okay. the minutes are approved. item 13, review and approval of the minutes of the special meeting of february 2nd, 2018. is there a motion to approve? >> move to approve. >> is there a second? >> second. >> okay. is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, are all commissioners in favor? any opposed? those minutes are approved, as well. item 14, adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? >> move to adjourn. >> second. >> being a second, all commissioners in favor. we're now adjourned. it's 12:15 p.m.

>> welcome to the february 21st, 2018, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding officer is frank fung, and we are joined by our vice president rick swig, commissioner darryl honda and commissioner ann lazarus. bobbie wilson will be absent. brad is sitting to my left. he's a deputy city attorney and he'll provide the board with any needed legal advice tonight. gary, the board's legal assistant is at the controls. engineer joined by representatives by city departments who have cases tonight. we have the assistant zoning administratedder and he's here representing the plan department and commission. we'll be joined shortly by senior building inspector joseph duffy and also we'll have

representatives here from the department -- the city's arts commission. the board requests that you turn off or silence all phones or electronic devices so they do not disturb proceedings and you carry on conversations in the hallway. the boards rules are as follows: appellants and permit holders are given 7 minutes and three minutes for rebuttal and people affiliated must include comments within these periods. members of the public not affiliated with the parties have three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. we ask you speak into the microphone. to assist in minutes, you're required to commit a speaker card. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board we will comes your comments and suggestions. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the boards rules or hearing schedules, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call or visit the

board office. we're located at 1650 mission street in room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgov.tv. dvds are available. we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, stand if you're able. raise your right hand.

[ sworn in ] >> it is really a great detriment because they come and go. i would hope that in your search for a new executive director, you find someone with a certain amount of humanity who is able

to not take the time to assist people in this but to to be able to see through the obstacles that are in a person's way. >> any other general public comment? seeing none, just so i can announce now, the closed session will not take place tonight. that is off the calendar. item two is commissioner comments and questions. commissioners. then we have item three, commissioners, which is your consideration of the minutes of february 7th, 2018, and february 15, 2018. >> any modifications additions or directions. >> no. >> entertain a motion to accept. >> so moved. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, we have a motion

from commissioner honda to adopt both minutes. on that motion, president fung [ roll call ] >> thank you. that motion passes. so item four is off the calendar. we'll move on to item -- i would like to call item 8 if the parties are in the room. is the appellant here for item 8, anthony tam? yes. okay. and the permit holders, are you here in the room? okay. great. so we will call that item out of order with the president's consent. this is item 8 anthony tam versus the building inspection. total addition area is 689

square feet. interior remodel at second floor and third floor, add second unit to existing building. we can start with appellant, mr. tam. >> could you speak into the microphone when you do speak, sir. >> hello. i'm anthony tam. i live on -- my neighbor steven wong, he's doing the building,

remodeling. okay. okay. anthony tam. mr. huang -- speaking foreign language.

[speaking foreign language] >> my name is anthony tam, and i am here to talk about the building permit and address some questions regarding my neighbor's attempt to rebuild or to alter his building. the first question is that when we were presented with the floor plan for -- when he was applying for the permit, he gave us the first draft, first copy of his

proposal. when he -- when it was -- but when there was the second plan for the building permit, it was different from the first one. our neighbor did not show us his final floor plan, and he skipped a step by applying for the permit with his first draft, but draft but finally building based on his final draft of his floor plan, and he skipped a step and he did not show us the final floor plan.

mr. tam's son added to what the interpreter just interpreted. the neighbor sent the -- >> his son can speak directly in the microphone if he prefers. >> i'm vincent tam, his son. so one of the most important steps that i guess you did not cover is when the city sent the -- >> i think the other microphone is better if you wouldn't mind. >> the city sent the plans to the neighbors like they're supposed to, but the plans they sent the neighbors are totally different than what they are actually doing. that's a very important step. that's what he's saying they missed. the plans were from two years ago, another architect.

[speaking foreign language] >> also, we believe their final plans, that none of the neighbors received. what they're actually doing is a privacy concern for our unit, which is our next door -- we're neighbors from them. and it's a privacy concern and air concern as well.

[ speaking [speaking foreign language]

>> when our neighbors first applied for the permit, some of the neighbors complained and were against the plan. our neighbor promised to go back

and change their plan and reapply for the permit. but -- and after that, no one -- none of our neighbors complained about the revision of the plan. but what happened was when they finally started the construction, everything that they were doing on the 4th floor and on a backyard is entirely different from the first revision that everyone had agreed and had no complaints about. so i reached out to the -- to our neighbor and asked to meet with them to see the -- so that they can show us the final plan. they said it was -- they said okay. but they never came to me with the plan itself. they kept saying, we'll show it to you later. we'll show it to you later. but not until the 30-day notice on appeal, not until the very last day at around 2:30 was when

they presented us with the information where we only had half a day to appeal and to complain about it. [speaking foreign language]

>> from the beginning of applying for a permit all the way until they were remodeling, they never got a permit for pouring a new foundation. but they did. they also in doing that, they told us they would break down the old foundation every four tr to five feet, but after i talked to them about the foundation and i left, what happened was they actually poured 11 to 12 feet of

foundation and it was about approximately 5.5 feet higher than mine and all along the property line it was a few feet higher than the property line. what happened after they poured it was that all of the dirt and the dirt and the sand poured over into our property. [ speaking foreign language ] >> interpreter apologizes. >> mr. tam's property, the foundation ended up being higher than his neighbor's foundation, and so the underlying dirt and sand ended up falling into his neighbor's property. so they -- when he approached his neighbor and pointed that out, his neighbor said no, we didn't do anything like that. and so they -- mr. tam requested

that they drill into the foundation and to inspect what had happened underneath his building and what had happened was indeed what he said, all of the dirt, all of the sand underneath it had already poured out and into -- and emptied out from his foundation into his neighbor's property. [speaking foreign language] >> they also poured their foundation all through into their backyard and to the front of their property. [speaking foreign language]

>> so i am appealing today and asking the board to bound the owners, my neighbors, to their original revised plan and to stick with what had been approved rather than what they are doing now. thank you, everyone. >> thank you. i have a question, sir. so you state that the work on the foundation was done without a permit and you were speaking with the neighbor. at any time did you call the city department to complain about this?

[speaking foreign language] >> so i was not originally away that he did not have a permit, and he had promised to fix my foundation. so at that time, i did not know he did not have a permit, and i promised to fix it, so i did not mention it to the city. >> okay. thank you. [speaking foreign language] >> but they have a permit for the remodeling. >> could the interpreter state her name for the record? my name is lily chung. thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder. >> this one is confusing. >> yep. >> good afternoon, commissioners and also president fung. my name is john lum and i'm the architect. our clients, the huangs are in the audience also. so they purchased their home with the hopes of expanding their existing single family house as well as they wanted to

build a separate unit for their family. they would like them under one roof. the goal is to basically add one bedroom unit in the ground floor and expand the house that way and also expand the main unit. they filed for building permit five years ago. that was under a separate architect. that architect was let go a couple years ago, and we took over for the job. there's been a lot of confusion, i think, on the process that the appellant has been talking about. the issue around the foundation was resolved. that was under a building permit, and there was a notice of violation. that was filed. it was resolved, and the actual -- our clients ended up paying the neighbor for repairs to his foundation. so he has proof of that. so that was resolved. he is trying to be responsible,

but unfortunately, the contractor was not responsible in this case. this has been a long process. needless to say, it's involved two 311 notifications. one was the original one and the second one was the one we submitted under our names and that was sent out by the city, 30 days notification. the original 311 notification had been dred by the northern neighbor and we met with them and of course the appellant and showed them the plans. that neighbor did not continue with the dr even though it was a standing dr for the new notification and therefore, there was no dr filed. so hence we were a little surprised when we actually got the notice that there was an appeal to the site permit issuance. it's kind of odd, the concerns that that the appellant had were not raised in the dr or he did not

file a dr. we were puzzles that he would come to the board of appeals to appeal this issuance. so, you know, we're really respectfully requesting that the board uphold the permit and deny the appellant. so i'm going to take you through the site plan a little bit just so you can understand the project. the probably executive is on the east side of 29th avenue which slopes uphill. the appellant's property is south and higher than our project. it has views. the project -- is it the overawed working? great. the project site is a two-story over basement single family home with two parking spaces. it's two stories with a one-story garage. it's a three-story house. so the huangs want to expand their home. yes. this is currently our project

site. this is appellant's project site. you can see how it expands in the back and steps up to three stories. so the perspective that we have generated here of our project in essence matches in some respect his house. and it actually has been designed specifically to minimize the impact to all of his views, even though we all know that views are not protected in the city here. so the concerns raised by the neighbors have been about privacy and access to views. the response, the rear addition was set back on both the south and north sides. the second floor addition was reduced so that it did not project beyond adjacent building to the north right here. then also with a line with the appellant's south side there. we also took existing bay window and expanded it, but per the appellant's request, we cut off

the corner of the bay so it would preserve his view from the third floor there. we've been in direct communication with the appellant since our pre-application meeting and i met with him on three other occasions. most recently, we gave him a half size set of drawings. this was not about the 3 1. this was actually after the site permit was issued and they had 15 days to actually file an appeal. so they wanted to see the drawings. we gave him a half size set. we met with them on site. he -- the appellant continued to express his concerns about the view. it was mainly about his one story extension in the back. we do know that our one story expansion meets the planning code per the 12-foot popout rule. he's contesting that it does not. the appellant's one story extension which is here is 10 feet past required 45% rear set back line and ours is at 12 feet

set per section 136c of the plan code. the appellant says it should be denied. here's a photo that from the inside of his extension we took from his side window. the mock up shows a view that will be partially blocked by the project. we'll just show you that. i will still have a partial view of the bridge and the marin head lands, a view that is envied by many. note that the appellant receives an abundance of light from the extension including the rear facing sliding doors in the same room. the project is within the permitted area under the planning code, does not require variances and has a second one bedroom unit which is in the first floor addition. my clients endured a five year process to get to this point. for this reason alone, i would

respectfully request the board deny the appeal and thank you for your consideration. i'm available for questions. >> can you clarify the permit situation here? the foundation work, but this is a site permit? >> it was actually -- they had started work on a permit to redo their foundation, and they stopped doing the work. so that, permit, i believe, is currently on hold. do you know? >> the permit was issued, but the work is continued. >> i'm sorry. could you speak in the microphone, please. >> the work was discontinued. the owner decided to hold off until this building permit is issued to continue. >> your name, please? your name for the record? >> my name is khoan duong.

>> thank you. >> sure. i also -- since i have a little bit more time, i wanted to say, you know, we were a little bit -- we were not prepared to answer all of the questions because appellant did not actually submit a brief. so we were a little bit at a loss in how to address the issues that were brought up, but i think that we may have answered most of the concerns. thank you. >> excuse me. what about the issue of the 3 11 notices and the -- that the fair distribution of a fair subsequent set of plans were not fully -- was not fully done? >> we don't know how to -- the planning department of, we send electronic file. we checked with the planner. she confirmed that the electronic file was filed under our name. there is a claim from the

neighbors that drawings from two years ago were sent out in a new 311 notification, which i do not know the processes that could have allowed the planning at the present time, which is electronic file, to be then sent to the mailing center to then be somehow substituted an old drawing under our -- not under our name, which is impossible. clearly, the appellant also had our contact information. the poster was done. we actually confirmed that it was put up for the 30-day notification. so they -- we had met with them before and they had seen our drawings. so it's very odd that if i had met with someone before and then they had then said, these are not the -- these are not your drawings. why they wouldn't have contacted us. so, you know, we do not know -- we can't defend the process in regards to the mailing that the city actually -- i know corey

tea gue could address that. >> was there an issue to have a community meeting with the interaction with the next door neighbor. >> we had our preapplication meeting and the neighbors had our contact information. >> in the second go around. >> we met with the neighbor to the north who had actually had the original dr filed on the original design. >> thank you. >> mr. teague. >> good evening, president fung, commissioners. corey teague for the planning department. as was mentioned, 566 29th avenue was submitted in august of 2013 for an addition and the addition of a second dwelling unit. the original 311 notification

was conducted and the dr was filed by the northern neighbor in october of 2014. subsequently, the permit holders decided to significantly revise their project and revise the permit in response to that review. as such, a new 311 neighborhood notification was required. that was conducted in april of 2017. no discretionary review was filed during that period either by the original dr requester to the north, the appellant to the south, or anyone else who received the notification. as such, planning department approved the permit in april of 2017 and dbi issued the building permit on november 27th of 2017. as was mentioned, there's not a brief in this case from the appellant. the original appeal only spoke to one issue, which was related to views from the site as was

mentioned. view is not protected by the planning code. the issue raised tonight about the wrong plans potentially being sent during the second 3 11 mountains was -- notice was not raised during that notification period. and has never been raised to the notice. i think it was raised to her attention and to my attention by the project architect for the subject property. for me, it was raised just yesterday. i did look into it with the project planner, and as was mentioned, we checked the digital file that we sent to the processor of neighborhood notifications. they were all accurate and correct regarding the more current proposele a that's represented in the building permit that was issued by the department of building inspection. we don't really have any hard copy documentation to review to determine that anything

otherwise happened in regard to the neighborhood notification. so considering all that the and fact that the building permit was thoroughly reviewed, it is consistent with the planning code and the residential design guidelines. >> just want to clarify an opinion that we have a shared opinion. >> sure. >> looking at the plans that were projected by the permit holder, are those the plans that we're talking about? >> yes. >> okay. is it fair to say that the two houses looking at both houses, that that would fall under the category of the new -- if the permit holder's house is in keeping with other houses in the neighborhood, they look like twins to me or pretty close to. >> sure.

if you look at the block, they're kind of at a dividing line on the block, so to speak. a lot of the homes to the north are shallower like the current home is now and some of the homes to the south including the appellant's home are a bit deeper in the rear and terraced. as mentioned by the project architect, the building permit that was approved and issued is for a home that is generally the same type of depth and terracing as the rear as the appellant's home to the south. >> the third question is, are the setbacks with regard to open space legal and consistent with the protocols and rules and regulations of the planning department? >> yeah. they actually -- some of the setbacks both in terms of depth and on the side are beyond what would be required by the planning code. some of them were done voluntarily by the sponsor. some of them with in response to design concepts. all of it is consistent with the residential design guidelines.

>> and the rear yard is equal? >> correct. it's in compliance. there was no variance required. >> thank you. >> the project response or's architect indicated there's no variances or exceptions. >> correct. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> good evening, commissioners. joe duffy. the permit was reviewed by our department. you heard it was issued not 0 the 27th of november, 2017. from what i've seen, it does appear to be code compliant. there are some -- i did check for active compliance on the property. i did read something about the foundation. we had actually received complaints and closed them back two or three years ago. a couple inspectors ago, so it's

probably more than three years. there's currently only one notice of violation for a vacant and abandoned building. i did drive by the property today, and it's boarded up. the site is safe, but it certainly looks like they want to get the work finished. so the building is currently under construction from the earlier permits, and as you heard, they're stopped, waiting for this permit. it seems to me the project is stalled at the minute. but i do think that the foundation issue was dealt with at the time. it's not an open complaint with us at the minute. it's closed. >> the only -- are you finished? >> yes. >> the only complaint is for being vacant and abandoned. right. >> correct. >> that's with the inspector. >> it's an old violation. i think he did that program or used to. it's a city thing. >> so the sooner they get it back up and running again -- >> thank you.

>> mr. duffy, i'm assuming that the foundation work was issued as a separate permit based upon the previous design. >> yes, i believe so. yes. >> because -- and i'm guessing also that the previous design to this design varied substantially. >> right. yeah. >> so any further foundation work would have to be reissued as part of the addendum for the site permit. >> that's correct. yes. i haven't seen -- i didn't look at the full drawings for that, but i was assuming the same thing, that this foundation word been done, and anything extra would certainly need to be included on this one, on this permit that's under appeal. >> and of course, you know, if the neighbor is concerned, if the permit is upheld and the work does -- he always has that option of contacting us and

making sure we go out there and make sure everything is okay. it's obviously sand more than likely. the soil conditions are always something we have to be aware of. the contractors, they are told to contact us ahead of time, and the notification process was done by dbi for this structural notification. so i would imagine we are going to be looking at that carefully. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> good evening, commissioners. good evening, commissioners. i am amy. i'm the onlier of 571 29th avenue. this is my first time attending

this kind of hearing. so i come because we have questions on the addition of 566 29th avenue. well, at the preapplication meeting in the summer of 2016, the architect and his assistant from john lum architecture, inc., held a meeting outside the house. they showed us neighbors the drawings. at that time, me and my husband -- well, we told the architect that we disliked the idea of the 4th floor at the back, which is building as high as the tip of the attic. it looks ugly to me, and it will block the morning sunlight. here are pictures showing the

present and how it will look from our house after the proposed plan is built. this picture is taken from the ground floor. this is from the second floor now and after. the third floor is more obvious. after they did the 4th floor, you will see it's totally black out. so in march, 2017, last year, we received in the mail the 311 notice from city planning department regarding the proposed renovation and addition of 566 29th avenue. attached with the notice is a

copy of the plan designed by smg design. so after looking at the plan, there was no extension of the 4th floor and other proposals would not affect as much. hence, we had no more questions or objections to the application. we did not hear any objections from our neighbors, too. at this point, we never imagined that the plans was the city planning department, which they are going to move forward, is different from the copy we received. our neighbor, anthony, had the current plan, and in the casual conversation with him one day, we discovered that the two plans were different. my next door neighbor also received the same set. so we are very upset. how can they do this, showing one plan in 2016, which we have

objections, and another plan in 2017 which we have no objection. then now, working on the plan of 2016, which we have objections. so dear commissioners, if you were in my place, what would you do? what is the point of having the 311 notice and at the end, they can revise the drawings, disregarding the neighbors feelings and our constructive opinions. i strongly hope that our neighbors voices will be heard and you'll move on with the plans drown by smg. >> wrap up. your time is up. >> this is it. >> what was that date in 2017 when you received this latest

package? >> 2017 is this one. >> what was the date that you received it? >> the notice date is march 2017. >> i'm sorry. your address was again, ma'am? >> 571 29th avenue. >> i think maybe the deputy da would like to look at that and confirm what's going on here because we have two different stories. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? >> my name is martin smith i live at 567 29 avenue next door to amy. i want to rity state what she said -- reiterate what they said. i got the same set of plans which aren't the same ones which are the final thing. we weren't going to show up unless somebody else showed us

these other plans. i was totally acceptable with the project when it was revised. no problem with no 4th story and all of a sudden i find out that there is a 4th story and it's a completely different set of plans that we received. i feel deceived. i feel like something's being pulled, and i hope you guys take that into account. >> thank you. >> what was the date that you received -- >> about march 2017. >> the same. okay. >> so same thing. we never heard anything after that. all of a sudden, i found out from mr. tam that he has a plan -- he has a new set of plans that completely. everything that we were against is back on the table, and we wouldn't even have known it if he didn't come over and tell us. i consider that deceit. thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comments? seeing none, there's rebuttal from the appellant first.

>> hi. i wanted to say that the only reason we have the current and new -- i'm sorry. can you bring the microphone close to you. >> the only reason we have the new current set of plans that none of the neighbors received is because i drove down there to their office and met with them in person and that's when she showed me the plans and gave me a copy. that's the reason we were aware. like they said, we -- they didn't even know and then we talked to them casually. then they found out it's totally different until the last day. that's when he received the plans. thank you. >> i have a question. >> they're not finished yet. are you finished? >> i want to -- well, yes. the neighbor, mr. hoang, they

use the first building approve al to [indiscernible]. i'm sorry. then used the final is totally different. [ [indiscernible] >> my house, when they did the foundation, my house is chopped down about like one and a half inches down, the whole side near mr. hoang's property. we cannot close three times. then i asked them to repair three times. it was a little over five inches they rebuild the foundation. they do all this stuff.

it's not good. so i hope the commissioners do not approve the final. [speaking foreign language] >> they do so much to cheat the neighbor. not so much to approve the final. any way, they used the first permit application to build. then they approve the third one, not to approve the final. that's what i want to say. because they're doing the cheap stuff. they're saying -- they use the first one, and then the final, send the first one to the neighbor, but they send it to

the department and then use a totally different follow up. this is not good. they cheat the neighbor. cheat everyone. that's illegal. thank you for everyone. >> mr. tam, was that foundation issue resolved with you? >> well, i'm still -- >> they indicated that was resolved. >> no. i'm still -- they poured the concrete under the foundation, but still, i think [indiscernible]. well, my house is still chopped down from the front to the back because they do the foundation. they take down 5.5 feet down and now -- >> i heard you say that before. >> thank you very much. >> okay. rebutted al from -- rebuttal fre permit holder.

>> overhead, please. so, of course, we, again, in regards to the 311 process, i can't defend how the planning department sends out our electronic files, but there are records from sharon young, the planner, and she -- we do have the records of the package that was sent out. so, of course, we would never send out other notifications with another architect's plans. that doesn't make any sense at all. so i can't defend that. in regards to the specific project at hand, i did want to show you -- we did make very specific things to address the appellant's request. this deck was pulled back five feet from the back here to address concerns about privacy. this window is what he's most upset about. you can see the whole building is sculpted specifically not to affect any of the major views from his main living space and

then his bedroom level here. the 4th floor, even though it's not going to affect people on the adjacent side, we specifically set it back here. obviously, views and even the sun to the neighbors across the way, there's going to be zero effect. they're close to 100 feet away given the fact that they're also up on a hill on the other side of the street. so in regards to this question about the 311, even if it was renoticed, even if the neighbors did bring up this fact of the design and the fact they don't want to see a partial blockage of their skylight view, the question is what does it serve anyone. the concept of this house being reconstructed, it's been abandoned for five years.

it's problematic. can we not just get along here and we're the new architects. can we move on and solve this problem? what is worse, to have this building sitting abandoned for another couple of years while you fight this out? i don't know if this is a personal vendetta against our clients or not. but to me, it's overly bureaucratic process that's not serving anyone in this purpose here. i hope that as i said, i cannot explain the 311 process and this notification. i can defend the project and i know that it completely fits the planning code and there's no -- there should be in respect to the design, they should have brought these up in a proper dr application instead of actually coming here to the board to express concerns about the design. thank you. >> i have a question, sir. have i in of the other neighbors reached out to you in regards to

potentially improper plans being sent out to you. >> none of the neighbors did. when we met with the appellant after he had received -- after we gave him the half size set and we tried to schedule that meeting for about a month, we then were -- the neighbor across the way who came to testify today showed us these drawings, which we're like, i don't know whose these are. they are obviously the previous architect's. >> so when the appellant came to you, did he tell you that the wrong drawings were sent to him. >> no. >> okay. all right. let's go over the dates. what was the date of the pre-app meeting. >> the pre-app meeting was on may 17th, 2016. >> and what was the date on the file that you sent to the planner for distribution for the 311 notice?

>> hold on. march 28th, 2017. >> that's when you sent it to the planner. >> yes. we met with the appellant on june 16th, 2016, to show him the plans. >> the new plans? >> yes, the new plans. then we also met with him on august 17th, 2016, to go over also with the lawyer who was -- who was helping represent our client, and so we met with them again. then it took -- the planning takes a long time to process these permits and to review and go back and forth. that's why it took a long time for the march 28th. that's almost close to -- well, it's 10 months before it was sent out. >> you folks were not involved in discussions with the neighbo.

>> we did meet with -- >> for the dr? >> we did meet with him once. >> he was saying something about that neighbor chose not to pursue the dr. >> yes. he had a standing dr on the first application. so that was just outside. so we reached out to him, and then the planner reached out to him. he did not continue with the dr. he didn't remove it. it just expired because he didn't continue with -- >> when did you meet with him? >> when did we meet with him? we'll have to find that date. i'm sorry. >> okay. any further questions? >> no. >> thank you. >> yes. it was prior to the 311 notification obviously when we met with the northern neighbor. >> thank you. >> mea