the time could be relatively short. >> commissioner lazarus: i have a couple other questions. >> president fung: no, go ahead. i was just trying to see if there was another way of dealing with this. >> commissioner lazarus: so i just wanted to clarify. there was a hearing on this in late october, right? >> correct. >> commissioner lazarus: and what's the outreach in terms of notifying people of that hearing? >> so we -- our ordinance require that we post 30-day notices on proposed -- trees that are proposed for removal, so that's what we do. and i -- what's interesting is this is where i think sometimes i ask for people to be understanding. i don't keep track of every project in the city. 125,000 street trees, sometimes we go out and we walk into a hornet's nest, and i don't do that intentionally. i hear some confusion from the public, like, it's just too planned. no, we go out there, and we go

hey, these trees are really bad. so 30-day notice, and then, we received a protest. so then, we scheduled the matter for a public works hearing. so we did have a public works hearing. >> commissioner lazarus: and i think similar to another case a few weeks ago, have you analyzed what the largest possible tree replacement would be? whether it's two or three. >> i looked out to see the number of trees wree planted at the site? there's definitely remove for three total trees, the removal of two with a replacement of tree. we hear the concern about the number and the size. we can't replace these trees in the next 20 years. >> commissioner lazarus: right. but, i mean, is 36 the maximum as far as you know?

>> i guess my concern is that public works is not seeking to replace for any other reason another public safety. i'm trying to address public safety. i don't want to come in here and overcommit to we're going to restore the canopy. >> commissioner lazarus: yeah, i understand. >> yeah, i'm just a little worried about that. we are still investigating about what can be done with 2465 vanness, the largest possible size. >> commissioner lazarus: okay. thank you. >> clerk: anymore? okay. thank you. commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> commissioner honda: i'll start. what a surprise, huh?

as was mentioned, we recently heard a bunch of cases on trees. to me, i am not supportive of these trees being removed. we just had a conditional use authorization for trees to be saved, and it was ordered that the trees be cut down. i am not supportive of tearing these trees down. at minimum, i would support a continuance. i mean, sorry to continue, but the department says they have no money. the problem lies not with the department, but with

proposition e. that legislation was made to support these trees, but no effort was made for replanting. i love how legislation was made and no one considered the sunset of these legislation. we've recently heard in this very room how often d.p.w. has promised to plant trees, and years later, there's no trees. >> vice president swig: so -- i'm not going to have the argument with my fellow commissioner, because i could go along with this. my concern, mr. buck, is this. why i'm spending so much time on this, this ain't going to be the last time, so you just identifies 61 trees that are candidates for more conversation, and where there's 61, and another 61 and another 6 61. this is why i'm belaboring the

point, and not you and d.p.w. what i would like to see d.p.w. do in situations like this is knowing the sensitivity of the neighborhood, knowing all the things that we put you through on a weekly or biweekly basis, it seems. what i would like you to do is we've got two trees that we've got to tear down. we don't want to tear them down, because we love our trees, but they're a health risk. these trees are part of a much larger picture with regard to m.t.a. we have consulted with m.t.a. they had a plan. that plan is going to continue, replaced with certain trees because they are of a certain

architectural type. this is what we're going to replace them with, the largest possible, and here's what we're going to do. if you come in and say that, you're going to get my support, unless i think you're crazy and shouldn't be taking down the tree. i believe you're telling the truth, as you always do, and they do present a health hazard, but it's so out of context of everything. it's so arbitrary. there is no plan. there's no reference and no cooperation with m.t.a. there's no suggestion of how big a tree, what we're going to do and where the funding is going to come from. how can we support you when you're not wrapping up with a

firm ball of comfort, and you're not. so darryl's suggestion is good enough for me, but -- or we can just kick the can, say let's hear this again when you've got more information in a similar fashion, again, deja vu all over again. again, come back with someone from m.t.a., tell us about all the 61 trees and how these tre trees fit into it, and just proactive initiative. that's all. >> commissioner lazarus: i'd wait to see what gets proposed, but i do not want to be associated with these two trees being a suspicious pair or we've heard time and time again about the department planting

trees when they said they would. i think there was one reference to that at a hearing a couple weeks ago. i think we've been given information about how things don't come here because they get handled properly. i don't wish to lay a major case out here but to deal with this particular instance. >> president fung: you know, the -- i'm not sure that m.t.a. will listen to us any way, but they are the deep pocket, although they seem to be running over budget on all their projects. >> commissioner honda: they're doing such a great job on vanness. >> president fung: as you'll recall, vanness was piecemeal

to us. and so when you're dealing with a -- an appeal of a couple of trees, but you never see the entire picture, it's one thing. but however, the question is really not so much these two trees. i think the appellant and others started with wanting to save the trees but then wound up talking about replacement size, more of a concern with an overall plan and everything. i'm looking at it just purely on the basis of this permit itself for two trees, recognizing the issues with the ficus, but also the fact that we need renewal. so i'm supportive of the

department taking down trees that need to be replaced. i think we can condition it so that the demolition occurs when they have full entitlements. >> commissioner honda: so how would you condition that, mr. president? >> president fung: i think you would demolish when you have your conditions in place. >> commissioner honda: would you support it or condition? >> president fung: i would condition. >> commissioner honda: i'm not supportive of that, i'm sorry. >> president fung: you're not supportive? >> president fung: i would actually deny the permit on the

grounds that the property notification was not done. >> commissioner lazarus: i can't support that. >> president fung: okay. but is that a motion? >> commissioner honda: i'll make that motion. >> president fung: okay. let's vote on that. >> clerk: so we have a motion from commissioner honda to grant the appeal and overturn the public works order. on what basis? >> commissioner honda: on proper notification was not given. >> clerk: proper notification was not given. okay. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion fails. do we have another motion? >> vice president swig: i'd like to postpone action on this item, a very short window, so

that mr. buck can come back. >> commissioner honda: the department. >> vice president swig: mr. buck can come back on behalf of the department and provide us more clarity on the project. that is the type of trees, the size of the trees, and where -- where the money is coming from, at which point, i would -- at that point, i would make a motion to uphold the appeal on the condition the permit be issued with those three elements in place. >> commissioner honda: how long of a continuance are you looking for? >> vice president swig: so that's a continuance? >> clerk: okay. and when would you want to continue it? >> vice president swig: when do we have time for -- >> clerk: i guess that depends how much mr. buck needs? we can put it on the 20th.

>> commissioner honda: i won't be here on the 20th. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from vice president swig to continue this matter to february 20. on that motion -- for the purposes of -- so the urban forestry can provide clarity on the project, more specifically, the funding source, and what the trees will be replaced with, the size and species. okay. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, and the appeal is continued to february 20. >> president fung: madam director, let's take a >> clerk: welcome back to the board of appeals february 6,

2016 meeting. we are now on number seven. subject property is 33517th avenue, protesting the issuance to cynthia lo of a site permit, horizontal permit, add bedrooms and bath, add interior stair, ad family room at second floor, add matter bath on third floor. -- master bath on third floor, and the appellant has requested an interpreter, so her time will be doubled. so if you could please approach the microphone, miss to, and the interpreter. so it's my understanding that miss to will be speaking to you, and then, you will translate, is that correct? that's why we're doubling her

time? >> mr. wo will be speaking to the board, i'll be interpreting. >> clerk: okay. is she going to be speaking english? >> some of the parts will be in chinese, and some of parts will be in english. >> commissioner honda: you're going to have to hold the mic, i'm sorry, ma'am. >> clerk: she can also stand over here. it's a lower microphone. >> we neeshe needs to use the projector. >> clerk: well, you can bend the microphone. it goes down. >>. [through the interpreter] my name is cherry to, and i'm

presenting this to the board. it's about this coming through my window. mike, my neighbor, is saying that i'm here in front of the board to ask for money. money is not an issue here. i'm in front of the board to ask my sunshine, my fresh air, and my view back. i don't want my tenant to complain because i do have tenants there. it's not an issue of the money, it's about the work. if you give me the money, i'll spend me the money on the work, so you might as well just you

spend the money on the work yourself. there was an 18-page document that was sent to me on january 30, and it went to my junk mail, so i didn't see it until yesterday, february 5. so this morning, i came to the board of appeals on february 6 to ask for the 18-page document. i don't have a printer. i do have a camera at home, so i have to go to the library to

print it out. it's very inconvenient. that's why i went to the board of appeals, asking for the 18-page document. and i asked the board of appeal exactly what the plan is 'cause i didn't understand the plan. and the board of appeal wasn't able to tell me, and they referred me to elizabeth white at the department of planning.

elizabeth was busy, and she just asked me to call mike because mike is the person that made the planning, and he would be able to tell me what the plan is because she didn't know. mike was very upset, and he told me i'm wasting his time and money, and he told me for sure i would lose the case. and he asked me to not even appear in front of the board.

and the issue is i didn't understand the plan, and if you explained it over the phone, i wouldn't understand, i would need to see it in person. mike said i'm a veteran, i should be able to understand it, but it's technical. it has nothing to do with being a veteran. he said that i'm here for money. i am not interested in the money. the money you give for me, i'll have to spend on the work. but from june to october of

2017, i was in san francisco. and i was also in san francisco in february 27 to march 18. and lo, my neighbor told me that there was a letter about something that was delivered to

me in december. lo sent me a letter. >> commissioner honda: overhead, please. thank you. >>. [through the interpreter] lo sent a letter about a meeting on december 13, but when i got the letter, it was already february 22, 2018.

so i missed the meeting. i had no idea about a meeting. so -- because he was sending a letter to my home. and mike send me an e-mail regarding my rear window on march 30, 2018. and i was actually grateful for my attorney being concerned about my rear window.

and the attorney was referred to me by elizabeth. so i showed them the letter and my e-mail from mike to my rental agent, yu, april 2 'cause i wanted to figure out who exactly michael was.

and my rental agent contact the city, and there was no update. so there was a note from -- on february 9, 2018, from peter from department of building inspector. and peter presented us with a notice of violation on may 8, 2018. and we went very quickly to correct all the corrections that needs to be made.

and now, we received a permit for a rear window on may 21, 2018. it's the window that's already existing. we bought the house when we were about 20 years old. the house was the way it was. we rarely stepped into the house where the window was into our 20's because we were busy

with work. and it was just me and my husband who lived in the house, nobody else. there's no way that we did the window on our own without reporting to the city, and it was decades ago. who knows. that's almost 40 years ago. i think michael was wrong.

and i was not in arkansas from august 5 to november 9, 2018. and there was a building permit notice on november 14.

and then, i ask elizabeth about the building permit on 335 on 17th avenue. and business leggett asked eli to the board of appeals. >> clerk: you have 30 seconds. >>. [through the interpreter] i met lo in 2017, and she was nice to begin with, and then, she turned her attitude. because we were not friends even though we both speak chinese. >> clerk: okay. thank you. >>. [through the interpreter]

should we ask if we block a little bit of her driveway? >> clerk: okay. i'm sorry, ma'am. your time is up. you'll have more time in rebuttal. when did she realize there was the 311 notification? i believe she said that she didn't receive it. when did she notice -- when did she receive that notification in arkansas? >> commissioner honda: okay. >> clerk: can you speak into the microphone, interpreter. >> i went back to arkansas

august 13, 2018. >> commissioner honda: okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. we will now hear from the attorney for the permit holder. >> commissioner honda: thank you, gary. >> thank you, miss rosenberg and commissioners. my name is mike raifsnyder. cynthia is my wife, so it's the two of us that are the permit holders. now i think what just happened was we heard about how miss cherry to, the appellant, didn't get notice. but in fact, i included in my papers e-mails from her where she was e-mailing me back even

in march of last year, and she was e-mailing her real estate person, and she was saying, is there any way we can stop this project, so she knew about anything. with respect to the 311 notice, we hired a service to do that, we didn't do it ourselves. and also -- oh, you know, i don't want to forget to say that when we were sworn in, i raised my hand, my wife raised her hand, miss to did not stand, she did not raise her hand, for the record. what i thought this hearing was going to be about was this window in the back. it's not a rear window, it's a window on the property line. it's a small little window on the property line. i also submitted with my papers some plans that miss to submitted to the building department, and those plans, they don't show a window there,

you see, so she's -- i think she was trying to mislead the building department for the planning department. with respect to her not understanding things, i just have to tell you that when she asked my wife and i how to deal with the neighbor who was a problem, we responded and she understood perfectly. when she asked my wife what color should she paint her house, we had a discussion with her, she understood perfectly. one sunday morning about 7:00, they were about six workers at her house, and they were with their hammers, knocking walls down. when we said miss to, cherry, what's going on with that, why do you have workers at 7:00 on a sunday morning knocking walls down, she didn't understand. when we said miss to, why are your workers blocking our driveway and throwing cigarette butts all over the place, she didn't understand. so they came here this morning, or this evening, and she

says -- i think she's saying that she just doesn't understand. another thing i pointed out in my papers was everything is available on-line. the e-mails indicate she was watching on-line, her real estate person was watching on-line. they were communicating with each other. our site permit was approved. she filed her appeal the very next day. so i don't know if this appeal is going to be about her allegedly understanding or if it's what she put in her appeal, and that is this window on the property line, on the side. and i reviewed the video of the -- of the hearing on january 23, 2019, on 729 de haro street, where they wanted

to build up and it would black all those windows, and there was a discussion about how this is repeated over and over, grandfathering is not something that's acknowledged by the property department, and somebody with a project on the property line, it can't be upheld. we should be allowed to go ahead and -- go ahead with our work because we've done everything by the book. everything we've needed to do we're done. i'm here for any questions if anyone has any. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you. good evening, president fung, members of the board.

scott sanchez, planning department. [inaudible] >> the permit was subsequently issued and appeal today this board. the proposed horizontal addition is completely code compliant. we have had a string of those types of windows with property line windows to the board of appeals lately. as the permit holder stated, windows on the property line be protected. the appellant submitted plans that did not show a property line window. what the permit holder had submitted was a sketch because they're not allowed to submit the actual plans, but they submitted a sketch, and they were correct. the plans did not show a property line window for that top floor. it wasn't misrepresented the

windows that were there because if you look at the photos of the rear of the property, it shows only the one window, but on the plans that they had submitted, there were more windows on the rear. again, the project is code compliant. we'd respectfully request that the board uphold the permit as approved and issue. thank you. >> commissioner honda: just one question, mr. sanchez. in the brief, it shows one window, but you say there's four in the back rear area? >> well, the photos correctly show i think what is there now. but on the plans the appellant had submitted in 2017, they did not show a property window, and they had actually shown two windows. >> commissioner honda: just for curiosity, would that suffice for light and air, do you think. >> that would be up to building

inspection. this would meet the building code requirements. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. mr. duffy, we'll now hear from d.b.i. >> commissioners, joe duffy, d.b.i. the permit under appeal was reviewed by building d.b.i. and d.p.w. and planning, as you heard, so i don't see any issues with that property. the property line window, every week, we talk about it, mr. is n n n not -- mr. sanchez just said. that window wouldn't have any standing because of the work

that's getting done, like, next door. i've said that here before. i don't think the construction is going anywhere near. window. it's quite a way away. we got a complaint at the end of last year for this window. it might be since they started construction, it might have been put in, but i don't think it was put in recently. but i -- you know, it's probably better just to leave it alone, and they keep their window, but it shouldn't hold up the project for these people. i'm available for my questions. >> commissioner honda: same questions, inspector duffy. does it affect the light and air and liveability of that room? skbl i don't think so. someone said there's two

windows in that room. >> commissioner honda: and last question, if it's that close to the property line, does it need to be fire rated. >> if it was put in today, yes. but a lot of them, it could be put in at the start of it years ago. if it was put in recently, yes, it should be fire rated, but the age of construction, we determined whether -- >> commissioner honda: so it doesn't have to be upgraded at that point? >> it's a case-by-case basis, commissioner honda. if you change the size of the window. ab 009 would kick in possibly. >> commissioner honda: okay.

cl >> clerk: okay. thank you, mr. duffy. is there any public comment on this item? okay, seeing none, we'll move onto rebuttal, so miss to has six months to provide a rebuttal to the board. >> i'm not really sure what the idea is. >>. [through the interpreter] and my issue is, if you allow

the permit, what am i going to do with a hole in the wall? now i'm going to spend money to patch the window, i need to spend money to explain to the tenant. what am i going to do with all the expenses? i'm not sure what to do. i'm a veteran, i don't have a lot of money. what if my tenant gets upset? i have to consider all of that. he can't say i'm a liar because i didn't standup and raise my hand. i was focused on my documents. i have a picture.

there's a pipe. so rk woulder told me the pi - the pipe originally wasn't there, and it wasn't there originally, but now, it's there. the pipe was stuck, it was attached to the wall, my wall. well, he didn't ask me about

it. he didn't ask for permission for doing this. now, the pipeline on this is stuck because appeal now, the pipe is unstuck. but he -- when it was on my wall, he didn't ask me. what do you want me to say? am i responsible for all of this? when i bought it, it was a window. now, it's a hole. what am i going to do with it? now i need to patch up the

hole. it's my responsibility, it's a lot of money. i'm not a liar. there's no need for me to lie. my girlfriend was trying to deliver --

>> interpreter needs to clarify. >>. [through the interpreter] my girlfriend tried to deliver papers on december 17. it was really rainy, really windy, really cold. it was the worst weather in san francisco in 11 years, and she went to the door, he wouldn't answer the door. he was walking around inside. i told my girlfriend to just call him because i told her that you're a woman, so he might thought that you were a man and there was danger to him, and since you're a woman, you can just call him, and he was just walking around the house. and fortunately, my girlfriend was able to squeeze the letter in under the door to the house.

and now he's asking me to go to mike and ask him what the plan is. and today, i called mike, and mike was telling me that you only want money. mike said you better not appear in front of the board. >> clerk: okay. thank you. you can be seated. thank you. okay. we will now hear from mr. raveschneider. >> okay. thank you. i'll be very brief. i haven't seen that picture before about the pipe. i have no idea what that is. it's certainly not part of the appeal. with respect to the tenants, i saw one of the tenants on my way here. she's a very nice person, she

didn't say anything to me about the appeal or the window or anything. there's been no documentation or testimony from any of the tenants about that window. in fact, that little window in the back, mr. honda, you said something about four windows. i was talking about a totally different hearing that i -- i just watched on-line where there were four windows. >> commissioner honda: no, i know which hearing you're speaking -- or references. >> okay. so i don't know that the tenants care. when i look out at that window, it's always closed, always. the only exception is this evening, it was open when i looked out. oh, miss to said she's going to lose the window. i don't think anybody said anything about her losing the window. i think the building department said it was okay, and the planning department said it was okay. so i don't know where she gets that. the business about my door, the agreement was she was supposed to have papers delivered to my

office at union square, and instead of doing that, she had somebody go to my house, and of course i'm not going to answer the door at 7:30 at night. so if there's any questions, i'll be happy to try and answer them. no? thank you so much. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. i'm sorry. there's no further comment. mr. sanchez? okay. >> commissioner honda: are you relinquishing your time? >> like to speak for planning -- no, i don't. >> commissioner honda: no, i don't. >> just if i could have the overhead. so this was in the brief, and i think this clarifies everything, and what the gentleman just said here,

there's no one here telling the appellant they're going to lose the window. that's the window there, and there's no new construction going against it. even if there was, like, that's worse, so best case scenario, that window stays. the permit holder said he doesn't care about it, so i'm not sure what this is all about. she's -- the lady explained about a hole in the wall. i don't get that part. i'm not sure. there's photos in the brief of a window -- is it a legal window? probably not, but as i said earlier, if it was existing at the time of construction, you just -- it's -- it's there, and it's not impacting this construction, and the people that are going to do the construction are okay with it, so that's it. thank you. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> president fung:

commissioners? >> commissioner lazarus: barring any discussion, i would move to deny the appel and uphold the permit -- appeal and uphold the permit on the issue it was properly appealed. >> president fung: actually, i'm not sure what the issue was. when i looked at it, the window stays. so there's no more comment, ma'am. would you make a motion? >> commissioner honda: yep, that was the motion, i think. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from commissioner left side arecess on the basis the -- lazarus on the motion the permit was properly issued. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. the motion passed. on that pel, t-- appeal, the appeal is denied and the permit is issued.

okay. next item is -- [agenda item read]. >> clerk: and we'll hear from the appellant first. you have seven minutes. >> okay. my name is kathleen tracey. i've lived at 2445 turrey street for 16 years. this approved permit was submitted by appellee, my neighbors at 2345 turrey street. they were asked to legalize, modify or remove unpermitted windows. when i saw that their permit to correct the notice of violation was approved, i went to record management to view the

submitted plan and permit. i became concerned they were circumventing the system again and legalizing windows. the architectural drawings were showing that they were lying about the lot line windows. i ask that the suspended permit be modified, that it include all lot line windows adjoining my property, not just the above referenced two. there are a total of six windows. all of these windows need to go through the process of legalization, modify or removal. currently none of these comply with fire safety and most importantly pose a fire hazard to my property and my family. the fact is all six lot line windows should have gone through the permitting process back in march, when my neighbor received their first notice of violation for unpermitted

windows. this was a notice of violation that they received. i'm just, like, surmising it -- and this was march 16. windows replaced at rear facade and north elevation are to exceed the scope of permit, blah, blah, and blah, blah. there are a total of 19 windows replaced. corrective action: obtain building permit with proper approvals for all windows replaced. so then, my neighbors -- oh, and i want to just show you the windows. so they talk about the rear facade of the 19 windows. this is the rear facade. these windows are also the rear facade, but these are the lot line windows, so there's four right there. these are also lot line windows, but these are part of

the north elevation that was on the permit, and then, these are also the north elevation windows, and these are visible from the street. couple days later, my neighbor files a permit to comply with the notice of violation. this is what they filed. it says, to comply with notice of violation, you factor .32 max, approval previously installed fiberglass windows on rear of building, work completed, not visible from street. this ignores all 19 windows that were cited. most importantly, the six lot line windows that represent a danger to my home and my family. i want to show you why i'm so concerned about these lot line

windows. so this is a survey -- did i not do it right? i'm sorry. this is a survey we had done on our house in march of 2017. so first, just looking at the picture, this is hi house. this part with the red arrow is 1.25 inch on my property. this blue arrow, this second part, is .625 inch on my property. so with regard to lot line

windows, it applies to all -- current code applies to all new windows. all of these windows are within zero to 3 feet of my house. they are not permitted. four of the windows are on my property, two of the windows are within 12 inches of my property lines. these windows are not to building code. i also want to call attention to what i believe is the most hazardous of these lot line windows. this windows is operable. they keep the window ajar. it is not fixed with fire rated glass, it does not have sprinklers. i cannot find anything that says electric to code. it serves no purpose other than

to look into my house. this is a reckless endangerment on my house. my neighbors keep avoiding the permit process to ensure that windows are per the building code. while i agree with the original and current n.o.v., it is the six lot line windows that tern me the most. to ensure the fire safety of my home and family, i am asking the appeal board to modify the permit and include all six lot line windows, so that these windows can go through the process of legalize, modify or removal. and if i have a few more minutes, i just want to kind of talk about the rebuttal that i received from the attorney and just briefly touch on this. one of the comments they made on this, of which 16 were installed, many with issued permits by owners of the

property. they -- they didn't include the permits. i pulled an r-3 report. there were no permits that were pulled for previous installed windows. >> president fung: you'll have three minutes of rebuttal following this. >> okay, yeah, i'll just do it then. >> commissioner honda: you indicated you lived there for 19 years. you didn't have a problem with them for the last 18? >> no. >> commissioner honda: and were they different neighbors? >> oh, they're different neighbors. i want to point out that the window i find the most hazardous, my neighbor never used that part of that house. those two rooms are not insulated. it was shut off, there was a curtain, i never saw that window. >> commissioner honda: okay. thank you. thank you. >> clerk: okay. we will now hear from the

permit holder. >> my name is alice walker, representing mr. bromaci. what you see is the window that was permitted prior to the windows before you, the 19 windows she talked about. when they purchase this home, all the window except for these two window were already in the building. they took our permit when she complained to legalize all 19 windows. let me say 17 windows. i take it those two are fine. th