time, we will move on to the planning department. we will hear from mr. sanchez. >> thank you. the subject property at 1364 17 avenue is located in an rh-2 zoning district. it is a single-family dwelling. there is a history of complaints on the property, both planning and building related, some for short-term rental use or illegal ground floor units. i think some of those go back to 2011 or 2012. i think the main issue is the third floor and whether that accounts for dwelling units. if so, it would require a legalization. based upon the staff site visit and the plans, it was determined by the zoning administrator that there was no dwelling unit on

the third floor primarily because of the fact that you had to walk through the lower floor unit to get to the third floor unit. there is no access to that unit. in regards to other issues raised by the appellant, i think those are primarily rent board issues for the rent board to properly adjudicate. one thing i will notice, maybe perhaps the appellant will enlighten us and maybe i missed this earlier. in the photos that are in the appellant's brief, it showed the hood above that kitchen nook area where the wet bar is. it's my understanding from staff that when they did a site visit in december, that hood was not there. perhaps the board might be interested in finding out who removed that vent hood, but that

was not there when staff visited the site. i don't know the dates of their photo, but my assumption is that it was proved prior to our staff visit. it wouldn't make a difference on whether it's an unauthorized dwelling unit because that see relying on the access. our determination is also based on what staff observed. i don't know what other changes may have been made that would perhaps be trying to make it look less like an unauthorized dwelling unit. that's one of my concerns, whether they were actually taken by any party to make it look or function differently. based on staff's investigations, we found it not to be. this is a de novo hearing and

the board will be the final entity to make a decision on the part of the city. i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> we have a question. i'm not sure who raised their hand first. how about we hear from president lazarus, vice president honda, commissioner swig. >> thank you. mr. sanchez, the permit in front of us is to remove the wet bar because when planning inspected, it was determined that that was illegal and needed to be removed. is that kind of the essence of what this is about, at least at the moment? >> yes. i mean, there are several issues with the property. they have the illegal unit on the ground floor which they have submitted a permit to legalize under the city's legalization program. but the permit that is before you is to remove that wet bar which there is no permit for.

so it is not legal and reviewing the layout and one of the concerns to have them remove this is because it does facilitate a potential illegal unit there. the room's matrix does not necessarily specifically apply in this case because it does apply on the ground floors, but it does inform policy decisions elsewhere. that led the staff to require that the wet barb -- bar be removed. >> [speaking former language] .

>> thank you. we now have a question from vice president honda. >> yes, question, mr. sanchez. hi, milo. the question is during the inspection the appellant had mentioned that some doors were removed. granted from just what we see on the floor plan or the footprint, there is only one door to the outside. but if there was a door accessing the upstairs and a door accessing the middle floor space, would that then create a potential for an a.d.u.? >> the issue -- >> can ms. mah interpret that first, please. >> [speaking foreign language].

>> thank you, ms. mah, for all your hard work. >> no worries. >> mr. sanchez. >> maybe could you repeat that. >> what was mentioned earlier is there was no way -- my question is determining what can be an a.d.u. and not, one. the appellant said there were doors between her space and another and there was space to

go into a separate unit. >> the difference is between an u.d.u. and an a.d.u. an u.d.u. is an unauthorized dwelling unit. if that was found, then they're required to obtain a conditional authorization if they are going to remove it as they want to legalize it. the staff found on the existing dwelling conditions that it was not an u.d.u. it's possible that tenures could have been configured in a way that that becomes a common area and entry and you have one unit below and above. the situation staff found is

that you have to walk through the stairs. but because that lower area is open, would it be possible for this to be configured, maybe, but staff did not observe that. >> i know this is considered to be an r 3. would this possibly be a two-unit building? >> can we let ms. mah interpret.

>> [speaking foreign language]. >> in regards to r3, that is a building code classification and the chief building inspector can correct me, but it is for a one and two-unit building. that does cause confusion. that is separate from a planning code and classification. in this case, it is an rh 2 which allows for up to two dwelling units. in this case, were they to -- i think potentially there could be a path forward for them to legalize a unit on the property and have a total of three. one could be an a.d.u. one could be a legalization.

it hasn't been applied for and we haven't seen if that is possible. if something is determined to be a u.d.u., they are required to obtain the c.u. to remove it only if there is no path to legalize the unit. it's a potential here that if something hasn't been investigated, that if it were to be determined it were a u.d.u., there would be no path to legalize it. that hasn't been determined at this point. >> there is a potentially a path at this point, but it has not been exercised. >> correct. that has not been researched. >> thank you. >> okay. ms. mah, did you want to provide a brief summary. >> [speaking foreign language].

thank you. >> we now have a question from commissioner swig. >> i'm going to be semi-redundant, but i need some clarification. sco scott, it's been represented that there was a door, there was a door at the entry to the second floor unit and there was

the assumption on behalf of both the second floor occupant and the third floor occupant that that was the mutual entry to their second apartments. is that what you have heard from testimony? >> it's still a little bit unclear to me exactly where the door may have been. i understood it may have been at the top of the stairs on the third floor and that the second floor was still open because we had walked through that entry and get access to the kitchen and the floor is in that area. >> we can get clarification on that, since we're both -- that's what follow up to this commentary is all about. let us say that there was a door that was assumed to be an entry

door that was shared as an entrance to both the exclusive use of a second floor apartment and a third floor apartment and it was presented differently during a tour for planning and that they were both separate apartments, would it then be the case, hearing this from your commentary, that the second floor apartment would be viewed as a legal unit and the third floor apartment would be viewed as potentially as a u.d.u.? and that that wouldn't help.

>> if ms. mah could interpret. >> [speaking foreign language].

>> the determination of an u.d.u. is based on whether you walk through a separate unit. the access is showing that this independent access like this and the information that we received from the appellant has not been able to define or to confirm that it is an unauthorized dwelling unit. that is based on the information we have and it's now the de novo hearing and up to the board to make the decision based on the facts before you and you do have the additional information we

had at the time of the permit review whether there is an unauthorized dwelling unit. that's a difficult question. >> would your answer be the same, discovering there was one door that led to the alleged independent dwelling unit on the second and third floor? >> what we found is there is one door and you walk up to the second or third floor. you only get up to the third floor unit by going through the second floor area. so there was no independent

access. >> ms. mah, can you interpret, please. >> [speaking foreign language].

thank you. >> thank you. so i don't see any more questions. thank you, mr. sanchez. so we will now move on to the department of inspections. mr. duffy. >> [indiscernible] -- on the building on the 22nd of december. it was suspended on the 23rd of december and suspended on the 24th of december. these are difficult ones, as you know, because obviously someone is renting the top floor of this building and there's obviously

been modifications made to that top floor. there is a bathroom and a kitchen combined, which personally i have never seen in all my years. i have seen a lot of strange things. having a bathroom and a kitchen is unusual. but in these times we are seeing a lot of things [indiscernible] to provide housing. i think this one is separate tenants in each bedroom. from the legal standpoint of the building from the [indiscernible] -- most of the permits are single family. i do agree with mr. sanchez with

the single-family dwelling, that the permit that was referenced [indiscernible] -- unfortunately, that permit did get issued as a single-family. that would normally not be issued that way. i do know there is a permit in to convert the top floor now. the bid, i was looking at the lease, it seemed to be rented. the land [indiscernible] -- in

the lease, but obviously now it was never a legal unit. stuck with that situation. [indiscernible] under a building code. there is a classification for that. it's currently an r-3 occupancy. to make it a three-unit building, it would be an r-2 occupancy. a lot of people get that mixed up with the planning classifications. [indiscernible] -- the opposite of that. we've got [indiscernible] -- and stuff like that. it is quite a model and i'm available for any questions if anyone has any.

>> [indiscernible] -- interpretation from ms. mah and then we'll hear from vice president honda. >> [speaking foreign language].

thank you. >> okay. thank you. so, vice president honda. >> a question to senior

inspector duffy. often before this board we hear builders who get ahead of themselves in regards to permits. this is clearly not the case. the downstairs and the kitchen on the third floor were constructed to avoid the permit process and this has been multiple years. was there a violation on the property and has there been a penalty or what's the penalty involved here? >> that's a very good question. >> i would like interpretation from ms. mah.

>> [speaking foreign language]. >> [indiscernible] -- single family dwelling unit being used,

we would need to see that top floor. it's the kitchen part of it, the stove, and what would be written as a violation. we would usually write that as a family dwelling in all likeliho likelihood. [indiscernible] -- especially on the ground floor. the top floor, i don't know [indiscernible] -- >> [indiscernible] -- >> i should have said mr. sanchez mentioned that briefly on his description of the u.d.u. they have to go through a process of the planning department and a check list. >> thank you, superior inspector duffy. a lot of this is not

unfortunately before us. this is going to be something unfortunately for the rent board to handle. the fact that mr. omar masery, who does the short-term rentals was involved, that they have violated multiple permits. so i would like to see that to be honest a pound of flesh be instituted. thank you. >> ms. mah, a brief summary, please. >> [speaking foreign language].

>> now we're moving on to public comment for this item. are there any callers here for public comment? if so, please press star 9. we're going to give you extra time if you called in to provide public comment. star 9. i'm not seeing anyone raise

their hand. let's do a check. i don't believe there's any public comment. let's move on to rebuttal. mrs. decararava, you have three minutes. let me make sure that -- okay. can you -- ms. decararava, can you speak, please. >> yes. >> thank you. >> i've heard the comments of the parties and i appreciate the information. when i saw this unit, it was a separate unit with a front key-locking door to the second unit with direct access to the street. i'll appreciate the attention to the fact that the interior door, which was the entrance door to the second floor apartment, is the fixture that is missing in

this equation. i just also would like to provide further clarification that at no time is it necessary to go through the second floor apartment to reach my apartment. there is direct access from the exterior front door of the building into a common vestibule to go up the stairs to the third floor. if you go to the right of the vestibule, there was a locking apartment there. the second floor apartment started after the vestibule. it was second. i just wanted to provide that clarification. [please stand by] anders.

gerald. jero >> -- and remove my unit from the description of the

property, and also had denied my tenancy. >> clerk: okay. are you finished? >> for now, yes. >> clerk: okay. well, this is your time, so do you want to take it? >> you have 20 seconds left. >> no, that's it for now. thank you. >> clerk: so we'll have a brief summary of her interpretation, and then, vice president honda has a question. [speaking chinese language]

>>interpreter: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we'll now hear from vice president honda -- oh, wait. you're on mute. we can't hear you. okay. i took you off. one moment. okay. >> vice president honda: okay. question to the appellant. okay. it's been said several times earlier it was kind of our understanding that you were the

person that complained about your unit, but you just, you know, clearly stated that you were not the person that turned this unit in. is that correct? >> clerk: okay. quick interpretation, and then, we'll have the appellant answer. [speaking chinese language] >>interpreter: okay. >> clerk: okay. miss decarava, we'll hear from you now. >> yes, that's correct, i never made a complaint about the unit. i contacted the planning department at one point when i realized that the owner was listing or had entered into a permit or the ground floor legalization plan and was leasing the property as a

single-family home, and in that permit application didn't identify the existence of my unit or my tenancy, said that the building was vacant. and so i contacted the planning department just to find greater clarification about what this project was on the ground floor, and, also, to identify that my unit does exist and my tenancy does exist. i never made any complaint. i did contact the planning department to get further clarification, but never to complain about the unit. >> vice president honda: and so second question -- sorry to interrupt -- is that did you ever have an issue or complaint with the short-term rental that was being done down stairs? >> clerk: okay. quick interpretation, and then -- [speaking chinese language]

>>interpreter: thank you. >> clerk: okay. anything further? >> am i to answer that? >> vice president honda: yeah, to answer the question, yeah. >> okay. well, the airbnb rental, my lease agreement was with the landlord, and as part of the requirements of the agreement, she agreed that she would only rent to other cotenants on the

third floor that were agreeing to a one-year lease. so when she began to use airbnb to fill the vacancies in my third-floor unit, i did complain to her, and then, i did at some point complain to the planning department. b i was only concerned to people coming into my apartment, using things, doing things randomly, very strange behaviors, and to be honest, i felt harassed and threatened by just her -- her not following the lease agreement. >> vice president honda: okay. thank you. >> yeah. >> clerk: thank you. can we have a quick

interpretation, please? >>interpreter: yeah. [speaking chinese language] interpret it we

>>interpreter: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. okay. we will now hear from mr. patterson. >> no, no, no, no. you left me out. >> clerk: my apologies. >> commissioner swig: it's very difficult, julie. i appreciate you keeping us all organized in this very difficult format. speaking of organized, i am very disorganized when it comes to doors. can you please tell me the location -- when you moved in in 2014, where was the location of your exclusive entry and private entry into your unit? >> when i moved in in 2014, there were three other cotenants sharing the third floor apartment with me, and part of our lease agreement was that we shared the unit. we each had a private exclusive

bedroom, and we shared the kitchen, bathroom, the common areas, and then additionally, i had exclusive access to the third floor balcony and access to the third floor staircase leading down to the gardens. so it was arranged to be a shared unit. each cotenant was coequal in terms of access to the common areas -- the kitchen, the bathrooms, etc. that is the way it was designed, and at that time, it was very important to me to make clear that i did not -- i felt very uncomfortable with other people outside of those cotenants having access to the apartment, so i specifically requested in oral terms that we would rent at the exclusion of others or i would rent at the

exclusion of others, including the landlord, but allowing the cotenants, of course, absaid -- shared access to the unit. >> commissioner swig: where is. thank you for that. that was even more enlightening, and i wish i would have heard that earlier, but that was not my question. where is the door that provided exclusive, secure, and independent access to that third floor unit, be it cotenanted or not? >> clerk: miss mau, if you could interpret, please. [speaking chinese language]

>>interpreter: thank you. >> clerk: okay. >> i'm sorry? >> clerk: please go ahead. thank you. >> the door for the portion of the apartment that was exclusive only to myself is the door to my private bedroom, which is exclusive to only myself. however, the door to where i guess you could say the entryway to the apartment that was allowing cotenants as well as myself would be at the top

of the stairs going upstairs into the third floor. essentially, the markation of the third floor at the top of the stairs was considered the entranceway to the separate third floor apartment. >> commissioner swig: okay. and there -- and there secondly was another door which was locked and exclusive -- and provided exclusive access and privacy to the second floor apartments? >> that's correct. >> commissioner swig: okay. so there are two doors. one provide exclusive access and privacy to the second floor, and a second door at the top of the third floor stairs that provided exclusive access and privacy to the third floor. >> well no, that's not correct. i'm sorry. just to walk back a little bit, so there is no actual physical door that marked -- marked the

entrance to the third floor apartment. it was always an entranceway at the top of the stairs to the third floor apartment. and then within the you entered the third floor apartment, you have access, you know, to your own private bedroom, which is exclusive, but also the shared common area of the kitchen, the bathrooms, the hallway, you know, etc. there is no, like, physical third floor door in the entranceway. and what separated the second floor from the third floor is the second floor apartment was discreet within the wall of the second floor so that there was an entrance vestibule that you entered into, and you can choose to go directly into the second floor apartment through

a private front locking key door to the second floor apartment, or you can go in through the entranceway to the third floor apartment. the two had no spatial visual connection. >> commissioner swig: okay. thank you. you want to translate, and then, i have one very short question afterward. >>interpreter: thank you. [speaking chinese language]

>>interpreter: thank you. >> commissioner swig: so one final short question. i was doing some math. so, in fact, in 2014, there was an apartment on the first floor, an illegal unit housing somebody, a unit on the second floor housing somebody, and then three more separate rentals going on on the third floor, for a total of five separate rentals in that house at one time in 2014. and then, subsequently, three

permanent rentals and two airbnb opportunities. is that -- is my math correct? >> the math is close. each -- each tenant in the building had a separate lease with the owner, so -- so even though the first floor apartment was my apartment, a shared apartment, there were three tenants in the first floor, ground floor unit, which had a separate lease with the landlord. so that would be three, plus one tenant on the second floor separate apartment, and then, there were four tenants on the third floor separate apartment. >> commissioner swig: so it was like a dormitory, illegal

dormitory. >> not really, because the cotenants chose to live together. i don't know that i would say that's the case in dormitorys, but i would say i chose to live here with cotenants because i can't afford to live by myself. i signed the lease to live with others. >> commissioner swig: okay. thanks. >> clerk: okay. a brief interpretation, and then, we're going to move on. [speaking chinese language]

>>interpreter: thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you, now mr. -- we're onto rebuttal for mr. patterson. let's get you on spotlight, mr. patterson. okay. one moment. okay. please go ahead. >> okay. thank you, and thank you to the interpreter, miss mah. really appreciate it. >>interpreter: you're welcome. >> so the question that commissioner swig raised about the door configuration is a

very important issue, and i think it's being perhaps intentionally obscured here. so let's look at the building plans and try to clarify. i'm going to share my screen -- all right. so are you able to see this cursor moving? >> clerk: yes. >> okay. that's where the door was. that's on the second floor. so you walk in through the first floor. so i'd say this is the person walking in. you walk in through the first floor front door, and there is a door at the second unit. you walk in, you turn, there's no door here. you go immediately upstairs, and you're in the third floor. that means if you're in the second floor, and you want to go outside, you're crossing

through an open space with the third floor. you could just as easily turn and go upstairs. you're in that space. so while it's honestly perplexing that this door is removed, we did talk to the planning department about it. they're aware of it, and i'm sure the appellant notified of that, so this was not a mystery to planning when they made the decisions. there simply is not independent access or administration there. if someone on the second floor wanted to go out, they're in the third floor space. there is no separate access. if there had been a door at the top of the stairs, well, that might be a different situation, but that's not the situation that we have.

why that owner took that door off, i have no idea, but she was immediately responsive to things going on. she immediately addressed these complaints, including the airbnb complaint. that's used for long-term tenants. the other tale is a u.d.u. only has to be utilized if it's a u.d.u. so the speculation that it could be reconfigured as a u.d.u. is not relevant to the actual question if it is actually a u.d.u. the lack of independent access, the third floor has no door, and that means it's not a u.d.u. never was, and cannot be, so there can be no requirement about the preserve because it does not exist. >> clerk: thank you. thank you, mr. patterson. your time is up, so we'll have a brief interpretation, and

then, we have a question from vice president honda. [speaking chinese language]

>>interpreter: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. vice president honda? >> vice president honda: mr. patterson, so you mentioned that the airbnb was long-term, so there was no short-term rental because i believe that senior inspector duffy mentioned that there was some kind of violations that mr. massery had brought up. >> the airbnb use, when it came up, was corrected, and at this point, they're only long-term tenants. >> vice president honda: so when you say corrected, that means there are prior abuse or prior? >> i would ask miss lee to clarify exactly what was done.

that's outside the scope of this issue, so i'm not as familiar with that. >> vice president honda: well, i know that we're way off base, and i'm surprised that my president hasn't wrangled us back in, so since you brought it up, i just wanted to know. no worries. i'll just ask that question later. no need. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we're just going to move onto mr. sanchez. >> hello. scott sanchez, planning department. so just a couple of facts. from my understanding, there was, you know, very certainly a violation with regards to the short-term rentals. i think staff identified more than a half dozen listings. staff noted in their work that the listings were subsequently changed to 30-day rentals. there certainly is a very clear pattern of abuse on the property, from a ground floor

illegal unit to this dwelling unit on the third floor to the fact that this hood was removed. maybe the appellant can provide a response as to when that was done because that was not done when our staff visited the site. our staff also did not observe any evidence of a door at that lower kind of second floor vest -- vestibule because mr. patterson said quite frequently it did exist. i'm in frequent communication with my staff, and they indicated no such thing, that they were told by mr. patterson or the property owner that that had existed, and that was removed. i don't know that that would make a difference in our determination as to the authorized dwelling unit, but given the kind of moving pieces even as we speak to the hearing and the facts that are being presented, i mean, i'm feeling

less confident in that determination, and it's my understanding that the zoning administrator didn't have the knowledge of that lower door when they made the determination about the unauthorized dwelling unit. so considering those facts, i might suggest to the board of appeals that this item be continued so we can research this and get facts straight and consistent and have the matter reviewed by the zoning administrator for a decision on the unauthorized dwelling unit. this is a serious matter when we're dealing with someone's housing, and i am losing confidence in our position as the appellant -- i'm sorry, as the permit holder is speaking. so kind of with that, and i respectfully suggest that of the board so we can be more

autho autho authoritative and concerned, but i feel we need to make this request now. >> clerk: we have a couple questions. let's have a brief interpretation, and then, vice president honda and commissioner santacana have some questions. >>interpreter: the interpret he we were -- interpreter needs to clarify some things about the question. mr. sanchez, you said you need to postpone the hearing today, when you say you need to do more research and be more confident, is that what you're saying? >> that is correct. >>interpreter: okay. thank you. [speaking chinese language]

>> clerk: thank you. vice president honda? >> vice president honda: thank you. just a quick question. so glad to hear that you're -- your recommendations, mr. sanchez, is to continue, because i've got more questions and more concerns. one question. if we did not continue, and we asked that the permit holder

exhausted all her ways to way to legalize, can you give me an idea of what that process would look like? >> i mean, i think the process would then be that they would need to submit a permit to legalize the third floor as a separate dwelling unit, and in terms of the length of that process, given the current conditions, you know, i think it might take several months. we'd have to ha we had -- we have staff that are dedicated and prioritized to this. i know that applications in the last few months have been moving more rapidly, but given the recent conditions and the fact that permits can be filed on-line, it may take a couple of months for final -- hopefully, we can come into a determination as to whether

it's even possible much sooner than that, but we would need to, i think, have a few months to make that decision. >> vice president honda: thank you, mr. sanchez. this is probably going to have extra scrutiny and additional process any way, just going forward from what your recommendations are, but thank you for clarifying that. >> clerk: okay. brief interpretation, and then, we'll hear from commissioner santacana. [speaking chinese language]

>>interpreter: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. commissioner santacana? >> mr. sanchez, my question is with respect to the continuance that you're proposing, i'm curious what specifically the facts are that would alter your view of -- of this case? what facts on the ground do you think were different than you thought they were that would change your view? >> clerk: brief interpretation and -- [speaking chinese language] >>interpreter: thank you. >> thank you, commissioner santacana. so i'd like to get confirmation as to the doorway location. previous to tonight, it was our

understanding that there was no door kind door, kind of once you entered that second floor, that kind of separated out that space. i would just want to make sure that fact was made apparent to the zoning administrator. i can confirm that with both parties, which i can have our staff do. it seems that that is the understanding now. i'd like to get that confirmed in writing from both parties, get the zoning administrator to review that site plan, the floor plans, and make a determination as to whether that would constitute access that would make it an unauthorized dwelling unit. it may not change that because of the fact that there -- and it seems that there is agreement, as well, that there is no separate door that separates out the common areas of the third-floor space, but, you know, i just want to make

sure that the zoning administrator has all these facts when making this very important decision. >> and so it could change it, depending on what you discover. yeah, you want to learn it, but ultimately, you're going to do the same thing. >> we may do the same thing, but the facts have not been presented to the zoning administrator for him to make a decision. these are all new facts, and there -- we want to be consistent in how we treat this and other -- similar other projects, and so we want to have a discussion based upon the project and these facts and that we're treating it consistent with other projects. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. brief interpretation, and then, we'll hear from commissioner swig. [speaking chinese language]

interpret it we >>interpreter: thank you. >> clerk: thank you very much. commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: mr. sanchez, what we've moved from is a very basic and simple illegal sink to something that may be a lot more serious because of some new information. is that basically it? >> yeah. we made a decision based upon the information that we thought to be correct that there's new information, and i want to make sure that the zoning administrator has the opportunity to do that so we can definitively stand behind our decision. >> commissioner swig: so it's your recommendation that we should postpone a decision on this tonight? >> yes. i don't think it needs to be a long continuance, to the board's next hearing. i don't think it'll take us

that long to bring this before the zoning administrator for review. >> commissioner swig: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. brief interpretation, and then, we are going to hear from the department of building inspect. you cannot speak until there is a question posed to you. [speaking chinese language] >>interpreter: thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. okay.

mr. duffy? >> not that much to add. i just was looking up some of the records from before, and we actually do have a notice of violation back in 2002 for a deck that got enlarged at the rear, as well, and that ended up going through a permit, and they ended up getting it legalized, but that's it. i don't have anything else to add to the hearing tonight, and i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. brief interpretation? [speaking chinese language] >>interpreter: thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. so commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioner swig: so i'd like to make a motion for a continuance at the advice of mr. sanchez for the -- for the

reasons that he eloquently stated. i'd also ask that you have a post conversation with the appellant as to what status that places her in if we do have a continuance so she's comfortable. >> clerk: okay. >> commissioner swig: with the status. thank you. >> clerk: okay. vice president honda? >> vice president honda: i would agree with the continuance. i mean, that's what i had mentioned earlier in regards to the doors. and given the gravity of someone losing affordable housing, i know we went way off track, and i'm sorry this took so long for everyone listening in, but this is an important matter, and the fact that the landlord or property owner was sophisticated enough to buy

property, to alter the property, to draft leases, as well as to navigate the airbnb platform and circumvent that, i think this needs a stronger look at. >> clerk: okay. president lazarus? >> president lazarus: i just wanted to ask what it looked like for forward calendar. mr. sanchez had indicated that it may not take longer than that. >> clerk: well, on may 27, we have six new appeals and one case, and four of those are tree appeals that bring out a lot of public comment. so i would recommend june 3. >> vice president honda: do we have all commissioners present

as that hearing because you do know my present situation, right, director? >> clerk: yes, we will have all commissioners on june 3. >> vice president honda: thank you. >> vice president honda: so are we having a motion from commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: yes. >> clerk: okay. >> commissioner swig: that motion would be a recommendation for a continuance to june 3 at the recommendation of mr. sanchez. >> clerk: okay. >> vice president honda: on the basis that it would clarify the additional unit and the door, right? >> commissioner swig: yes. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from commissioner swig to continue this item to june 3 so they can clarify the issue with respect to the door. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 4-0. thank you, everyone, for your patience.

president lazarus? >> president lazarus: i'm going to recommend that we take a ten-minute recess. >> clerk: okay. and for the parties who have been waiting, thank you so much for your patience. >> vice president honda: and to the interpreter, thank you. >>interpreter: for the interpreter, can i interpret the decision to the client, please? >> clerk: yeah, sure. go ahead. [speaking chinese language] >>interpreter: thank you very much. >> clerk: okay. one moment. president lazarus? >> president lazarus: i was just going to say, i don't know if it's myriad in having the planning department share its

findings prior to the next hearing? you were asking about additional briefing. >> clerk: mr. sanchez, would you be prepared to submit your findings in advance of the hearing so -- >> certainly we could. i think it's going to be, you know, pretty straightforward and we could deliver them orally. it's just a collection of whether we're maintaining the determination that it is an unauthorized dwelling unit -- or whether it is an authorized dwelling unit or whether it is. so we could submit something in writing before. it would be quite easy for us to prepare and submit it or just present it orally at the hearing. >> president lazarus: i mean, i'm comfortable with that, if that is acceptable to everybody else. >> commissioner swig: that's fine with me. >> clerk: so you want to have him present it before the hearing, at the hearing, or either? >> president lazarus: at the

hearing it fine. >> clerk: okay. so there's no additional briefing. we'll just have mr. sanchez submit before. he can present it during. but there'll be no additional comment, as well. >>interpreter: can i relay the statement? >> clerk: yes. [speaking chinese language] >>interpreter: thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you very much to the interpreter. you definitely earned your money tonight. >>interpreter: is there anything else for me tonight? >> clerk: no. the interpreter is dismissed. >>interpreter: then i am going to disconnect >> clerk: we are now on item number 7. this is appeal 20-022, mercy

housing california versus san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry, subject property, 833 bryant street. denial of a request to remove four red maple street trees with replacement because the trees are healthy and sustainable. this is order 722761, and we shall hear from the appellant first. >> julie, commissioner santacana disconnected and he was trying to rejoin the meeting. i believe he's back on. >> clerk: okay. commissioner santacana, are you here? let's give it a minute. i don't see him. yes. commissioner santacana? i see his name. he is present.

>> operator: yeah. >> clerk: but let me make sure. >> operator: i just admitted him into the meeting. >> clerk: so maybe it takes a minute. commissioner santacana, can you hear me? >> commissioner santacana: yeah. i had a program crash, but i'm here. >> okay. so we'll hear from miss sona reddy, who represents the appellant. >> okay. great. can you see my screen? how about now? >> clerk: yes. >> okay. thanks. super. well, good evening, members of the board and city staff. i am suri reddy, an attorney representing mercy housing. i am pleased to present our

appeal to the department of public works number 202761. we respectfully ask that the board of appeals deny this decision which denied our appeal to remove four maple trees at the location of 833 bryant. i'll briefly introduce the project to the board and the rationale behind our appeal. we'll also detail our concession that we've come to with the b.o.s. this is a 145-unit affordable housing unit which will expedite the essential piece of housing infrastructure to house people that are formerly homeless. so here is a rendering of 833 bryant street. some of you may be familiar with this location. this perspective is from where the hall of justice is

currently. so this is our building which we actually started construction in march, which is very exciting. it's 145 units and 100% affordable housing, permanently supportive. this construction is actually an integrated factory module ty type. [inaudible] >> -- to reduce overall unit cost. so before we talk about the tree conflicts, i just want to note that mercy housing is deeply committed to green spaces and recognize the importance of street trees for the health and safety of mercy housing residents, as well as residents of san francisco at large. unfortunately, the four large maple street trees as you can see here in the shot cause

significant disruption in the development and work around. it's unfortunate that we need to remove them, and i hope this presentation shows the extreme diligence that we took in this request. there a so the first is the factory built housing staging plan. so these would be here, and this is included as an exhibit in the appeal brief. this pink area is where we need to do the setting for the module. they need to be craned in place to be safely put in and keep the pace of construction moving. further, s.f. requires keeping as much of the setting in the factory built housing units, and per the plans, the crane

has to sit on the sidewalk and move along bryant street. so the four trees conflict with this plan and as noticed by our consulting arborist, it's highly unlikely the trees will survive this modular setting. this plan to stage and set with bryant street complied with s.f. fire department access requirements to preserve the alleyways on boardwalk place and harriet street, so there's no other place for us to set the factory housing than on bryant street. so our next conflict arises from serious concern around the ability to safely stage construction once the modules are also set in place. per present requirements from sfmta, we need to provide an accessible path over the path of travel, so we have to

install this ten-foot canopy over the pedestrian sidewalk, and these trees are taller than 10 feet, so they conflict with the canopy. and the trees conflict with the building as approved because these trees extent into the right-of-way. so the next slide is our streetscape plan that shows the future streetscape with the seven proposed little gem magnolia trees which are currently proposed in the plans as 24-inch boxes. we also have 75 feet of additional planting along bryant street as well as additional street trees on board walk place and harriet street, which don't have trees on them currently.

so in collaboration with department of public works, bureau of urban forestry, we came up with a concession plan to remove the four red maples and replace with seven 36-inch box gem magnolia maple trees. we do want to note that our plan includes irrigation and always had from the beginning. we request to overturn d.p.w. order 722761, and thank you. that's all we have. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we have a question from vice president honda. >> vice president honda: sorry. i'm just looking at my buttons here. so good evening. i like the fact that you're replacing them with larger stature trees and more trees. did i miss, what are you planning to do with the trees that are currently there now?

are you relocating them? >> that is a really great question. i mean, as far as i know, at this moment, our plan was to remove the trees. we don't have a relocation plan for the trees. >> vice president honda: okay. thank you. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. so i don't see any other questions, so we will move onto the bureau of urban forestry. mr. buck? >> so good evening, commissioners and president lazarus. great to see you all here virtually. it's been a wild couple of months for us. folks on my team are actually part of the covid-19 response, so whbut we're making due, and it's great to be here.

so regarding the subject case, the subject trees are four red maples, and at the staff level, we had denied the request to move them. and again, when we're at a public works hearing, we had denied the request to move them, and we're hoping to see the trees retained and protected during construction. however, as i became more aware of this site and the condition, i found challenges with being able to come before you and really fight to preserve these trees. and so if we can move to the powerpoint, i just have about eight slides and should be able to go through these very quickly. again, these are a presentation, slides that i took from the public works hearing. so i just took four slides that show the existing trees, and we'll address the question from, you know, from commissioner honda about the overall size and whether they

can be transplanted in a moment. if we go to the next one, so this is tree one, and tree two. in the applicant's -- the appellant's original application, the arborist they retained don't think they could be saved, but to us, we think they're in relatively good condition. we'll go next to tree three, just showing the existing size of tree three. these photos were taken in mid-september of last year, so they're entering into that fall foliage where they're not going to look so thick and lush.

and one of the issues here, if we go to the next slide, if we look at the profile of the building that's approved, and then, you go to the next slide in greater detail, i have a real concern about -- let's say constructibility was adequately addressed and the sponsor could work around the trees. now, what's been constructed -- so the pbay windows pivot, and they're kind of triangular, and they come out to the right of away. a red maple tree at maturity gets very large, and the next image will show you how large those get. they're very columnar and upright, which is a good starting point just in general as a street tree in the city.

but when you take that point only 15 feet above the sidewalk, and you start pressing those bay windows into the right-of-way, i just don't see how we're going to be able to work with those trees once that building's installed. and so, again, at the staff level, at the hearing, we were really hoping that the denials would force the applicant to come up with ways to work around them. unfortunately, as you saw in their brief, which is very detailed, it really goes into a lot of detail about how the building is going to be constructed, the staging, where the crane is placed, the movement of the crane, and the nature of the modular unit. as that point, over the last few weeks, we realized that coming before you and insisting on denial of the four subject trees was starting to feel like it was going to be a tough -- a tough sell. that said, you know, we

really -- and i noticed one of the public comments prior to the hearing that's attached with the meeting materials -- we really are committed to treating street trees as permanent infrastructure. we've been impacted greatly over the last ten years, 12 years, by the economy. we really want to see projects retain street trees. however, for this particular site and the nature of the building that's approved, the way those bay windows come out over the sidewalk, it's really preventing us from maintaining the existing trees, but it's also going to preclude us from requiring large stature replacement trees. so the magnolias that are proposed for replacement are called little gems. they're really a small or medium stature tree at maturity, and the idea is they would not conflict so greatly

with those bay windows over the sidewalk. so during our discussions with the applicant, our request at public works, the one obvious one was to plant larger box size if approved, which would be a 36-inch box size trees. we also confirmed that they would be on irrigation for those three years during establishment. a concession in their brief that didn't appeal to us was the use of structural soil, but that's no longer mattering to us. i'd like to keep this appeal about the removal and replacement of specifically the trees along the bryant frontage. we're requiring the 36-inch box replacements. the project itself, even if there were no existing street trees, the project itself would require the planting of new

trees any way, so the planting of more than just a one-for-one replacement was a requirement for the project as it is, so that's noted in the public comment, as well. so with great reluctance, you know, we do reach a settlement here to come before you, asking that you actually support the appeal and allow the overturning of the public works permit decision on the basis that they be replanted with seven 36-inch box little gem magnolias and with the installation of irrigation, as well. and again, overall, as part of this permit, the property will also be required to plant additional street trees, and the in lieu fee for every street tree required of every frontages, the in lieu fee of $2,122 for each tree would be assessed just for construction

of the building. but that wraps up my testimony, and we're here, looking for your approval of this settlement. thank you. >> clerk: okay. we do have a question from commissioner swig, and then afterwards, vice president honda. >> commissioner swig: so i'd like to -- i think that a compliment to the project sponsor. at least they didn't do what others have done in other projects, where they've moved forward on the construction and didn't recognize that they were going to tear down those street trees and didn't tear them down in the middle of the night or cause damage and come to us post mortem. i think it's commendable that you came forward and dealt with the issue proactively to deal with the issue of tearing down

the trees. chris, there was, i think, reference to a situation where the trees were damaged before and deleted before they were asked to be deleted. those -- remind me, on vanness somewhere. >> yes. around 2340 or 2640 vanness, exactly. >> commissioner swig: and so in that case, construction was ongoing. the trees were inadvertently -- i'll use a kind term -- deleted, and then, a -- there was a mea culpa. i think there was a similar amount of trees. what was the ultimate solution to that, and how many trees did you require them to plant? >> that's a good question,

commissioner. i believe we assessed the landscape appraisal for those trees, for the loss of those trees. so instead of the standard in lieu fee for the trees, $2100, or last year, about $1900, we appraised the landscape fee for those trees. in those cases, it's removal of that replacement. we're losing that value, and it's subverting the public trust in our code. one thing, for the subject trees we're talking about here, we didn't run a landscape appraisal, but we're certain it would be below $2,122, the standard in lieu fee, so that's one reason we're not discussing

landscape appraisals as a part of this appeal. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we now have a question from vice president honda. >> vice president honda: two questions, mr. buck. you know, as commissioner swig said, it's always nice when permit holders ask for permission rather than beg for forgiveness. the question is how long to maturity will these magnolias take, and how many times have we had developers come in front of us and say oh, we'll plant the trees, and then all of a sudden, we can't do it because there's a light box or a telecommunication that goes in there. what's the assurance that we'll have the amount of trees in here? >> so the first part, on years to maturity, the magnolia little gem are very slow growing, so we're talking a

long time. and the existing trees out there were planted in the mid2000s under mayor newsom's initiative to plant a lot of street trees. so they look young, and yet those have been there for at least 12 years. so the magnolias are going to talk a long time to reach maturity. realistically, we're talking about 20 years, 25 years. regarding conflict with utilities, i did meet virtually with the project sponsor multiple times to understand that this question would come up, and so specifically, i sought out show me where the pg&e vaults are going because those tend to be tree killers. and so they've confirmed that the vaults, they're tying into the vaults across the street as part of the hall of justice, so we've looked at the frontages very, very carefully along bryant, and we are confident

that there's room for seven street trees, well spaced, and that we've really gone over that in great detail. >> vice president honda: okay. and last question, mr. buck, is rather than killing the current trees, you know, it's quite a feat for a tree to survive across from the hall of justice in front of a bail bonds place, in front of a parking lot, in front of a mcdonalds. these trees that are currently here, man, those are survivors and fighters. can you talk about relocating them, what would that entail and -- >> sure. it's challenging to relocate street trees. we at public works recently committed to relocating magnolia trees on evans ave. that were planted by pg&e and are part of a 9-11 memorial. that's in front of the new kind

of health safety lab, the crime lab, and other transportation services for emergency services -- >> clerk: i believe we just lost chris. one moment. >> operator: yeah. something happened with his connection. >> clerk: okay. one moment. let me try to contact him. okay. i think he's back. mr. buck? okay. mr. buck? >> yes. >> clerk: we lost you. >> let me try to get back. >> clerk: okay. >> so you can hear my audio?

okay. so why don't i continue answering. i'm not sure what happened there, but i will hit refresh. i had my family calling down to me, saying i dropped off. so commissioner honda, it is a lot of work to move street trees, even when they look as small as these look, and then, there's a lot of work on behalf of public works to ensure their survival. so we're not -- we're just not convinced that that's always going to be a good solution. >> vice president honda: i mean, though, the thing is, you know, that granted, this is for a good cause. it's 100% affordable housing. that's amazing, but, you know, every developer should be treated the same as they come in front of the b.o.a., and in past, if there was something there, we've made them relocate them. so -- and they're getting trees

that, although small, they're imprinted over the last 12 years. they've survived a very difficult climate there. as you said, they're replacing them with more trees, but, you know, before those trees get to maturity, we're talking 25 years. >> correct, so i hadn't considered in great detail the viability of transplanting those trees. there's issues of where to transplant them. are they going to go back in sidewalk settings? so it's something that could be looked into. we could give that a shot. we could make that a condition of approval. it is -- >> vice president honda: i don't want to try to kill the project, but i do think that both commissioner swig and i -- you know, he's already identified lots of basins that

have not been filled for many, many years, correct? so, you know, if we can kill two birds with one stone and get housing, it's a win-win for everybody. >> sure. the viability of moving the trees would be challenging, but i think that's a condition that the commissioners could consider adding to the conditions. >> vice president honda: it's just a thought. thank you, mr. buck. >> clerk: okay. thank you. are there any other questions at this point? i don't see any other hands raised, so we will move onto public comment. we are on public comment for item number 7, 833 bryant street. if you called in, and you would like to provide public comment, please press star-nine now, and then, i know you want to speak. we're going to give a little extra time given some of the delays, so we're on public

comment for the mercy housing california tree removal appeal. press star-nine if you want to speak on that. okay. i do not see any hands raised, so we will now move onto rebuttal. miss ruddy, do you have anything further? you have three minutes in rebuttal time. >> no, we have nothing further. we just want to thank mr. buck and the commission for their time, and we look forward to delivering this 145 units of affordable housing for formerly housing individuals. we will own the building forever, so we do have a vested interest in the trees, providing irrigation, and from an operations standpoint, we want them to be healthy. we're not interested in replacing them.

we want them to be back in soma for the rest of their tree life. >> clerk: okay. thank you. and now, mr. buck, do you have anything further? you have three minutes. >> sure, just a moment. probably one minute. thank you, commissioners. sorry about dropping off. not sure what happened there. regarding the transplanting potential, it's a great inquiry. you know, technically, it it could be feasible. it's difficult work to take trees out of a sidewalk and transplant them back in a sidewalk again, so that's a concern. one other thing, it's almost for the public. you know, bryant street is a very busy street, and, you know, we really -- i feel like there was a little bit of a missed opportunity through the planning process that allowed these bay windows to come out

low over the sidewalk like that, so we're going to talk to our colleagues at planning and try to avoid that on such a busy thoroughfare street, so that's one of our regrets here, that we're dealing with site conditions that we wish we didn't have. we wish we could get a larger stature tree there long-term, but that's really the only additional comment i'd wanted to add. beyond that, this one seemed reasonable to concede, and not have to require submissicommis to support either-or. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from commissioner swig. >> commissioner swig: thank you. mr. buck, you say you reached a settlement, so i can offer to steal your words pending the agreement of the appellant. can you please tell me the terms and conditions of your

settlement so we can act accordingly? >> yes. so the -- the basis of the settlement would be on the condition of approval the removal of four trees along the bryant street frontage with the replacement of seven street trees that are 36-inch box size street trees that are magnolia little gems, and those trees will be on irrigation for three years until established. and the public works findings is that the applicant did do a very thorough job in their brief to explain the constructionability issues around the existing trees and then the future conflicts with the new building facade. >> commissioner swig: thank you. >> clerk: so commissioners, this matter's submitted.

and i just also wanted to add that vice president honda raised an issue of replanting these current four trees that are going to be removed, and, also, probably, i would like some clarification on the irrigation. does that mean that mercy housing would be responsible for three years for irrigating the trees? >> can i address that question? >> clerk: please do. >> so when new street trees are planted, trees are required to be watered for the first three years, and at that point, the root system becomes established and the tree can get water alone. so they can be watered by hand or they can be watered by the installation of irrigation that's in place. and when resources allow, irrigation is preferred because it typically avoids human error. so it's just noted that

irrigation's planned to be installed as part of this -- the planting of these trees. >> clerk: so the mercy housing would be responsible for installing irrigation and maintaining it? >> correct. and then typically after the establishment period of three years, public works reinspects the trees, and when found to be in good condition, we reaccept responsibility for maintaining the tree. >> vice president honda: so basically, that would be no less than three years, so subject to inspection by the department to determine the conditions. so it could go further than three years if you felt that more water was required. >> absolutely, and that's correct. >> vice president honda: okay. >> clerk: so what about the -- what about replanting the four trees? >> vice president honda: i'm

willing to remove that. i don't think i have the support -- >> commissioner swig: can't we just say if possible, if feasible and just add that to it? >> vice president honda: it might not be feasible, but we can have them look into it. >> commissioner swig: i'd feel more comfortable with that. give it a shot. if they can't do it, they can't do it. >> clerk: okay. is there a motion? >> vice president honda: i'll make a motion. >> commissioner swig: go ahead. >> vice president honda: to grant the appeal and condition the permit, that the replacement trees be 36-inch box little gem magnolias, and at which point, the project sponsor will be responsible for automatic irrigation for a minimum of three years, at which point, the department will review and determine if further irrigation also responsible but from the project sponsor is required. and then, the last part would be that both project sponsor

will submit or the department will look into, you know, moving these trees. >> clerk: and also allowing the removal of the four trees. >> vice president honda: and also allowing -- thank you. that's why i have an awesome director. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from vice president honda to grant the appeal and issue the order on the condition that it be revised to allow for the removal of the four trees along bryant street and to have them replaced with seven 36-inch box little gem magnolia trees along the bryant street frontage, and further, on the condition that the mercy housing is responsible for installing and maintaining an irrigation system for these replacement trees for a period of three years -- >> vice president honda: minimum three years. >> clerk: a minimum three years, and further, the bureau

of urban forestry will explore the feasibility of replanting the four trees that are being removed. and on what basis? >> vice president honda: on the basis that -- >> clerk: represents the agreement of the parties? >> vice president honda: yes, that's what i was thinking. >> clerk: okay. did i cover everything? >> one point of clarification. that the planting of the existing four trees would be covered by the applicant, but that we would look into the feasibility. >> clerk: okay. and is mercy housing -- miss ruddy, you understand that? >> yes, i understand. >> clerk: okay. so the feasibility replanting the four existing trees is the responsibility of one kbbureauf urban