neighborhood notification that was the the moment when we meet our neighborhoods. the main concern was about the privacy. they told us that they like to do parties on their jacuzzi some kind of parties with the neighbors, and that would be affected some way if we do some kind of improvements to the property or we extend the property to the back. that was their main concern at the time. so we agreed that was still some kind of concern. maybe we can raise the retaining wall or the fence of the property. maybe that would address those concerns. and then they are also bringing like tenant issues here that we will here in the future. we have an agreement with our

tenant. we are going to fulfill whatever agreement we did with the tenant. we are not thinking of doing any unlawful things. i don't think there is a landlord-tenant situation. this is a situation where we want to work with the city to be granted permits to enhance the property. we have been following all the guidelines and all the rules and regulations. we know that we can have an access into the property. because all the homes in this district are available to add one extra dwelling to the property per ordinance 1917 and this puts san francisco in compliance with california's state law. so we made some changes on the plan. they addressed that we were

missing something on the lower level. we corrected that. we think that we are in compliance with all the rules and regulations to expand the property and make a good property. we even -- when we paint the property we tried to match to the opera house that is like two blocks away. you have pictures. i think the property looks beautiful now compared how it was before. we don't understand why all this opposition from the neighbors, when now probably the value of the properties has raised with this property looking better now and with less problems with the neighborhood because there is no people living on the street. there were two cars that were parked in front of the property. one was on the driveway and one was on the sidewalk. these two cars were parked there for more than one year.

this was not an issue for the neighbor at that time. why suddenly it is an issue right now that we are renovating the property? it's just because of privacy concerns i think. they are trying to bring a landlord-tenancy issue that doesn't exist. we are in a good situation with our tenant. we have done some agreements with them and we are going to fulfill those agreements. the present is that we are following guidelines and we are going through the guidelines and that's how we were granted a permit. i don't know why things that may have occurred on the future or not is a concern right now. >> are you done? >> i want to add just a few words. when we bought the property we found someone lived downstairses. it's an illegal unit and we went to the city and asked for guidance. the suggestion from the city was to legalize. you do your plan and submit it

and review. you become compliant with the code and legalize it. that's how you deal with tenants in an illegal unit. we didn't create this illegal unit. i talked to the tenant probably four weeks ago. she said that was created probably 15 years ago even before her mother bought the property. we didn't create the problem. we inherited it. my recommendation is we need to legalize it and that is exactly what we do. >> thank you. i got a question sir. we know that if you have an illegal unit the city requires you to legalize it unless it's physically impossible to do. so you're creating one a.d.u. and one living space above? >> downstairs. >> okay. and currently as your brief indicates that you inherited a

tenant. so you've been going through the rent board as far as the relocation goes? >> no we didn't. we never tried to move them out. there was a settlement. in the settlement we settle with the one on the first floor. at the time we asked the other side council, can we have the settlement include the tenant downstairs. the answer is no. the opposing counsel said he only represents first floor, not downstairses. so we never negotiate for them to move out. >> you've never asked them to move out? >> no never. >> so evidently the place is remodelled. so the top floor living level, is vacant now? >> the first floor is occupied. >> on the top floor is.

>> yes. >> that is relocated now. so you're going to relocate the tenant for the lower section and remodel that? >> only when we start the renovation on the downstairs then we will start to relocate them to other place. that was the plan. >> thank you. >> i have a few questions. there was an assertion that there was a studio drawing that the appellant presented as something that you had shown to the tenant. is that an accurate representation of what you showed to your current tenant in the downstairsed? >> the drawing we submitted to the city means it's part of the design the studio there is part of our plan. >> i guess what i understood whether this continued to produce accurate plans. is that an office -- >> and the planning department has plans for us. >> what i want to understand -- what troubles me the most of the assertions that you've made some of them i'm not as

concerned about, is this idea that you're untruthful in your representation of what you plan to do. it is an r-3 building but to submit plans for a two-bedroom/three-bathroom a.d.u. and that not be accurate to what you are trying to do is troubling to me. is that in fact what you did show to your tenant as a proposal for what you want to do. >> and it matched our plans. >> those new plans? >> we'll see those later, scott? i guess i'll just say truthfulness and honesty is the best way to come to this board. so any untruthfulness and dishonesty would not be looked favourably upon. the other renovations you have

permits on? >> yes. >> and as far as the excavation, did you do the soils report? how did you determine the amount of soil that would need to be excavated for the proposed renovation? >> although they're done by professional -- as well not a professional in excavation. so we hired a professional -- >> so an engineer provided that required cubic amount. >> the soil report structural report whatever report the city requires we do and that'sing the reason we got this drawing. >> structure drawings are not part of this permit. >> so you haven't been there. >> we don't have details of that construction yet. >> clerk: can you fill out speaker cards. >> whatever the city require us

to do we will do. >> clerk: your time has elapsed. >> i want to make sure you're clear now. your plan right now for the downstairs a.d.u. the plan is for it to be a studio or a two-bed, three-bath which is it? >> the plan we submitted to the city -- >> no my question is right now do you intend to make the a.d.u. a studio or a two-bedroom a.d.u., which one? >> it's a two-bedroom. part of it looked like the drawing. i don't call that as a studio. i call that as a master bedroom. >> that's a two-bedroom. that's a piece of the puzzle that wasn't part of the two-bedroom. >> scott, clear this up. >> would the board of appeals be interested in plans?

>> no not at all. >> i have many copies here. >> you come prepared. you must have been a boy scout. >> not at all. this permit was submitted last september. it also includes a horizontal rear addition. the property was an rh zoning district. this provision was actually in the appeal processes surrounding this and recently amended to give expedited appeal review as well as no rehearing request and also very strict standards and how it was under review. so actually for the person of this permit that provides the a.d.u. under section 207, the

planning department doesn't have the ability to deny that. if it meets all the requirements there is no discretion. they do have as part of the horizontal expansion, the expansion of the dwelling unit upstairs. that is something susceptible to discretion. the permit was noticed around section 311 for pretty much the month of january. their 30 days expired in early february 2019. there were no discretionary views filed. this was brought to our attention more recently by the appeal of this permit and appreciate the appellant's brief and showing there was an existing legal unit there. we did find given that is the case that needs to be shown on the plans and that wasn't. so we did have the permit holder submit resized plans. we received those last week.

they're also there before you in your hands. they were also submitted to the appellant. we reviewed these to be submitted with the planning code. they don't need to file under a planning provision. they can legalize with this. we are obligated to approve this permit if it meets the requirements of the planning code. they've gone through the a.d.u. process and there's been some issues raised about the existing tenant but that is a separate issue from our view of the a.d.u. i was concerned and confused when i saw the overhead of a studio unit and i appreciate the board for getting clarity on that. as i understand the appellant's argument and even what the permit-holder's initial response it sounded like a third a.d.u. unit. that would be a different case

here. what is before you on the plans shows two separate units, the a.d.u. under the state law on the ground floor and the existing unit on the second floor having been expanded. i did look at the permit history. there is an existing permit to make interior modifications to the upper unit that was issued that has not been completed. so i'm assuming this would tier off of that permit and they would have have an expanded unit that is in the process of being remodelled. in order to move forward the planning department requests that you grant the appeal and base it on the plans that show the unauthorized dwelling unit which the permit holder has shown on the plans and submitted to us the required affidavit stating that they have an unauthorized dwelling unit on the property. under the planning code of 317

they couldn't remove that unit. they would be very clearly required to legalize that. that is this permit. this permit corrects the violation. it complies with state law and local law and would respectfully request that the board grant the appeal and condition it on the revised plans. >> i credit all this to gold old ex-supervisor david chu. >> state law requires if it meets the requirements of the state law that we require that -- we can't say no to it. tus does it have the parking requirement? >> parking is no longer required anywhere in san francisco except for mortuaries. >> that's great. that answers that. as far as kind of understanding these plans are not stamped or

dated and i don't know if that's normal. >> we've seen this. when they come in for revisions they may have the same date as the original plans. we would ask the board to use the plans that have the date accepted. >> as far as the excavation it may be more of a question for the building. i think it does the second or third page. it would go on needing more reports. >> they were required and the licensed professionals are required to be truthful and honest and accurate in all of their findings. if that is not found to be the case there are additional requirements that are required. they are subject to all of the requirements, but i would refer

to the senior building inspector. >> last question. is this the permit that also by expanding the lower level expands the upper level. and is that included here or is that a separate permit? >> one permit would cover the expansion of both the ground floor and the upper floor. there was only one permit i could see which was as a remodel. >> thank you. >> are you serious, the only people requiring parking is a mortuary? >> and it was increased. >> oh my god they're dead. >> thank you. >> clerk: we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> the permit under appeal on the first and second level new high deck, new bath second

bedroom. two bedrooms three baths. it was reviewed by planning. this is a site permit building d.p.w. p.u.c., back to planning again and finally issued on the 20th of june and suspended on the 2nd of july. just hearing from the appellants. their concerns about the foundation the excavation are valid. we talk about them all the time. obviously this is a site permit. the excavation on this structural work is going to be shown on the addenda. the permit issuance would need to be on the permit lines. i can't tell how far they're going but if it does below the level of the bottom of the

neighbor's foundation they're going to have to bring that into consideration. it could mean underpinning or geotechnical report if it means the ground is solid enough. it does also carried under california civil code 832 where they have to notify the neighbor ten days prior to excavation to have their engineer look at it. both engineers can look at it or they can pop their engineer into the project who can talk to that or contact the department to deal with that. i'm actually dealing this week about cases that i dealt with months ago with the board of appeals. now they're starting work. we're dealing with the addenda and the neighbors' concerns about the depth of the excavation. that's all ahead of them.

as mr. sanchez said, we need to put our faith in the contractors. if they're going down below the neighbor's foundation, they better do it the best way. they better need exceed the foundation. there's a lot of steps that they have to take if this permit is approved and we look forward to them doing that. i'm available for questions. >> lucky it's not sacramento street. >> clerk: i have one question if you could explain for the appellant's knowledge. how would they be abreast of the plans? could they go down to d.b.i. and review the files? >> yeah they could do that. the department realizes that these excavations on property

lines, they're on that sort of subject, but it's okay for them to contact the plan checker and come down. i don't like to suggest that they need an engineer. the d.b.i. have engineers but if they feel they need some, they're welcome to hire their own engineer. during review they're allowed to ask questions. if someone's not getting back to them, they're allowed to voice their concerns. i did hear someone -- we know these things, the building code does provide for that and rightly so. if they've got any questions, reach out to d.b.i. and we'll do the best to answer them. >> clerk: thank you. >> given the fact that subject property is 1907 i mean what --

the foundation on that is is -- i mean -- >> yeah, it's coming out. there's a new foundation going in. >> in the past we've -- if there is underpinning we can have it marked so the permit holders feel comfortable. >> they talked about a lot of things but hear anything about their intent to handle it. it looks like they're going a little bit deeper than when they are at the minute. if the new foundation is coming out, it might get below. normally a contract would try to determine that before they start because it's not something you would want to be in the middle of. they probably know that already. >> is the current foundation on reinforced masonry?

>> there is no structural drawings but i think it is. >> thank you, joe. >> maybe i should address this to mr. sanchez, but i'll address it to you and you can pass it on to mr. sanchez and address it in rebuttal. but you said the whole 311 notice process has been disregarded and/or undermined by virtue of the fact that we just got plans today. they weren't even done in time for the briefs to be filed. so how could there be a satisfactory 311 notice process with discussion back and ping-ponging back and forth to arrive at a compromise or a consensus? i know mr. sanchez will address

this and the changes that are proposed may not fall under it. i'll let the planning department answer that. i'll let mr. shan ches answer that. >> i asked you so he could prepare for rebuttal. i really hate coincidences and one of the coincidences is on page a-1.0, which is the excavation accounts. isn't it a coincidence that these total 39 cubic yards that fall just under the level that would trigger a greater study? these are the coincidences that drive me nuts. okay. >> you and me both. >> is it true that this is our

last bite at the apple with regard to this appeal because when we approve or not this site permit or if we approve this site permit then the next phase is addendum and we don't get to see the addendum and we never -- it's out of our hands. is that correct? >> that is correct. i think the comment by mr. sanchez -- and you can of course ask them for anything -- the calculation of the excavation, showing how they arrived at 49 cubic yards. the 50 is obviously a planning department requirement. whatever they're kicking out from a structural and a d.b.i. point of view it's not really ours as opposed to the 50 kicks in some planning stuff. you're right, it could be the board's last -- unless we cause them to get a revision permit, then it would be appealable but

the addenda is not appealable. >> what also bugs me here is you popped right up and responded to commissioners' questions with regard to unreinforced masonry foundation. you were assuredly confident in your statement that it's probably going to result in a new foundation. so new foundations i don't think they're reflected in here. and therefore they couldn't be reflected in the investigation counts. a new foundation is going to mean more excavation. certainly that would lead to a common-sense assumption that it will be more than 49 cubic yards. the problem that i have with this is if the project sponsor is even close to being responsible as a developer and

responsible for understanding renovating a house in san francisco that's 1907, then very quickly they would make the same observations that you have made and that is that we're going to have to do a new foundation here and the excavations are going to be probably pretty severe and go beyond 49 feet. that's what's bothering me. what's your thoughts on the subject? >> without seeing the structural drawings i assume they are doing a new foundation. there are ways to keep the old foundation. my understanding is you're adding onto the building you're excavating below. it's an older foundation. whether the building code kicks in or not most people do it. it makes sense to do it. there are ways where you could keep the old foundation and they could take out a section

underneath the old foundation on very small sections and pour it. put this type of project here i assume it's going to be a new foundation. that's an assumption. the people who have the permit are the people to watch or ask. >> in the spirit of our concern that it might require a new foundation and in the spirit of our concern that it might go over 49 cubic feet can we condition approval of this permit on also including a study that would have been triggered by it being over 49 cubic feet? >> i think you can ask for anything you want, but i definitely want mr. sanchez to address that. he can prepare for that. it's a planning department requirement. 50 cubic yards means nothing to

me. mr. sanchez is the expert on that. just one thing on this building as well. i did check. there was a lot of complaints from the previous owners about maintenance issues. the guy in the van, i read about that and stuff like that. it looks like the new owners -- >> that's yesterday's news i think. >> yeah. >> i usually state that. >> thank you. >> clerk: is there any public comment on this item? how many people are here for public comment. okay. you can approach somebody, go up to the microphone. [ please stand by ]

revision looks like. in a two-bedroom unit. it was created into a two-bedroom unit. she's lived in a two-bedroom unit the entire time she's lived there. and the coincidences i'm talking about i've probably been in more homes in the bayview district than pretty much any other person in san francisco as a housing attorney serving the neighborhood i've never seen a third

bathroom in any house in the entire neighborhood. there are no three-bathroom houses in the bayview district. and certainly it doesn't make sense to have a three-bathroom and two-bedroom unit for this single mother and her young daughter. it doesn't make sense. which leaves the only logical conclusion in my mind that the property owner is intending to make this two short term rentals. the upstairs bedroom has been siphoned into units. the planning website reflects. the property owner told me this isn't planned but i have a hard time seeing any other possible reality that can occur here. no one believes in the maintaining the

affordable housing more than i do. but in this case this isn't the hypothetical. somebody is actually living there with her daughter. and this is potentially lowering her ability to live there in the same way that she's lived there for the past many years. finally i'm sorry. i lost my train of thought. the unit -- oh the lease that she signed at the request of the property owner was for a studio apartment which does not currently exist meaning the only possible outcome is they are planning to move her into a studio apartment. >> thank you. we have a question for you. do you have evidence that there is currently a short-term rental operation in the upper unit? >> apart from the fact that it's a bunch of students living up there.

>> evidence of the short-term rental would be evidence of it listing on air bnb or other sites. and you state your client signed a lease that is for a studio unit at the same address? >> that's correct. >> okay. and do you have the date of that lease that it was signed? >> i don't have a copy of the lease in front of me. >> june of last year. >> i'm sorry? can you speak into the microphone and identify yourself? >> my name is carhartt. my previous lease was for $700 and now it's $1,750. >> but for a lease that doesn't exist? >> it says it's for a studio but i'm occupying a two-bedroom. >> it's for your current residence? i just wanted to understand. it's for your current rental. >> i don't understand how my current space can be labeled as a studio, which is what

my lease says. >> unfortunately that's not a matter that could be for us but just to understand the totality of what's before us. is there any concern they have not offered to relocate you and have you move back into the unit? >> i've been told verbally i will be and i've been told it's in my lease but i'm not sure if it is. >> has your attorney looked at your lease? >> i've gone through several different people and he hasn't seen it. >> so you have a concern it's a verbal agreement but we don't know. okay. thank you very much. >> fill out a speaker card, please. who else is here for public comment? you can approach. >> good evening, everybody. i'm the neighbor. i'm on 1506 newcomb avenue. i speak to the integrity of the situation here right now. someone who moved here from a third world country, i believe in america we follow laws and rules. we operate a legal airbnb and pay taxes on it.

you asked a question on whether -- i'm sorry. >> can you see it? >> this is an add from craigs list where there are three people living in the apartment upstairs. we don't understand how they get an apartment signed signed off when none has been cleared. it's already been rented. it's a short term lease with three people living upstairs. i find it to be extremely disgusting where we follow the law and someone next door doesn't. we were told a family is going to be moving in. we find out there are more people abusing the system rather than contributing to it. this is all i have to say. i'm very angry about this. my neighbor amy is a righteous person talking about the foundation. we are also concerned about our foundation because if their house falls, we are next in line. i strongly urge the committee to please disregard

the permit at this point in time. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? we'll move onto rebuttal. public comment sir? okay. >> i live in 1544. i am the next door the next house from it. i'm concerned about my foundation too. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> fill out a speaker card, please. your name sir? can we get your name on a speaker card? thanks so much. is there any other public comment? okay. we are moving onto rebuttal. we'll hear from appellant. >> i have to go back to the comment made that the studio is a master bedroom. i can see plainly here the master bedroom. and here is the area that aligns with the studio. so i'm very confused by their argument stating that that studio

is the master bedroom because it clearly is not according to their own plans. secondly you were asking about the excavation calculations. and on page a1 i have here if you look at all the calculations come from the existing structure the addition would be over here as would the deck so their calculations don't include that at all. with regard to the cleaning up of the house and the man in the van and that dirty laundry, anybody who bought that house would have taken care of that, cleaned up the house. but they probably wouldn't have divided it up into separate rentals as these guys plan to do. and for the concerns about my parties which i find very odd and amusing, of a statement sure there's privacy concerns. but not nearly as concerning as things we discussed here today. so i encourage you to please look at the

full picture of the inconsistencies and the realities and take that into consideration. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holders. you have three minutes. >> first of all we don't do any short term rental. we have rental agreement to show it's not short term rental. you will not find our rental in any short term rental website so that's not true. never happened. again based on assumption, no truths. and it proves it's not short term rental it's long-term rental, first of all. second, i think there's a complaint saying the plan you have on hand was just submitted two days ago. so they had no time to review. i think you do review the plan we already submitted six months ago. and the plan we updated a few days ago there's

only one difference. that is the down stairs, according to claimant division we need to showdown is it fair to say. so we have not -- downstairs. we have not changed anything on the new plan we want to do. the plan has been there since day one. that means last year of this year. when we post it outside. and that has been there. so saying that the plan that you have on your hand is there for only two days is not correct. and that mrs. sanchez testified to that. okay. >> also we think that we are not here prepared to deal with the landlord tenant situation. maybe whenever we need to deal with that we will deal in the future. what we are going to do right now is go to our permit to renovate the

home. that's it. >> are you done sir? >> two questions for you. i don't know if you both want to stay and answer. the gentleman produced an ad i couldn't see where it was from but it was indicating it was a short term rental. the person at the bottom. >> 4b. >> the person at the bottom i'm not sure if the gentleman is listed as the holder of that permit, if that is one of you or a member of your party or organization. >> that's a previous description we were trying to rent. we erased the short term because we knew it was not appropriate. >> you erased that? >> yes erased that. currently we have leases that we can provide showing that we don't have short term rentals. >> the assertion from ms. carhartt she was offered a lease for a studio do you care to expound upon

that? you said the tenant landlord are not before the board but the integrity of the people before us, we have to understand the testimony you are giving is truthful so is it on accurate statement she's making that she has a lease for a studio apartment in her current apartment. >> we can check the lease agreement and get back to you on that. i think she doesn't remember the lease agreement. and we don't have the lease agreement with us. so i don't think we know what is in the lease agreement. >> can i answer the question? i think the problem here is, is that the description of what you're giving your current tenant and the description that is before this body and that was submitted to the building department it looks like there's monkey business here. it looks like you are going to split the bottom floor up. because if you had given her a lease that indicates that

you have a studio apartment that you are giving her and they evidently have a copy of what you showed them what it looks like. and here all five of us are looking at -- wait a second. all five of us are looking at this plan here. and even myself who does building and looking at this and why are there three bathrooms? so it looks like you are going to split this up. and again we are not trying to convict you over social media or anything. and we are not doing assumptions but this body is going to make sure that does not happen. >> we have no plan to do that. and i don't think the lease agreement says studio. >> okay. thank you. >> sir who lives upstairs? >> we have three tenants long-term lease. >> you have three different tenants upstairs? >> yes. >> and you rent it out to three bedrooms? >> yes. >> separately. >> separate. >> as long as there's not more than

five, it's not illegal. yeah. >> we've been trying to rent it to a family. but this san francisco, really anyone can afford it so that's the reason we rent it long-term lease. >> what's the total rent you're collecting for upstairs? >> i would say $4,000. >> $1,300 per room. >> i saw $1,500 in the exhibit. >> oh did you? okay. why does the excavation page include the addition? >> that i don't know. the reason i say i don't know is we are following the code required by planning. if they come back to say we need to have that without it, they won't give us a permit or approval then we'll go hire an engineer to do that. the engineer will generate documents and will submit to the department. >> this is a site permit. when the site when

after you get the site permit the next one comes with all the detail. >> all right. so we are following the procedure. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez. >> a follow-up to that one scott? >> any questions? >> i have two, which is. >> we'll try to go for my memory here. so regarding section 311 notification it is not required for adus approved under 207c6 so that change of scope, there's no reason that the correct plans couldn't or shouldn't have been submitted on day one. shouldn't have taken an appeal to get the permit holder to submit plans that reflect what's there. existing conditions means what is existing, not what you would like it to be. but so that is an issue. but

i think it's not defeating of this permit, because just the project, the scope there does not require a 311 neighborhood notification. regards to the excavation, and i agree, that the excavation should be shown for that portion at the rear. that said, even if it goes over 49 cubic yards, it's unlikely to have any serious impacts here, because it's not at a land -- the cubic yard threshold is for additional environmental review when certain things exist such as hazardous soil that you could be digging up, that you can be -- and this is not in that area, so it wouldn't trigger that review. it's not in a landslide zone or a lot that has more than 20 percent slope. so had they been -- i'm trying to be cute and do 49 when

there's actually more. i don't know -- it doesn't seem like doing 51 or 55 would have made a difference in the process. one comment generally is when you have a standard, people will build to the standard and that's why we get a lot of projects that come in. we have office cap allocations. and people come in at 24,999 square feet so they don't have to get an office allocation. people will build to the requirements to avoid what they think or maybe as additional process. also looking at the plan, there is not a substantial amount of excavation here. and the plans from what they do show which doesn't show the horizontal expansion at the rear it does seem to be accurate. i mean, you can look at the section on sheet a 3.0, you can see there's not really a significant amount of excavation. they are showing new foundation and flat. but it's not an extensive amount

of excavation given this is san francisco and we have hilly terrain and we have seen projects where you see the iceburg houses and they are excavating rooms and basketball courts under the houses. not significant excavation there. in regards to short term rental we don't have any active complaints on short term rental. but there is nothing against the law of having three people or five people living unrelated in the home. that's my time. if you have other questions i can answer them. >> sorry. on the subject given this is our last bite at the apple because once we -- if we were to approve this permit tonight, that's all, folks unless it was a major change in scope. given the fact that plans, the final plans whatever

that is, were presented to you only two days ago. >> i received them last week. they were given to the appellant last week, i think last wednesday. >> and were not given to us in time for this hearing as far as a brief. and given some of the concerns that have been raised here tonight what should this body be concerned with and what should we be questioning, given the inconsistency ies that have been observed here tonight, including, for example, three bathrooms, two bedrooms and three bathrooms that if a wall was put up would make a lovely separation into an additional unit? >> i would say in terms of plans or floor plans that are easily manipulated to add

additional units, this is not the most easily manipulated i would say. on the ground level, they would have to dissect that living space, separate the dining and living room, have on one side, an avenue door where the driveway is and then -- but that's not what's on the plans. the plans don't show that. so we have to go by what's on the plans not what may happen in the future. if they do that in the future if they add another unit if they do illegal work, there are remedies for that. we have to go by what's on the plans. has the permit holder helped themselves through this process by not accurately representing the plans from the beginning? no, they have not helped themselves. and just even hearing the interactions with the tenant, there's a reason that there's not trust here. we have permits all the time in san francisco. and there are varying levels of trust. it's based on the interactions that that happens.

we have to go with what's on the plans. and while someone may have exhibited behavior that's not the most trust worthy maybe they were honest errors, maybe they weren't but we have to go by what's on the plans. we can't make judgment calls on whether someone is a liar or that one day they are going to do a violation. we have to go by what's on the plans. dbi will ensure the plans. we'll get a complaint if a door pops up in the front. the separation of those the ground floor space, i think would be pretty apparent. there's no side yards here. so there's no independent access from the rear yard as i understand it so right now there's only one entrance on the front and that's in such a way that has access to both bedrooms why are there three bathrooms if there's no rule in the planning code says you can't have two bedrooms and three baths. is it standard?

more plumbing and more fixtures than usual. i mean, i would assume that is so they can probably rent out those bedrooms. but that could still be done in compliance with the planning code. >> so all that being said, do you advise us, if we were to move forward and approve this permit or uphold the appellant and approve the permit with conditions, are there any other than just approving the -- denying the appeal, are there any conditions that you might advise to rest the fears of the appellant in the moving forward of this development? >> i mean in terms of issues that were raised of the foundation i would defer to joe duffy in building inspection. but in terms of a lot of the issues i heard were concerned about this is a single family district and there shouldn't be

multiple units. the law allows that. so i don't know what condition we could do that would allay those concerns about too much density. i know this is a single family district an hr1 district but we have a housing crisis, and state law does allow for these accessory dwelling units and it does not have discretion there. the discretion would be including additional conditions that on the permit. so i don't see anything that needs to be done other than adopting the revised plans and if illegal work is done in the future, complaints are made, and they are brought to justice. >> right. and a notice of violation and here we are again. >> i hate to bring up this possibility but i just am wondering what you make of the rear room not being featured in the excavation plans, if that is because the professionals say they don't need it, but i imagine they do need to remove some soil to

create a foundation. do you feel these plans are accurate and complete or do they need further revision to show that on the excavation? >> it is shown on the section on sheet a3.0 a somewhat down-sloping lot. so in terms of whether or not there's excavation needed by that extension it may not be required. but if we are going to be after it and thorough here, i think it's very reasonable to have them submit a revised plan with that showing whether or not there's any excavation needed for that. and if it is, it goes over 49 cubic yards, we can have that discussion with our environmental review staff. on my initial review based on the records it wouldn't trigger additional review. >> on 3.0 it shows new concrete slab for the rear addition? >> correct. so there is work. but

whether that slab is on grade or whether there's excavation required, they are showing on their excavation counts, which is sheet a1.0, excavation of about .7. so about half a foot for most of that ground floor area where the existing illegal unit is. but, you know they're more thorough calculation there, we can review that and in the future make sure everything is properly shown on the plans. >> properly, properly. >> very proper. >> that's very proper. thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the department of building inspection. >> joe duffy, dbi. i think what's listed here is they didn't bring an engineer with them. if they would have brought their engineer,

we could have answered a lot of the questions. whether there is excavation. it's typical i see on these types that when you get up here to defend your permit if you have a design professional with you they're doing their best but they never addressed the concerns of three people got up for public comment and said they are worried about thundershower foundations. first down -- about their foundations. i'm not the one doing the foundation work. i know the code well our building inspector well and if they say there's something going on with the property, they are welcome to call our department but the appellants, the permit holders, it's a typical project. it will get done. there is a way to do it. but they do need to do better at alleviating the neighbors' concerns on the foundation. there is a new days

ago on a new slab looking at the drawings. we don't have details of that because they are in the addenda. you could ask for a letter from the engineer on the sequence and operation of how they are going to excavate next to the neighbors and what that entails and that's pretty typical as well. it's a flat lot and they're not going that deep we don't usually ask for a report but certainly from a structural engineer as to how they are going to do that project is something that's not unreasonable to ask for. how you ask for that is up to yourselves. but as i say it would put everybody's mind at ease, including mine. >> so that would be your recommended condition if there would be a condition? >> yeah. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> i'll start. so as in the prior case with the cellular mobile tower, what is before us is a project. and our job is to determine

whether this project was approved correctly from the building department. now granted, there is some other minutia here things here but that is not before us. if a wall goes up that is not supposed to be there you call 311. during that period, although the permit is not appealable, you can ask this body to take jurisdiction. the warning has been given to the developers already that they need to follow the line. but as far as what was -- what was on the plans and the permit that they have requested i don't see a problem with it. i would on a suggestion of the department grant the appeal and condition it that, one the sequence and detail of the foundation be given. and, you

know you as developers you have neighbors here that are not so happy that you should probably work with them. they are concerned about the foundation of their homes. but considering that this is a 1907 home with probably a brick foundation by them doing their foundation, it is actually improving and helping your neighboring properties, to be honest. and, you know, if there is some underpinning, make sure that they are marked in sequence and you as property owners next door have the ability to contact or get your own engineer or geo to make sure that is followed. and it is going to be inspected by the departments here. >> so is that your motion?. >> sure. >> for clarity, where would you want that letter to be submitted? part of the plan? >> part of the plan and also we have to actually condition that. >> adopt the revised plan submitted

today? >> correct. >> and then so on that plan today would be the letter from the permit holder's engineer. >> yes going forward. because that way -- the reason for it is it -- because their plans were submitted in the way they were and there's some question here that it would help the neighbors feel better about the construction. >> almost getting up. would you like to take my motion? help us along with -- thank you. >> yes. it's a sequence in operation for the excavation of the installation of the new foundation. >> isn't that what he said? >> said something else. >> can you say that one more time. >> sequence of operation for the excavation and new foundation work. >> thank you. >> basically it's like looking at a set of directions on how to aassemble something. it's basically number one number two, number

three this is how you are going to do it. >> thank you. >> commissioner honda, on what basis would you be making this motion? >> the project is code compliant. >> it is code compliant. >> information to the tenants. >> yes. >> regarding the excavation. we have a motion from. >> any other commissioner comments? moving forward? okay. thanks. >> we have a motion from commissioner honda to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition it be revised to require the adoption of the plans submitted at the hearing today and on the condition that the plan set contain a letter from the permit holder's engineer which provides the sequence in operation for the excavation and new foundation work on the plan set. and that letter also be provided to the appellants. on the basis that the project is code compliant and the letter will allay the concerns of

the tenants and neighbors hopefully. so on that motion commissioner santacana. >> aye. >> vice president. >> that motion carries 5-0. and i will -- so we have -- there is no rehearing period for this. so i will contact the permit holder tomorrow regarding sending information on the decision as well as instructions on how to submit revised plans for special conditions permit. thank you. will you get a copy? >> the new plan, new foundation plan. >> that's not what they are submitted at this point. they are going to be the revised plans that were submitted this evening are adopted and that will include a letter from the engineer. so we will be sending that out once we get the letter from the engineer on the plan set. >> got it. thank you so much. >> thank you. >>