avenue. i've done everything by the book and tried to do right by the tenanttenants. we've tried to sequence the mandatory seismic retrofit and work together so that there's a minimuminimum to the tenants. every who has parking and storage now will have parking at the end of the project. we will add dwellings to the stock and appreciate your consideration. i will ask my attorney to continue our introduction, thank you. >> thank you. ryan patterson for the permit holder. commissioners, i do appreciate counsel's candor in recognizing their arguments have changed. i think there was a misunderstand at the time they filed this deal. the mans have no plans have notd

there are documents for review and i want to speak to some of these misunderstands and explain more fully to the commissioner. this is a case about a tenant who doesn't want to deal with the construction inconveniences so that new housing can be created. while we're sympathetic to that, no one wants to live through construction and the fact is that the city is in housing crisis and we need desperately these accessory dwelling units. if we can have the overhead. this the mayor's directive 1801. subject permit is to add five accessory units under the seismic retrofit programme. these are affordable, in-control housing units and exactly the type the city is encouraging. this is expressly authorized by code. there are more parking spaces at the property than parking leases and these are being turned into housing.

the appellant filed this because she's was mistaken about losing parking. every tenant who has a storage unit will have a storage unit. during construction for 12 months, the tenants will need to park on the street and this is a temporary interruption of services by rent section 37.2r and administrative code, chapter 65a. the tenants will receive parking by law. these payments are based on the amount they pay for the spaces, if it's specified in the lease or if not, they can obtain other parking or other storage. if they don't think they're getting the right amount, administrative code section 65a.5, rent ordinance 37.8 set out a petitioning process at the rent board and that is the proper form for this.

and as kent mentioned, the work is sequenced together with the soft story seismic retrofit so the construction timeline is minimized and there's as little inconvenience to the tenants as possible. all of this is done by the book. the appellant will get parking back at the end and compensation payments in the meantime. so what other argument does she raise? well, she says that the accessory dwelling units will change the neighborhood character and commissioners, as you know, neighborhood character has long been the battle cry of nymbisim. but the state's housing act, 65589.5 now disregards this type of subjective argument. under state law approval is not optional. i also want to note that

although notice was not required by law in this case, the permit holder did give the tenantsness as a counticy. courtesy. you'll see on november 15, 2018, he mailed and posted a letter to the tenants in the lobby and on march 5, 2019, two days before the permit was issued, it was mailed to the tenants. it was be 65. a52 of temporary parking or storage. mr. marr went above and beyond his requirements of the law and frankly, that's probably why this permit got appealed because he was upfront and let the tenants know ahead of time during the appeal period. as they say, no good deed goes unpunished. at the end of the day, this is part of a mandatory soft story retrofit. the city is requiring this of

this building. and the soft story permit has been issued and it's final. so even if this permit were revoked, there would be a temporary interruption of parking and the storage units. the benefit of doing this all together, it's explicitly authorized by city code is that it minimizes the amount of disruption to the tenants. the code authorizes 36 months of construction and this is expected to be done in 12 months. so significantly less time. i want to respond briefly to a few of the new arguments. they said there was limited time to review the brief and this was briefed on a normal schedule as required by the board. the appellant filed a brief first and they could have reviewed plans, do have requested plan and i think if there had been a phone call to us ahead of time, asking

questions about the notices they had received, even, probably would have resolved this. the ada request, well, there has been no disabled accommodation or request made and there will be an ada compliant parking space after the project is done and i'll refer to the architect to speak to that. but at the core, commissioners, this case is a question between a tenant having to park on the street for a year versus the housing not being built and people having to live on street. i think the choice is clear, we're this a housing crisis. the law requires that this permit be granted and i hope you'll do the right thing on this. and the act text woul architecto speak. happy to show you plans with the parking shown clearly. >> i have a question, counselor. mr. patterson, there was

notification, and granted it's not required for plans, but if you've not long-term tenant, was there a meeting set up and was from any plans that were given to him in regards to this in advance? >> i don't think that plans were given. as i said, the owner did go above and beyond and mailed a letter twice, posted notice. >> and the second question in regards to the 80 units, as you mentioned, thrice, we are in a housing crisis but they teamed with the soft story for the footprint. do you require any variances? >> there's a waiver granted because this project meets requirements for the programme.

no variance is required. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you, scott sanchez. this is 1421 tenth avenue is rh2 zoning district and quite a large lot for a typical lot in the zoning district about 25 by 100 feet and this is 60 feet by 20 feet deep and there are currently 18 dwelling units on the property and the permit proposes to add five adus to 23. it does comply with relevant planning code requirements, as noted by the permit holder's attorney, the no vee variances e required. you have the ability to get administrative waivers and in this case, they did receive a waiver from density overcase exposure and they met the respiratories. there's a reduced requirement for exposure under the ad programme that complied with that and did not require a variance but they're above the deniesty and did not provide

adequate open space and those were waived under the adu programme but otherwise, the project is co-compliant. i'm not aware of changes having been made to the parking. the plans that we have have six parking spaces being retained and there were two garages in the front of the building that were accessed off of tenth avenue and so there were two at the front and four parking spaces in the rear yard, as well as providing parking for that. i would note that parking is not required at all any more under the planning code, so none of the parking spaces are required to be maintained under the planning code. the couple of issues that were raised by the appellant, first, they referenced the cost of hawkins agreement, 5.2 about the

conflict's revision. this is required for unit subject to rent control and this is the agreement that we have when there are waives mad waivet allows to restrict these new units to rents control in the main building is subject to rent control and the five units created through the programme will be subject to rent control. that's what the cost of the hawkins' agreement does and i don't see that any violation of that provision. this is a contract requiring them to maintain the units as rent controlled units, nothing that i've heard from the appellant would lead me to leave the property opener does not have the eight to have the units subject to rent control and have raised issues about parking spaces and whether they're under contract, the appellant or permit holder addressed those and stated anyone with a parking space in a lease currently will be allowed to keep that parking

space because parking, as far as i can tell, has always been a part of the project. they will be provided for thei their -- i think some of the issues we have about communication or lack thereof, and as you know, there's no noticing requirements for these adus and no expansion and doesn't require the 311 expansion. we did have a requirement for courtesy notices and hard to say that it's required but we did that. it was actually approved before that requirement wept into effecwent intoeffect but we subd been approved to that requirement. so when they did send the notice out last year, november, that was to satisfy kind of our request that they provide this courtesy notice. and it's not a code requirement, but it's our direction and policy direction to and a very

strong suggestion to the property owners. in reviewing the language they did submit, i think it could have better illustrated the activity. i think that would have, perhaps, prevented the appeal, maybe not but making everyone aware that the parks spaces would be retained for those who had them, at least, would have been good to have that communicated earlier on. but otherwise, the project does comply with all relevant planning code respiratorie requ. i think the arguments about not being compatible with neighborhood character, and the planning commission, you know, if the neighborhood character, is it more about parking or is it more about housing people? so i think this is an existing residential building, yes, there will be more people living in there, but you could also have 18 units that are maybe more fully occupied than they are. so i think adding five small additional adus is not going to

be change to the neighborhood character. there's to expansion of the neighborhood and we're taking spaces and could bring tha rathr than housing cars than people. we look at this carefully and we have concerns when there will be reduction or loss of services and some of the issues, it sounded like there would be a loss of laundry, a loss of the parking that people had leases for and these are concerns ha wt we do look at. they're not always addressed in the code but as matter of good planning, we wants to try to address those. and seeing the plans, there is a laundry room and it's being relocated but it does appear to have the same amount of equipment so we find that the other relevant services, which we have requested that people, if they're removing all of the storage and laundry we've asked them to keep some facilities

just because those are amenities to the billio building and we dt want to take from the building just to add more units. we are to have a balance there. so we think that this project does meet that balance and it is compatible with the neighborhood character, steps, you literally from juda and it's well served, very close by. available for any questions the board may have. >> one question regarding the ada unit or parking space. is that something we would president to see reflected in the plans if there was a space that was designated or designed for that type of use? >> that's not a requirement of the planning code. i can defer to department building inspection with any revisions to that, but that's not something we're typically involved in terms o of ada parks spaces.

>> so going through the plans, i erred and i thought the mole whe back was removed and. going through the plans, i thought it was to the full yard extension and realized it's not, that they're retaining the four parking spots in the back and just that they're a to 0n and they didn't show that. it looked like it was a full-blown lot. >> no, it is not. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll now hear from dbi. >> commissioners, joe duffy, dbi, permit under appeal, four covered parking spaces and five new dwelling units for a building total of 23 units. and then it refers us to the soft story retrofit permit. the permit was filed around the

9th of march, 2017 and issued on the 7th of march 2019 and just from reviewing the writing, it looks like it's been through a pretty indepth of all departments. it went to planning, building, mechanical plan check, fire department, dpw and a couple of other departments there as well, probably puc. it looks like it's a permit that's been reviewed properly and approved by dbi. they will do the soft story, which is mandatory, as you mow, probablyou knowprobably probably in conjunction with the new units, incorporating them into one, and i don't have any issues with it and there were a couple of active housing complaints on the property for general maintenance and it looks

like they're addressed as well and pretty recent, but it looks like they've been addressed by the openership. openership. any questions? thank you. >> ada parking -- i'm sorry. i think on the existing building, that building came into play and if they want to voluntarily do one, that's ok but on existing buildings, my understanding is it wouldn't be required. >> is it something if the appellant requires or wants that she would want to see reflected in the plans that woul it woulde tea mentionedimensioned as much. >> i'm not up to that on the adu programme but in existing buildings, there's a lot of exemptions. >> is there any public comment on this item? who is here for public comment?

if you're the appellant, ma'am, you can't speak during public comment time but rebuttal time. how many people are here for public comment? so you can just come forward, please. >> good evening and welcome. >> thank you. members of the board, good evening, i'm kim -- >> you can move that mic a little closer. >> better. >> yes. >> good evening, my name is kim lanthamoni. i want to make it clear that i personally and we're not against adus. we understand that the city is facing a housing crisis and we respect the attempts to rectify and improve that. what i do want to call attention to within the plans are these new units themselves and the kind of quality of life they would be providing. i mean, these are what i would consider shoeboxes of units

within the building and they are right up against, you know, will be a further condensed parking lot. if you can imagine yourself in a really small apartment, having cars coming in and out at all hours, having those car fumes, you know, feed into the only window you have, et cetera. they're not ideal and i hope you can consider that. it's not that we're against this, but we issue it was done in a way that, one, the communication was more transparent. while i'm hearing from previous parties that the baseline of communication may have been there, and again, we have long-term residences there and what is concerning is the lack of transparency that there was no discussion of what's happening to parking, to storage, that the parking is right up against someone's unit

or bedroom, et cetera. so that is something that i would implore you to consider. that while these do house a clutch more people, the quality of life is not on par with what we consider the rest of the building to have and i personally feel like a second-class resident in our building and in our neighborhood. thank you. >> have a question? >> yes. >> are you losing any services? as a tenant? >> temporarily it sounds like it. but the interims of having a parking space, having a storage unit sounds like it has been rectified. in some of the sketches i've seen and it's been limited, i've seen there are two parking spaces outlying in the troo frof

the building and that unit, that garage, as i haveliely have live seven years, does not feel it would fit two cars and that something i would want the board, the planning commission to consider, rectify. >> there's a standard we have and that's the option of the builder. second, although notification is not required, they did notification on the building. did you engage upon receiving notification with this? >> we did. my fiance and myself, they sent out a notice saying storage units were vacate and we inquired on what's happening to them. are we just clearing them out and that's it? that was several months eight and there was absolutely no response back. >> so when you responsed to their letter, there was no

response from the landlord or their management company. >> correct, this was an email. >> correct. >> next speak, please. speaker, please. >> thanks for the opportunity. i am a neighbor in the sunset for 30 years now and have a number of people i know in the building, including miss cameny. i've been following this the whole time it started with the first whispers of what was going to happen and then to where we are today and i have two concerns. the impact on the neighborhood, the impact on the people in the building. it's been mentioned here, it's ten months, ten months, but they've been told year to year and a half of impact on

construction and my concern when i heard that was one of the trends that's happening in san francisco where people are -- they're being allowed to go through and have their rights as a tenant, but they're through a test to point where the possibilitich thepossibilitiy od opening up a space for a landlord, there's new words for it. i understand there's a couple already leaving the building and this was taken into consideration from them about leaving. i have concerns about what the impact is on my friends, other people in the building, their health and i know it doesn't speak to this permit directly but the overall trend in the city. i heard the word nymby out as a

descriptor and where you're talking about people that are long-term community members that want to see people housed and they want to see the betterment of the neighborhood as much as i do. and if it can be done in a responsible manner without the consideration of more people walking from the city because they're being driven out by, you know, a disruption in a few months is one thing. a description over 12 months from 14 to 18 months a different story and those are my concern taz i wanted to brinconcernsthae board. >> honestly, we see this a lot from new landlords from out of our district, out of our city that create a large thing and i think you're fortunate you have a long-term landlord at which point is honoring the tenant rights and trying to be respectful. there was no notification required and more than likely they'll keep this building so that's a plus. >> i was surprised, the

notification just base notification as human to human tenant to landlord, yo you know, it's common sense. i do property management and i have a good relationship with all of the people that i rent and deal with and it didn't seem like the highest echelon of communication had been reached here and also, again, trend-wise in the city, watching out for the tenant seems to be getting lost. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, is there any other public comment som? >> i'm jennifer huber with the tenant union. we support adus but we support them done right with tenant's rights being considered. it's a little disturbing to hear

the other side calling these tenants nymbies for standing up rights for which they signed a lease for. the parking spots are severed. there may be moved somewhere else but that's often not the case in these adus. i was advised by what mr. sanchez said as far as new procedures. that's great. so far, tenants have only been able to get juststie justice byg discretionary review. we've never had success pointing out different rights violated. so i hope that's changing. i would love to attend this meeting you guys are having afterwards. we've never been invited to talk to them. >> ticket sales to the left. just kidding. >> the adu process is a new process and like anything else,

when a new process happens, you'll have to work through it. that's just how that works, right. >> thank you. are there any more public comment some we'll move on to rebuttal. mr. v ebberbeke. >> just briefly, while plannin planning's main concern are that the new units are under rent control, that's not what the agreement says. the agreement is extremely clear and looks like something that people spent a fair amount of time on and to say, you must assure us that you have the rights already in hand to do all of this without further litigation, without further question from an agency or a court or otherwise. as i understand it, the city is changing thas the adu process tt says if you want one of these permits, you're not advocating

parking or doing anything that would be required to have a just cause analysis. moreover, i would note, as we said, a lot are long term tenancies and it's extremely hard to litigate somewhat similar to an easement in the sense someone used a space for such a length of tile an time ts has become a part of their lease. the overview is saying you're likely to miss all of those and those are exactly the details to lead you into subsequents litigation. while i am sympathetic to plan's concerns, nevertheless, the statute was written to say, number one, you will not take anything from and existing dwelling unit to make a new adu. when you sign an accord with the city, you props you hav promisee

impeded in doing the rest of what you're doing. i don't think either work here. further, the code goes on to stay that parking is specifically part of a dwelling unit and i think anybody familiar with the city would say the difference between pargin pg and not parking is profound. leaving aside the other arguments we would say the process that's been outlined here is quite strict on purpose. and it has been drafted and written to be pretty specific, to make people do certain things. here they weren't complied with. perhaps if the process is changed, we won't have these issues and perhaps, subsequently if someone says -- for example, ifs there what notification respiratory, perhaps we wouldn't have this, but the fact there is not have this and they were not able to satisfy the other agreements in the hawkins' agreement.

>> can you talk about where your client's parking space is currently located? is is it one of the external spaces? >> my understanding is it's internal. >> and then -- he's going to a picture on the overhead. >> while she's getting that, you have referenced limited access to the plans and why did you not have access? were they not available and what limited your access to seeing the plans for the building? >> the plans that we have specifically were fairly minimal. >> this is what happened, i found out with a day and a half notice that it was. i immediately ran down to what i found out was the board of planning, housing, something. i was not able to photograph. i was able to trace. so this is all that i have. >> can you use the overhead, please.

>> is that on the fourth floor? >> we have copies of the plan, thank you. >> please provide it to garry right there, please. thank you. >> i just wanted to say, you can go ahead, you have plenty of time to follow up on this question. so when you say you were notified, the notice was sent by mail or posted or both? >> it was posted. i'm a teacher on sabbatical, so i've been back and forth with travel. i work with san francisco unified school district. i'm the person you want to keep in an apartment. >> what notices did you receive? >> i received two and they're right here. >> they were by mail and posting? >> one was by email only and that was dated march 5th and one that was posted by the mailbox and then later mailed on november 15th. >> so when did you go to the department of building

inspection? >> march 6th, because i received it 2:00 or 3:00 in the afternoon and i went the following day. >> so you viewed the plan and did those plans not show retention of parking space or just had trouble understanding? >> i had trouble understanding it. i didn't realize there were five adus. i had never -- none of these notices include how many adus. and as far as the nymbism -- >> did you reach out to your landlord requesting a copy of the plans? >> i if know i could do that. >> any other further communication in response to the notices? >> my tenants did. we had a tenant's meeting with all tenants and we all tossed in money. i can't afford -- >> did you reach out to use landlord?

>> some of my fellow tenants. >> but you did not personally. >> i have reached out and received no answer and i have documentation of that. i reached out on a -- >> i just want to be clear, you didn't reach out to him? >> he doesn't respond. >> thank you. >> that's all my questions. >> i have a further question. so there's 18 units on the property currently and i would imagine there's a minimum of 18 people there. >> yes. >> plus maybe more. two bedrooms. >> were they notified there was a hearing this evening? did you have the tenant meetings and were they notified there's a hearing this evening in regards? >> yes, yes, and some sent emails. did you receive the emails. two are out of town and a couple could not make it. >> thank you. >> so at our tenant's meeting, we had 16 of the 18 units.

and we formed the sunset village tenant's association that was done in two weeks with the one or two-day notice we got. >> as you're aware, as the department as expressed, a handicap compliant parking is not required in this, right? >> correct, but i have an accommodation letter from my doctor. i have an accommodation to have my car at work, so i can get to work on time. and part of my car to get to work on time means it's at my house and i didn't realize i would have it for quite awhile. >> i'm just explaining that's the case. >> thank you. >> can i finish what i was going to say? >> your time -- i don't get any time? >> we will now hear from the permit holder.

>> commissioners, ryan patterson for the permit holder. on the overhead, we won't read the whole thing -- >> is that blood? i hope not. [ laughter ] >> rent ordinance 37.2 expressly provided for temporary severance of parking or storag storage fas for this work. storage facilities. there's a temporary loss of parking versus permanent. if it were permanent, it would apply with the city's waiver, but there's a completely separate body of law for a temporary loss of parking. so there's simply no question about that here. the plans, i'll on the overhead, you can see parking is clearly shown.

the appellant confirmed she did review the planned, did receive notice by maul an maul. email. i think a lot of this could have been avoided if they picked up the phone or sent an email and reached out. and you foe know, i think good communication is something we should strive foro for owner is willing to answer questions about this process going forward and hopefully, that will help with this process. there's a question about laundry service. the laundry room is relocated and the plan is to build the new laundry room. should be done within a day. and i think that's all on that subject. i'm happy to answer any questions. i think it was the tenant,

mr. marr checked emails and didn't see emails from her and her fiance and did respond to every email he received. so happy to continue engaging with the tenants on this and happy to answer questions. the tenants mentioned they called the landlord with to response. you've answered that. second question is that although ada is not required, i'm trying to look at the plans. can you put up the overhead? the other side. right there. whawhat are the two boxes next o the cars the five boxes? >> the architect. >> good evening. i'm the project architect for

this project. the boxes you're referring to are bike parks. that was the requirement at the time we submitted, yes. >> so it's going to be hard to try to help and accommodate an ada. >> it's not required by code as joe duffy stated, the california state code. >> i understand that. >> if there is a need for it, we can look at the accommodation. i will say i can stripe an area next to the parking space that's kind of where the bike parking is and we can create a zone for on-boarding and loading. there's a grade change between the rear yard and interior of the building. there are steps up to the back of the building and then, also, the garage at the front of the building could be considered but there won't be enough room to maneuver getting in and out of the car and there's a great change from inside and outside. >> my question is back to counsel. just to try to understand the

communication, i think that continues to be and is part of why we're having a special hearing, the communication between tenants and landlords is subpar, often unacceptable regarding notifying people of what's happening. i understand planning department gave instructions to give courtesy notices and your client complied but i want to understand from yourself or him what his pattern of communication regarding this or other issues is with this tenant and we heard testimony that someone emailed and didn't receive it. i don't know, it strikes me as odd on one hand go above and beyond to post notices and have reports of poor communication such that folks are not calling that receiving plan. i don't know if you want you wao explain that discrepancy or that your client has been engaging. >> so first and foremost, the notices that were september were

not required at the time. these were courtesy notices by mail, email and if you see on the overhead, there's a list of -- >> there's a reflection right there. perfect. >> so you can see -- it's worse. [ laughter ] >> move it above the light. leave it down. there we go. >> there are a until o number o, to respond to acts questions as. his included phone an e-mail and there's an email address posted. if someone did email him and didn't receive a response, they could have followed up and sent the letter or called the number listed. did you have something else? >> can you speak into the

microphone. there are two or three people that applied. what happens with the storage and parking and all of those were responded to. >> were you characterize yourself as having good communication with your tenants? >> i won say i'm perfect but i would say i'm pretty good and usually big things regarding the billion, an email blast to everybody. there's one gentleman that doesn't have email and i mail him a copy of the email and that was done in this case. >> do you self-manage the property yourself? >> i do. >> great. >> one last question, so there's 18 units and i see that there's six parking spots. so under oath, only six people have cars in the garage? can you come to the podium? >> yes, that is true. when we purchased it it was 16

spaces. realistically, one of the spaces is too small for two cars but right now, six people that use parking. all of the other spaces are unused and people aren't ask for parking spaces. >> it's a great neighborhood. i'm in the district, too, so i get it. >> that's a matter of black and white in the leases, as well, so happy to verify. i think the leases were attached. >> thanks, mr. patterson. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. they are carefully crafted documents and it took many, many months with the city's offices involved in actually everyone which has slowed downas down ad.

but this is one of the cornerstones that we have the te rent controlled us united. units. they did not have the same opinion as the appellant but they're appropriate they will never have ligation involving the project and that's just impossible to predict at that point. we have a permit process that is appealable. there can be a lawsuit filed on this. the appellant has misstated the

code, including the ones impoed upon accessory dwelling units saying that you cannot remove parking, that is part of the dwelling unit under the planning code. that's not true. they cite in their brief provision, a unit shat not be conducted uses space from the existing dwelling unit. that is what it says, it's capitalized and defined in the custody. they go on to have the definition of rental unit, which isn't in the planning code, which is in the rent ordinance where all residential units in the city, together with the land and including privileged, furnishings. they're putting two planning codes to together to further their argument. lastly, the quality of the units, i know the neighbors cited the parking in the rear yard detaches from the quality.

i would agree, it's a noncompliant condition and we would prefer to see parking removed as well and that's not, you know, necessarily going to happen in this case. also, in regard to the size of the units, they are not -- i've seen smaller adus. the smallest is 37 379 square ft and goes to 507. significance existing units that actually only have exposure on to side light well and these have better exposure than the current units and mirabl i'm ave for questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy, anything to add? commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> i have a questions for the appellant. >> before we get into that, this is the poster child hearing for the item that we are about to

hear next. and i would call out and hope that those on the board of supervisors who are working on the finalization of the adu legislation watch this process because, you know, my position is that apartment buildings are mini-neighborhoods and that the public spaces in the apartment building, the hallways, parks is like a little village and should be subject to notice. i appreciate the fact that the owner of the building did notice when he didn't have to, but it underscores there should have been a meeting and opportunity and this is not a criticism toward you, sir. this is what we're going to try to achieve in the next item in

this hearing. a lot of this could be avoided through a community meeting, through proper notice and through official notice and a proper meeting and everybody would have seen all of the plans. we're all on a flat laying field. so thank you very much for being the poster child for the next item. sorry for interrupting. >> i don't know if counsel or both of -- i have a few questions of what you want to out of thioutof this topic toni. >> if you could approach the microphone, please. >> so one of the things i want to understand that i think you were explaining previously was around the ada parking and it sounded like you were saying that you need access to your car to arrive to your workplace and come home. do you need a special loading zone or having access to a parking space?

>> my medical professional would ask for is that i need my car at home, both to get to appointments and to get to work on time. >> but regular sized parking stall? >> yes. >> and then just to understand -- and there's to parking available in my neighborhood. i don't qualit qualify for j str and on the one open spot was way above the 15% that the seismic ret toretrofit allows. i didn't get the spot because i couldn't say how long i would need it for and the person says i can't do it and i have not been told when things are really going to start. i was told things have to be moved by june i 1st and i'll be out of the country june 1st.

the permit was temporarily stopped. >> so i think one of the things that's become clear and if not, maybe we can elaborate, it's mandatory. >> we're not opposing that. >> i understand that and there are inconveniences that are sit ansignificant and this is an understatement to say where i'll park is more that an inconvenience. >> i talked with the recent board and they have guidelines about how long the retrofit should take and one to threemans. ththreemanthreemonths. when the project is complete, your parking will be returned and does that satisfy part of use reason for appealing this. >> my storage, will that be restored? we've heard that the laundry

facilities will be maintained and they were leased storage facilities won't b would be ret. >> i have to written testimony saying any of that will be restored. >> i think we have the plans, which i think do reflect storage and parking and -- >> but not the 25-year-old bonsai garden which is our green space. >> you're just raising this now. >> these are questions and amenities that are taken. >> so, are you satisfied with the return of your parking space and storage or is that not what you're seeking this evening? >> i'm seeking that in addition to i need a place to my car during this construction and in my neighborhood, it's not available. there's not even, like, street parking because -- all of our cars are going to be on the street and that impacts our neighborhood. >> why do you not able to get a

j sticker? >> because it's not on our street, not between juda. >> there's to j there? >> correct. but one block over, one block up and around there is. >> i see. >> so i can't park in the rest of the neighborhood because i'm not eligible for a j. i would love to be eligible for a j sticker. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so commissioners, the matter is submitted. i agree with my president now, this adu process is fairly new. the largest hindrance prior to this is the fire department in their eager regarding safety for their firemen but and the reason why we're having this special hearing after is because this board has strongly urged that

there be more communications so that we don't have this here. this landlord has followed the letter. he's gone beyond what was required and that's what you're supposed to do and so hopefully going further, they'll institute more policy that will mandate that these problems are solved at the board of appeals, but currently, this is code compliant, the departments support it. i live in the district and i have a j sticker and i support it. and so, in my opinion, i would deny the appeal on the grounds that it was properly issued. >> i support that. >> motion. >> that's your motion? >> so we have a motion from commissioner honda to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. on that motion?

(roll call). >> so that motion carries and the appeal is denied. >> we are now moving on to item number 9. this is special item. the consideration and possible adoption of a resolution encouraging the establishment of notice requirements to all tenants of residential building.

>> this is based on what we heard just now, which is the recognition, the tenants are in their own mini-neighborhoods and when major events like and adu addition to a apartment building is sought, that the tenants have the right to a notice and some conversation on the subject with the building owner. that's baste what this is all about. >> i'm really glad that you this on the agenda and brought this forward. i am very supportive of it and woidon't know, but i think we're suggesting both written notice

and a meeting, almost linin lika pre-op meeting but how we would require other construction activities for the project sponsor to have a meeting in person and make themselves available to those who are interested. so i don't know if we want to specify a written meeting. i'm not sure notice be given but i'm supportive of this. >> the only observation i would make is that i don't believe that any of the cases that have come before us have been actually on the merits of the permit. that they've all had to do with severing of tenants rights which arguably should not be in front of this board anyway.

i think an argument could be made that by encouraging this, we're going to encourage more appeals of the permits that will end up here that shouldn't be here. so i have a little hesitation about it and i just wanted to express that. >> officeof course, i would arge and sit, that in this case today, if in the adu legislation there was a requirement for notice and i like commissioner tanner's suggestion of a meeting, a tenant's meeting, then a lot of the plans could have been disclosed properly or fully, not properly, fully. questions could have been heard from the tenants and the clarity

of the project. what they're appealing doesn't get brought up in the board and it's -- like tonight, the appellant mense mentioned a boni

garden and leave the permit holder at a disadvantage at a hearing that was not expressed. we hear both sides. i don't want to create too much policy because too much is no good but when this is a perfect example that this guy did above and beyond, what was expected. he's a decent landlord. i don't know if he's a fantastic landlord. that there should be a requirement that, you know, because these services are very important to families and to people, their parking, their storage and their laundry. i'm a landlord and having laundry on premisses is just large and so you have people with families, people with long hours and you're disruptive of their life. i think the landlord has rights and that there should be sum soe requirement for disclosure. i don't agree there should be a

required meeting but at least a clear required liaison, whether the property manager or owner so there be a clear contact number that there can be open dialogue so the discussion, that they've had that discussion and it doesn't come out at this body because a lot of times we may continue it and you prolong the agony for everybody, right? so that's what my input would be. >> so can we ask questions? >> sure. we will have a public comment section. so mr. sanchez. you eluded to a practice of encouraging people seeking these permits to convey the information. could you talk more about that? >> so that began last year and it's implemented by the department of building

inspection on the screening forum. so what it says is that, if there -- it has language from the control about the loss of service and kind of what is required there and then, also, ask them to notice anyone in the building who may have services, potentially reduced from this. , from the project and so that is what has been implemented since last summer. and we did implement that retroactively, so permits that we had approved, like this one, i think was approved, i think we had the permits routed back to us and subjected them to the screening forum and having them do that notice. i think there's a question about the quality of that notice and, you know, my concern here was that they did the notice but would have been more help approximatelful hadthere been ar description of the work performed. ey