that are presented were tainted the person who read this

letter claimed to be a friend of the person who wrote temperature now you yourself have testimony from the permit holder here that after all she is in the a freshmened she is an indifferent party. that's not an upon friend or somebody we know can be trusted to know if this was written by that person. so. when you reduce the notice requirement from 15 days to 48 hours. >> i believe the board did an injustice to everyone in the building which mr. commissioner lemberg correctly pointed out several times prior to changing this notice requirement that everyone is required get notice. that's the point of notice. not for me personal low or anyone personal low. and finally. i think that only rehearing can remedy this or if you remedy it going back to the 15 day requirement. >> thank you.

>> thank you. >> vice president lemberg has a question. >> thank you. firstip the to claire fight 15 day requirement is not a legal requirement one we set as this board. within our jurisdiction and our power to do so but not required by law it is something we added on. i want to be clear this is a yes-or-no question. after may 15th the last hearing on this matter, the next time that the landlord performed work on the property, did you receive 48 hour written notice as reordered? >> not allowed do work this hearing the matter before us. >> was not concluded. >> okay. >> thank you. >> okay. now hear from the representative of the permit holder. >> good afternoon. president lopez and

commissioners. jeremy paul on behalf of john paolo. the owner of 472 union. yes, vice president lemberg, if any work were to be performed we agreed to give 48 hours notice to to mr. bruno. as pointed out. the by the deputy director of department of building inspection present. the scope of work that was proposed under taken did not require the notice. of 14 days as mr. bruno is acerting his right. not much more to say if you have questions about the letter that was read in the record, it was done by a party who has met

linda and was given the letter to read for her. she is not in don't have financial relationship either with myself or with any of the parties related to the ownership of the property. if you have questions i'm happy to answer. >> i think this request for rehearing needs to be rejected and we should be allowed fix this building. thank you. >> vice president lemberg. >> so, i'm sorry. what is her upon relationship to the property? that she is met her and asked to read this letter in the record for her. >> asked by mr. fideferowichldz she knew she would have that read for her. >> but she wrote that letter

absolutely. it is all her hand. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the anything from planning? the building department? good evening am dbi feels the board came to the proper conclusion. no new information has been grantd and like to you denight rehearing appeal. >> thank you. commissioner swig? >> what level of reminder can you offer the project sponsor? >> i'm sorry >> what opportunity will you have to reminds the project sponse about the 48 hour notice period? i will talk to mr. jeremy and

we'll make sure he sends out proper notice and give us a copy to make sure it is posted. picture will be great and get their 48 hours. >> thank you for this answer. >> thank you. >> we'll take public comment. is there anyone whoments to provide public comment? anybody on zoom? commissioners this matter is submitted. >> commissioners let's start at end of the dias with commissioner swig. i don't see any new information. no manifest injustice. and based on the testimony that we heard from mr. birmingham, i feel comfortable that the reminders will go out to the sponsor when and if a new permit is issueed dot work. >> thank you. any comments from a different

point or a motion? >> commissioner trasvina. >> having heard the nature the requirement that there is it was set by us 15 days, i'm satisfied with commissioner swig's suggestion. i'm concerned that this matter is gone on for awhile. and we -- previous hearing we did not get a brief from the permit holdser. and it seems to me after reviewing the hearing the earlier hearing, there is a letter that is from a friend. and -- the permit holder could have easily have dispelled doubt or suspicion by getting a letter

from [inaudible] or having her call in. instead she writes and says nothing about being a friend. i don't have a financial relationship with the permit holder or somebody else temperature is a weak defense to an allegation. could have been resolved easily. when i -- on its own trying to dispose of this matter we can. but it raises questions about other things that have been presented. in these proceedings. i want to observe the people who come before us should take this seriously and if a doubt about something, be able to provide us credible, relevant evidence that the people are friends or the tenant did the views expressed

were her vows and written by her. all we heard was she knew about the letter. that does concern me. >> we near deliberations now. any further comment? a motion? motion to deny rehearing in that there is no new information or manifest injustice >> thank you >> on that motion president lopez. >> aye >> commissioner trasvina. >> aye >> vice president lemberg. >> aye >> commissioner eppler >> aye >> the rehearing request is denied. >> we are moving on to item 5 appeal 23-067. bureau of street use and mapping 201 ashton avenue. appealing a public works order denial of application for minor sidewalk encroach am permit all

encroaching right-of-way removed from the right-of-way. applicant did not provide plans with the following conscience. reduction of the site to 3 feet. 3 feet of clearance around the pole and box. 3 feet path of travel with trees and removal of 10 foot by 10 foot purg lain propane fire table. plans need to show all features the street light and box, trees, location of lands scaping and the fence. this is permit 21ms krushgs 00688. on february 7, 24 the board voted 4, 0-1 to continue to get a survey. board directed recorded with the surveyor's office and provided public works on may second. on may 15th board voted continue

this top june 26 so that san francisco public w consist get guidance regarding the department top accept certain exceptions to the order and s that public works can work with planning on the issue. commissioner eppler did you watch the video and review the materials for the hear something >> yes. >> thank you. >> we'll hear president lopez. withhold you like to hear from first we continue third degree for public works i imagine they have go first. >> that ws. >> thank you. >> welcome you have 3 minutes >> good evening. shawn kwon from public works. requested by the commission we were directed to go back and evaluate the conscience what

public works will or will not allow under the minor permit. we consulted with manage and want provide a memo to the commission. on june 13th, 2024. regarding when we will or will not allow. including modifications to existing elements that were constructed and removal of other elements we cannot have in the right-of-way. >> if you have questions feel free to excuse me i'm here to answer questions >> we have questions from commissioner swig. vice president lect berg and commissioner trasvina >> i'm requesting to please for the record and the public list specifically those accommodations that dpw will make? >> the first item why was the existing fence needs to be lowered from upon that to be

lower to 4 feet after consulting with planning and variance to be granted the second, the fence notified such that accessed the existing street light that is located next to the property. that is behind the fence. the purg laand the gas fire table cannot be in the public right-of-way. and i believe this was provided to the commission and to the appellate. >> thank you and since i think i took possession in last hearing referenced that i had no sgreement. my question is and anticipating

brought up by commissioner trasvina, because he has been noticing this in the last dwo hearings. when a situation like this house has been there for a long time of the use of the front yard for various purposes existed for a long time of the owner of the house in good faith made improvements to their home. because it has been there for a long time and the existing conscience have been there for a long time of and not ever assuming there were restrictions we learn from earlier testimony. i'm going to say that's the situation.

members of this board have worried about wait a minute if this is occurring for this property owner, how does this set the standard or how does this affect every other house in that district. and throughout that district where conditions have been one way for a long time. and yes, there are starch in place that would restrict some of those continues will this de set a president every property owner will be subject to changing conditions in their property? what is the risk that actually could happen or what conditions

might trigger dpw or other departments to go back and say, i know you had this way for decades. but now you got to change. by the way i took a position the law is the law and -- i know you had it for a long time. law is the law it was statutes written and i'm not -- i'm not going to contest your position. i want clarification of for the public and for the property ordinance who are out there who may be fearful that something will trigger something for their properties, too. gi understands, commissioners. minor sidewalk encroachment is the use record instead property to identify elements that is outside the property line that is used by property owner. under the code for only enjoyment and use.

there are restrictions related this. throughout the city we have little different situations. i will say. where things will construct previously and -- public work system not made aware of these things. what usually happen system when we receive a complaint for investigation or a new building permit for modification of a building come in when we identify the elements we inform the applicant you need an encroach am permit. typically it will be constructed prior to a date. those elements are not subject to assessment. it is documenting that you have facilities outside a property line that you are using you put there. okay. the future property owners will know that this is outside my property line.

so. you know i'm fnl responsible for it under the code section article 15, 706 states the property owner responsible for the am curb line. stomach just formal notice to the current and future property owners of the responsibility of what was placed previously. and also if allow public works to than there is encroachment there. >> what is happening whatture allocating here is not press derby. it would be it would be something that would happen am when a discovery is made or a permit there is a permit filed for a certain action or in this case a complaint triggered nov and therefore a discovery and as

a result of the discovery, you will have to document or we will come in and give inspection and document and if there is something like a pole, which would be significant. or for there is a gas line, which is -- you consider significant. that has to be addressed. it -- it would -- would you -- would you not consider this a press dents but rather an incident that would happen naturally when another activity triggers it. >> i would suggest to the commission that this is a standards operating procedure when it is identify, will required to pick actions. good example is places in the sunset where you would see a sick foot constructed sidewalk and the ramp leading to a

driveway. many of the streets are 15 foot sidewalk. so when building happens and people renovate and identify and issue a permit and droument it and move on. >> there are situations where in the older parts of the city and someone dms come if during review identify sidewalk basement that extends to the sidewalk. require encroachment permit to document that. these are typical processes we will follow. >> this is not a precedent setting for this applicant. and it is coincidental worrying activities similarly trigger investigation and action? >> that's correct. >> thank you. >> vice president lemberg >> thank you. i want to ask about specifics

regarding dpw determinations presented tonight and in your brief. the 3 foot clearance around the street light makes senseful fire table removal awfuls is specific low in the brief there are safety and liability concerns with a gas line fire that makes senseace well. talk a bit more about why the purg laneeds to be removed? >> that is a very good question. this was from personal low i did not work on this permit. i will all i can do my

understanding discussing it with the individual who is worked on it. this was in consultation with planning determine that this typically would not be allowd and hence asking to be removed. >> okay. >> that's all i got. thank you. >> commissioner trasvina? >> thank you for your testimony. have you had conversations with the property owner about the proposed disposition. >> personally i have not. i'm sure that the staff who has been working on this, has. >> great >> can you upon explain the purpose of requiring access all the way around the light pole opposed access in one direction?

>> this related to the light pole tchlz for example. am if the light pole is damaged or needs to be replaced. there is no way that the owner of the light pole could go in there from one direction. to remove tough and replace temperature has to be santa fes for them to work. for both inspection, maintenance and reconstruction. hence the requirement for 3 feet. how tall is this light pole? >> i have in the looked. typically range from 16 feet to 27 something feet in height. a substantial foundation. >> and you are talking about modify pregnant the fence 4 feet high to get to the light pole that is 16 feet high >> talking about accessing the bottom of the light pole. normal normally where the if i

can urs are the bolts and everything and the foundation. needs to be way to access it. from all sides. >> and the commissioner swig -- now channelling my thoughts on matters i'm pleased by. i upon don't understand how we are saying that other property ordinance are not susceptible to this scrutiny by the city. this came out as a result of a noise complaint. not a complaint about the fence or about the sidewalk. are you saying that for other property owners if the encroachment was old enough they

get a letter from the city and not require to make changes? >> that is not what i'm saying. i'm stating that if there is an existing encroachment in the public right-of-way we require a permit to droument that encroachment. dem pending on the age and how the board stated they may be subject to annual assessment. we need -- well is not a letter it is a declaration. hat abling of the encroachment? some point the board of supervisors under legislation adopted annual assessment for the occupation of public right-of-way for encroachments. and the way the legislation was

enter was anything constructed prior to a certain date. it is not subject to assessment. that's yet date of the encroachment is specific and important to the department in the evaluation. but you mentioned the sunset district and other properties in the area, are you saying that everybody has always been subject to this scrutiny this case is no different than anybody kels? or that the owners are not likely to be effective? >> >> given sides and skoecht city and resources through public works, we are unable to comb the city for the encroach reports. usually it is resulting from and

either a complaint or a permit that is submitted to building department or another element that will trigger that will inform us if there is encroach and want that point we will require the applicant to get encroachment permit to document the condition. >> thank you >> commissioner eppler. >> thank you. i will follow up on the questions of commissioners lemberg and trasvina with specifics on the memo you put together for this hearing. i want to verify the way stated was a bit weird and misleading. a variance put in place for a fence of no higher than 4 feet what is the existing height of the snens >> i don't know. i believe it was 6? >> okay, require a 2 foot reduction of the fence. >> correct. >>ed make that clear. >> i had some confusion.

my question may be directored at planning begin your prior answer. i would like for to you talk about the safety and liability concerns of the gas fire line and fire table in the right-of-way what are those concerns? typeset it is an open fire source. they use gas for burning open fire source temperature is not monitord and concerns that photocopy it is being used situations could occur where you would create a fire. you know the areas. >> is this a dharn is related to it being on the public right-of-way or does it exist if fullo the private property.

>> right. >> it is in the public right-of-way. photocopy in private property. tool is on the public right-of-way it is not accessible as a result of the fence? is that correct? here is the problem perform under the california streets and highways code states you may not occupy to grant access to some and deny to others. hence, if the fence is locate thered that does not prevent the general public to enter behind the fence that 9 feet portion is public rights of way. >> there is a fence is not exclusionary and someone jumpd and stayed within the right-of-way would not be trespassing? >> correct. it is public rights of way.

>> thank you. >> . president lopez >> i like to explore that further. jue know we there is a practice that is possible to grant encoachments and gone over those. examples. this afternoon. with respect to the fire table. is it the gas line. encroaching or if this wasn't a fire table just -- an assessment fixed table. would that be eligible for encroach am permit >> potentially. >> sounds like we are really focussing on encroachment by the gas line? >> correct. >> okay.

thank you. now we will hear from the appellate. you have 3 minutes. what does the law say about the kachls says public and private right-of-ways are legally different of our sproerd made clear the difference. public ways are termed highways or roads and every sides has a right to use. private way that class of ease want a person or description or class have an interest or right from the general opinion of california law the u.s. supreme court and the court of appeals say a private right-of-way dedicates fora i purpose is ease

am. california law say it is an easement. the law says private rights of ways not owned by cities the california court of females held easements are private property reserved for a purpose and ownership rights don't extend to the public or municipality. >> what is the legal difference with public and private rights of ways the city attorney shared the code.

we have a question from commissioner trasvina >> can you focus on the property. and what i like to know is -- did you receive the department's letter prior to this hearing? >> i did prior to the hearing. >> and what is the impact on you if the matters in the letter go forward? >> i'm not interested? conflicts of interest or views of the law. and private rights i'm interested the impact of the homeowner trying to improve property, what is the impact of

the disand position by the department? >> the improvements we made allowed our family and neighborhood and other members to use the oust door space in many ways. and the removal of all of those improve ams to the upon property would limit the engage and want out door space. >> does that include the height of the fence >> or more about the -- >> we did receive a variance to allow the 4 foot height of the fence from planning. that would include what am i'm referencing the gas fire table. we received a permit for the. gas line for the fire table that is not not the area that dpw is speaking of. those are the areas we use with

neighbors and our family. >> the department of representatives asked about the public right-of-way or somebody's own propertiful deferred to upon fire department and planning are you aware of. any requirement it is for fire protection? with your table now? >> when dbi gaves the permit they did not and mention there were other approvals we need have. >> are there any what fire precaution dos you take? if you have ouz today >> turn off when not out there. and it is in the on. when we are not there. >> thank you >> no further questions you can be seated. >> now dbi. planning department, i'm sorry.

>> good even. corey teague za for planning. provide background information. so, as mentioned a prior variance was granted. specific low for the perimeter felonies. which is 4 feet along the property line and the interior side line it is 4 feet for several feet in the property and dump bumped up to 6 feet high. area along the perimeter that the height of that is 4 feet. that variance was granted in 2019. and another variance application was submitted 2 years ago for

the were fire pit that is in the required front setback and large are than permitted under the code to be in a front setback. we had the variance hearing for that -- proposal in january of last year. a year and a half will ago. we heard terror and had public comment of the i expressed new concerns about challenges for the project to meet the findings for a variance. but held off in make decisions there was outstanding property line dispute that is hard to make the decision about the variance if the location of the property line had not been solidified that decision has not been issued. it has been put on hold. but mentioned by the public works staff. and was discussed at the hearing, the decision and

conversation that it would be challenge to grant it are for a variance extraordinary circumstance and over come a difficulty or hardship inform this case a standard corn are lot with typical front setback and a large purg lathat is not something permitted. a spoergz in the public right-of-way and a portion in the --mented provide that background so have you that and understands the planning decision are in fronts of you. obviously if the variance for the persian gulf well is denyd that could be appeald and come back as its separate issue

separately. but there is no planning department action in front of you i wanted you to have that context. i'm available for questions you may have. >> thank you. commissioner swig? >> variance discussion aside happened whether findings. i see your concern. that's not what we are talking about today. may be another time. but what the appellate property owner put forth in or -- testimony now -- um --.

new orleans my view. nullifiy just about every action taken by dpw as a matter of, of course, in the city of san francisco for upon decades. when somebody presents testimony eloquently as she did, and then of 5 minutes before -- representative from dpw presents eloquently and substantial low what has been reasonable and customary behavior for decades, how do you deal with that? it is something that some be combrnd our jurisdiction? or in a position to completely

nullifiy and fly in the face of the actions of the city for democracied. >> i would say, dpw in the same position, we are charged with implementing our koetsdz as adopts and rules we have here in the city that is the purview we have to operate and under. firefighter there is dispute about the bellity of the codes. that is a willing matter bided in koetsd that is snot time issue that we can deliver. case by case seen air >>. we are bounds it implement the codes as adopted yoochl not our

responsibility to uphold the codes and fits our decisions on the woads. often with the broad pars abusing the codes do we go yen our territory and our jurisdiction? in your view? >> i would defer on the board staff and attorneys for in items on that. but the board has the same purview the department made a decision or -- a variance. same authority that were department or position had to make to deputy that code is the same authority the board has. >> go by the code. that's what you are offered? >> and the basis under which you are reviewing what is in

front of us >> thank you. >> nothing from dbi jofrm moving to public comment? anybody on zoom am? this matter is submit period >> dmrns start at this end. commissioner trasvina. >> thank you i had thoughts about this. matter on the 3 times now been before us. and i am upon well commissioner swig was channelling my thought on the earlier matter. i'm the view of appellate's presentation. today. and as he cast its as want to

facility code. and understanding we have limited authority. ply sxirn don't want to be educated by him and call my colleagues whether or not this is the right case to impose coatville impdepositions and i believe this may be -- why i asked the appellate what other implications can have the dispense of being deny says the during lan and will i did not hear except a time an prohibition against the fixtures

being autoupon property. limited partner is a difference of view whether it is private or public or as i believe -- was stated last, by core test is both on public and private. property bunkham. am i'm concerned about adition where we deny pedestrian retch from which similar intagzs for many upon twpt owners in san francisco. now i would like to be educated why the. combrchlt exactly in it case so we don't set any precedent or puff in danger evering property ordinance similarly situated.

>> i -- like where commissioner trasvina's head is. granting the appeal is the right outcome. i'm struggling to formulate my rational why. and taupe hearing and from colleagues xrrms xrrm >> i'm worried about press cent setting there are several afford cringes br i'm not convinced by most of the city's reasoning upon i just i think there is am where iing where he will prove.

joof does not have am got grfrment we were to upon grant the peel. the p. >> and i'm struggling to get there a bit. i am interested in hear whatting everybody has to see. i feel you upon the right out >> thank you. i have a slightly different tax.

prior owners have taken over an element of the public right-of-way. i thandz i grew up in a house next to the freeway had a public right-of-way the fence stop maintaind and part of our yard. right? i mean there is still a concrete barrier. these are things that happen. and there has to be a way to remediate that protects the city in the legal way. and -- that's the encroachment permit process. persian gulf lais funky t. is half on half off what the city

considers public land and planning heads not determined it would permit itteen if it were on private land. but the fire table is foorth built element that does give rise to some concern. i tend to follow what the public works come up with as a set of concessions and this circumstance. i understand the need to access the base of the light that is there. that light is a strong carry what is public and private land. so. i'm glad we have been able to

find ways to allow for a more functional encroachment. i'm not willing to change what i do believe has been the policy of the d. public works when it come across existing private elements in the right-of-way. >> okay. so. well are a company things going on here i will reference the previous hearings. one thing is was precedent. that was a major discussion in earlier hearings, are we setting a precedent and and testimony dpw -- this is reasonable behavior. this is standard behavior. when -- something occurs a file for example a permit or notice

of violation. have you been noted in this case they went in and found that had not happened. but it was not picking on this property. every other property that happened. it is not a precedent setting it happens to be with when might happen. so, i don't think we have to worry about that. second piece of it is -- is -- dpw made concessions. i found them fair. i may not finds them fair i think they were fair in consideration of the codes. the purg lais an issue. regard manslaughter split with

dpw and planning, planning would say that requires a variance. so it should be will be subject to a variance in a way, shape or form. if they view it should not be a variance, then, obviously, i think, they will have another appeal in front of us to question that lack of issuance of a variance and find that for ourselves. now that purg lais requires a variance and that has been given. that is a completely different subject t. is off the table. with regard to the fire cable that is issue of safety. like commissioner referenced. you know somebody puts a scombefrn with all good intentions looks great and accidents happen and the responsibility is t. and dpw is

diligent in saying this is fire. you know, this is gas. subject to a body of the state courts. we have face third degree in my first 6 weeks on the panel and did with unauthorized dwelling. lead to because of this body and others, the whole adu -- issuing

of adu we noticed that ambigutey. come the code driven the last few years, how we dealt with this was although we, i remember. we did not there was no adu situation there. no udu guide afrngs. a big hole and had to we could not do when we wanted do. which is when we would do today there are new codes sent letter say zeeing noticed a big hole in the dyke, we suggest the board

you recognize that hole and fill through better legislation. in this case i don't think it is ours to deal with that which was advocate bide the property owner. i think it is outside of our jurisdiction. but i would suggest we notice the if we feel had way and come to a consensus we noticed that ambigutey to the board of supervisors for legislation. that you will said we have to uphold the codes. . can and we have to recognize that one of the owners that is subject to a variance that variance has been offered. and and -- we have to recognize that dpw has done when they say they do which is, okay. build a gate.

low are fence. and -- and -- i'm sorry you can't build and dot fire. i would uphold the appeal sxsh the permit with the conditions that the permit issued with the recommendations that have been stated by dpw. >> commissioner trasvina. i will have comments first before i do that, i'm going to kick it over to the city attorney. we had testimony about conflicts of interest. which i don't want to leave unacknowledged. so. i like to turn to you to address them.

our office is clarj special establish the standing due process for matters which our office represents jaesh body. fr their is a due process screen between myself and city attorneys that add sunrise public works, planning, dbi. and that means we refrain from communicating about matters that are pending before the board. to ensure there is integrity net process and the due process is followed. >> thank you this is tough for me. it is tough for others.

i say that the question of precedent with a lot of our cases cuts both ways. there is the precedent we may set. that -- essentially -- surprise, your yard may not be your yard. and to commissioner swig's point about a situation with dwelling units, and you know reference to a big hole. that is left unaddressed. you know it sounds like we may have a hole the size of engle side with this path. that's why we have commented prior that we do think that the relevant supervisors are should

probably look in this further. i know there has been some attention at that level -- in i think we should still regardless of what we do today do our part to make sure that our body is communicating after looking at this closely for 3 hearings. communicating our best learnings and guidance we offer to that body as well. the other precedent suspect that building outside of the private envelope. which is not a great outcome. that's why this is tough for me in the end, looking at the points presented.

by dpw. i -- and knowing the framework that is applied with respect to the minor side. encroachment permits. it does not seem like private elements in public rights of way are category off the table.

i'm sympathetic to the property owner with the understanding that the planning variance issue is not -- within scope and what whatever needs to happen there will happen. and i'm a bit sympathetic with respect to the fire table if we address the safety issue of confirming that the gas sloin snot encreping on public right-of-way. we heard testimony this it is not. and i see from bullet two c.

in the memo from the department. and they say will need to confirm there is a 3 foot clear path with the travel and the tree list. we can construct if we want something similar to confirm well is no gas line encroachment. in plans with respect to the fire table f. there are i would support for safety reasons. mandating mitigation of that. that's you finish we have to cobble together something based on the facts of the case, which are tough facts. and based on i think the under pinnings of the spirit of the

minor side of encroachment permit program we can follow the guidance to fashion something that respects public safety. that also acknowledges that you know there are situations where the private elements are not fatal to -- a project if they do have a slight encrotchment in the right-of-way.

we do have the obligation. an oath. and toup hold the codes and the constitution. there is some balance here i appreciate the department looking at this a second and third time to come up with ways to accommodate the homeownerful this your is improved. we have tons of testimony at the first hearing about the

neighbors valuing and appreciating the appellate's contributions to that area. i hope that the supervisors in the two districts that are near engle side and the sunset are hearing this. because we need to make changes. that i don't want this board to do what i think the department did, go beyond wham it should have done. i'm with commissioner swig and eppler's points aboutmenting to be aware that we don't go over board in our disposition of this matter. i would want to join you president loam sxez say what other parts of the departments letter can be modified. to reach a justice physician. perhaps it would be appropriate for the of department and the

appellates to work out further -- modification and accommodations. i do think we can push this along and if are other matters to be addressed then we will have done a bit of a positive movement here but not the whole way. further comments or do i have a motion? >> i gave you a motion. >> commissioner swig? i gave you a motion >> yea. >> we have a motion yoochl we have a motion from commissioner swig to grant the appeal and over turn the denial of the permit and reinstate review on the condition reviseed incorporate the conditions and requirement in the brief from

public works date june 13, 2024. is that correct? >> exactly. basis for the motion? >> the recommendations of dpw are acting according to codes and traditional behavior in matters similar. >> so, on that motion president lopez? >> like to discuss more before we vote. if we may. i'm fine with commissioner >> different feeling

>> might be around the purg la. it is difficult planning has not weigh in the on its half of this yet. i imagine if we made a decision here it would be noted. but -- because -- it is something that on private property might be allowed. -- so i feel a bit differently about that component. that the fire table. i appreciate your president lopez your focus on the gas line element of it. if that is the issue. and i note that there are -- other types of fire pits that are mobile that could be moved around. as if this permit is not allowed also. so. i'm interested in hearing discussion on both of the two items but if we called the vote i vote yes on commissioner

swig's motion. vice president lemberg. i would love to see the purg stay. i would love to see that stay. i think removing that feels very, very punitive. kwleen to do with that. i'm not opposed keeping the gas line as is but amenable to amending that to -- something

that addresses the safety. i'm not sure i'm equipped to make an amendment. i don't know what would be satisfy. i don't know. the thing -- i'm willing to -- vote to accept the 3 foot around the street light change.

without the department's and the notice to the departments. to comment upon it. i -- i would -- support language that -- addressed the pointses about the purg laand the gas line.

in the public right-of-way the permit is bush today. the portion on the property is subject to the variance heard but not decided. so, for example. if the board took the action today to grant this encroachment permit. following dpw, mean no purg la. the option it have it approved on the private property. amended from the way it exists now. that would be a possibility. there are two separate considerations for two parts of the same structure. if that makes sense. and to be clear and my

colleagues can speak to this. if well is an element not. there would be the opportunity for the property owner to do future applications for other minor encroachments for any alternative version of an element that may be left out of the permit today, if that is how the decision is decide. your point is because it required a variance. because it was it did. according to the code. then it is subject are in illegal structure? no question now the structure was built without building permits and without a variance which was required. >> so, taking away this specific permit. if we were if -- if -- there had

been a notice of violation on any upon property a structure built illegal. if -- if it -- my point is if something is not a legal structure and was built not legally and would have been subject to a variance. had it gone through a legal process. or sorry, a proper permitting process. what do. what happens with that? >> do we require it to take it

dun or move it or -- >> when there is a structure or building that put up without permits that requires a variance, dependsoth nature of what being be permitted something permitted with a variance. they have the right to file for that variance and legalize that structure. whatever it may be. that is the opportunity they have, general low if not a safety issue they are not required to take it down in facility variance is grantd and the building permit is grants and everything is fine then everything gets legalized. sometimes people do additions without permits that have no path for legalization. you gotta remove it and repair that situation. well is no path to legalization. that is when we have here and now is this fence structure and

the fire pit were all built without permits. and variance and don't have the encroach am permit and dpw this is all addressed after the fact. that's where we are now. when this happens you have to dot same process you would have been required to do before but you are not guarantee to beed able to legalize what you built without permits that depends on the outcome of the permit processes. why given the motion on the table, and the concern of xhrp lemberg, is if we pass the motion which is on the table that includes recognition the no permit for the purg well is there a path -- is there a path to legalization that the permit

holdser can pursue not saying tell be approved. but is there a path to legalization that may include august amation or other process? >> because this decision is about what structures may be in the public right-of-way. will not affecty potential to be approved on the private property that is with the existing variance that is already before me is for. there would with that separate path. >> how fast could if that is the case how fast can the property owner file for a reconsideration legalization? >> they have already yea. if the decision made by the board to follow the dpw

recommendations and say no in the public right-of-way. the variance application we reviewed and had a hearing includes a portion in the public right-of-way. so it would be up to the applicant if they wanted to just revise that to put it up to the property scomploin have or if they wanted propose to start from strap and say given the outcome we want a different sfrushth or type in the required front yard. that would be a separate process. it would require a variance. different than when we review. have to be a new hearing for the application. timing is hard there are choices the applicant have to make. >> this is in the always and forever this purg legal be this is -- this action unnoticed if

something has to be done to legalize it and that might require mitigation or august amation. >> the action in front of you is about the extend in the public right-of-way. not about features on the private property. handled through a separate variance and permit process. >> i don't know if my seconded or mr. president birmingham or dpw but i thought the commissioners eppler's suggestion that a portable fire pit would be a brilliant solution to something which is permanent gas line. is that a possibility? could the property owner -- move a portable -- fire pit in that

position?

change of direction and a different strategy. she could have that? >> she would have that option. the key is -- what is existing now? you know on that property and public right-of-way for that to be legalized as is. as it stands. need both this per night approve and the variance. to approve it. >> right. action today would not preemthat

from happen something >> the action today will affect what is permit in the public right-of-way and permit in the the variance is a separate action. >> thank you for that clarification. i hope that mitigates commissioner lemberg's my understanding of what mr. teague share side if we adopt the motion now, that goes. the variance decision moves. right? >> and i think if we want to let the purg lalive to fight another day we would modify the motion on the table to say the

purg well can stay that has no impact on the existing variance. process. and planning may decide that does not work for them. mr. teague, does that lineup with your understanding? not exactly. if00 eye think the difference is -- again this is a unique. or in the public right-of-way we get things over property lines but not this situation often. i of course the point that commissioner was trying to make if this decision is made here to not allow it in the public right-of-way. could be the remindser or

altered version. have a legal path forward to have it on the private property of the i think this may be challenging. there would be an opportunity through that process for again. the remaining of the persian gulf lato exist. if the goal was to allow. >> stop you there. >> my request about the purg latoday. >> right >> if the goal was to be able to leave open an opportunity to have the purg laexisting as it is today to be willingize in the full need both this encroach am permit before you today plus the variance together.

planning variance decision and they make the determiningination within their standards. i see deputy city attorneyment to weigh in. what i understands was your question if you wanted aplow the purg lato remain the language

allow it and subject to the planning department's consideration of a variance. anybody have questions for dpw? can we clarify. there is an active variance application suspended? what if she with draws. >> we had the public hearing. the hear nothing january of 23 a year and a half go ago i can't issue a final decision not guilty property line was settled. again. the city's position that the

property line is the city records say it is the applicant it a different take. and there was legal process to address that. any further comment. further on the -- fire table are we comfortable with the motion? okay. the motion was to incorporate the requirements in the public works memo. grant the over turn permit and review on the condition of reviseed incorporate the memo. allow for the purg lasubject to the consideration of the variance.

on that motion? aye. >> commissioner trasvina. >> aye >> vice president lemberg >> aye. >> commissioner eppler. that motion carries. thank you. >> we are not now move to item 6 appeal 24-022, 100 mission. subject property 100 mission. 5 trees and 5 on the same property. appealing the issuance on february 27, 24. a public works order. denial of application to remove 10 street trees with replacement of 8 street trees this sorried 2101 sxen provide history. may 15th, 2 by president lopez

the board voted, commissioner eppler to condition this to june 26 to get more information yet removal mrksz was denied. get an answer from the stay tail whether they can remove the pole on spear so 2 more trees can be planted. a statement by the appellate whether this is considered maintenance or development. share the develop. check list used when evaluating projects and get a report on the basil replace am cost. a matter, commissioner, did you have an opportunity to watch the video and revow materials for the hearing on may 15th. >> yes. >> thank you. >> so. we will hear first from the appellate. you have 3 minutes

>> good evening am clove angela. our brief addressed questions about maintenance. i will make pointses. we don't know what happened here. the staff support third degree permit and the hearing officer denied with no explanation. dpw reviewed the information and determined doing this important waterproofing project does justify remrigs the trees. owner invest nothing dun town now should not be punished for the confusion on the last hearing. we are a couple block frequentlies the millennium tower. we need to take issues in the part of town. jeff will upon explain the critical need for the work and i'm here with jeff. the building owner and architect and landscape architect on zoom.

thanks. i'm jeffrey lonnie i'm a vice president. i'm california left lanesed architect. i wanted to emphasize several points made in my memo. included in your briefing. dated february 15th. when the bay the owner of the property approached me than i provided photographic evidence. an ointment of moisture intrusion over a period of time. one of the solutions we come up with is waterproofing provide a hot rubberize asphalt membrane that would cover intauks, parking area and like to extend that to the tree wells. the asphalt would be the long lasting prune solution for pro

robust system. i point out that engineers under my direction have done a pain steak, physical examine anticipation use the ground rebar to establish the location. i point out that unlike a steel structure giving you indication of accessive bending or column buckling. concrete structures only show signs of deathidation. we have seen with the sand plain tower in florida when concrete fail its fails in a sfek stack lar manner and the loss of life. i advocated we continue to pursue a solution that allows waterproofing in the tree wells to affect that work. we need it remove trees in order

it do a proper and comprehensive job. thank you. >> thank you. >> we will hear urban forestry. >> hello. thank for having us badge i have a lot of answers to the questions you sent. if we run out of time call me back up. so. the core questions yet change of course in decisionmaking. we approved the staff level and the hearing the hearing officer who is an employee. and assigned to the cases of hearing officer. they are not involved with this case. directly but knowledgeable about city processes. they have asked at hear burglar and more documentation approved

yet trees needed to be removed. i think there is a gap there where they did get an upon report. later in february. she said she did not ghaet it did not get sent to her. she has to do that within 7 days. so something happened. regardless now we know it is compelling that explains the rational. and as a result. we tlad and understand and support kr the need here. i think the next thing to address i reached out it nt a. got me to the right person. i explained when we were trying

to dom no problem. put the signal on the wire.

were we provided with -- i saw the formulas but did buff provide an analysis? where can i upon finds that. that is tough for us to intercept. what would be the value the basil area. we have a formula for valuent reese not something we came up with it is an industry standard. a massive book. and we can follow what to come

up with the evaluation. so, i think that is where we think this is the best information that we could provide. but for a basil area evaluation would -- that was a tough question to answer. >> buff does that analysis with other protects, right? i feel like we heard this hear before. basil area. well, if you illegally remove a tree we require under the new code now, you have to replace match that area. lost. if there was a large tree replace with many smaller trees or one large tree. for projects like this, we don't

calculate the value >> to provide that analysis. i'm not arguing that this was illegal replace. . it was not and that's yet trees were not removed. that's when we asked for. >> you are think nothing terms of how much trees would have to be replaced to off set? >> yes. >> we could compute that bayhs bazel area and then number of trees to replace tihave a hard time giving awe a value. you have to get an estimate from a contractor withhold say, how expensive that would be. >> right. >> buff did provide the actual

area. the diam terse of the trees. we have that those measurements. we don't have the -- monetary amount you multiply that. i do a problem but not what to multiploy it by. >> i think that what the -- staff member who wrote the brief provided the number. we don't well is a multiploytory multiploy temperature that's not something that -- we -- assuming that these are trees removed and i'm not saying they were here, how would buff come to that conclusion? >> will sure. if -- previously if it had been under the ordinance we would have appraised the value of the tree and issue a sign for that appraisal value. with the new ordinance we can

say you have to plant e 85 lent upon number of trees and they go back and find 25 small trees to meet that or a giant tree to match that. just diam ter13 plus 11 and 11 and 12 and 14.

you need 61 inches. it would be an estimate.

you like to finish your presentation include your recommendation to satisfy your rmdzed or the needs here. >> sure. i think -- i said it quickly

that the mitigations -- go above and yndz the minimum required and i leave that in your hands to evaluate. they have to remove the trees to dot work. what are they doing to off set this? replace with largest trees can you fit there. i don't see other planting space. we are able to regain with the mt a agreement. so. from -- what i see it seems the max we ask as a department, but -- open to hear what you are

being. given what you said and what commissioner lemberg pointed out this in other cases it was not the number but the loss of the general size of those trees. i -- first. i'm in agreement a replacement am tree is what needs to be done. emi'm correspond you will take mature trees with a -- and we will get the trees and will take areas to replace what was lost and how we dealt with in in the past is we required the one for one replacement and maturity of

the tree and it is size. itistry recover that amount of loss is like 36 trees. quick math. we have not replaced the impact of the loss of the existing trees. how do we replace the loss of the existing trees. by saying you turned down big trees. also contract size of the trees lead to a much greater requirement were to repleasant. how do we get there. gi think -- those are good

questions. for the this consideration. in the case we used the appraisal method and a lot of trees may were huge. sequestering carbon and good struck and form. and as a result of that we got a big number, 250 thousand dollars evaluation. weave applied that lens to the evaluation and because of the small stature of the trees or growing in a limed space. >> maintaining that small stature. is that premesis counts the value. when we complayered the in lieu

fee. getting more by having them replaced than if we asked them for the 400 value of the tree. and more for we got the loafy theual of handing slicks -- 3-5 thousand dollars belle depending on their pricing. >> that's where we saw that reasoning and comparison there. to your question of what can we do to capture that loss of chunk diameter snr i think that replace am trees you can't get there. there is not a tree snad can put in a suitable substitute. but you could consider other options or -- because they'll be

36 inch box they max the vault existing trees according to their value and the situation which exists. >> right. >> third question. the issue of maintenance is development what was missing tonight not in the appellate's view or the sponsor's view. was all the stuff that was in the original brief. which was development. there were several elements that would not exist in the current building.

>> do when we are discussing

upon tonight. the application coming to our desk we will review. sufficient trees their frontage to meet the requirement. and they do. and the number of trees they have and they will be replacing. so, that -- naprocess is still coming to us. and we will review it. thank you. appreciate it. we'll move to public comment. is there anyone who want to comment? >> if you can fill out a speaker card after you are done to get your name accurate >> of course. >> good evening. i'm pilla guard i'm present the east cut benefit district

located the -- we support commissioners to approve the appeal requested by the experience. we understand well is a need for removing trees for maintenance. all replacing trees. those improvements and maintenance improvements are the long-term necessary improvements to keep the asset on the market and alleviate problems and mainly for desirable improvements. and that is important in a time we want ancient offerage investments. not been many projects moving forward. most were cancelled. so. i think this is a great project.

i noted in the comments people regret removal of trees. we have to recovery 8 and you look at the plans i see trees on the roof. they will not be city owned trees but trees. trees provide decarbonize the air. habitat. shade. and trees on the roof tom meet requirements. i was under the impression as my team, the city was interested or saving out the ficus trees. i don't want to misrepresent. i see on the website people can request removal of those trees.

mission street i argue some may not meet requirements of for removal. ir want to support and encourage to you approve the appeal. thank you. >> any further public comment in the room? we will turn to zoom. a hand. end nothing 2185, go ahead. >> am hi. xhfrns daved osgood with rincon point neighbors. a couple reminders. don't forget you have over 200 public comments supporting these trees of public opinion is of interest to you. i hope you read mr. cliff's

comments he cannot be here and don't forget about the solid precedent that was mentioned in the last hearing. and is out line in the my current brief. the i agree with the owners rep to n on one thing, you have a strange situation you have the wrong party listed as the respondent. and this may be a matter for a rehearing depending on your vote f. you vote. what is being appealed a decision by the dp w director. not buff. the director overruled buff. so it seems have you two parties on the same side of the issue. presenting here.

3 of you asked to hear not buff you have to hear from the hearing officer am the minutes may be incorrect on that you asked to hear from the hearing officer. and she is not here and not submitted comment. did not address her concern of the the issue is not 24 inch trees or 36 inch trees. she had did you notes about the engineering the need to remove tree. obviously had doubts and it was a complete full 35 minute hearing. all issues were raised. and upon she gave the owners an opportunity to submit an analysis to address her sxrn they did not do this they got

overruled. which is reasonable. of you got more engineering analysis on the rincon signing issue, than you have on the structure and integrity of this building. they did final low find an engineer it write a memo etch very weak. he states and side it. only reviewed half of the trees d. not do that. >> thank you. hear from michael g. ahead. >> i'm michael nulty i'm an executive director of alliance for better business 6. our organization delling with manning for made up of property

owners what cbd's are promoeth foufrment sometimes when you hear different people sfeek, have to understand what they are representing and why:they're there to get money from from the owners to familiarip formed several cbd's in district 6. 3 of them on the steering committee. i understand limb louve everrule of lawment says. all the cbd's i have been on i asked that tree planting have been part of their plans. and so when somebody get says up

and says. development over beautification of the neighborhood i have questions. who they are opening statementing. it will be turning to a concrete jungle. so, as far as this until i agree what has been said by rincon hill neighbors. and you know we have to xrefsh put more tree in thes nafrngd because we lost our canopy. and we have to start replanting and our city does not have enough money to put keep up with when we have. so. there is no money the budget keeps having no money to plant trees. where will that and when developers like this one that is flont of you wants to remove

trees and may be- supplement neighbors with more trees. that's what was discussed at the last hearing. ure look i was at the previous hearing with the original appeal -- that was with dpw. so, when you have neighbors concerned this is how important trees are for the community. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there further public comment? that is submitted. commissioners? commissioner swig. i would support suggestion of will buff and replanting of the 36 inch bovenlgsile would like

to see a broader planting according to the thoughts of my fellow commissioner lemberg. i don't see getting that in this case. i am convinced that regardless of the redevelopment vision for the property that -- this maintenance issue would have surfaced. best for the building of the safety of the public. that steps to mitigate damage upon 36 inch box is a full replacement including those relates to the mt a other situations are building may be a

bear minimum but satisfy. if they move forward a redistinguishment. i encourage buff to review further requirements to subelement replanting trees in the neighborhood. >> i agree with this. to meet thing that is most positive is poor quality of existing tree and it is higher quality of the trees replacing them. i do receive this as a maintenance issue at this points in time and see there is another by the for public works and the in facts p. so. >> scope of work before us. temperature is a lot of pork. i think the replace am is @ment

isarcerate joechl you don't disagree. i don't see any reason why we could not assess a thing. i'm always interested in replanting as many trees as possible. if not. [laughter] birch finish, i love to hear from 73 attorney. i think the reason why you could not require more is this board is bound by the public work's code. under the code 806. replace am value.

planted or imposed and in lieu free. did address replace am value and made an argument the replace am value is low are than the tree that proposed for replanting without evidence that the replacement value. you have a few minutes before the board the code would not allow what code requires. is replace am value the appraisal value? here big. it is. am equal replacement value. the value before the board is what buff has presented. which argues the replacement value is low are than what they are propose to plant. >> that is convincing.

thank you. >> no further comments. >> commissioner lemberg. money does not grow for trees. i'm satisfied with the plan present pardon. and i will join my colleagues. >> nothing to add. a snoegz grant the appeal and issue the order resunrised to allow for the removal of 10 dprees require replace am of trees with 36 inch box trees. >> exactly. my brain and did not compute that. >> what is the baseys for your motion. >> on the base it is consistent with either dpw or urban

forestry guidelines. on that motion president lopez. >> aye >> commissioner trasvina. >> aye >> eppler >> aye >> that motion carries. >> now on to item 7. this is appeal 24-03 two make and he art versus bshgs dbi planning approval, 670 shot well. issuance on april 16th. rew move an exterior door and fill openings. install a mule single light door. install a new 2 by 6 inch twinning dpoor. this is number upon 24, 95

>> welcome you have 7 minutes. >> hello burden president, vice president and commissioners. thank you for allowing us to present to you. public speaking is not what i do willingly. i'm mickey i'm here with my husband and my son on september 29 of 23. temperature prior to purchasing we liveod 7 huh human block of shot well for almost 25 years we became connected to our neighborhood. we are here torprotest the permit begin to the owner of 670. the permit given after the work

was completed, and -- after the work the majority of the work was completed. that's my actions consent and without abtiening work before they were will started. upon condos within a two unit hoa. the two unit in are detaches and separated by common areas. >> death and the merif those were owned knight one upon better than. >> the permit holder u nit is

benefitted by my family's property of the benefitted by my family's property p.s and easement over the use common year fro remember >> the modifications of the unit. that is miles a door on the side of her unit provideingly access to the. >> during purchasing negotiation bunkham our people we were remember we prioritize the safety and security our driveway is our only way to enter and ask our report stop shot well. am however. either trier to purchasing homes

or after the permit holder reach outoir miffest fremantle >> i suite in the back andow options would affect my family's safety, security, access and use of our property. >> quickly after, unit 670 closed her door on the driveway without obtaining permits first. closing the score deniedef and herself ac. then opened a door in her unit expecting to access ore our driveway now entering on my family's property. the permit holdser made the

changes on her accord without osh taining permits or notice. discussion consent are consideration. the unpermitted work on unit 6 upon 70.

>> >> notice to be securing the property with the fence. her own fence and shared installing gate in her fence to allow access to our use property. she shared we would not installing gates freshmans had our fence and not giving permission for her or attentives or others per notification access our property through her fence gate. we contacted the. city officials, short term rent ags. planning, dbi and fire department and followed their

guidance told us to appeal this perimism notice we are sxheer asking to hold the files. and her contractor and aushth accountsable and not to be complice wit this behavior. the exhibits with the share in the garbage area are praud willulate. new her mitts should be fileded before work started in 2023. this was not filed inform if >> allow you to mediate on matters including the work on the permit and a lot niz eighth. stop this sense of sielthsment

for are her economic. thank you. joof we have 2 questions or requests from commissioner swig and trasvina. >> would you put up the last exhibit? that is the property line?

no, this one. you had too many pence. if you start nope. please. stop. stop. good replace. from that point directly down to the bottom of the page is tht property line? >> that's the property line. thank you. i understand that cross hatching part of this are the easement, correct. i understand now that just the green stuff is your property and come ch is your right to occupy, correct? so basically your complaint is wait a minute. you built a door that are requires you to trespass on our

property without permission well is no easement, >> correct. >> door that was closed was on the easement. >> thank you. sorry that adds to your testimony you can handle that in rebuttal. if this door were where it was scombfr had not been closed, there is an easement relationship which authorizes that door to exist. they have per million dollars to go and use that easement. i will ask this is just foreshadowing. i will ask planning or dbi to comment on we have a discussion here about property line windows. we don't have a discussion with property line doors. i would love, please, mr. teague or birmingham, for you to i want mr. teague's attention.

give us a discussion with about property line doors as you have about windows where there is no protection prosecute for property line windows. and love to have your comments and information and education about how you treat property line doors. thank you very much for your testimony. commissioner trasvina. >> thank you for your testimony. if you could put up the diagram once more. the dark green line, is -- where you -- have stated in attention

to have a fence, correct? >> we had an intoengz build a fence with the dark green line that is we knew we needed to provide access to the ease am. our intention was to build a fence on this line. dark green. so that air b & b who is not coming on to our property however we realized what once we said weeds do that no door there. they have they want to how are they getting through and we were not putting gateos our fence that would give themarc sesz to our property. >> so. is it is have you offered to on that what is the 672 fenceful any acstoesz any of your property or did that block it off? >> we don't a fence yet.

>> intended fence. jop no gate. the gate at the top to criminal in and out of our property? i'm sorry. i don't know. >> i'm trying to get -- so. in the past, 670 had access to the ease am. >> correct. >> that's all agreed to by you? >> if you put update fence with no gates, were what access does unit 670 have to get out? other not that front doors. >> they won't >> that's what part of reason we are suggest there is appealing the permit they removed the door where they gave them that access

to exit >> my other question is, can you summarize any reaction or have you made the points you made tonight, have you made them to the unit 670 owners >> in writing or verbal. >> both. >> can you summarize perform i'm sure we will hear their reaction. what you took from their reaction to your points you made. >> our interpretation was they felt she feels that entitled to them come on to the -- our property boost ease inspect more and more taking of our property. >> thank you. that's what i wanted. thank you very much. >> thank you. no further questions you can be seated. >> permit holders?

redraftd and the original -- um -- since 2003 when this was put in place the outside space was common space.

and as described there was no distinction with any open space. to create the new condo plan we are done between each buy and seller never two new buyers were not put together. betters and easily silent property. in terms of the easement. the ease want is graphicly indicated ending at the rear of the building. neigh demonstrate in the their speech. there are other easements as you know most of your attorneys can be graphic and be written. they did not bring up the language of the ease am. the ease am allows for access for removal of garbage cans this

dark area here can't see it. is has been a garbage area for 25 years. used by both parties for the first 6 months they occupied the property. most of that garbage area is 670. there was no issue around them storing the cans there for 6 months. the ease am allows for the removal of the garbage canos a regular base. and to remove them you need to go throughout backyard space 670 and go to the noneasement area of 672, per our attorneys interception is the additional written easement allows for transit cross what they call their private property. the -- language of the easement allows for the removal of object in the front of the building and

does in the define whether they go in the garbage area or the unit. access is more complicated. the use of the air b & b was negotiate instead purchase of the project. property by best. and was very clearly stated intent and written in the ccr right to do that all the appropriate permits to do that. and we understand that issue about removing the one door and adding the other door. bit easement grants us access to the backyard not just the side door. that is written again for moving things. it is more complicated than what is presented by the appellate. i like to state that the end of the day 91 of the issues matter

to the fact at hand the permits issued correctly. fiunderstand this we applied for permits late in the game i take responsibility. did not count correct. on me when we were notified to get them we got them in a day for most the work. some of them for the doors were took extra weeks they were issued and inspectd and signed off the, here is not about the ease am or about the condo association or the ccnr it is were they correct low issued. my understanding minor ateration no requirement to provide the private, legal documents to planning or building. i never done this in 35 years in practice in san francisco. they are requesting you ajudeicate the private agreement with the two parties when we are here to talk about were they correctly issued and i believe

they were. >> in addition to the appeal, they have filed complaints. or they are complaints for development of illegal unit did not exist was inspectd and was invalid complaint. complaints of short term rental board about not being on site landlord or host. incorrect she live thered since november. so. there is a pattern here of the appellates using the system. in a way to try to ajudeicate this private matter in the public realm and think it is inappropriate. i don't have more to say. i have one more document of we

have a preliminary amend cond open plan by the surveyor we spoke tone this was the appropriate thing to have the easement extend to the refer unit line. the question about the property line are not property lines they are on the perimeter of the property these are internal lines separating the two. i will call them unit lines. this was the recommend. approach. >> thank you. >> questions from swig and lemberg. >> two questions. one. when was the easement represented by puacknowledged exist and represented by the other condo owners. when was that codified? . i don't have the exact dates. both were purchased within a few

days escrow closing october of last year. and they were protracted negotiations between the two purchasers and the sell every. and independent agreements when was the date the condo plan was amend i'm not sure. the plan were amended within last year's period of selling this property. that's a critical issue. and if you can look further or if planning can look further as for that date. we had a similar case come up 91 of you were here. and -- easement is an ease am. and its prescribed. and thank you for your clarification.

that's important i appreciate that. but an ease am is an easement. has definition and file in the a certain time. it was filed prior to the -- does not matter. it was on the certain time and has restriction. the restrictions that i heard so that is yet day is important. that leads to my second question. i understands the garbage removal piece that is customary and happens. the other what you described other use. other use when you have a stranger who nobody knows. who has not been vetted and came through an air b & b reservation and invading my property. i would be upset. okay that stretches the envelope

of that for me. beg your pardon other use. which i happening was your phrase. if it was a repair person who was coming to paint the back of your unit, that is another use. if, i gotta move a hose to water my that part of the garden that is another use. a persons on a continuing basis that are going to be authorized. i don't know who you don't know. never met. only through a reservation system of somebody selling air b and b. authorizing the access to your next door neighbor's property? why do you think that is an appropriate other use. it was define instead purchase agreement and in the ccnr and that access is in the specific to an individual.

>> can you read us that that is in the ccnr that says that we can go on the neighbor's property with air b and b >> it is not that specific and should not be that specific. you should not be. you should this is can i ask the specific question. should important point. should beth's backyard disconnect to the street. no access to the street to her backyard? noose not what is in discussion here. the access is the other. and that is what i was say figure you gotta go backs and paint the building, repair an injury. water a plant.

that is were upon common sense stump buff giving access to a total strange are 24 hours a day, 7 days a week where the property owners receiving compensation for that. also the place the risk of uncertainty. come on. we read our air b & b hear horror stories. you strong low say, it is stated in the ccnr where does it say that strangers unqualified not prescreened who being be anyone good, bad, why should hay have access to an individual's private property. i don't see that. can you read that?

? they are 40 pages long and i doefrnt than is under your jurisdiction it is a private document with the two individuals we are determining whether this permit for this minor work was issue muched correct low ♪♪ not here tooshg joudicate access it is the person or painter we are here to determine whether or not this permit was issued correctly. they are talking about building the fence. am we did build a fence it did in the require a permit i chose to put it on the application because they had threatened build a permanent fence with no gate around the backyard. you can't do that. the basket building has egress windows and door and they have to have access to the street and the fire department access to the building with the new ground

ladders.

>> thank you. you mentioned earlier that you that these ccnr's and the property line were negotiated. whom were they negotiated with? >> interesting question. the seller anita 87 years sxoeld had a two real estate agents and the negotiations were independent. we were not aware of. the things we negotiated for they are un, wear.

ccnr in the condo plan were amended based on the two separate negotiations looking back, why would you create new documents that. dictate what the two parties can do. tell me if i'm off base. you signd that document? you signed the new ccnr's. if the negotiations were happen happening if with the seller. you were aware of everything when you signed it? >> yea. there was also feloning it that egress language. part of this easement i do have right to egress. and ingress. what i was told was egress equalize can ingress. >> that was the door as existed. >> no. and to clarify that written

language of the ease am gives me egress from the backyard. gives me e egress, able to take garbage cans out. you will stop you we don't have the ability to ajudeicate ccnr disputes. >> i department to the reason i'm asking to make sure you were on notice of this it was not something that happened behind your back. >> no. i appreciate you asking that the reason i addd that so huclarity well is language that gives acsechlsz >> i'm not worry the language. my next question is simple. when you were contemplaying the changes, obviously the work was not done with the permit initially. du have a conversation with your neighbors at all? >> if not, why not? >> anita was living in the back house.

we had details within the ccnr that said anything you did within your footprint did not have to that v the shared back and forth. and you know i'm new to this. having that ability to have that rental imincome allows me to have this property i'm a single parent with a daughter in the city. i'm not out for financial gain. upon >> i'm not saying du that. it was a comment made. i'm looking for housing security. and. >> my question did you have a conversation q with your neighbors at all? >> if not, why not? >> going back to the language i was from when we had in our ccnr i did not have to have conversations about what we did. i gave a tour and showed her what was happening and shared

and did if any the floors. happy to share that. we did have dialogue. it was not like. not before the work was done. this was after? . it was as it was happening. and again it it was if this should have been something because what i read in the ccnr state we did not need that approval. >> i will add. very, very early in the and mutual occupancy there was a combative relationship >> that's not my concern. jury room it is they were unwilling to listen to our position and different interpretation of the right's granted by the eedzment >> i'm going to stop you. no possibling way they could have been they could have been unwilling to listen if you did

not go to them in the first place. i will pass to commissioner trasvina. thank you. >> i'm confused and may be can you clarify something. you don't want to talk about the ccnr you relied upon that in your argument here. >> i'm responding to their present anticipation. >> you relied upon it. tell is seems to be buffers. you have i believe exhibitses 2 and 3 from your submission. exhibit 2 is the description of the ease and want 3 is the diagram. and on that diagram shows the easement consistent with the easement we have been seeing on the screen. the exhibit 2 talks about the use of the easement or purposes.

the egress for the owner. moving garbage cans and emergency access, et cetera . what i don't understand on what basis do you feel that you have the ability to have others have egress in the area that is not part of the easement?

i have been accused of trespassingly and stad on the side of i fence i could not stow this. they are frustrated and i am. they admitted we fell we bought something that we are sort of reckoning with that may be we both were sold -- a bail of goods we did not understand.

we were not get when we wanted. i'm not looking to create -- that what i'm charactered. i'm not entitled i tried to fwhld to give myself security. it is not to take from them and if we have that ability to go in and out that is fine. familiar -- it means putting the door back at the kitchen because that would allow mow that. i will do that. it is not to be just feels so far from what it was intended be that is my most authentic description. felt like i could not walk in the back garden without accused of something i had done to them or why don't i have rental agreements i'm not renting my home there are strangers anding in to ask me about my property. >> i let you go on to gift

context and the characterization and obviously the hurt you expressed or visited upon. but getting babacks to my question i don't think anyone is here to label you in any way. the question is -- as you described the your ability to go and and out it appears you. i want ton -- the legal basis that justifies closing off the existing access to the easement. the hatched area. the legal basis you have to have egress in the other area.

that is the written language provides me that access. a visual easement and the written language that setos top or along side of that. that is saying we can, i can e egress. i can bring thing in and out. i can take the garbage to the streets. part of is she ccnr's are a mess. you have a graphic depiction that differs from the written description and if the easement says can you photocopy the language of the easement in the ccnr states remove your cans but

they are in the place that to get them to the street has to trespass the noneasement portion you call in the quiet ease am. an easement is that limits you to one area who decides what is an proachly difficult thing to carry through front door versus the back door. it is not just about the doofrm

now hear from the planning d. >> corey teague za for planning.

we are looking at a permit for 670 shot well. rh3. 2 detached single family homes the building at the front is air category ahistoric resource that building was constructed in 1885. as mentioned there was work starting without permit. a complaint to plan nothing march of this year. there was concerns about work done with you a permit and potential unauthorized dwelling unit. staff reviewd that and there was no unauthorized unit. and the permits were filed swift 3 to address the w done. work being done in terms of doors and interior, has no bases in the planning code that is all committed. the since additional low a

permitted firnsdz the planning code. from a planning department perspective, the permit is before you today. it is code compliant and met all procedures overnight counter a xrufl did not require neighborhood notice. the -- the short term rental situation. they applied for that application in february and that was the application was granted. about a week ago. important to know under san francisco short term rental you start doing short term once you apply. it is front loaded. and then on the issue of easements, generally, the planning code does not have anything to say.

there is private matters that don't get address instead planning code and don't get volved. one exception there is ifrntdz 've under the planning code if you have a land locked lot. if you will develop it you are required to demo it. you have the access to public right-of-way. private agreements whatever the terms are have no affect on the plaintiff's exhibit of the planning code. that is why it is not an issue when we review projects. why sometimes easements exist and people asking for approval and bring that up as relevant to asking for approval why they may be they want a variance because well is utility easement.

commissioner swig. quest property finely this case. the architect for the project sponsor a condo line. am so where are the issues there? we have been educated about property line windows good luck with this if anybody captains to build across. tough luck.

what is the situation with property line doors or does in not counts because it a kondzo line door. >> it is both in the sense that this is not under the planning code a property line feature. the property is the exterior lot boundary. >> planning remember de feoed is silent. there is nothing ecplaceit about not protect progress them. fact there is nothing in the coat propertying windows. address the fact they are in the protected. property line windows have separate issues. for property line door, any feature you are putting on a property line, unless there is

protection for that in the coat or policy then is no protection. this case it is not irrelevant dan it is not a door on the report line jiechl believe i was trying tong of one ease am case and another pop in the my minds.

what happens in case where. in this case it was the only access to the back of the structure? and the they wanted to build another unit that was only accessible prosecute back and required usage of the ease am. is this all civil case stuff >> yes. nothing prevents the city when zee discretion from take nothing consideration are relevant information may include easements. again, easements don't dictate how we are required to implement the planning code. and we are not the agency that

ajude indicates disputes. i would be froeked out strafrmgers on my property. that is my freak out and may be hoped my neighbor would have communicated intent to upon create a situation where that would confirm i'm listen to you as i always do and you said, well, you know if regardless of the situation of the easement. that -- door of course that door should have been applied for enemy advance. but if it were would have been approved because there is nothing wrong is that what you said? >> right >> nothing in the code prevents

the side location of the door. >> >> so given that the permit was proper low issued according to the code, and even though stlchlt anning interpretation of the ease am intagz and the ccnr's. does this whole case related to whether access on one side or the other. does this gnaw our purview or not? and this is a civil matter as the property owner/architect. are we in the wrong form.

we have multiunit buildings in the estate only way for short

term ghost use the corridors and lobys. that suspect not an issue regulated. that is something this has to be addressed by property owners in their own agreements. >> final question, if this easement were the architect said and you had one. testimony seems based on your testimony because of the ease am we approved in 1942. that door stildz have been approve said for a permit in 2024. and who gets access subject to the ccnr and subject to that mark for identification easement would stilling a civil matter.

versus what we are talking about today. which is was it a good or lad permit >> regardless when the easement was record. television is aye civil agreement with the matters the planning upon department and your message today is folk out door permit, the ease accident and compoint did is real. >> question when the permit approved by the planning departmentful i would say, yes. it met the planning code. >> commissioner lopez.

if we project the next move on the chess board, this ungated fence on the appellate's condo line. upon would the planning code have anything to present that structure? >> potential low. because stweertding we are starting to get into issues. i'm confused by that reference. an ungated fence -- ungated with respect to the property permit holder's property.

the appellate would have access to the driveway and easement just not the property owner. >> that would be more of a question for dbi about egress requirements. >> why commissioner trasvina. >> thank you for your presentation. does the approval of the permit to close the side door create a lands look situation? >> weeds not see that as being lands locked. 6070 as direct access.

it is is. reality is like granting the permit and closing the door on the side, for this -- reasonal unit. way out is go on the property of sick 70. and just an area can be used >> the blgdz -- would be fine.

but the decision of the planning code. unrelated access issues. the issue of whether or not that would -- et cetera, limit access to ingress special e egress to the unit is i building and fire question.

the main thing in planning the fence its and the gate. is it permitted where it is located and if it was going to impact the planning code requirements. if there was a space requirement that intrefring with --. thank you. >> thank you. anything further. >> i'm struggling with this definitional difference. because the condo subdivision creates separate lots. like get record instead property map. so well is a locked boundary. what's the distinction way locked boundary and property line? good question temperature is challenging i'm not an expert. but you imagine most condies are

within ape single building. they are not considered separate. they are by the assessor for tracking but physically they are not separate lots. we don't look at them separate under the planning code, rear yard requirement. the concept is a unit of ownership not a physical lot. this is a little different because the nature of the layout. not typical condo seen scenario. condo conversion was 2001 and the condos were the two

buildings. and the others were common. i'm not familiar with the amendments. there is no condo approval related to any amendments that were done. the only thing we had was the original 2001. that helped. >> ultimately under the process you want to create two separate lots you go tie subdivision. not a kondzo. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner swig. no. >> we will hear from dbi. thank you. >> good evening. >> i think corey hit all the

building department issues as far as permit it was properly reviewd and issued. the moving of the back door there is no full provision. there is pocket doors there. you put in. we are not considering a separate unit. take into account the entrance. and you can go through the main building itself to access it and they were not using it. they have access to the backyard. the other point was the second gate on the property line. the fire department required thaty do get in on the second floor. you know it was proper low reviewd and does seem like a civil matter with the parties. there is not much we can do about it. commissioner eppler.

>> take a condo building traditional building. what happened if i dame to dbi and asked for a door with mine and the one next door. would you approve. it would have to be a fire rated door. condos, i'm talking adjacent. if you bought two. not two i'm going in my neighbor's rick's condo. >> he valid to have an agreement with the 2 a civil agreement with the two of you to allow to put a door in you could not go in by yourself and say i want a door. would i need that prior to

granting the permit. >> probably. you would not grant unless i had that agreement >> thank you. >> okay. vice president lemberg. i heard you say, but -- i lost it. oh , the pocket doors. so the dbi inspection showed the erickson b & b guests would have full access to her home and that's why this was per missable. >> no , it was never noted on the permit there was used as an air b & b it was pocket doors in the kitchen, which -- after we found out they would be used as an air b & b it can be closed off over left open. it would not have really affects the issuance of the permit.

the short term rental application was pending. i don't know which department deals. would not have come up in the dbi review of this permit. >> i don't know if i have questions about that. >> you had me convinced until your response to commissioner eppler. >> commissioner eppler asked you whether you would permit me to build a door and eppler's condo next door. and you said there is no problem and then eppler said would you do it without permission from the next door neighbor. and say now i need permission from the next door neighbor to

issue that permit. >> yes. >> right >> what's the difference. here if we let the architect know he can respond in rebuttal. what's the difference if you look at the map that door is clearly on land which is the exclusive >> the easement. not on the cross hatch. original door is fine. new door is on the exclusive land. so. would the why would not the new door.

you look at drawing with the cross hatch. somebody have it. i'm sorry, thank you very much for that. okay. what is the difference. the cross hatch piece is the ease am the other piece, which is shaded green is the rights

property. jot door was add to access from and to the right pedestrian property what is the difference twhan and me and eppler we live next door to each other and i decide to i want to go in his apartment. but you will not give it to me. unless i have permission. >> he does not own that yard you add a door in your own personal yard. so. is it? yea. this is his space.

forgive me what i should have said allow me it build a gate with my patio will and his patio. an agreement in place. did dbi review it. >> no. >> they don't know if there was

an agreement. after the fact we get had and there is this garbage thing. at time of permit du have knowledge an agreement with the parties. can i build a gate with 2 properties to access their property? this is. i'm not sure if they were reviewed you know it and come back. it would appear that there was an agreement, >> i look i agree. the issue is the ccnr the question is whether or not this permit was issued properly. you know if there is an agreement to have access i'm not

convinced you had information. >> i'm not sure if you would allow a gate there for emergency exit to the public right-of-way if you put in a gate that ago out to the right-of-way we would allow you. we would considered an emergency e egress. >> we are moving on to public comment? is there anybody in the room that would like to provide public comment? i live in a condo if we hear a stranger on our property after hours we call the cops immediately. this is a child that week up by a stranger walking in their

report at 1 in the morning. and speaking on behalf of the friends in the community for allowing access to a series of things. i don't know if you sought letter i sent early on. talking about making the community for a long time. you are stepping in the shot well community that is miles move in the from out of town. and did not get to know the community she was dealing with.

and this is causing great distress and -- -- um -- i was going to say i know everyone is tired. look at these. and considered having strafrmgers on their property at all times. and how do you finish it is a renter or a thief? what protection do they have from that? thank you. >> thank you. any further public comment. michael nulty on zoom. ordinance are heldz accountable for violation in regard to air b

& b. i think that the owner should have been more dealt with it the neighborhood good neighborhood policy and understanding the laws and sounds like they want to make money. things she said in her testimony this make its sound she is doing it to make money for her newhouse? and -- it becoming a nuisance to the neighborhoods. that's my comment. >> thank you. >> further public comment? raise your hand. >> i don't see any. we will move on to rebuttal. we will hear from the appellate.

thank you. ask a lot of the questions and the same issues i would have brought up in rebuttal. i appreciate the time and -- our hoaccnr state that approval of the other owner is required before improvements or modification to the owner's unit that adversely affects the other unit. we did not hear from them. the work was done prior to obtaining the permit. the permit holder fengz mentioned this would beying settled began work without we

will reaching out to us. approval from the other ordinance required before an owner making modification to the unit that may affect the open space requires approval by the planning department. that is specific in there. not in the building upon department but planning department. if planning has to be involved to give input on the fences they should as well come to us and hoa first. we ask you revoke the permits. come in discuss this with you. we are in the we have discussed mediation and we are you know -- we are hoping that is going to

move forward. we think that at this point the permit should not be given and some modification of it because -- it is very it is very preventing us from moving forward with when we were expecting to do with our new property. expecting to have neighbors that would communicate with us and like we have been on shot well for so long. owner has to give us the rental agreement. she said no only if the entire unit was rented out.

we were not informed. >> nothing was written on that. and the garbage cans they move them on the easement not -- thank you, time. >> thank you. you can be seat. i don't see questions now the permit holder. 3 minutes. >> thank you. have the over head. to clarify. commissioner swig a somewhating rectangle the open yard. unit. the new door installed opens in the rear yard. unit. we don't see there was -- not the situation that commissioner eppler is discussing the door from your unit to your yard.

we took door out to open from this unit. i think the last statement is clear there is just a misunderstanding and difference of opinion about how the ccnr is written. and again not relevant to issue the permits. the fire code and the building code require egress access for rear yard. you cannot build a fence without a gate the gate is required for emergency e egress and for access from the fire department in the rear yard should emergency access required the gates here in the front are required by the building code.

again we think this appeal should be denied and permit allowed continue. i will say air b & b issue we are talking about one person. one time. and mrs. miles rented other guests and go through her house. the issue is understandable is something that can be negotiated at this point i believe you seat tension here and we would like to get in front of each other in a mediated condition and resolve issues. they are not issues to be resolved tonight. >> i believe in creating

economic opportunity. i'm a single mother a daughter is remarkable and going to finish you will at san francisco state. this year it is know the same things they want that i want and a commitment and i'm not look to terrify someone having air b & b's and all of it is negotiatable when they brought up the issue of building a fence and choraling me in was over a phone call. not to do anything with the air b & b it is not this open communication and willingness to discuss. thank you. i have yon request. what was the purpose of the getting rifted side door in the

first place? access from home to the rear yard. you had to have gone out the side dpoo sorry based on their description the side door will not give you access the ease am ends at the house you had to transit the private property to get in your backyard. the primary treen put the door in the back was to access the backyard. a follow up. why was i mean. you wanted add a dear to the back. that is normal. i think it was a choice.

not a need for doors they take up space and rooms and very small room there. it was a choice. we may end up reinstalling that door we'll get a permit. put it back in. we not adjudicate the ccnr. i understand they add in the how doors. the other question is. the shared garbage area defined or a matter of practice? >> it is shown on the original condo from 2003. not in the restated? >> it is located on the map. the current condo map. i will say a prittive easement through 25 years of used by both units and discussed with attorneys on our end.

is that again multiple ways. we have written language that allows for garbage cans. >> i got my answer. >> commissioner swig. i'm clear on where the door is. i was not clear before thank you. i feel like the issue really is can you put up that -- thing again?

to get the garbage out. nothing else but to get garbage out. >> i think i think the argument the argument00 autogarbage i understands the ccnr. that -- the appellates don't

that gate used for anything but -- i love public comment there is crime in the city. may have known people walk down people's driveways and find access in homes and break in and do nasty things. and that gives us a sense. awareness. and so i fully understand the issue. of somebody walk down that ease am not identified. who is a strange and is not a bad person but in the air b and

b. i think this say substance. >> to mr. birmingham. upon that sister visits from the east coast and come up is she a stranger? >> if that sister if it is i would expect that would have notified her neighbors you will see a woman walking up the street. >> the reasonable to ask. you infurthermore your condo neighbors of every guest that would visit your home. joy think we are getting beyond the point help is about the air b and b are the permits correct low issued of the points that mr. birmingham brought up. is that -- is that if -- and it was the the swig/eppler discussion about put nothing a gate. and upon mr. birmingham said,

yea. absolutely. code compliant. if there was permission begin by usual permission with eppler and swig. tlldz be that access. without that you not issue the issue is not door it is the gate >> during plan check i mentioned i include the fence does not require permits. could be reviewed by planning and fire. fire requested we put a second gate in the rear now require the 22 foot long lad and could not maneuver through the side gate. happy to look it from their side so we can't get through it it is there for mermgs. i don't that gate there and she does not. fire department sdchlt i think the yued again completely land look her rear yard is not code compliant.

civil issue or code issue. >> okay. anything further from planning? >> quick clarifications. the short term rental the way it is written in the admin code doing it it is parking lot of the residential use. not a separate use. it is also the code permits units to have boarders. if you like rent the bedroom in the backspace for a period of 30 days. on the issue of ease ams again. i think this is constructive to get to the point what we were making earlier. which is that the ease am don't direct what we do.

two property ordinance agree violates the planning code. because they agreed to it. awfuls sometimes they are not clear. and we deponent interpret them. the planning interprets one way and dbi interprets a differents and fire a differents way. there are reasons why from ease am perspective tell get in a case by case base that you is a civil matter. on the point of the fence, it is interesting. my understanding under construction now but before there was no fence. it was open to access. the fence and the gate is there is state gate and the fence. the status quo was no fence at all. it was completely open access to the space back there.

that was just interesting to me. to clarify, the fence of 6 feet or less does not require a permit. we have requirements about the property height for fences but if it was a permit, the scope of work was a fence of sick feet or less would not trigger a permit or come before planning for review. if you are going to do a permit that has a scope that we review and additional scope we want to see that on the plans. the fence is on this permit. i wanted make those statements and availability for questions you may have. >> thank you. i don't see. anything further from dbi >> commissioner this is matter is committed. >> commissioner trasvina. spent a lot of time on this one

and i appreciate all the presentations by the neighbors on this including the public comment. it is a difficult issue. one could being resolve in the civil court or resolved here. i think the problem is that and the reason why should be resolved here the permit triggered a lot of all of this. and had t. is clear that the lack of scrutiny here and created >> i described as the way the 6

property associate using. it is that or the property. begin all the breaking down nought permit was not properly granted i grant the appeal. >> i agree with commissioner tras vin a don't think it was properly issued. i don't think involving the building of a fence who that only have access to an area that is not their's is not proper of the period. i would -- suggest but don't feel we have the jurisdiction to make this order but i would suggest that sides door be

reopened that makes sense and the real way you will have access and able to the have a fence in the backyard. you are entitled a fence in the backyard. and the back door. view permit as a whole. any permit with a fence needs per fligz both if there is access from 670 and the 672.

and i think we can without invoking the ccnr issues that are issue for civil court. the removal of the side yard door is on the permit and i think we could reverse that tonight as well. because as we now know there is not a way dbi could have known this. we know after an hour of deliberation and testimony that side door is the only way to legally ingress. so. i'm certainly open to the idea and interested to hear what fellow commissioners say about addressing that potential low revoking that part of the permit and removing the side yard door.

it's, you know, how they use that gate to access the front yard. they still need to be able to access the public space. we understand that there is an egress issue, and we understand it's complicated. i mean, i was on the department of building inspection beforehand when we had the fire ladder issue come up and how the, you know, do you get a fire ladder through a victorian? i mean, i mean, it's a complicated thing. and we understand that there are things that have to be considered, commissioner trevena, did you want to ask mr. birmingham a question or did your name pop up as well? if you wouldn't mind yielding, i would. yeah, i am concerned by what i thought was his answer. and maybe it's the lateness of the hour. commissioner apple asked you if we granted the appeal, how

quickly would it be enforced or how slowly the it would be enforced. and you just you answered, well, it was properly granted. so we won't do anything. well, i mean, if you did, grant the appeal, we would probably issue either an nov or a correction notice and we would probably give them 60 days to correct it, 90 days or, you know, another 30 days to get the permit, another 90 days after that to correct whatever the we put on the nov, if it was to revert it back to the previous condition and put the door back in on the side, we would give them say 30 days to apply for that permit, another 30 days to obtain it and another 60 days after that to complete all the work and get all the appropriate sign offs so that it was returned to the previous thank thank you. and i thank commissioner epler. no, i thought that might be where you were going, and i thought you would do better at it than i

would. so thank you, all right. thank you. i appreciate that. okay. all right. i will say that, you know, with respect to, you know, my thoughts. yeah. you may you may go ahead. thank you. no further questions. sorry about that. thank you. i'm not good at this, i will say that my that i understand that there's either a civil matter or an agreement that has to be reached between the parties that are outside of our scope. i am concerned, however, that the planning department granted access from one parcel to another without a prior agreement being in place. the parts of the ccnr's that we have , well, i mean, they don't evidence an agreement that that preexists for the uses that are currently being in place. and i feel that because the work was done prior to the drawing of permits, there may perhaps be a little bit of a, you know, oh, we'll just fix this instead of thinking about it. what would

you have done if you had come in with the plans in the first place, before the work was done, and how would have been approached? and i don't think that there should be a difference in how we look at those two things. and so for those reasons, i am inclined to agree with the prior two commissioners that spoke in terms of trying of whether or not we grant the appeal or not, unless there's an alternative way to get these folks to agreement without having to do that. we're back to the trasvina rule. communication would have been very convenient in this case, but it didn't happen. so there was no problem before a door was illegally added to the to the space in the back. the garbage could be taken out. according to the ccnr's, there there was no

adverse effect to the neighbor, when the door was added as a convenience, to the permit applicant, that's what triggered the whole mess. because there was the assumption that the they just had the door because it was good for the airbnb, that was added and there was no consideration for the adverse effect, which should have been considered to the neighbor, pure and simple, was the door that was added, code compliant? yeah but the door was code compliant. it was the rest of the mess that was triggered by giving access trespassing to the neighbor's property, which could have been handled very simply through as

mr. birmingham said, a if that. that's what they want to do. we need mutual permissions. done deal. it wasn't done. so now we find ourselves a condition created by an illegal addition that triggered an adverse condition that triggered, this this dilemma that we, we have right now, that's that's really unfortunate. sorry. we're in deliberations, so we're the only ones who are going to speak right now unless you ask a question. thanks so this would have been wonderful had both parties had a conversation with each other. and come to an agreement. and if one party didn't agree to having that door added to provide the opportunity for you to have an airbnb, that that's their right. you could add a civil, civil discussion then it didn't happen, so that's

where we find ourselves, i think. i think the only, i wish that communication would have happened in advance. so we wouldn't have found ourselves in this position. but i really think that the commissioners, unfortunately, unfortunately, have the right solution, which is to find for the appellant and to trigger a reversal of the situation or allow the two parties to have a discussion, whether it finds itself into a civil action or not. that's not our deal. but it's unfortunate that that an illegal action was taken. a door was added without a permit. even though the one door that was added was perfectly appropriate. it's the fence that's the problem. and the access to access to the next door neighbor's property without permission. that's kind of how i think it's very unfortunate, but that's what lack of communication and proactive

agreements end up. so i'm in support. who's ever going to make that, that, that motion that i anticipate? well, i have some comments first, but okay. since you're mentioning communication, i think i just have to mention this, because we obviously you know, if there was an authority on the board to turn back time and compel communication, i think we'd probably take that opportunity, but we also have to talk about communication going forward. and there was some discussion, earlier on the part of the permit holder that, you know, well, every single guest, it's not practical or realistic to announce every single guest. i would agree with you, if you're

talking about a guest solely on your property, once your guest is coming onto my property, call me crazy, but i would like to know about that person, and i think that's indicative of this communication issue that we've talked about. and that one is just a suggestion. but going forward, i would suggest, for what? for what it's worth, one, one. guys opinion. i do think that that that's a fruitful direction to take, mr. birmingham, i'm going to ask you to come back up for one more question. i'm sorry. so if this were just a permit for the fence , wouldn't we need a gate because of the fire issue? okay. thank you. that was it. i just wanted to confirm that. thank you. so i think that takes me to

the question of what motion is appropriate, i'm of the mind that i think it's more appropriate. so i think what happened here, honestly, with just all the bullets flying with with dbi, they didn't, potentially they they may not have appreciated the full breadth and scope of the project. when you combine the fence with the gate, removing the door, those things, individually, separately may not have been a problem. combined, there's an issue potentially, given that if this were a permit solely for a fence, it would require a gate. i'm inclined to think that that's okay. and if anything, it provides a little bit more, i mean, it provides a property or a condo line rather

boundary that didn't exist before a physical line. there i'd be more inclined to, to focus on the, the removal of the exterior door. in addressing that. and then if once that's removed, if there continues to be, you know, access outside of, the purported easement, through the gate rather than through that side door as was possible before then to me, that seems like, that could be fruitful for a private dispute outside of these four walls. but that's, that's just that. that's what as much as i'm, completely sympathetic to the concerns expressed by the appellants, i feel like that's i don't know, logically, that makes more sense

to me, but i'm open to being persuaded. i mean, no, i mean, i think, you know, for me personally that i mean, that's a fine, fine outcome if, if, you know, that door was a egress door, not a two way door, not something that's accessed from the outside coming in, but from the inside going out as egress is required. not egress and ingress in that circumstance. however, i will say that's i mean, i'd be happy with that, but we do have a very contentious situation here with, i think, multiple issues. and i think your solution is a plausible solution, but i'm not sure if it's the one that matches what the parties would like, and so i would, i would be concerned about, you know, necessarily dictating that particular outcome in this circumstance just to, just to clarify, when you were talking about egress, only you're talking about the gate, right? yeah. i'm sorry. the gate. yes, i know i say door, but i'm, i'm looking at between the lots the, and not, not between the inside outside. i'm thinking about the

total scope of ownership and the portals between them. got it, commissioner swig? yeah just just remember that, the airbnb unit could exist. it could exist without that exterior door. the exterior door is a convenience to the property owner to have a separate entrance that gives her privacy, but, you know, airbnb's the whole premise originally behind airbnb that continues to be a key premise is that if you have a room that you are not using in your home, you you can be licensed to rent that room for an overnight stay. that's that's airbnb, it doesn't require a separate entrance door. the separate entrance door is an accommodation in this case, is convenient only to the

property owner. but that doesn't prevent the existence of the airbnb. and so we're not we're not taking away a right for that property owner to continue to, to rent an airbnb. all we are doing is presenting, the, the, the duress. that would be caused by that door, to access via the a gate or anything else, private property. so i'd like to bring up that point as well. we are not we're not saying no to the airbnb. airbnb at all. but what we are concerned with is unlawful access and trespassing without permission to a neighbor's property, which mr. birmingham said would be cool if both parties agreed. but in this case, there was no communication. there was not.

there was not the proactive step to get a mutual agreement between the two property owners. therefore, that gate and that that that fence and that access via that gate, which would have to be triggered, which would have to exist, it becomes problematic. the door creates that problem in the first place. so i think we circle around back to where the first three commissioners said, you know, without that permit, mutual permission, which would mr. birmingham said would be required, then then this is not a permit that can be approved and the appeal should stand. that's how i sorted sort it all out. and again, we are not preventing the airbnb from existing. it's just the access is different. not as convenient. commissioner tanzania, thank you, president lopez, for trying

to come up with a solution that parses out the various aspects. but i think the entire permit is defective, given the lack of, awareness of the various facts that we've heard throughout, throughout the evening. and i believe i typically believe, well, i believe communication is best among the parties. i also believe that our making decisions and parsing various aspects of a permit is difficult. i think it's better when they do it, and i and i think it would promote, a discussion and resolution between the parties if we just simply went back prior to the time the permit was issued. and as, as mr. birmingham said, there will be a period of time before, novi is issued or enforcement is taken. it gives them the time that to go through mediation, which they both have stated they are prepared or

planning or willing to do and just start from a clean slate. so i would move to reverse the permit. grant, grant the appeal on the on the basis that the permit was improvidently granted without the full information, about the, about the impact of the granting of the permit any further comment as to commissioner swig's hand up? no sorry. yep, vice president lumbergh, i'm willing to support your motion. commissioner trezzini. i just want to bring back up the kind of the non problematic parts of this which are the interior doors and the door into the backyard, which are not inherently problematic or illegal in my opinion. i just, i, i'm, i understand your logic and i'm willing to vote for it. i just wonder if we should make we should make some sort of, compromise with that. but that's it's your motion. so.

i defer to you. okay. so we have a motion from commissioner trasvina to grant the appeal and revoke the permit on the basis that it was not properly issued. and i didn't hear the last part. why was it not properly issued? well, before we get to the potential vote, i do want to, respect. i'm sorry. there's still discussion going on. okay. question and request and really hear from my colleagues as to whether there is a middle ground on on this or not. my own, my own view is that when we get into some parts of the permit and not others, what we're trying to promote some logical or sensible, changes and not others, i think. i think the parties can best communicate the entire package at once, and no particular action will be taken as a result of this denial.

except on the timeline that mr. birmingham stated. and you're actually right. there's no additional work put on the permit holder from doing the whole thing over versus, doing only part of it over. so, okay. and i'd also add that they could seek a permit for those interior components and leave the hard stuff still outside of the scope of the permit. no. okay. i'm convinced. so just for the record, it was improperly issued because because the issuance lacked permission, an entire understanding of the impact of the application. okay. so on that motion, president lopez, i vice president lundberg i commissioner epler i commissioner sway i okay. so that motion carries 5 to 0 on the appeal has been granted. and that concludes the hearing. thanks everybody.

>> shared spaces have transformed san francisco's adjacent sidewalks, local business communities are more resilient and their neighborhood centers are more vibrant and mildly. sidewalks and parking

lanes can be used for outdoor seating, dining, merchandising, and other community activities. we're counting on operators of shared spaces to ensure their sites are safe and accessible for all. people with disabilities enjoy all types of spaces. please provide at least 8 feet of open uninterrupted sidewalk so everyone can get through. sidewalk diverter let those who have low vision navigate through dining and other activity areas on the sidewalk. these devices are rectangular planters or boxes that are placed on the sidewalk at the ends of each shared space and need to be at least 12 inches wide and 24 inches long and 30 inches tall. they can be on wheels to make it easy to bring in and out at the start and the end of each day. but during business hours, they should be stationary and secure.

please provide at least one wheelchair accessible dining table in your shared space so the disability people can patronize your business. to ensure that wheelchair users can get to the wheelchair accessible area in the park area, provide an adequate ramp or parklet ramps are even with the curb. nobody wants to trip or get stuck. cable covers or cable ramps can create tripping hazards and difficulties for wheelchair users so they are not permitted on sidewalks. instead, electrical cables should run overhead at least ten feet above sidewalk. these updates to the shared spaces program will help to ensure safety and accessibility for everyone, so that we can all enjoy these public spaces. more information

is available at sf.govt/shared spaces. francisco. >> (music). >> city and county of san francisco korean-american is one of the and preserve agrees in america we work with job seeker to make sure they're trained and able to enter the workforce by i work with the number of partners able to then recruit our residents from training and get a solidified trained up workforce the hospitality initiative started in 2012, we saw a need for culinary workers within san francisco is everything from hotels gift services to culinary training to

also to security services as well as are jailer training is under the hospitality initiative umbrella and um, the goal so really try to make sure we have various training tracks for folks to answer within the industry and our program is about a tense week program about job readiness, you know, included with our kitchen work we teach life skills. >> to assess the program not only what my helped my life build. >> i come from a hardship to starting to connect again to changes, you know, and this is a second chance. >> why not to mess up on that and the program has supported me

in that you a oewd is amazing; right? one of the things we focus on more on for our workforce development how to help more trained workers would our industry want to help raise the awareness of those organizations so our members know hey this is a place we could go and find a cook find a things to. >> my sidewalks previously i did 10 years in federal penitentiary i was released into prison and that's how i got introduced with that so to chat they said apprenticeship they taught me to leave the program and i found multiple jobs and owe that to everything i learned here in. >> no wrong donor i feel your department has done is great job

throughout the workforce developmen

>> okay, good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission meeting for thursday june 20, 2024 hearing. when we reach the item you are interested in speaking to, we ask you line up on the screen side of the room to your right. each speaker is allowed 3 minutes. when your allotted time is reached i will announce your time is up and take the next person to speak. please speak clearly and slowly and state your name for the record. the commission does not tolerate disruption or outburst of any kind and i'll ask we silence mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. i will take roll at