[gavel] there you go. >> good evening. welcome to the october 24, 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. vice president swig will be the presiding officer joined by

commissioner ann lazarus and commissioner darryl honda. president frank fung is absent. to my left is the deputy city attorney who will provide the board legal advice. at the controls is the legal assistant and i'm julie rosenberg, the board's executive director. we will be joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board this evening. chris buck, urban forester, san francisco public works, bureau of urban forrestry and richer zuster and we expect joseph duffy, senior building inspector, representing the department of building inspection. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board requests you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation as as follows. appellant, and respondents are given 7 minutes for the case and 3 minutes for the rebuttal. people affiliated must include the comments within the seven or

three-minute periods. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes to address the board and no eare buttal. please speak into the microphone. to assist the board in the accurate presentation, you are asked to submit but not required to submit a speaker card. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about questioning a rehearing or rules, please speak to a staff member during the break, after the meeting, or call or visit at 1650 mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgov tv cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 p.m. on channel 26. the video is available on our website and can be downloaded from sfgovtv.org. now 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 under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify at any

of the proceedings and wish to have the board give the testimony evidentiary weight, please stand if you are able, raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? okay. thank you. please note that given that we have a board vacancy, the board can overrule a departmental action with three votes as provided for in charter section 4.106. so we will now move to item one which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but is not on tonight's calendar. is there anybody here for general public comment? okay. seeing none, item two. commissioner comments and questions. >> none. >> okay. we will move on to item three, the adoption of the minutes. commissioner, before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the october 17, 2018 board meeting.

>> vice president swig: anybody have any changes or comments on the minutes? >> move to adopt and submit. >> we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes from october 17, 2018. on that motion, commissioner honda. >> aye. vice president swig? >> that motion carries and the minutes are adopted. okay. we will now move on to item number four. and this is appeal 18-116, joy bianchi versus san francisco public works bureau of urban forrestry. the subject project is 785 third avenue appealing the issuance on august 8, 2018 of a public works order denial to remove two street trees with replacement adjacent to the subject property. this is order 188253. we will start with the

appellant, ms. bianchi. you have seven minutes. >> two exquisite monterrey pine trees at 785 third avenue home and have been there since 1923 and have brought peace and happiness to our family since we purchased our home in 1967. they are not on the san francisco recommended tree list, and monterrey pines were never created to be planted on city treats, but rather in parks and have an average life span of 80 to 90 years. the trees in question are 95 years old. the roots invaded the home and caused $23,552 of damage, plumber, plaster, repainting, plus $5,000 damage of items in closet and penetrated basement, second floor, and reached the third floor. the garage door was inoperable,

driveway buckled, concrete has been replaced at least five times. the monterrey pine has a very shallow root system. tree has two trunks is off balance, and makes the balance of the tree unstable. recurring issues. trees are overgrown and are now invading -- >> can we have the overhead please? >> pardon me? >> okay. i didn't show the picture. trees are overgrown and are now invading and touching the third floor windows of 785 third avenue. gigantic roots are now growing on the right side of the garage and the mountainous, large thick root entering the residence's laundry room. the deep concern i have is that these roots have invaded the strips where the trees live at the curb. people have fallen, and i had a bad fall because of the uneven

roots, which they prevent people from walking. it is difficult for me to take care of the thousands and thousands of pine needles in the strips without falling, which just fly down all day long. and there are dead pine needles. the loose branches continue to fall from the tree. one missed me two weeks ago by a few feet. large trucks continually hit the branches with either hang broken on the tree and with the pine cones falling. there is heavy traffic in parking on this street because of tourists visiting golden gate park, especially during the summer and on the weekends. the monterrey pines have power lines going through them and appear to be unsafe. i don't know that. cement contractors state they the roots are above level of the sidewalk and putting in new cement will not solve the

problem as we have seen. roots are higher than the cement. each day i spend approximately hours sweeping these dead pine needles and other debris coming from the tree because they just form these huge, huge carpets. the branches on the top of the tree on both trees now are touching the tile roof. they are on it. and the third floor windows of the home. you have called 311 regarding these trees in august, and they said they would call back, but there's been no call. conclusion, like me, who is 80 years old, the health and life of a 95-year-old majestic or splendid monterrey trees have failed physically and never should have been planted in 1923. my biggest fear is that the tree, which is unbalanced and unstable due to structural defects, split trunk and the

proclivity for toppling to the east will cause death and/or serious injury to pedestrians and innocent people. the mountainous, woody roots on the curbside and the buckle size walks surrounding the two trees await accidents happening and people's lives being radically changed. my insurance company states that the city and county of san francisco will be liable and i the homeowner will be liable. questions need to be answered. does the city want to be liable for innocent human beings injury after acknowledge of the potentially hazards? does the city wish to cause an additional worry? it is such an worry to 80-year-old homeowner with stage four terminal cancer knowing that someone was hurt on her property and putting her in a position of being sued, threatening the assets and causing an additional financial burden to the invasion of tree

roots that will again enter the historic house's foundation inside the 785 third avenue based on past occurrences. thank you, members of the board of appeals. >> thank you. we will now hear from the department. >> good evening, commissioners. chris buck with san francisco pub public works bureau of urban forestry. the appellant did a good job outlining the issuing that the tree faces. many of those issues have been addressed by the property owner,

and i'm going to go through some slides. i finally modernized and don't have handouts. i have digital photos. i am going to go through some of the images together. this is a photo of both subject trees, monterrey pine, pinus radiata and in the early 80s they were infected by the pine pitch chancre. however, a lot of monterrey pines are tolerant of these serum senadium, a fungal disease, and resist it fairly well. there are some signs of pitch chancre and that to us at public works is primary concern is how viable and healthy the overall canopies of both trees. i will review some of the photos. relatively speaking for the age of the trees, the height is not as tall as it could be, so from our perspective and based on our

experience in managing monterrey pine trees, though the trees are well above the roofline, they have very low center of gravity, and i don't have concerns about root failure or large limb failures. here is another view of both trees looking toward fulton. and both canopies are relatively tieback and that is evidence with the bright orange needles in the process of dying off. here is another view and i looked for the worst possible angle i could fine just to show how the tree has been impacted so far. relatively speaking, this is pretty limited amount of impact from pitch chancre. and here is another view. what happens is that the chancre will gum up the interior physiology of the tree so that the branch tips die back.

however, in the pitch pine chancre task force, it's known and documented that there's a lot of species that can resist pitch chancre once they have it. regarding the sidewalk damage, again, overall the trees have been very well maintained by the property owner. tree one is here. it's on the right. one facing the property. the sidewalk has been repaired and doesn't require any repair at this time. the second tree closest to fulton has some sidewalk damage. public works will now repair this minor damage. it is minor enough where we can shave the slight displacement. there is overall heaving, but in walking it, it overall is still fine and relatively level. so we're looking at very minor sidewalk repair at this time. the trees have been well maintained by the property owner and are currently pruned back away from the edge of the roof line. there are a couple of sections that are starting to get close

to the roofline. here is another view of both trees from fullsome looking north. the tree closest to the corner has a co-dominant trunk, but relative to other species and other examples of the species, the tree is a very low center of gravity. i am not concerned about the tree splitting at this location within the trunk. it's just not a concern of mine at this point. here is another image and the trees are very wide. they have been very well maintained and pruned every for years by the property owner. and for sure they have done a lot of work to maintain the trees and there has been a lot of damage to property in this case. two years ago the property owner upgraded the sewer line and had to do a large excavation in the front yard setback area. a lot of roots had to be cut. however, these were not critical

roots. they were not structurally supporting roots. there are a lot of small, finer roots that are very important in uptaking water and nutrients, but not roots that would destabilize the tree and that's been almost two years and we don't see signs of decline in the canopy. i feel strongly if this tree really was heavily impacted by this work in the property, we would see signs in the canopy by now, and we're not seeing signs of decline. likewise, there was also repair work done in the center of the street, likely a sewer repair. you can see the dark patch in the center of the image here. also connecting perpendicular to the property towards the driveway. these repairs that occurred occurred pretty far out in the middle of the road. we have some sewer lines in the city that are replaced right up to the edge of the curb, and we don't see a lot of trees show signs of impractice and tresz

and is routine to have road work occur. monterrey pine trees are impacted by pitch chancre and we approve trees when they clearly are on the way out with branches that are dying back and large sections of the canopy and this exhibiting dieback. and that is when we would approve for removal. anothertyne that i don't is the flux or resin that exudes with the main trunk that becomes infected. we don't see the signs of flux or resin on these two trees and not candidates for removal when looking at pine pitch chancre and the overall canopy and the trees have been maintained and

pruned regularly that appreciates the amount of care and i a tension that the trees have received. we wish others would do the same with trees they are formally responsive for maintaining. san francisco public works is now responsible for maintaining all of the street trees. while there is a lot of maintenance expended and devoted, public works is responsible for the maintenance of the trees and repairing the sidewalk. my recommendation at this time is not to remove the trees. we ask you respectfully to uphold the denial and what i would say is the two trees are real assets. in the future, if and win they need to be removed, public works will remove the trees at no additional cost to the property owner. moving forward, the maintenance of the trees is now the responsibility of public works.

thank you. >> i have a question, mr. buck. is that a recommended species that we would install or plant today? >> it is not on the recommended species list. we have a lot of them on sunset boulevard where they have a lot more room. >> is there a particular reason why they are not on the recommended list? >> sure. there could be a number of reasons. one is they do have a very wide growth pattern. they were -- i don't know heavily planted, but over the years we have removed a number of -- we have permitted the removal of a lot of monterrey pines in sidewalks. they were planted heavily long ago. some of these are some of the remnant original street tree plantings. >> sorry to interrupt, but when you look at the photographs supplied by, i guess, by you or the permit holder, it looks like the root is taking the whole base to the sidewalk and then

someone. and give credit to the property owner. we have too many people paving over planting strips and that is one advantage we have on this site is that ewith don't have sidewalk that's been poured all the way to the curb. something that could be done would be to install 4 foot wide or larger accessible paths. we wouldn't be able to install those close to the tree trunk, but there are a couple of opportunities where those could be installed and restoring partially, pouring back some sidewalk to allow there to be a few more accessible paths to connect people from where they have parked and the sidewalk. there is a garage there, so there is access that way if people have understandably accessibility challenges. it's not on our list for a number of reasons.

one would be the size. the other thing is they have pine cones. so it's not a long-term safe bet typically, but this yard, this property has a setback. so they have been working for a long time in the site. >> the permit holder called the department in august and no one returned the call. do you have any information in regard to that? >> i don't. i do know that we have been in discussion. i remember looking at the trees or talking about the trees maybe a couple of years ago with the property owner or her representative about some of the sewer line repair. we had a discussion a couple of years ago. and we have made a number of inspections. >> last question is when is the

next scheduled pruning for the trees? >> i would have to look that up, but based on the fact that we are at board of appeals, i tend to believe any maintenance required afterwards should be done and for what folks are trying to manage. we would shave down and repair the sidewalk and prune away. the time to prune is november through february. >> thank you. >> could i ask a couple of questions? >> there is some fear from the property owner on the collapse of the tree. and thank you for the general health and welfare of the tree based on what you told us. and with regard to the copious

amount of pine needles and the property owner is terming illness, is that illness or areas of the tree which may be ill which could be mitigated through better pruning or care from the city? >> thank you. there's not a lot we can do about the shedding of the pine needles. it's pretty much a year round occurrence and some times of the years it is worse than others. there is some needle drop and sometimes that can be interior needle drop, the older needles dropping. so there's not much that can be done in that regarding the needle drop. the needle cans remain on property. they can remain in the grassy area, the set back area, but it is one of the things that seems like you are out there all the time sweeping. i can appreciate that. i am beginning to really

appreciate that. i don't think there is a public safety concern regarding failure. if question had that concern, we would approve the tree for removal. if and when this tree shows more severe declines in the canopy itself, at that time we would remove the tree. we would not make the property owner reapply and we would cover the cost of removal. >> vice president swig: with regard to the growth of the tree that the property owner claims is coming close to or is touching the roof, even if it isn't touching the roof, we are talking about an inch or two. and also the growth around power

and telephone lines, etc., what can you go to mitigate that and bring relief to the property owner? >> we can november through february and prune the tree away from the roof line. i pulled another image back up on the power point here showing that overall the owner has been kind of holding the line pretty steadily with keeping that canopy back. we can prune it this winter to maintain that clearance as is. to hold that line. also, there are low voltage power lines that do run through the top of the canopy. my sense is pg&e or the property owner has been pruning and monitoring it. pg&e does do an inspections of all facilities by a certified arborist who has to look at the lines every year. if they find an issue with the lines, they would act on that. and they would either contact

the property owner or public works, and we haven't received any complaints to date about that. i also used to do that 18 years ago and that type of work and when i was out there, i don't see any issue with the power lines. i do want to allay those fears. i don't see an issue with the lines. it looks very routine. >> vice president swig: would there be documentation on a pg&e inspection? i mean, you are making the assumption in good faith about pg&e. i won't make a comment on that, but they have been in the newspaper on a few items, so would there be documentation on that and would there be a way for the city of san francisco thousand they are in charge of the tree to insure that, in fact, they have made a recent inspection or will make a new inspection or maybe as a term and condition if we allow the tree to continue living there, can we make it a term and

condition as part of the situation here to require that pg&e make an inspection and allay the fear of the property owner there won't be an event. >> yes. we can call 1-800-pge-500 # o and they will come out and evaluate the lines whether they think they are their lines or someone else's lines or a closed line, they will ensure public safety. when i worked there for two years ago, a lot of it was a result of issues not maintaining treeing and power lines and forest fires. they are required by law by the p.u.c. to inspect, and they do do inspections. that's not if or when. they do that. but they don't contact property owners when they are doing it. they just roll through and take a really close look. i have full confidence they are doing that to make sure their facilities are clear in the urban environment. we also -- i can't say that i'm an expert, but i am line

clearance qualified, so i have the certificate to allow myself to prune within 10 feet of power lines. i'm very familiar with the issue of power lines, unusually so in many ways, and i don't see it as an issue. public works will inspect and evaluate both trees annually as part of our urban forest goals. through our annual inspections and through pg&e's required inspections, i feel confident about that. what i can also do is call pg&e and place a formal request that they go out and inspect the lines there and let us know if they have concern. just to make sure that that's addressed. >> vice president swig: thank you. commissioner lazarus, any questions? >> commissioner lazarus: thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay. we will now have rebuttal time. ms. bianchi. you have three minutes if you would like to rebut.

yes please. >> well, as i sat there and listened to the points of the beauty of the trees, it is just major concern to me. if you get out of the car on the right side, no matter where you are from third avenue to the next house, there is these mountainous roots at the bottom. and we had someone visit the other day with crutches. i had to have them move back. every time we have a guest, i go out with them worried they are going to fall because i told you i fell one time. i have fallen several times, even when i clean the pine needles. it is so difficult. and so i suppose in the end as

much as i love god's trees, the balance is a man's life or someone is going to be hurt, safety versus the beauty of the trees. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. buck. anything further? no? okay. commissioners, this matter is submitted. acting president? >> vice president swig: commissioner lazarus, any thoughts? >> i am inclined to deny the appeal. >> vice president swig: what i would like to do because i'm very sensitive to ms. bianchi's fears about an aging tree and its care and also the impingement on her house is i would like to make sure as we

leave here, that we take care of that and ask the city if they would please pay special attention to the tree. so i guess the motion is to uphold the appeal and allow the permit with the condition that the department of urban forestry schedule an immediate review of the tree and a strong commitment to reviewing its condition and care, and also ask pg&e please to make a current inspection and report those findings to the property owner. >> are you going to make that your motion? >> vice president swig: that would be the motion. >> commissioner honda: i don't know if you will have support for that. >> i think you intended to deny the appeal because this is an appeal of a denial of a permit.

and you want to allow for the removal of the trees, correct? >> what i want to achieve is that the tree stands, but that the city immediately pays attention to it by scheduling proper care and maintenance and also that pg&e -- that they are responsible for getting pg&e out there to do a proper inspection and report those findings to the property owner. >> i think the motion would be to deny the appeal and uphold public works denial of the permit -- sorry. uphold public works' decision to allow removal of the trees, and urge the department to schedule an evaluation of the trees and contact pg&e as soon as possible and report those findings. >> stronger word than urge and mandate that. but otherwise, you do a much better job than i.

>> okay. we have two motions on the table. is there further discussion? she didn't make a motion. my inclination, but i didn't make one. >> okay. we have a motion from vice president swig to deny the appeal and uphold the public works order which denies the removal of two trees on what basis, vice president swig? that the permit was properly issued, but the conditions are important. >> for clarity, we're just strongly urging or requiring -- >> requiring. >> basically a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the public works order which denies removal of two trees on the condition that the to do that within 30

days of the hearing to review of the area and to take the appropriate action and to arrange for pg&e to inspect the location. on that motion, commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner lazarus: i want to check. are you comfortable with that motion? >> i'm okay with it. >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> commissioner honda: that motion carries 3-0. we will now move -- that concludes that numb per. bemove on to 5a through 5e and these are five appeals related to christopher cole, kristine gardner, ayca erbilgin, emrah

kostem, and protesting the issuance on august 1, 2018 to bill canihan of a site permit, the change of use to convert an existing single-family house to a two-unit residence with horizontal and vertical addition. remodel new kitchen, new bathrooms, new bedrooms and living space,, new decks, and install new elevator. excavate rear yard and add fire sprinkler system throughout under separate hermit. did the appellants decide how to present the case? you have a total of 35 minutes. >> yes. we would like to do it individually. 7 minutes each. >> yes, please. >> what order would you like to do it? >> i'm going to go first. i'm robin. and then kristine.

then napthali. >> them emrah and then chris cole. >> okay. all right. thank you. >> thank you. so you have seven minutes please. good afternoon, members of the board of appeals. my name is robin bishop and i am a life long resident of san francisco and petero hill native. i am asking the board to address the violations the subject project makes against the planning code, the building code and the residential design guidelines. appellants are before you today as a united front because we recognize this project as the tipping point for the neighborhood. the decision today will have a significant impact on the immediate well being of current

neighbors and of the subject property, as well as the character of alterations and the new homes planned to be built at the top of a hill. we ask for thoughtful and deliberate vetting of this appeal and your support to make this project adhere to the neighborhood context. this project has been misrepresented from the very beginning by the project sponsor to both the planning department as well as the neighborhood community. in my brief, i illustrated iffer you in exhibit 12 how an erroneous curb cut was drawn into the plans on carolina street which led to the incorrect planning code to be used for determining rear yard. here, i am showing you the 311 notice that was issued to the petero hill community in 2014. this document shows that the existing subject property has no side setback and the proposed subject project has no change listed. this is false. as the existing house does have a side setback and the subject project is changing that by

proposing no side setback. this is an example of another misleading fact used by the subject sponsor to push through an extraordinarily large project by deceiving the planning department and neighbors who rely on the integrity of the documentation provided to them. we are before you today asking you to address our concerns, specifically requesting you to address the violation of the planning code with respect to the current conditions of the existing neighboring cottage at 897 carolina street. we ask you to apply the rear yard setback, planning code section 134c4b on the basis that the corner lot number 26, shown here, addresses 897 carolina street is a special lot situation which runs on a different street than the subject project, that street being 22nd street. following the findings of vehicular access to the adjacent corner building was misremitted by the project sponsor in the

plan drawings, and the planning department project manager confirmed, and i quote, section 134c4b of the planning code applies to the property at 891 carolina street since the adjacent property at 897 carolina street fronts on to 22nd street. therefore t rear yard for 891 carolina street is determined by the property at 883 carolina street, end quote. the fact that 897 carolina street is fronts onto 22nd street is a key subject of the appeals. during your deliberations, we can you keep in mind that the property is 891 carolina street and the planning code collected to determine rear yard needs to be based on the current existing conditions of adjacent parcels, not on hypothetical development as suggested by scott sanchez and the project sponsor in response to o you are brief. secondly, we are requesting you to address the violation of the building code with respect to egress to safety. we ask you to retain the

existing 39 regress on the south side of the project project that was incorrectly documented on the 311 notice on the basis that the fire and safety egress to the public right-of-way is required by the building code. this next image shows an aerial view of the existing egress that is planned to be eliminated in the subject project in lieu of a boxed in backyard assembly aired. a boxed in backyard assembly with no egress to safety. and this next image shows you the model of the subject project without an egress to safety. this is unsafe and we are asking the board to retain the existing egress by requirements of the building code. thirdly, we are requesting you to address the violation of the residential design guidelines with respect to rear yard cottages and building scale up the mid block open space and privacy windows and building scale and form. we ask you to apply the rear

yard cottage as directed by elizabeth watt on the basis this reduces impact to light for adjacent rear cottage at 897 carolina street. this here is a view from the back of the properties. we ask you to require that the floor to ceiling windows on floor three and four of the subject project, here and here, be reduced to 40 inches on the basis the decks were removed by order of the planning commission and on the basis that the window height reduction affords privacy to the tenant's bathroom and bet room window at the corner cottage. we ask you to require the win dose overlooking the yard on the south side of the subject project have obscure class on the basis that this obeys and follows the r.d.g. for protecting the privacy for the parents and children at 897 carolina and this was offer bid the project sponsor. we ask you to prohibit any the

fourth story roof for the elevator for a maintenance el va to to put on the roof there or other rooftop structures to increase the structural elevation on the basis that a fourth story is already out of context in a two to three story neighborhood. and on the basis that the r.d.t. required that the fourth floor be removed three times in nopdr and required to be removed by the planning commission in a similar project at the same property, a building that was never built, and requirements to which the project sponsor has blatantly refused to meet. the following presentations will demonstrate the details of the subject project violation. we request that you, the board, address these violations and bring this subject project into compliance with the planning code, the building code, and the residential design guidelines. thank you. >> thank you.

ms. gardener, you ready? >> good evening, commissioners. my name is kristine gardner and i am the owner of 897 carolina street t corner building you see in the model. in our briefs and in our presentations, we will bring you evidence of code violations and erroneous information used to establish excessive and illegal entitlement similar to what robin has talked about. the first example of this misrepresentation occurred on plans from july 2013 through march 2016. as shown in this example, vehicular access to the lot 897 carolina street was

misrepresented by the project sponsor through illustration of curb cut denoting vehicular access on to carolina street. additionally t labelling of 22nd street was entirely missing from the planned drawings. these erroneously planned drawings made it appear visually that the three properties were interior lots and were all fronting on carolina street. they are not. the 897 carolina is a rear cottage at the corner as you can see in the model with all vehicular and pedestrian access on 22nd street. 897 carolina fronts on 22nd street and this fact was hidden from the planning department resulting in an improper rear yard calculation. it is important to note that upon being made aware of the inaccurate architectural notation showing erroneous curb cut, project manager and planner richard sucre concluded that the building at 897 carolina street

fronts on 22nd street and is, in fact, a special lot situation. we, the neighbors, were continually redirected to richard as our single point of contact and project manager. as you -- as just quoted to you in evidenced here, mr. sucre confirmed in writing that planning code 134c4b is the appropriate rear yard code based on site conditions. it is also important to note that assistant director elizabeth watte validated the use of r.d.g. for rear yard cottages to be applied to the project. her el administration follows the r.d.g.s by respecting the existing adjacent rear building cottage. the as a result a similar outcome of the reduced rear yard entitlement as established by mr. sucre. one planning staff fafred the planning code to be applied, and the planning director favored the r.d.g.s.

both of those solutions and interpretations of the special lot situations is -- will provide preservation of rear yard mid open space and respect of the adjacent property. as mr. sanchez assessed -- i'm sorry. it is important also to note that permit holders, project sponsor from the architectural firm wrote a letter to richard su. , re stating, quote, the property to the south is set back so far that it is no street presence on carolina street. it is nonconforming. for all intents and purposes, its main street presence is on 22nd street. we the appellants agree with mr. iguchi. as scott sanchez assessed the corner lot with regards to whether it fronts on another street, he believed that development regulations of the

planning code should be applied to the property. while my lot is typical 25x100 lot, it is atypical in the way that it was developed. applying development regulations to the corner parcel is based on hypothetical development, as if my lot is the property being developed. it is not. my property has an existing building on it that is in the rear yard. this building is both protected by planning code 134c4b and r.d.g. for rear cottages as described by sucre and watte. the lot at 897 carolina street is not a lot under development. it has a building on it with two units and two families. to analyze this property on the basis of planning purposes for development is flawed. so in this case it is necessary to analyze the characteristics of the existing building itself and its orientation to the street.

since there are two streets, it is necessary to look at the frontage initially and fronts on next. the building has two frontages. carolina and 22nd. and the carolina street frontage is the width of the lot. the 22nd street frontage is the length of the lot. planning code 121 establishes primary frontage as where vehicular access is. therefore t primary function of the frontage of the rear cottage is on 22nd street where the garages and real curb cuts are located. your decision of which street the corner existing building fronts on is the subject of this appeal. vehicular access is a quality that contributes to which street a building fronts on. cambridge university press dictionary defines front as a

noun. property. the part of a building that faces and is nearest to the street that is most often seen and used. the planning code's own definitions describe principle facade as exterior walls of a building that are adjacent to or front on a public street. the principal facade for 897 carolina street by planning code definition is 22nd street, and you can see it by the model before you. other qualities also apply. all entrances and egresses are on 22nd street. metering, mail delivery, trash pickup, everything happens on 22nd street for this home that is addressed of 897 carolina street. we ask the board to overturn the permit and condition the entitlement with the following modification. to achieve planning code

compliance, apply the rear yard setback planning code 134c4b on the basis that the existing building addressed as 897 carolina street is a special lot situation which fronts on a different street. that being 22nd street. thank you for your attention. >> thank you. mr. rodriguez. >> hi there. i am napthali rodriguez and i have a video to share.

all right. so here we are on carolina street and here is the 891 carolina street subject property. and right next to it on the south side is 897 carolina where the architect drew the erroneous curb cut. as you can see, there is no curb cut. there is also no entrance to my home from carolina street. so here we are taking a walk up the south side and taking a left on to 22nd street. so you can see where we are walking east along 22nd street. and this is where my mail comes in. and the entrance to what i call the backyard.

and you can see there is the property in question. it's kind of messy. this is where my kids play. a view here quickly of the side setback for fire and safety egress that exists, and this is important. i want to talk this this after the video. here is backyard of the subject property. there is the firehouse on the other end. coming back, there is a garage that exits out on to 22nd street. coming back through the backyards, u see some of my kids toys and stuff, where we hang out with our neighbors. and we exit on to 22nd street and notice the curb cuts that go right into the garage year. on 22nd street. further east is the entrance to my flat.

and if we continue east, there is a back door and also one of the oldest firehouses in san francisco, and this white fence here is really interesting because it looks like it's level with 22nd street, but the topology of the neighborhood says different. i will show you when we go inside. so it just past that wooden fence and as we go up the stairs here, we see there is a sheer drop from the street down about two stories, neighbor 20 feet. and there is one of our city firefighters hanging out. in the corner. and that is one of the things you can't see from the other side of the street. it poses a special, you know, blockage to fighting fires in this neighborhood.

kind of a weird thing that it's going to affect the building. so now we head back out to 22nd street. and this is where i pull out the garbage in my home and take it out to 22nd street where it gets picked up. and one of the -- i have always thought of my places that it's 897 carolina, it's 22nd street and it causes hell with food deliveries and what have you. i am always sticking my arm out the metal fence and telling people i'm ehere. now let me address the building codes specifically, the fire and safety requirement for egress to a public right-of-way. here i have an exhibit a for building code compliance, we must retain the existing 3-foot south side setback according to existing building envelope on

the basis that it's 100% compliant with the building code requirements for the fire and safety egress to the public right-of-way on to carolina street. counter to what is stated on the 311 notice that chris showed us, there chrisly exists a 3 foot, 3 inch side setback and this setback provides an egress to the right-of-way as required by d.b.i. code and fire and safety code. the project brief document incrementally states that this is 2 feet, 9 inches. it is 3 feet, 3 inches in width and running the entire length of the existing building. the brief states in this right-of-way was maintained, there would still be two units in the project, but the amount of bedrooms would be recreased. the favoring of extra bedrooms in exchange of removal of existing fire and safety egress is unconscionable. further more t project brief also states that there is no reason to keep the egress.

i think that is explicitly false. i can think of four reasons walking and talking in my house to keep compliant with city fire and safety codes. they may not be important for profit, but they are important to me. the egress exists -- the proposed project is a remodel, not a new build. the egress should be enforced according to the existence and leaving it is not code compliant, it can be grandfathered in under this remodel project. why the project would seek to eare remove this important safety feature makes no sense to me unless we consider greed which is a motivating factor in increasing square footage of a property. by my calculation, the project gains close to 140 square feet per floors at the current cost of $900 per square foot in san francisco that equates to half a million dollars to tack on to the cost of the units. so after years of neglect to the

property and after eight years of me being there, that glass and roofing and bits of wood and nails are falling into the yard where my family enjoys free time, they want to move forward with a build that neglects fire and safety code for profit and for me that is shameful. i have no horse in the race except the safety of my family and neighbors. i have three beautiful, bright daughters, apples of my eye, and no amount of money or square footage will allow me to comprise my safety. we live under the shadow of disaster in s.f. and the history shows us the importance of the guidelines. we ask to board to reconsider the entitlements by overturning the permit and modifying to retain the existing fire and safety egress to a public right-of-way on the basis of it being 100% compliant. thank you. >> thank you. i believe emrah is next. emrah kostem. is that right?

>> good afternoon. first of all, i would like to thank you, all, if for your time. i am representing my family. my wife is pregnant and she couldn't make it. our family would like the appeals board to consider the plan based on the following. there are three facts. one is our privacy. there are several deck floor full height windows that see directly into our home and second is the reduction of the mid block open space. the depth of the plan reconstruction ignores the r.g.rd.g.s for rear yard cottages. the first and second are the result. and what i see as the third is the cause which is the excessive depth of the building. our home was incorrectly used as was previously mentioned to benchmark the appropriate depth

for the new construction. so the solutions or what we would like the plans to be amended to the following reducing single size to a height of 40 inches on third and fourth floors. and this will have no impact on the living space of the new structure. to reduce the 60% rear yard coverage and living space can be maintained by the size of the currently planned garage and which holds three cars. and finally our family wants the structure to be remodelled by not by flaunting the r.d.g.s and reducing the family's quality of life with the building that has been neglected by the same family proposing the building

plans. and we want this to happen. the floor to ceiling windows should be shortened to the height of 40 inches of the third floor. with the picture taken from the model and the top two are basically directly into our house and smaller and higher raised windows at the height of 38 inches would allow the model home to access the views by this place has really nice views and significantly increasing privacy to the home. this is too large of a footprint from the left we have the before and the front access to light

and air of all the windows are basically open into the ward and after a significant reduction to light and air, it is almost like there is the wall and the mid block and open response. the response focuses on the illegality of the various components of our home but is ignoring and the home is a rear yard cottage which reads when a proposed project is adjacent to a lot that has a cottage used as the dwelling unit at the rear of the lot, notifications to the buildings' design may be necessary to reduce light impacts to that cottage specifically. decisions on protecting our family's access to light and air should be based on the current structure where we are actually living, not i