>> good evening. and welcome to the december 6, 2017, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals.

presiding officer is, president darryl honda, joined by vice president fung, and commissioner lazerus and commissioner swig. bobby wilson be absent. we will be joined by city departments shortly. we expect scott sanchez to be here, zoning administrator, representing the planning department and planning commission and senior building inspector joseph duffy will be here. and i see raul shaw is here and brent cone. the board requests that you turn off and silence all phones and other electronic devices and that you carry on conover sawingses in the hallway. rules of presentations are as

follows. 7 minutes to present the case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with the parties must be in the 7 minutes. members of the public, 3 minutes each and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone. to assist the board, you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card and we have speaker cards on the left side of the podium for your use. we also have customer satisfaction survey forms and we welcome your comments and suggestio suggestions. the if you have questions, speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call or visit our office. we're at 1650 mission street. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv.

we have dvds available for purchase. now we'll swear in or affirm all those that intend to testify. any member of the public may speak without taking the oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance. the please stand, if you are able, and say i do after you are sworn or affirmed. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth? okay. thank you very much. president honda and commissioners, we have two housekeeping items tonight. item six has been withdrawn. this is appeal 17-164, dealing with a tree removal permit and

item 8, 17-161, parties requested that the matter be moved to next week to allow them more time for settlement discussion. for that to happen, we need a motion. >> so moved. >> thank you. is there public comment on the motion to remove this item. we have a motion from commissioner lazerus. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> there's an item that is not on tonight's calendar. >> good evening.

welcome back. >> hey, what's up? nice coat there. so i'm frustrated because, as you know, there is no communication between me and the arts commission, and i keep coming before you saying, well, how can we move this forward? how can we get this permit? how can i work legally? and i'm just reaching an impasse. all i'm getting from other people is more reports about how disorganized the street artist program is. for example, when alexis, an ambassador from union square bid approached me recently to ask me where the downtown space is, where is the membership list, and i said, wayne, i don't work for the city.

have you had your meeting with the street artist program? no. we don't even know who is running it. we put phone calls in and we don't get anything back so i feel frustrated. i keep coming before you and hoping to say there's great progress, there's communication, these people want this specific thing and it's nothing like that. it's the opposite. and it's it's a long time. it's over a year. as i said, i went it one of their meetings. i had a written statement. i was reading it and someone ran out of the room. she was screaming in the hallway. i videotaped myself reading the 150-word summary. it's there in the audio. i asked the supervisor records to contact them, as to why this

summary is not in the minutes and they claim they don't have it. there's evidence that it was there. so even a couple of days ago i was right in this room in front of the full arts commission and barbara scalara was upset to see me. i don't know this woman. i don't know why. i don't know what to say, except hello, happy holidays. >> thank you. >> any other general public comment? seeing none. item two, commissioner comments and questions. >> as i mentioned earlier, madame director, i must leave at 6:45 for a previous event. >> okay. then item 3, consideration of minutes of november 15, 2017. >> unless we have changes, deletions or add uses, a motion to accept them into record.

>> so moved. >> any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, we have a motion from commissioner lazerus. vice president fung? >> aye. >> president honda? >> aye. >> commissioner swig? >> aye. >> that motion passes. appeal 17-165, alan and p pei yi fung. the property at 1968 quint street, protesting the issuance on september 19, 2017, to xiao yan zeng, first floor, partition bedroom and family room, alter to two bathrooms. change windows at rear, new deck, new skylight. we'll start with the appellant. >> good evening and welcome.

>> thank you. and good evening. i'm john choi. thank you, board, for talking the matter and reviewing our brief. i do have some comments to make, but i would like to first turn the mike over to mr. patrick fung, the song of the apeople -- appellants. >> we've lived on quint street for 26 years. in all 26 years, the past two months have been the toughest for us, especially for my mom. she has hypo thyroidism and thinking about the negative impacts of the deck have exacerbated her symptoms. so we don't even want to imagine how her symptoms might escalate when the deck is finished in its current dimensions.

on behalf of our family, we'd like to thank the board for listening and respectfully ask to keep our family's health and privacy in mind. thank you. >> thank you. >> i would like to make some comments, representations from the brief. on page 7 of the brief, the respondents mention how my clients, -- i have a diagram tt

shows the differential there. it's more like 8 foot 3, not 6 foot 3. also on page 8 of the respondents brief, they provided

a pdf, which my clients have never seen before. and we would like to understand how come we were never provided this. not just personally, but through our own due diligence, dealing with the city planning and building inspection. moving on to page 9 of the brief. they mentioned how that this is -- what they're requesting is a common feature throughout the neighborhood. this is a flagrant misrepresentation. the reason why is that they -- their example here is on sante fe. it's on a hill. as you can tell from -- this is sante fe -- other photos, the

deck is on the garage level, not the second level. at the bottom of page 9, they talk about 1990 quint street. i have a photo of 1990 where there is no deck. this is on the same street that is at issue in this matter. on page 10, page 10 of the brief, it's important to know that if you refer them to exhibit one, as you can tell,

the sun is coming from the southeast. so the sun directly impacts my client's property. in terms of what material to use. and if a material -- >> now i would like for the board to consider all that i mentioned thus far and that if we are talking about ways to

kind of shrink the size of a deck, my clients' position is that they would rather the width of the deck be away from my client's property. the reason why is because the further it is from my client's property the more the -- the more it will infringe upon the privacy to peer into the windows, intentional or not. the important thing is that the terrain and the property is at issue here, so, therefore, it's a huge concern of my clients. thank you so much. >> on exhibit 1, is your

client's house the left or the right? >> it's number 41. so 40 is to the east. and to your argument, the sun starts southeast and comes across, so how does it create more of a shadow if the sun is starting on your side of the property? >> i believe the sun would come from -- east to the west, right, the larger it is, the greater impact it would be. >> okay. okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> can we hear from the permit-holder? >> good evening. welcome, mr. williams. >> thank you, president honda, members of the board. steve williams. i'm representing the project

sponsors. they're all here tonight, as well as the project architect, william yu, if the board has any questions of him. so a very, very small project. rh-1 neighborhood. 5381, lot 40. and because of the relatively steep hill, you can see -- if i could have the overhead, please -- there are a few lots. only five at the end of this bloc block. and the houses are oriented

north-south. they're on the south side of quint street, between scotia and sante fe. because their south facing, the sun does shine on the front of the buildings most of the day, as it travels across the sky. very modest buildings. >> this is from page 3 of our brief. the subject properties in the center. appellants property is there on quint street. the project was approved because it is a very small project and within the buildable area. they applied for it in this manner because they wanted to get to it quickly. they wanted to have a fairly quick project.

didn't anticipate any objections. with the rh-1 zoning, 75% of the lot can be covered by the building itself and so this particular deck is entirely within the buildable area where the building could extend. and so this is a fraction of what they might have afopplied r and let me show you what i mean by that. they're only taking the deck out 9'6" because that's included in the buildable area the entire building could have been extended to that and on to that a pop-out into the required rear yard of another 12 feet with a deck on top of that. these are as of late, applications that could have been made but weren't. so, like i said, this is a fraction of what they could have

applied for. the concerns are privacy, sunlight and health concerns or something along those lines, i was not really clear on that. my point in the brief was that they had made an error in their calculations. they said there the deck was extending 9'6" past their building, when it's only going 6'6" past their building because -- and this is the pdf that mr. choi referred to. it's an enlargement of the plans, page s2.2, shows the rear deck and on the east side the stairs are incorporated into the deck. so that's why it's 9'6." it's only 6'6" over here.

that was my point there. the depth is overwhenly 6'6" on side. with shadows, again, i think they're mistaken. the appellants have a key lot, so they run across the yards of the buildings on scotia avenue. and there's no building directly to the west of them. and so almost all the sun they get is in the afternoon once the sun has crossed. if you look at their exhibits, and they had better angle with which to take photographs, first and foremost, because they're oriented north-south, the shadows from the buildings fall within the lot of the building themselves. if you look, for example, at their exhibit k. this is a view from their building over to the project sponsor's building.

you can see the shadow is cast from west to east in this and mostly just on their own building. same thing with exhibit x from their brief. this is sort of a closup of the two buildings. their building shadow the subject building more than the other way around. so, again, i think they were mistaken about where the shadows were going to fall. i don't have any comments about the other health hazards and things, flying pots and pets and criminal activity and that sort of thing. i would note as a general rule the wind bureaus west -- blows west to east, so. would blow from their building more than the other way around.

this is perhaps the most common addition done in san francisco. it's a needed improvement, and a common addition. this is an adjacent building. this is from page 9 of the brief. this is adjacent to both of -- this is the project sponsor's yard. they have a similar setup. and it adds to fire safety. there's an exit stair from the main living quarters. and then my exhibit four, showing the neighborhood, you can see there are three similar decks up on sante fe and another down on quint, which is also very similar. we usual you to reject the appeal and let these folks get on with their project. thank you.

>> counsellor, do you mind putting up exhibit l? are your clients continuing to do work at the property at this point? >> no. they haven't done any work in about 5 weeks. they finished as much as they could of the plumbing and electrical permits, which were not appealed. >> if you don't have it, we can use my copy. >> oh, here it is. >> the question is, looking at the area of the property, i would imagine those are asbestos

tiles. if you look at all the broken tile on the floor, that would be a concern to me that the contractor would not be aware that those are potentially asbestos tiles. >> i don't know. i think that dbi has been to the site. i don't believe they've iise ii any novs or anything. >> i will ask them. i think they said they were not allowed access. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you. good afternoon. scott sanchez, planning it department. the permit before you for the rear deck addition, there is a stairwell opposite the

appellant, but it approves to be code complaint. i did note that they did not correctly calculate the rear yard requirement. they took a more restrictive calculation, a longer depth, rather than the total depth, so they could extend 1 foot further. back to what mr. williams said that they could go the full lot width and then extend to the rear line and 12 feet further, that's not allowed in the last 25% or 15 feet. but they could extend to the 25% line. everything they have proposed here is code-complaint. we've seen some of the appeals before the board that doesn't require notice, but once they

get the inspection, it will be before you and concerns about privacy, light. i think it's a relatively modest addition. it extends 6'6" on one side and 9'6" on the other. it's set back 3 feet. open railings. it's designed in a way that does not extend as much as it could and reduces potential impacts on the appellants' property. with that, i'm available for questions. thank you. >> inspector duffy? >> welcome, inspector duffy. >> thank you. the building permit was issued as a form 8 with the current approval. it appears to be code-complaint

in relation to the building code. we did receive one complaint, on october 31, from the residents at 1974 quint. basically they were saying that the work was continuing even though they were on a suspended permit. the building inspector went out there and spoke with the owner and explained that the building permit was suspended. plumbing and electrical work can be performed because those permits have not been appealed or suspended. you had a question about the asbestos sighting -- >> just reading through the brief, it says that the back portion had not been put in when the suspension was put on, but since we saw the picture, looking at the picture, that era, 1940s, is usually asbestos tiles and looking at the mess

made there, that's a hazardous situation. >> yeah, there's a containment situation. they would have had a couple of weeks to work. so possibly that work did start and stopped and that's maybe when it stopped. they certainly do need to dispose of the asbestos shingles in a safe manner. people get freaked out by asbestos. a general contractor can contain that asbestos. they can triple-bag it. it's doable. >> you don't see job sites that look like that especially handling asbestos. >> i agree. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none.

we have rebuttal. 3 minutes for the appellant. >> first, i'd like to talk about the shadows. in a here, 1990, has installed a shed, so we could see and be that the shed is of the aing a shadow on the west side of 1990 quint street. if we were to translate that over to our side, the deck would cast shadows because the shed is way small are than the deck would be. if the deck casts a shadow that size, the deck would cast shadows on our property. and the second thing i what to

reiterate that work was being continued. this picture was taken on october 11. see the windows are at its original point. and then on october 28, we noticed new windows and both pictures were taken after the appeal was filed. >> with all the concerns we have, privacy, sunlight, we also provided the declaration of appellant alan fung which states it will be impactful. we urge the board to -- as well

as for the respondents to understand that because of all this, the permit itself needs to be denied or we would -- we're ameanable to working with the respondents to come up with a deck that would be mutually agreeable. we believe if the deck is further away from the appellant's property, it helps to create a buffer that would be beneficial to both parties actually. whether it's privacy or respect to noise and just how it impacts as well. the appellants mention that the shadow will be less of a concern. we believe it's a point because

my clients are hopeful that the respondents can move forward with the project, but with parameters we can work together so both parties, both families, can enjoy the properties, their homes. with that, we thank you so much. >> may i ask a question -- have you entered into a conversation with the project sponsor for the change of the deck to a mutually agreeable size and shape? >> we have offered a compromise and we didn't receive a counter offer. >> okay. so you would be open to having the deck and you would like a further dialogue so maybe we don't have to decide for you all what the deck might look like or

whether it stays the same. >> we're open to that, yes. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> rebuttal from the permit-holder, mr. williams. >> thank you. steve williams again. on the enforcement issues, it's my understanding that d.b.i. has been out there. all work has stopped. that has nothing to do with the configuration of the project. we started to engage in discussions about the shape and size of the deck. it was a little hard because it's a small deck. it's 6 feet deep. that's barely enough to step out for a smoke. so the offer from the appelants was a 15-foot setback. i had never heard of a 15-foot

setback. since it was only 20 feet wide, it would have been 5x6 feet, deeper than it was wide, including the stairs. so it was sort of a nonstarter. as i put in the brief, the project sponsors, my clients, are ameanable to glass railings or wire railings. i don't think there will be privacy issues give in the short deck. it's hard to get an angle to look back into the neighboring building and stairs will be on the other side, the east side, and that's usually what people have complaints about for noise and up-and-down activity. we've heard from the folks that reside on the east side.

modest project. issued over the counter. clients were looking for a quick turn-around. and when the settlement discussions started, it would take weeks to get a response and i think at some point the project sponsors decided to go forward with their project and that's where we are tonight. again, we're here available for questions or comments. as you heard, it's code-complaint. no impact on shadow, privacy or health and well-being. >> they stated they reached out to you and that you didn't respond. is that true? >> that's not true the emails are attached. there was a lot of back and forth. >> so the same question, so we

don't have to decide for you. we can decide no deck, we can decide, let's narrow the well in of the deck, would he be open to further conovversatioconversati? >> i think we're ready for the board to decide. they've been delayed. they've had their permit for 13 days and it was appealed on the next to last -- >> thank you. >> counsellor, would your client consider a screen on the west portion of that deck? >> i thought of that. like a -- >> a lattice above the guardrail?

>> they had fears of shadows, but, yeah, i think they would accept that without any problem. >> thank you, counsellor. >> anything further from the departments? no. commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> it is a modest project. i'm not inclined to remove portions of this deck either incisor in depth. but i think that privacy is a funny thing. if it's that important to them, i would suggest -- or i would request that the permit-holder provide a lattice up to the height of 6 feet on the west side of that deck to provide some screening between the deck

and the adjacent house. >> and the only thing i was thinking -- i like the idea, but the only thing i was thinking is that there be a modest setback, of, let's say, 3 feet. lattice would work for me, too. >> it's already 3 feet. >> i agree with my fellow commissioners. you know, this happens. we hear deck and tree situations. unfortunately, it's not a monster deck. it's reasonably-sized. the shadowing, i don't agree. i believe there will be minimal shadowing. i advise the permit-holder to take better care of their project site. from the pictures we're being shown, there is neither professional or okay. i agree with vice president fung. >> is that your motion?

>> to grant the appeal and condition the permit with the condition of a lattice above the guardrail up to a height of 6 feet. >> when you say -- up to 6 feet, do you want it to be certain that it's 6 feet? >> yes. the guardrail would have to be by code be 42 inches. so 2 1/2 feet above that is what i'm saying. >> the motion to grant the appeal and issue permit on condition that a lattice be installed on the appellant side of the property and reach a height of 6 feet from the surface of the deck. and that's on the basis that it will help to address the privacy concerns. >> yes. unless they say it's not come --

complaint. >> it's 6 feet above on the deck, not the appellant's property. >> commissioner lazarus: aye. >> commissioner swig: aye. >> vice president fung: aye. >> president honda: aye. okay. we'll move on. appeal 17-160. one front street, 532 market street. protesting the issuance of halal cart for the sale of chicken, lamb, kabobs and rice. we'll start with the appellant. good evening. >> good evening. i'm here in hopes that you deny the mobile facility permit. i'm owner of oasis grill and i'm

a second-generation shawl business owner. when started oasis grill 20 years ago. it was not easy. for the first two years, we lost money. brick and mortars usually lose money when they first open, especially a new concept. at the time, no one knew what our food was, but word of mouth got around and slowly but surely we became a hit. recently i feel that my business has been targeted by out-of-area halal food carts. between market street through to the financial district, d.p.w. has been permitting these carts. i have other locations in san francisco and i've been under construction at 47 drum. and we've been trying to open

this new spot for two years. we've been delayed by pg & e because of safety issues. they want us to redo all the infrastructure, new wiring, new gas lines and they're backed up. so they haven't been able to get to us until, like, recently. they do this. they're making brick and mortars build gas rooms for safety because of explosions, i guess, lately, of pg & e lines. so they're taking public safety into more consideration. they will not start anything before we do a gas room that costs between $25,000 and $30,000. i have a market street location at 711 market as well. that location has taken a big hit because of the mobile food facilities. now they want to come up each

block. there's one at 425. he's proposing 525 and one front. these are in between my restaurants. i also serve halal food. if you are lining market street before they can come into drum street, it cuts off the foot traffic that i need to keep my restaurants going. it also has created by issuing the permits the illegal carts popping up. we have illegal hot dog stands like the mexican food carts that are popping up and no one is monitoring at that all. san francisco initiated the $15 minimum wage, the highest in the country, and that hurt smaller businesses like mine because i sell a $9 wrap. and you have a lot of employees.

you also have san francisco mandates that no other city has in the united states. these mandates have hurt small businesses. labor and overhead increased 40% and many are trying to figure out how to manage our businesses without going under. we're in the highest rent districts. they're putting these carts in districts for 600 square feet and that's about $10,000 in rent. it's not like the restaurants are sit-down restaurants with small and dining. they're sandwich restaurants, takeout restaurants. when you allow the carts to come in, they don't have overhead. they don't have to pay janitors and two-shift labor. they don't have to pay data or

telephone or a lot of the things that we have to do. the highest rents in the country and a high saturation of competing restaurants, when you look for competition, if they have to do the same things that you do, the permit process and construction process. these guys don't have to do any of that. the construction costs in san francisco are so high, especially if you are using union labor, which is mandated by the city in the newer buildings. if the city says you have to do union labor and put a food cart in front of a union building, how is that fair? the dpw have stated that they don't take into consideration unfair competition when approving a food cart. so dpw encourages small businesses to go out of business and fire its employees.

we employ a lot of people and a lot of people need the jobs to take care of their families. it's not just me. it's my employees. it's the sub contractors that we hire. the people that deliver our food. coca-cola. the people that take care of our uniforms, architects, contractors. we help the infrastructure of san francisco. we renew everything when we build. if it's an old building, we've to go up to code. we have to make it earthquake safe. and all of those things are costly. a 600-square footrest -- foot restaurant can cost you $400,000 without union labor. they say they don't consider mobile restaurants selling what brick and mortar do. if you are oversaturating our

food, people stop wanting to come to our business because, oh, i will just take it from the cart right there. i have a lease to uphold. the dpw has said that they don't take public safety into concerns but allowing propane tanks on city sidewalks. it's illegal for a restaurant or apartment renter to have a propane tank on their premises. we've seen with different cities having issues with public safety. i don't see how it's even possible for propane tanks to be on our city streets. i can't do it. why can they do it? i don't think it's fair. >> thank you. you will have time under rebuttal. >> now we'll hear from the permit-holder. >> welcome, sir.

>> hi. good evening, everybody. the first thing i would like to mention is talking about the menu, i will say what i heard about the menu that the chicken and kabob and lamb, it's not part of our menu. it's quite different. it's special tea, homemade ice cream and sandwiches, completely different from their menu. the other thing i will say, we are -- the closest location to ours is 711 market street, which is 1/2 mile away. the other location closest to ours, 532 market street, which is 5 miles away. i don't think it's going to

affect their business. and our menu will not have a negative impact. the other thing that we don't have overhead, yes, we do. we're paying almost $9,000 and we have janitors and we're not just bypassing the minimum wage. we pay the minimum wage of san francisco and get our employees and bring them to the site and we pay them to commute. it will take almost two hours back and forth and we pay for that. and we've also provided them employment. the safety issues, yes, we do. we consider the safety issues.

and the other thing, the issue at the site, yes, it will be -- that will be managed and supervised by the health department as well as the fire department and they approve. without the approval, we wouldn't be able to run any kind of business at the site. i think that's all. thank you. >> one question, sir. >> where is your commissary? >> in alameda. >> excuse me. how many carts does your company have? >> halal company has three carts. this will be a different menu. >> will this be in addition, so four carts? >> it will be different ownership, yeah. >> are all three carts in san

francisco? >> in san francisco, yeah. >> thank you, sir. >> we can hear from the department. >> history for halal cart, llc. permit 16mff-0129. applicant applied to on august 1, 2016. public works reviewed the

locations and determined them to be in compliance of the public works code. the locations are one front street on market street frontage between front and bush. approximately 45 feet west of front. operating on mondays, tuesdays and wednesdays until 6:00 p.m. and the other, 532 market street. operating thursdays, fridays and saturdays until 6:00 p.m. on february 15, 2017, proceeded with the appellant notification. public works received one objection. public works scheduled a public hearing that was held on may 10, 2017. there were three testimonies at

the hearing in opposition of the mobile food facility. following the hearing on june 16, public works approved the permit application, exhibit d in the public works brief. now i would like to address some of the appellant's concerns. we reviewed it within the guidelines and found the application to be in general compliance. a minimum distance between mobile food facilities and the

primary entrance of existing brick and mortar is defined as 75 feet in the code, established regulations don't set minimum criteria as it relates to brick and mortar businesses and mobile food businesses in the area. the mobile foods service permit is for occupancy and allowing the sale of food, which -- and the fire department would review for fire safety and the health department for the health codes. further more, with concerns about similar foods, it was in the brief. since 2013, like-foods restriction that was on the original code was removed from the regulations and, therefore,

we don't review for that criteria. public works feels it's conditionally approved for halal cart llc to operate at the two locations. thank you. i'll be available for questions. >> if i remember correctly, carts are different than food trucks, correct? >> in what way? >> in terms of notification? >> let me just -- one thing i noticed, when when used to see food truck permits, they had to provide a map showing other food trucks in the area. do you have to do the same thing

for food carts? >> when the food truck applies, they don't have to provide a map. when we bring it here, we've shown the proximity to other food trucks. >> so there is not a distance issue? >> no. the legislation talks about the number of food facilities on the same block, but doesn't talk about in the area. >> okay. in this case, are there other carts in the same area? >> yes, in the same area, but not the same block. >> not on the same block. >> right. >> across the street? >> i don't believe there's any across the street. maybe down one block or two blocks down. >> and could you -- what is the proximity from the front door from the restaurant?

that the appellant owns? >> i'm not sure what the distance is, but more than 75 feet. >> 80, 90, 100? >> i think it's a lot more. it's around the corner. i'm not exactly sure how far away. >> it was mentioned in regards to propane tanks. businesses are allowed to have exposed propane tanks. so why does a food truck allowed it have a appropriapropane tank? >> we permit the location. health test reviews and categorizes the type of food facility. so they have categories 1-5. i think 1 is premade foods and 5 is cooking. and the fire department reviews

-- >> maybe it's a question for the fire department. >> i would say so. >> okay. thank you. >> can i see a show of hands of who here is planning to speak under public comment on this item? okay. if you go step forward, please. >> welcome. >> i own a subway and 7-eleven. since 2011 i and my fellow brick and mortar restaurants have been appearing before the board time and again time and again. and i'm sure that everybody knows that we have a genuine concern. why is the city biased towards us? i'm not going to reiterate the

operating expenses, so on and so forth because everyone is aware of that. i'm talking about bias in terms of sanitation, in terms of restroom requirements. none of these people are truly audit audited for use of a restroom or if it is still correct. a lot of the so-called approvals are either fake or just walk up to some of the employees, not to the owners or managers, and get them signed. and there is absolutely no oversight over that. absolutely no oversight.