resolution to this board be on the things that we can adjudicate which does not include moving out? because we can't do that. that is a civil matter. so what would your answer to the question be? help us please. >> we have obviously strived to find the best solutions to the google tenant. sending us back to live in that condition is simply not acceptable. it is not livable. so that is kind of the baseline we have to work from here. we have come to the city hall to appeal for protection. we are not willing to work to move out of our home, but we have to. you simply cannot live in that environme environment. we sent out a message to google the very next morning for a meeting. they just met today.

i sent in six emails. so essentially -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt, but we cannot adjudicate and offer you certain things and unfortunately you are going to ask for like relocate us. but what we can help you with is some scheduling requests or requirements or some of those things which are parameters based on the construction. so given those things, those other items that you are talking about, i am not being dismissive about them. they are important, but they are more civil in nature and so with regard to the permit and how the permit can be adjusted, again, with regard to timing of the construction and in consideration of getting these guys done, because that is what you really want, what are -- what would be your suggestion for resolution? >> and in essence a plan b would be to restrict the hours.

restrict the decibel levels within those hours. for example, if they started at noon, they could then essentially maximize the levels until 4:00. so they would have a solid four hours in which we could leave our home. we wouldn't be able to be in that home. the weekends has to stop. it is the only rest that any of us get. and we have not had a break from this for six, seven months now. only recently if they abated on sunday. >> to answer your question. >> i think that's a good direction for us. thank you. >> thank you. >> i want to make a comment that i haven't seen the proposal yet. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners --

i always start. i will let somebody else start this time. >> i think where we're going is some restrictions on construction time and some recognized monitoring, formal recognition or formal monitor ing of the sound so it doesn't -- so there is a record that it doesn't exceed the legal levels. i see another speed bump in the road where we're dealing with two types of tenants here. one which are the residents who are -- their sleep is being impacted. and then hudson pacific has agreements with commercial tenants who have other

priorities that they probably don't want a lot of noise happening when they are trying to do their commercial businesses. so we have a car crash. >> also, i think, rick, this requires a supermajority of four. and there is only four of us here. so i mean, i think this panel is going to really have to agree on what goes forward and otherwise, the permit wills go forth as they go. i am very interested in hearing president fong's idea regarding retaining two and letting two go. >> me, too. >> i just as soon not get involved in that kind of -- the analysis and determination to what hours and what work and whatnot. i prefer a slightly more global approach to this. i would be prepared to deny the

the appeal on two permits that relate to the lower floors and continue the other two to a short time fuse of two weeks, at which point either this board -- i will commit to make a final decision, period. >> so i have actually not -- the only problem i have with that is that the tenant -- and i do comment the fact that google and the property people have really stepped up in the last seven days. at the same time, i am still a little for the tenants that have been suffering for seven consecutive months or six consecutive months, i mean, i am not big on prolonging the death. i understand that construction needs to get done. but there's got to be some

mitigation in here. and since you have a lot of experience with construction, i have some, and so does -- >> i'm not going to spend the next 12 hours developing a sound mitigation plan for them. >> what about construction hours? is there some kind of limitation that you feel? and we have added -- we have changed construction hours many times for projects. google has presented the hours before us. maybe we can submit those. >> the situation is that we're limited on weekdays from 7:00 to 9:00. between the residential and the

commercial piece and police code. and saturdays. we have already said we will not do sundays and holidays. that is what the gentleman from bcci said last week. if we reduce 7:00 to 9:00 or saturday, again, that lengthens the amount of time that is three months of loud noise which we will continue to use the acoustics expert and other ways to try to mitigation whatever we can with it. and that is lengthened. >> i get it, but this is what happens when you do six months of work without any kind of tenants. >> forgive me for interrupting. it was three months. and since this has been shut down since early february and we are hitting may. we did not take possession --

>> been punished pretty good at this point. >> no, recovering lawyer. i can't help it. >> i was going to ask that question last time. and we're representative of the public and the 7:00 to 9:00 limitati limitation, that applies to all the floors? all floors, yes. what about what google submitted and making the condition to what was submitted?

you can accept that they are going to adhere to these with an act of faith, which i have no problem with that. the thing is whether you want to make sure there was a better global solution to this. but i am hearing a difference of opinion among the commissioners. so perhaps somebody wants to make a motion. >> i can give it a shot. aam not sure it's going to pass, and i am not sure i am totally behind it, but i will give it a shot for discussion purposes. on the two -- ms. rosenberg, if you would help me. on the two permits that relate to the lower floor, you can insert the permit numbers for me

because i get confused with the number, but i would move to deny the appeal on those two permits. >> we have four permits total. >> are you taking these in separate motions? should we do this in spro separate motions? and if you are pulling anything out. >> let's start with the first two floor permits and to suggestion is the motion to deny the appeal and those permits

were issued appropriately and according to and properly. >> can we clarify, president fong, which two appeals because the first -- 18-017 concerns the second through fifth floor. 18-018 also contains work on the third floor as does 18-040. clearly 18-041 is upper floor. >> 818 is work on the fifth floor. >> it just talks also about work on the third floor. >> 040 is third floor. >> 18-018 talks about mdf room, if you see the last sentence. >> i would equate those two permits as those that perhaps

are less -- >> contractor, do you have something to say? >> come forward. eric power with bcci. the four permits that are suspended. one is the stairwell permit. that is the third floor through the fifth floor. what was mentioned earlier about the noise, it's not a pan deck with concrete on top. it is a solid concrete deck, so we will not be jackhammering that out. it is a saw cut. there is shoring underneath it. it is not as loud as the rotor hammering just so we are aware of what that work entails. it is actually not what is built up to be as a super loud activity. it's actually quieter than the roto hammering. the third floor open office

areas and primarily lights and furniture. not a lot of heavy work in there. there is roto hammering involved with mechanical and electrical, of course, but general construction. fifth floor is also open work place primarily. that one is suspended right now. so the four under suspension are third floor work space, the fifth floor work space, the communicating stairs, and a portion of the sixth floor. >> does that give you any guidance? >> i don't think so. >> that didn't help at all. >> it's okay. >> we got it. i think we know which ones. >> so these are permit numbers that i can relate. exact permit numbers -- >> for the louer floors?

>> 4496 and 2017/12/12/6276. this is the schedule that we presented to all the tenants and invited all the tenants -- >> we're fine. thank you. >> thank you very much. we're fine. >> shows the noise levels throughout construction. >> the motion is to deny appeal and approve the two permits? >> commissioner swig's motion. >> yes. >> combyes. and that they were properly issued. >> vice president swig is making the motion to deny the appeal, and this is for appeal number 18-018 and appeal 18-040, to deny the appeal and grant the permit on the basis that it was properly issued. on that motion, president fong. >> aye. >> commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> commissioner honda.

>> i like when rick makes motions. i get to vote almost last. >> aye. >> that motion passes. the appeal is denied. >> so on the other two, this is the hard one. that we uphold the appeal and issue the permits on the condition that the the weekday work hours from 8 mrovrl -- from 7:00 to 6:00 p.m. with the loud work between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and that the work on the weekends be discontinued on

saturday and sunday. >> you are saying 7:00 to 6:00 as opposed to the allowable 7:00 to 8:00, am i correct? >> i am reading from google's proposal which i am -- >> they also said saturday but no sunday or holiday. >> i am adjusting and taking their number one and i am taking their number two and dismissing saying that saturday and sunday are no work days. >> before we vote, i mean, i am not sure if i am 100% on that to be honest. >> but my proposal. told you. it's up for discussion. >> did you want to -- >> i would rather continue these two for two weeks. >> fine. then i withdraw -- i withdraw the motion. that is what i was doing. so now then i will motion that make a motion that -- >> can i just -- >> there is a possibility i will not be here on may 9, in which case you will be down to three

commissioners. i want to point that out. >> in which case we could continue it to the 23rd. >> that is true. >> are you definitely not going -- >> i don't know. i'm sorry. contingent on an event beyond my control. >> would the 23rd work then? may 23? >> to continue the matter? >> works for me. >> is that creating major problems? >> i imagine so. to reduce our allowable noise work? >> we've take than away. and now we are just going to move this forward and continue this discussion on the 23rd of may. >> i want to add one clarificati clarification, mr. swig, if we are reduced by saturday work all together, the stairs and will crux -- >> i'm sorry. .

you speak into the mic. >> if we remove the saturday work from noisy work, the stairs are infeasible construct because we need more than two hours a day to saw cut that. >> and wasn't going to be sufficient support for my motion on that anyway, which is why i am changing my motion to a continuance until may 23 when we can hear further testimony and maybe you can all work something out further and present it to us. >> thank you. >> but when i asked the question, that is a whole month. >> you know, our job -- excuse me, our position here is not to create an unreasonable hindrance and hardship. >> true. >> but at the same time, we are trying to look for some resolution that is not one way. >> we can still hold -- if commissioner lazarus with three unless there is a problem.

>> we can condition with less than four supermajority. >> okay. >> the other thing is to continue to may 9 and if i am not here, to the 23rd. >> that is fine. so maybe the horse will sing by then. >> okay. >> okay. >> so continuance to may 9. >> okay. >> so vice president swig has made a motion to continue the appeal numbers 18-017 and 18-041 to may 9. on that motion, president fong fong. >> aye. >> commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> commissioner honda. >> aye. >> okay. that motion passes. and those two appeals are continued to may 9. thank you. >> let's take five minutes. >>

>> clerk: good evening. we are resuming the april 25, 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. up next on the agenda is item number six. this is appeal number 18-010, john paxton versus department of building inspection with planning department approval. the subject property is 330 presidio avenue, protesting the issuance on january 11, 2018 to 330 presid yo avenue, llc of an alteration permit, permission of two accessory dwelling unit on the first floor of an existing building perordinance 3015. seismic application is on dpa 201509046211. application 2016116829.

note on march 21, 2018, the board voted 4-0-1, commissioner wilson absent to continue this appeal to allow time for the department to conduct site visit to verify existing conditions. so commissioner wilson, given that you were absent for the hearing on march 21, did you have an opportunity to review the material and video for this case prior to the hearing? [ inaudible ] >> clerk: okay. thank you. so the time limited for this matter is three minutes for each party, and we will start with the department to report on their site visit. >> we're going to get our money's worth for you for the first time this evening. >> i hope so. >> good evening, president fung, commissioners. cory teague, planning department staff. last time, there was some doubt raised as to the accuracy of the plans aof proed, specifically what was shown as

the existing conditions and even more specifically along the northern property line in the rear -- the approved had shown that the existing building basically ran flush with the northern property line for the full depth of the building, and that the upper floors, there was a small side set back that cut in at the back. i went out to the site several weeks ago with my colleague, joe duffy, from dbi. we met with the building owner and the applicant, and the appellant, and we went through pretty thoroughly the ground floor area that was in question and also went upstairs, and we were able to determine that the plans had been inaccurate. there was a side set back on the ground floor that was acknowledged by the permit holder. and since that time, they have developed revised plans that more accurately show that existing state. what that means for the

proposed state -- and this came up at the last hearing -- is that under the current adu program, you can't put an adu in a multifamily building like this where you expand the envelope. you can't put the adu in a portion of an envelope -- building envelope that's been expanded. it has to be within the existing envelope. now those plans -- and they can speak to that in more detail -- are proposed to be in the same state. this results in one of the two adu's getting somewhat smaller. i can't remember the exact square footage, but it's a small -- it's not a large amount, but it does become somewhat smaller but doesn't otherwise affect the code conformity of that proposed unit. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. inspector duffy?

>> commissioners, joe duffy, dbi. as you heard mr. teague say, we did go out on the site visit together. it was very helpful. first of all, i want to thank mr. paxton for pointing out some of the items on his appeal. it did bring awareness to a few things we had missed on the drawings. back at the office, i did contact the planner, and that resulted in revised plans being drawn and -- well, submitted. they haven't been submitted yet, but we have received them, and that is in relation to you did hear about the discrepancy in the property line wall. number two, i have down here with the sheer walls, we did have a shear wall in the back wall, and there was a back window. we do need to add structural drawings in the revised drawings. that is to allow for the new wall and the shear wall.

the width of the egress is 36 inches, and that's okay. we did check that, as well, and the -- i think that was it. i didn't -- i didn't have any other issues, as i say. the site visit did help us, and there was a response from the permit holders, and everyone was at the meeting, and hopefully, the permit can be approved. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. mr. paxton. >> john paxton, the appellant. good evening to the board commissioners. i did not see the new revised set of plans until this morning, and i've not had an adequate opportunity to review them. as a result, i cannot comment on them for three minutes. this is the second set of

revised plans proposed to -- by the project applicant. the revision submitted at the hearing a month ago had most of the same errors and misrepresentations which existed in the original approved plans. upon a cursory review of the most recent set of plans, i see several items which cause me concern. for example, work would be done which would weaken two of the shear walls, and i see that no structural calculations have been included. i believe, however, the more definitive objective argument against the project is that the applicant cannot obtain a permit to add adu since the project takes away or severs space leased to me, and the landlord has not given notice that he is severing my use of part of the garage space and storage pursuant to one of the 16 just causes. in last month's hearing, mr.

vettle asserted that if i was being damaged, i could seek remedy through the rent board. at his suggestion, i went to the rent board and was told that i could follow a report of alleged wrongful severance of a housing service, which i did. the rent board responded with a memorandum in which it reiterated that a landlord must have a just cause reason under the housing ordinance to sever a housing service which includes garage and storage space. memorandum goes onto say the report of alleged wrongful severance filed by your tenant indicates that the notice to sever the housing service is defective because it would either fail to state a just cause reason for severance or removal of the housing service or the landlord has failed to meet the just cause requirements for severance or removal of the housing service. that requirement is a mandatory condition under dbi's

information sheet 23 for severing leasehold space for the purpose of developing new adu's. under state law, landlord cannot take property -- leased property until the tenancy comes to an end. in san francisco, the rent ordinance is further protection and that added protection was intended to be upheld by the heads of building, planning and the rent board who signed off on this requirement in dbi's information sheet, d-23. for these reasons, i urge the board to grant my appeal and to remove the building permit. >> clerk: thank you. okay. mr. vettle? >> good evening, commissioners.

steven vettle on behalf of the permit holder, joe tabiooni. i've handed out to the clerk the plans that were handed out to dbi yesterday. after a number of revisions between the inspector, joe duffy and mr. teague, the new plans as mr. teague and mr. duffy do now accurately show the existing condition and accurately show the plans for the adu's. if you look on page -- the third page, thank you bottom -- >> could you hold on one moment, mr. vettel? did you want to accept these? >> yeah. >> did you also provide the same set to the appellant? >> yes. so as the inspection's 2340e9s, the plan on the bottom of pa--

noted, the plan on the bottom of page three showed the proposed set back with a slightly smaller adu unit at that location. it also shows some changes in the openings and the shear wall to confirm the integrity of the shear walls pursuant to the plan checker's directions. and then, the third thing this plan shows is the relocation of the housing services from the area where the adu's are going into other parts of the ground floor so that we're not severing any housing services. rather, we're relocating certain of those services. you can see on the bottom plan that there are the upper left corner is a storage room that the appellant believes he has access -- he has the rights to. that is maintained so he's not losing that storage area. the washer and dryer have been relocated to the bottom of that

plan under the stairwell of the garbage bins and recycling bins are relocated and there's five storage units placed in the corridor leading up into the adu units. so it's our position that there have been no severance of housing services. as we said last time, if mr. paxton believes that there is a diminution of his services, he is allowed a process. if the rent board believes we are severing services, we can't start this permit. either way, we need the board to take the appeal and approve the plan subject to the revisions that i just distributed which had the accurate floor plans and accurately show the relocation of the housing services so that

these two new dwelling units can be constructed and the rent board procedure can move forward if that's necessary. >> clerk: thank you. >> mr. vettle, in the last hearing, i believe that the appellant had mentioned that there was a reduction in the services. so is the storage -- the services like kind? i mean, exactly, or are they -- >> we believe they are, yes. >> thank you. cle >> clerk: okay. is there any public comment on this item? no public comment? we will -- this matter's submitted. >> commissioners? >> i'm inclined to take this the proper way, grant the appeal and condition the permit on the revised plans at the --

>> on the basis that the permit was properly issued? >> yes -- well, that's a little contradictory, isn't it? i don't know. do i need to -- i want to deny the appeal, but i don't know if i need to actually grant it because the plans -- >> you -- >> -- yes, i do. okay. >> can i get some advice from the city attorney, first. so the appellant had mentioned, you know, severance of and just cause for removal of services. is that something -- according to the permit holder, they've stated that they've replaced like kind. is that something they -- >> my understanding of the code is that's not one of the things that the planning and building departments consider when approving these permits. >> okay. thank you. >> so your motion would be based on the document provided dated march 28th. >> is that what these are

dated? >> yes. >> yes. >> clerk: so do we have a motion, then, to grant the appeal and issue the permit that the revised plans dated march 28, 2018 are adopted and therefore, the permit would be properly issued. on that motion -- [ roll cal [ roll call. ] >> clerk: okay. that motion passes. thank you. okay. we are now moving onto items 7-a, b, c, and d. the subject property is 653 28th street, and these concern -- we'll start with appeal 18-028, protesting the

issuance -- this is hanna aftekhari versus department of building inspection, protesting the issuance of permit to r ravi sadarangani, appeal number 18-029, also by hana eftekhari, versus department of building inspection, planning department approval, protesting the issuance of permit to ra ravi sadarangani, and appeal number 18-028, david tong versus department of building inspection, planning department approval, protesting the

issuance on march 15, 2018 to erect three stories one basement type b-v single-family dwelling, appeal number 18-037. this is -- [agenda item read]. >> clerk: so we will hear these together, and we will start out with hana efkhekrari.

she has two pealappeals, so shs 14 minutes. >> good evening, commissioners. >> clerk: would you mind adjusting the microphone so we can hear you? >> thank you. is that better? >> clerk: better, yes. thanks. >> thank you for your time. the reason i have requested an appeal to this permit is the building that was being built is right next to -- downhill from my house, it is almost 100 years old house with not much of a foundation, and i have great concern on digging basically 16 feet or over downhill. so i have reviewed the design with my engineer since i've submitted this request, and item number one, if you would show -- that one, my engineer is satisfied. so item number two, he still would like to get foundation

calculation and shoring calculation. also, i would like my engineer to be allowed to review the construction and safety procedure few times during the construction. i also would like the owner or the investor of 653 28th pay my engineer time for initial review and subsequent monitoring. i also would like the investor of 653 28th to retain services of licensed surveyor to monitor the following: height of existing condition of the property, take pictures of the sidewalls and slabs and also monitoring to record any movement and -- during construction and record the condition after the project is

done. i also would like to have a solution for the water that collects between the two houses. right now, the current two houses have come up with a solution because the roof is lower than my current roof -- my roof, we have created kind of a flashing that the water goes between from my roof to this roof and avoids the problem that we currently have of water collecting between the two houses. so i would like a solution to be designed, maybe a dutch gutter or some kind of flashing. and this in the past, couple years ago, before we implement a solution, was causing quite a bit of problem of water gathering and concern about the -- and the foundation of both houses, so i would like these items to be considered.

that's all i have. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> if i may give an updated -- i don't know if you guys wanted. here's an updated copy of what i had done. >> clerk: i'm sorry. what are you providing? >> it's an updated copy of the request, the first request, because i already got the engineering design, so that one, they have met that request. >> clerk: well, we didn't have that. the commissioners have the request you previously submitted. >> this is an updated. >> clerk: okay. it's something that we're not going to be accepting that. >> no. >> clerk: it's too late to accept that. >> okay. it's just crossed off. >> clerk: okay. that's fine. so next, we'll hear from david tong. >> hi. i'm not dr. tong. he couldn't be here tonight because he's on call.

he's a neurologist, and ecoonly come on the 23 of may. he asked that i speak on behalf of him. i'm georgia schuttish, and i'm going to speak on behalf of dr. tong. i get seven minutes? okay. well, dr. tong is the adjacent neighbor, and i think he clearly articulated his goals in his brief as well as what he said at the hearing and what happened at the hearing for the d.r. back in june and september of 2017. i think he hoped that if you had a chance, you watch those hearings, because he was baffled by what happened, and he wants you to understand why -- what he experienced. at those hearings, and tonight, if he was here, dr. tong represented himself and his

family and his neighbors, and he hoped to obtain some privacy for all of them and a reduction in the mass in keeping with the neighborhood character and the stepping down of the houses on 28th street. he is on gold mine behind them. both units, and there are two units in this rh 1 neighborhood at 650 28th street in the current proposal will have access to the back yard. that's on a 1.3. this is a very ample yard, and as stated in the project sponsor's brief, will maintain the 45% that is common to rh 2 lots. this was the case even before the addition of the adu at the final d.r. hearing in september. there is some confusion about this in the project sponsor's brief on page four. the statement about the commission approving the roof deck because of the shared

space is not accurate. because there was a sentiment to remove the roof deck as dr. tong discussed in his brief at the planning commission. the project sponsor asked the confusion on page two of his brief where he says the upper unit has open space on the roof denying, the lower unit has open space at the yard. they can both have the yard. it's big enough for both of them. and the roof deck is extra. additionally, the drawings appear to show, as i said, stairs to the rear yard of each unit at different levels on the patios. the roof deck is not necessary to open space. it adds to the mass and loss of privacy for dr. tong and his neighbors. i think that dr. tong outlined what he hoped this board would do to reduce the mass for -- i have to stop. this is just dr. tong's or my time? >>. >> clerk: we'll let you know when his time is up.

he has seven minutes. >> i'm confused by the block. i think dr. tong outlined what he hoped this board would do to reduce the mass percommissioner moore's idea on the idea of bedrooms above the level of the garage and the kitchen room, the living room, so called, and that could be on a smaller mass above that. you flip them, and with no roof deck. if there are no roof deck, you need no stairs to the deck, and that could reduce the plans and give a little bit extra space, but they didn't want to reduce a mass. but there was a general feeling at the commission that the project was too massive. dr. tong's position is that the roof deck is a selling point for the project when it was sold. perthe 2015 geotech report, the project was proposed at two levels above garage. now it is basically a four level or four story building. this additional space in the

new construction for the adu should be used for the single-family home, not the adu. this adu is proposed for a nonexisting single-family home, and should be used to solve the problems that are created by this project in the rh 1 neighborhood. dr. tong did not mention this specifically in his brief when he discussed the mass, but there are large windows on the rear that raise privacy issues just like the roof deck. there was no rear elevation in -- from the project sponsor's brief that i got. maybe you got a rear elevation. also, exhibit d of the project sponsor's brief is misleading. it conflats the roof deck off of a living space, which is really just a deck because it does not need a stairway perthe building code to access it. it conflats with a roof deck on the very top of a building that does need a stairwell to access it. exhibit d, there are 32 lists

there, and one's a duplicate and one's on the mission. six are really just discreet roof decks, and i'll be generous. there are two roof decks he left off, so there are 32 real -- 32 names should be on this list, but there's really only eight authentic roof decks that require a stair. i hope you'll consider dr. toto tong and his neighbor's issues. i'm sorry i could not have him at this hearing. as i said, he's a doctor, and it is not possible for him to come here until may 23rd. that's it. i have the original plans if you want to see them from the other project, and that's all -- >> clerk: okay. so that's your appeal -- >> for dr. tong's appeal. >> clerk: okay. so gary, can you reset the time for when she's ready to begin her appeal.

[ inaudible ] >> clerk: okay. >> well, let me go get my papers. it was a little hard for me because in some ways, my appeal and my issues are somewhat in conflict with dr. tong's, but i felt he just had no one to come do it. i mean, not that i'm a great person, but i felt like i had to do it. okay here's my appeal on the demolition appeal. this is appeal -- president fung, commissioner -- commissioner swig, fellow commissioners. this is a demolition of the rh 1 in the neighborhood. the building department should not were issued this permit because the planning commission erred in its power by not reversing the da's approval. the commission also erred by not adding an adu to an existing building by rather hoping that one would be added to a building that does not now exist. now, the responsibility is with you to correct these errors. the main points of this appeal

of the demolition permit are two: first one, the original appraisal for 653 28th street was 1.63 million. that's in your packet at exhibit 1. this is also the exact numerical criteria at the time in the winter and spring of 2017 perthe removal of dwelling units periodic adjustment to numerical criteria. an appraisal of the dwelling upon this numerical criteria can be approved for demolition material lie by the zoning administrator. again, this original appraisal, appraisal was precisely at the numerical criteria, not above it. a comparable was added nine days later, and evaluation of 653 28th was increased to 1.75 million. due to the addition of one other property, this marginal increase from the original appraisal allowed the administrative approval by the zoning administrator of the

demolition perthe numerical criteria in section 317. 653 28th street was now valued at over the numerical criteria by a moore $45,000. as i said, the numerical criteria are part of the planning code under section 317. these criteria are adjusted by the z.a. periodically. the pattern has been to seemingly adjustme seemingly adjust it every year or so. it's not an unreasonable idea that it's raised periodically more often than it actually was. however -- and this is my main point, the numerical criteria of $1.63 million extended over a two year period, from 2015 to 2017. the numerical criteria was

recently adjusted again to 1.9 million in december '17, so somewhere between 1.63 million, which was set in november of 2015 and the 1.9 million which was set in december of 2017 is a more accurate numerical criteria which could have been used to more efficiently evaluate the affordability of the dwelling at 653 28th. i'm not saying that it should be -- the property should be valued related to 1.9, i'm saying there's some number in there that's between the 2. -- the $270,000 in that time period. the numerical criteria was published in march of 2014, was 1.506 million. the numerical criteria published november 2510 was 1.63. the numerical criteria published in december 2017 was -- is 1.9 million. so as i said, the difference

between the 2014 and 2015 adjustment is 1344,000. the difference in the adjustment between 2015 and december 2017 is 270,000. if the numerical criteria had been raised sometime in 2016 as the planner herself thought or even in the first part of 2017, 653 28th street would have likely had a difficult time meeting the z.a.'s numerical criteria even if more comps had been added. it is unlikely the project would have received the rh 1 administrative approval as it would not meet the zoning criteria. it would have needed to apply for a c.u. for a demolition perthe planning code. given the soundness of 653 hate 28th, and the affordability perthe city's own guidelines, a demolition would not and should not have been warranted. i got these from the internet

when it was for sale -- actually, it was rented. here's one. that's the living room. here's another living room and dining room view. there's the dining room. sorry. there's one bedroom. you can see the hallway there, and i'll talk about that later. there's one bedroom. there's another bedroom. here's the bath. everybody loves a stall shower. here's the back yard, and here's the stairway into the unit from the street. i'll talk about that later. so it's sound. it's not dilapidated. it it's not decrepit. it's a house that we grew up in or maybe you grew up in or some of us would like to grow up in now. back to the adu in a nonexisting building. the planning commission erred when it required an adu in the

proposed project. this was in part because the commission was troubled by the massive size of the new building and it was trying to apply the adu law. the law with regard to adding an adu in the rh 1 zone neighborhood states that an adu is added to an existing building. i gave you a handout in your brief, and i found another one that also says that. if this board denies the appeal, the building department due to no fault of its own will be compounding the error of the planning commission and the z.a. the dwelling at 653 28th street exists. it's a sound building. it's livable. the photographs show that. it's relatively affordable. it's not decrepit or disheveled. an adu in a an existing dwelling unit will also be relatively affordable. affordability is a rational for the adu in an rh 1.

it is difficult to understand how an affordable adu can be added to a building that does not exist. and since i have a little time, i' i'll show you the other handout. it's in the ordinance. it's also existing. the handouts say existing. it's very clear. that's the current handout, and i'd like to add one more thing since i have a little time. i did a public records request for the accessory dwelling units that either had permits or had permits that have been issued or permits that have been issued and have csc's. i got 159 total so far in the department. and there were -- of those 159, five are in the rh 1, but all of them, all 159 and the five in the rh 1 are existing structures. so this just does not seem in keeping were the intent of the adu law.

i think the commission did a little too much, and we can talk about it some more later on the rebuttal, but that's it for now. thank you very much. >> clerk: okay. thank you. so we will now hear from the permit holder. >> so i -- how many minutes do i get? i'm sorry? >> you will have 28 minutes? >> i don't think i want to spend 28 minutes. >> we would love to hear that. >> clerk: i see some heads shaking in the back. >> well, thank you. i actually geared my talk to be for only seven minutes, and these are the actually permitted drawings that we want to just give to you, but you have in your commission packet the approved drawings or the drawings that were approved. so good evening, president fung

and commissioners. i am john lum, the project architect for this project, and i'll just give you a quick synopsis of the project and explain our rebuttals or our responses to the appellants. this project consists of demolishing a single-family two story house and replacing it with a three story house of about 2500 square feet with a 1400 square feet adu. of that adu, 800 square feet is below grade. our application was submitted in december 2015, and we worked over six months with the planning department before the notification was sent out in august 2016. the approved designed was determined by planning staff to be consistent with the residential design guidelines and approved by the planning commission as fully consistent with the planning code. this project will provide homes for two san francisco families and will ease the current housing crisis. the upper unit is a three bedroom family style house and is a traditional layout with a

formal living room-dining room in the front with a kitchen in the back. located on the third floor are three bedrooms, one a master suite and a laundry room. these rooms are set back, and the adu just to let you know contains two bedrooms and 2.5 baths. we have been sensitive to the neighbor's concerns as well as the planning department and planning commission's design guidance. significant modifications to the project were take tone address appellant's request. specifically, the structure was shortened in length numerous times. the proposed project currently aligns with the west neighbor's rear facade, that's mr. katari's house and almost matches the 45% set back even though this is currently is in an rh 1 district, so technically, one could only have a 25% rear yard. the rear yard as noted is over 40 feet long.

the house is demolished specifically so it could belowered 3 feet as requested by the adjacent neighbors and also mr. tong, who's not an adjacent neighbor. he's two houses over on gold mine. there w this was done at kmshl cost and expense as the original plan was just to remodel and add a third floor. several neighbors complained about the height of the building, currently, the proposed project is less than 30 feet tall, about 10 feet less than the maximum 40 foot height limit, so it's not a very tall building at all. even with these changes, the two appellants, david tong and hana afktekhari. the commission was very excited about the possibility to add an

adu. legislation for expansions of singum family homes to accommodate adu's was pending. the commission specifically requested this continuance. so in august 2017, the ordinance 162-17 passed, and on september 7 at our continuance hearing, d.r. was taken with conditions, including the installation of a new adu on the partial first and basement levels. we submitted revised plans and were issued a demolition and building site permit which are subject of this appeal. so at the first year hearing, the planning commissioners requested us to follow a special residential design guidelines. one was to reduce the mass of the house. this was accomplished again by demolishing the building, lowering the building further to just under the 30 feet height limit, remove 160 square feet from the habitable space and also shrink the main unit to just over 2500 square feet. we set the building to reflect the hillside. third floor deck was removed in

the front of the building, and rereplaced with a sloping roof that relates to the sloping topo graphy and the adjacent neighbor's house. we moved the front back 15 feet. we also addressed potential privacy impacts to the roof deck by reducing it in size by 38% to 482 square feet, and the roof deck was supported by the commission because they agreed that by adding the adu, the back yard was going to become common space, and they felt that a single-family house would, should be allowed to have a small private area. and lastly, we added the adu perthe specific request of the commission, so this is new legislation that allows expansion of single-family houses to accommodate adu's, and they were very excited about that. so as you know, we had three appellants, two which were the former d.r. requesters. miss efkehtari, she's