not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. for jurisdiction and rehearing requests, the parties shaf three minutes to present their case with no rebuttal. four votes are required to grant an appeal or modify a permit. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, please e-mail board staff. this is broadcast on sfgov tv on channel 26. the video is also available on our website. now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and

wish the board to give you evidentiary right. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> [indiscernible] -- >> clerk: if you could please put your zoom speaker on mute now. thank you. i'd like to announce that public comment will be taken by phone. to block your phone number dial star 68 and then use the toll free number and then the meeting id which is 830767599 and then you enter the participant code which is 442013 and then the password, 442013. when you listen for the public

comment portion of your item to be called if you would like to speak, you dial star 9, which is the equivalent of raising your hand so we can call on you. now we're moving on to general public comment. this is a time for anyone to speak on something that is not on tonight's agenda. is there anyone who would like to speak? we're going to slowly go through this because it's a different platform for us. i also wanted to put a reminder out there if you're calling in, please turn down your television so there is no interference. if you called for general public comment, please press star 9 now and i can see if you want to speak. we're waiting to see who is

online. please mute your -- if you're here as part of the meeting, please put your cellphone on mute so we don't have the interference. you can also go ahead and mute them if they're not doing that. i do not believe we have any general public comment. we will now move on to item 2, which is commissioner comments and questions. commissioners. we'll just go slowly through this too. if you would like to say something, please press star 9 if you're a commissioner and you would like to address the public. no? okay. i'm just going to go slowly. one last chance. any commissioner comments and questions? okay. thank you. we are now moving on to item 3,

which is adoption of the minutes, commissioners were before you for possible adoption are the minutes of the may 6, 2020, meeting. >> commissioners, any changes, deletions, addition to the minutes? >> no. >> is there a motion to approve? >> i believe that motion was from vice president honda to approve the minutes from may 6. on that motion. [ roll call ]. >> so that motion carries 4-0 and the minutes are adopted. we are now moving on to item number 4 and i would like to provide a reminder from president lazarus that pursuant to article 5, section 10 of the board's rules, the commissioners' role is to determine whether or not the city intentionally or inadvertently caused the

requester to be late in filing the appeal. item number 4 is jurisdiction request number 20-3, subject property at 3340 geary boulevard. letter from five stars investments l.l. c., requestor, asking that the board take jurisdiction over alteration permit number 2019/06/28/4655

u.s. postal code service. which was issued on june 28, 2019. the appeal period ended on july 15, 2019, and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on april 24, 2020. determination holder: jalal nasser. permit description: for planning department purposes: to document/provide two additional parking spaces at rear of property in nc3 zone for residence usage only; no construction work performed. scrpt. >> the participation in a law firm that i have dealings with will not have any effect on my decision. >> is mr. conolly present? >> i am. thank you. >> if we could put him on spotlight, that would be great, please, alex. alex? >> yeah, i'm trying to find him. alex, are you able to put him on spotlight? he's on the lower left.

>> which one is it? >> patrick conolly. he's on the lower left. >> right here, me. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. conolly, please proceed. you have three minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. madam president and distinguished members of the board. my name is patrick conolly and i'm the attorney for the owner of the property at 3340 geary boulevard. the owner is five stars investments l.l. c. the owners, as well as the project architect, jonathan pearlman are in attendance at this meeting. we are here on a jurisdiction request on a permit issued to the permit holder for mr. nasser

for a parking in his rear yard at 3340 geary boulevard. that's the adjacent property to my client's property. let me give you background. my client five stars investments l.l. c. bought the property approximately three years ago, the property at 3340 geary. they were alerted that mr. nasser was conducting a parking business in his back yard, sometimes covering every square foot. some cars were only parked there during the work day, such that they understood the parking was being rented to local businesses. sometimes the only way for them to access the parking was to drive on a driveway of 3330

geary. and five stars objected to this. when mr. nasser refused to cease the illegal operation, five stars constructed a fence on its property on june 2018, which made it impossible for mr. nasser to continue his illegal business. fast-forward to a few months ago when five stars happened to discover the subject permit. they discovered it by looking at the information map. the permit was kept secret by mr. nasser. it's apparent why five stars is late in filing its appeal. it had no knowledge of the application or the permit. why was five stars late, because of the action or inaction of the city. when mr. nasser applied for his permit, the documents he filed with the city established that he knew the permit necessarily involved the use of my my client's property. i'm going to try to share a document with you. are you able to see this on my

screen? when you look at this document, this is a site vicinity plan submitted to the city on june 20, 2018. as you see here, it shows the parcels in the middle and it shows mr. nasser's property here with cross hatches. beside it on the other side of the property line, there is a line and an arrow. this is on my client's property on 3330 geary. it shows that as part of this permit what was filed with the city, that use of my client's property was necessary for the permit and the city knew the use of my client's property was necessary for this permit. >> wait a second.

>> when the permit uses the property of another property owner, the city has to request documentation from the property owner -- from the permit applier of permission to use the property. they needed a written or signed easement or license agreement or, at a minimum, from the owner of signed by 3330 geary. no such letter was provided and there's no letter in the city's file. the cause of the delay was that the city didn't ask for the required documentation. >> thank you, mr. conolly. in the event a commissioner has a question, you can raise your hand and i will call on you. i'm not seeing a hand raised.

we will move on to mr. justin zucker, the attorney for the permit holder. mr. zucker. you have three minutes and alex will give you a 30-second warning. >> good afternoon. i'm here on behalf of the permit holder. the jurisdiction request is what the city did. in this case, the city did not intentionally or inadvertently cause the appellant to be late. that is the single question to be addressed by the board, whether the city caused the appellant to be delayed, inadvertently or intentionally in filing their appeal. the city did not.

they are arguing much of the merits of their case but present no evidence about how the city inadvertently or intentionally caused them to be delayed in filing the appeal. in this case for this permit, no neighborhood notices were required. there was no error in notice. furthermore, as acknowledged by the appellants in their brief, they concede that mr. jalal has been using the rear of his property for parking. this has been a long-standing use. it was only recently when mr. jalal came to know he needed a permit to park in the rear. upon learning that, he submitted the permit for the parking in the rear. there is a shed in the rear of the property that may not have been permitted. notwithstanding that that shed was not permitted does not impact what the city did or did

not do with respect to this permit for the parking in the rear. it does not say whether or not they caused the appellant to be delayed in their appeal. the heart of this request seems to be about an access easement for mr. jalal to access the rear of his property. that is a civil matter left to the courts to adjudicate. like a previous jurisdiction request that this board heard in august of last year, 141 to 143 albion which also addressed an easement, we strongly request that this board deny the request and allow the building permit for the parking to proceed and allow any issues with the easement to go forward. thank you. i have concluded my presentation and the permit and i are available for any questions.

>> thank you. it looks like we have a question from vice president honda. >> counsellor, is it required that the appellant's property would need to approve before your client got his permit if it requires access on the neighboring property? >> it's the permit-holder's permission that he has an access easement to get to the rear of the property. there is a challenge by that by the appellant -- >> sorry to interrupt you, counsel. the question is, is it right here for the appellant's property to be notified that a permit's been issued for the using of their property? >> no, that is not the case. pursuant to 311, no neighborhood notice was required. >> and that neighborhood -- was the appellant's -- the owners of

the property that are complaining, the appellants, are they supposed to be notified when a permit is issued that requires use of their land? >> i don't believe so. >> so the question is i can get a permit going through my neighbor's yard and the city has the right to issue it? >> the access is a civil matter that would have to be addressed by the courts. >> i'll address that question to the department. thank you. >> okay. thank you. no see any other hands raised by the commissioners. so we will move on to testimony from mr. sanchez from the planning department. >> thank you. good evening, president, members of the board. the subject property at 3330 geary to 3340 geary, the scope

of work which was limited to the addition or legalization, as it were, of two parking spaces in the rear of the subject property does not require notification under the planning code. i think what's been raised by the jurisdiction requester is a separate matter when it comes to the easement issue. the city does not typically get involved or in between property owners when it comes to the access issues. had the permit proposed any work on the adjacent property, then that would require a separate permit. but as i understand it, the permit does not propose any work at all on the adjacent property. the scope of work itself doesn't require any notification. it's stated by the permit holder that this was to document and legalization the situation, i don't see any planning

violations in the property related to the parking, but when i was reviewing the materials, i do have some concerns about the plans themselves. separate from this jurisdiction request, which is a question of whether or not the notice was required and under the planning code no notice was required. i don't think any notice violations have occurred here, but the concerns i have with the permit would lead our department to request a suspension of the permit because as provided by the permit holder, they show the shed structure in the back is more than a shed. it's fairly substantial. it appears to have been constructed around 2014. i don't see any permit for that structure. it doesn't even show on the plans that they submitted. so i think that these plans are flawed and that they don't accurately depict the conditions. i'm also concerned somewhat about what was shown as the

vicinity map. perhaps the permit holder can better speak to what exactly their intention was by providing that document. it's unclear, a lot of handwritten lines. it's an official city document, they show the parcel on the left, but it's unclear why they drew in the lines. they show a driveway, but it's not labelled -- >> [indiscernible]. >> -- quality that should be incorporated in the plans. i think we would have this permit suspended and have them correct the plans to either remove the structure or legalize it, which would require neighborhood notification of that structure and have them remove that site vicinity plan. i don't think that should be on there without at least some further explanation.

there is an adjacent project proposed, but that's not before you tonight. thank you. i'm available for questions. >> thank you. we have three questions. one from president lazarus, vice president swigs, and commissioner honda. >> the permit is wanting to be suspended, but i'm not sure how that correlates with the jurisdiction request. do we need a basis that's taking jurisdiction that's apart from the normal one? >> i don't think that the board needs to take action on this. it's up to the board's discretion on how you would like to proceed on the jurisdiction request. we would request a suspension of this permit that is a letter issued by the zoning administrator. that would be appealable by any

party to the board of appeal, both the initiation of the suspension and the release of the suspension, should we get to that point, would be appealed to the board of appeals. there's better points of getting this to the board of appeals beyond the jurisdiction request, if that answers that question. >> we don't need to take jurisdiction for you tab able to take the action you wish to take? >> correct. we can act independently. >> thank you. we will now hear from commissioner swigs. >> i may be walking on commissioner honda's lines. i apologize. can you clarify something for me. if i have a driveway next to my house that i use to access my garage and my neighbor doesn't,

but my neighbor has a backyard and they decide they want to take a permit out to park two cars back there, you can issue that permit and their intention is to use my driveway to get there, you can issue a permit to approve that without asking me? >> as odd as it may seem, i'm not aware of any provision in the planning code that would require us to obtain a copy of an easement or any other documentation from the adjacent property. we generally don't get involved into easement issues. that's a civil matter between the parties. we're looking at and approving very specific parts of work. if the proposal wants to do work on your property, a permit would be required. but existing driveway access,

that to my knowledge would not require a notification under the planning code. there is no provision in section 311 and i'm not aware of any provision in any other part of the planning code that would require notice. if it's required under the municipal code, perhaps he can provide a citation to the section. it could be under a building code provision and perhaps acting chief inspector duffy can speak to that. >> taking it into a further state of ridiculousness, if there was no driveway and somebody had a large enough backyard that could house a car, could anybody apply to house a car back there even though there was no access to it without any notice to neighbors? >> it's absurd, but they should

be able to gain access. there is nothing in the code that i'm aware of. i mean, i share the reaction that you have to this, but i'm not aware of any municipal code requirement that would trigger the notification. >> thank you. we will now hear from vice president honda. >> that was part of my question. the second question is they're applying for new parking. i thought the city doesn't allow for any new parking. >> we do allow new parking. a bit more than a years ago the

board of supervisors amended the code to no longer require parking. the parking that is being proposed is within the allowed limits. they could have up to three spaces on the property, and this would get em up to the maximum, but it is not required under the code. >> is there a 30% rear yard open space or they're allowed to use that in their rear space? >> in the geary district, the required rear yard is at the lowest level containing a dwelling unit. in this case, the lowest level is storage and parking space, so there is no required rear yard at this ground level and it would begin on the floor above. they are allowed to park in what is called the rear yard, but not a required year yard under the

planning rear yard. they are required to show open space for the dwelling units on the property. it does appear to be code compliant. >> there is nothing that says that since they have the open space, it doesn't appear with the mid-block open space? >> in this case, they're allowed under the code to extend to the rear property line at the ground level as long as it doesn't contain a dwelling unit. we would look at it from a design pif, but given that it is just an open parking space, it was not found to be something that didn't comply with our design requirements. >> what was required was only a space for two cars?

sh. >> under the zoning district, a private parking garage or in this case it's open air, so it would be a lot, would be allowed, but they would need conditional authorization if they were to have that be public parking or private parking for people beyond the parking. if they were parking more than three vehicles there, it would be a violation of the code. >> so they get three in the back and there was one in the front? >> a total of three, two in the back -- they were approved for two in the rear -- >> that's what i was trying to clarify. they were only allowed two in the rear and one in the garage? >> correct, for a total of three. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. does the department of building,

mr. duffy? >> i think the permit was issued itself. i do have concerns about the quality of the drawings. i agree with mr. sanchez on that issue. you see a line that's not clearly shown on the property line. it does cause you concern. i do think the easement -- i have seen drawings in the past, where the recorded easement would be on the plan, particularly for access to the back of the property. i don't recall anywhere in the building code where it requires it -- but i do know that we had cases in the past. it's always nice to have that on the drawings. mr. sanchez said it sounds like the permit will be suspended and

we'll see a better-quality drawing. maybe the easement issue could be addressed, but i had concerns about the quality of the drawings as well. >> thank you, mr. duffy. we're just going to slowly see if any of the commissioners have questions of mr. duffy. i do not see any questions. so we will move on to public comment. is there any public comment for this item, this jurisdiction request? you are a caller and you would like to provide public comment, please press star 9 and i will know you want to speak. star 9 if you want to provide public comment. >> while we're waiting for that, i'm sorry, i was too late to hit the button. i have a question for mr. duffy. >> please go ahead. >> so, mr. duffy, i hear that you're saying there's no notice

required and my memory is terrible, but i seem to remember a case that you had that if you suspected that someone had come in and was asking for a permit on a property that wasn't theirs, that you would look to see a signed letter. does that ring a bell at all? >> that right have to do with the excavation issue or if there was something that was going to be done, that would be something we would need a letter from them. >> but you're not aware of a required of a letter in a circumstance like this? >> no. with the property it is clearly shown how you got to these parking spaces, even though it created additional parking spaces, i'm not sure that was shown really well enough on the drawing. i think that's going to be addressed either way. with mr. sanchez, either way,

it's coming back to us. >> thank you. one last call for public comment on this item, please press star 9 to raise your hand. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> aside from the absurdity of -- i think the absurdity was mr. sanchez's word of the situation where somebody could have parking spots without even access, still according to the

law it seems that the city had no responsibility to provide notice of such a permit. so i don't see any merit, although i'm very sympathetic to the appeal and i see the appellant's point of view sincerely, the law would state other side. so i wouldn't see any merit in finding for the appellant. >> vice president honda would like to speak. >> understanding what's before us is a jurisdiction. and according to the city, county, and department, no notification was required. but yet, it's common sense to me that if you're going to grant a permit to park cars and there's evidently nothing on that particular property, to me, that

doesn't make any sense. i agree that we're here just if the department's intentionally erred. but i think in this particular case, the law has erred in this. i would look for jurisdiction. since this is coming before us aga again, i would go with my fellow commissioners. >> commissioners, do you have anything to add? >> i don't have anything to add. >> i brought up -- i would move to deny the appeal based on the fact that the city did not err intentionally or otherwise on this permit. >> we have a motion to deny the request on the basis that the city did not intentionally or

inadvertently cause the requester to be late on the appeal. [ roll call ]. >> that motion carries 4-0 and the request is denied. so we would now move on to item 5. this is tavenue. jerry dratler, appellant, is requesting a rehearing of appeal no. 20-013, jerry dratler vs. dept. of building inspection, planning dept. approval, decided april 22, 2020. at that time, upon motion by vice president honda, the board voted 5-0 to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that it was properly issued. determination holder: 25 17th avenue llc. permit description: to comply with nov # 201623795 & 201757399 & planning enforcement case #2016009806, horizontal addition, add lobby elevator, add entertainment room, one bathroom at first floor, laundry, three bathrooms second and third floors, replace sidewalk, repair stucco, relocate meter, repair replace rear fence, add one bedroom & bathroom at 4th floor; no penalty for this permit application. permit no.: 2017/07/07/1206s. this is the re-hearing of appeal number 20-013. subject property at 25 17th avenue. jerry dratler, appellant, is requesting a

rehearing of appeal no. 20-013, jerry dratler vs. dept. of building inspection, planning dept. approval, decided april 22, 2020. at that time, upon motion by vice president honda, the board voted 5-0 to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that it was properly issued. determination holder: 25 17th avenue llc. permit description: to comply with nov # 201623795 & 201757399 & planning enforcement case #2016009806, horizontal addition, add lobby elevator, add entertainment room, one bathroom at first floor, laundry, three bathrooms second and third floors, replace sidewalk, repair stucco, relocate meter, repair replace rear fence, add one bedroom & bathroom at 4th floor; no penalty for this permit application. permit no.: 2017/07/07/1206s. vice president honda, you have a disclosure on this matter? >> i'm trying to hit the button. i'm a partner in a project that has hired the law firm of ruben and julius. it will not have an effect on my decision. >> thank you. we will hear from the director,

mr. dratler. can you please put him on spotlight. thank you. welcome, mr. dratler. you have three minutes and alex will give you a 30-second warning when your time is up. >> can you see my slide? >> yes. >> okay. i'm going to start. thank you. the planner approved plans for a 206 square foot house. approving the permit with a legal plan to undermine the authority of the planning commission. the alternative plans were not approved by former director ram and the plan changes were not necessary to bring the plans into compliance with the residential comblooins. in the april 22 board of appeal hearing, we heard that the justification for alternative plans was to bring the planning

commission's decision into compliance with the r.d.g. we also learned a larger home was not required to comply with the r.d.g. and the alternative plans were not approved by planning director ram. planning director ram had the discretionary authority to make the plan changes, but only for the purpose of bringing plans into compliance with the r.d.g. the planning code states the planning director may exercise this authority. it does not say the director shall exercise the authority. furthermore, the authority is given only to the director, not the director's designee, so the director cannot be designated. planning director ram was required to bring the plans into compliance with the r.d.g. and

director ram was allowed to delegate his authority. i believe a building permit would not be approved which a set of plans which overrides a planning commission's decision. i believe if all the facts were disclosed, it is likely the board of appeals would have ruled to have the current planning director to submit this with the planning director's decision. the project delays are entirely attributable to the property owner's attempts to circumvent

the codes. >> now we will hear from mr. kevlin, the attorney for the permit holder. >> what you have before you is a re-hearing request. just to remind everyone the standards for the re-hearing request. it can only be granted on a showing by the requester that, one, extraordinary circumstances exist and a re-hearing is required to prevent an injustice. or if there are things that could have affected the outcome at the original hearing. i don't think anyone is claiming manifest injustice.

there's no extraordinary circumstances. i'm going to focus on number two. new or different facts or circumstance circumstances that could have affected the original outcome. there are no new facts or circumstances tonight. he cites parts of the code that have not been modified since your last hearing. he also brings up the discussion of mr. sanchez's description of staff's review of the permit, which, amongst other things, takes into account the residential design guidelines, far from being known at the time of that appeal and of this board, that was the heart of our conversation two or three weeks ago. this is not a standard of was the appellant aware of these

facts at the time. it's whether or not were they in front of the board and was the board aware of them. this is the heart of the issue the board discussed at the last hearing. just to bring up a couple of other points. yes, section 11 calls out the planning director in terms of the residential design guidelines. i think we can all understand for practicality purposes and a reasonable carrying out of the application of the code, that that is carried out by planners as part of the planning purpose. there is a residential design team that reviews the process. that is how these guidelines get applied. just because the code spells out the planning director and the staff doesn't mean that they can't be used in other circumstances as well. of course, the planning

commissioner uses them and this board applies the residential design guidelines. the last thing i'll mention is what we discussed three weeks ago was not an override of the planning commission's position. it was that the staff approved the permits consistent with the planning commission. thank you. >> i'm going to see if there are any questions. i don't see any at this time. we'll move on to the planning department. >> just a couple of brief points. i think we mentioned at the previous hearing that the board's review of this application is a de novo hearing and this is fully before the board of appeals. i think at the previous hearing the appellant argued that the permit was flagged because the zoning administrator didn't

personally sign the permit and the argument is that because the planning permitter didn't personally sign the permit. we get thousands of permits a year and it's possible for the planning administrator to sign each one. they need to interpret the planning code on a daily basis and also to implement the planning guidelines. i think also in my understanding of the process, in response to the planning commission's decision, the project sponsor submitted essentially the plans that are before you and had those windows removed. staff didn't direct them to submit those plans. that's how they submitted it.

the appellant was very involved and the department and contacting the planner and getting information. i know there was a lot of back and forth. in reviewing the issues raised by the appellant, the zoning administrator was involved in reviewing this as well as our residential design team staff. they felt it would not be appropriate to have windows in this location because of the residential design guidelines. that is how this all came about. again, this is a de novo hearing. so it is appropriate and that is all available for questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. i don't see questions at this time. we will now hear from the department of building inspection, mr. duffy. >> nothing.

>> we will now move on to public comment for item 5, which is the rehearing request for appeal no. 20-013. i see someone is raising their hand. excellent. please go ahead and speak. you have three minutes. >> thank you. >> okay. it says call in user number one. >> yeah. >> please proceed. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is joe. i live in the area. i've elected not to use my real name or give my address for reasons i will make clear in my statement. i would like to take a minute to comment not so much about the project at this location, but the surrounding neighborhood. adds i understand, the project has been approved and the only thing holding it up is continued opposition from just a few apparent disgruntled

individuals. these people in question have been heard saying in community meetings that they know that they cannot stop the project but will do whatever they can to drag it out and make it as expensive as possible for the developers. it's an apparent personal vendetta and has caused conflict in our once-close community. mr. dratler has used bully tactics against people to support his cause and has sought retribution against neighbors who have opposed his agenda. all the while, a vacant building and an empty lot continues to be an eye sore on our street. i would ask that the commission reject the appeal and please allow the project to commence so our neighborhood can get back to normal. i would hope the commission also takes into account the incredible waste of city time and taxpayer resources already allocated to this abuse of the

system. thank you very much. >> thank you. okay. we will now go on to the next speaker. the person whose phone number ends in 1092. >> great. thank you. can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> perfect. thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak. i'm kevin martin, a neighbor who has lived on 9th avenue for the past 18th years. i had the opportunity to call in three weeks ago when the board delivered their unanimous decision in favor of the developers, which seemed like the appropriate decision. after listening tonight, i did not see anything new from those opposing the project. it's quite clear that the current objective, like the prior caller said, was to delay this project for as long as possible. granted, the opposition has lots

of time in a covid-19 environment to dream up appeals and objections. i think we've reached the point where the appeal has lacked relevance. thank you so much and have a great night, everyone. >> thank you. is there any other public comment for this item? if so, please raise your hand by dialling star 9. we'll give some extra time. we're on the rehearing request for 25 17th avenue. i do not see any other callers. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners, any comments?

a motion? >> i would move to deny the rehearing request, as there is -- the criteria has not been met. >> okay. >> any other commissioners? it looks like that's our motion. we have a motion from commissioner swig to deny the request on the basis of no manifest injustice or new evidence. [ roll call ]. >> the request is denied 4-0. thank you.

we are moving on to appeal no. 19-146. laura decararava versus department of building inspection. 1374 46th avenue. appealing the issuance on december 23, 2019, to feng yuan li, of an alteration permit (existing wet bar with sink and associated components to be removed in existing bathroom; patch and repair demo area; work at third floor only). permit no. 2019/12/23/0312. we have the lap belt -- the permit holder has agreed to have the interpreter provide a summary after the summary is given. we will hear from ms. decararava

first. is ms. decararava on the line? >> i am. good afternoon, president lazarus. and good afternoon, commissioners of the board. i am laura decararava. i am an appellant for the subject property of 1374 46th

avenue. i am making this appeal -- i am appealing an alteration permit for the removal of my apartment kitchen and an associated variance determination. in so doing, i'm advocating to keep my home. i instituted a lease agreement to rent my third floor apartment at the subject premises in april of 2018. the lease is included here as slide 1 or exhibit a in the brief. i am currently a tenant in good standing and has made payments over the course of six years, paying upwards of $62,000 towards my tenancy. this has been documented in slide two. i also wanted to show that i am an active resident of our neighborhood and have strong ties to the community and to our neighbors. i have included slide three to show community support for the

appeal. i hope this slide shows what i provided in slide 4 and also in the brief which begins on page 81. slide 4 is an october 2000 d.b.i. permit or job card. the permit is identified there as a two-family dwelling with three stories and two units. this is identified as rear [indiscernible] which is required for the separate third floor apartment. evidence of the two units is visible in the permit itself, which is slide 5 -- >> would you like alex to show those slides?

or are you just refusierring to them in your brief? because we weren't given that direction. >> yeah, that was the intention. >> can you just stop the time, alex, and go through the slides quickly. >> these are on her brief? >> slide number 1 was just the front of the lease agreement. slide 2 is the history of my rent payments, paying upwards of $62,000 over approximately six years. slide 3 was a list of neighbors who are supporting this appeal and who support my continued tenancy in the building. >> why don't we wait for him to put 1 up and we can go to 2, 3,

4. your time is on hold now. >> thank you. >> alex, are you able to get those? >> yeah. just hang on. alex is going to the exhibits that were included with your brief. >> okay. >> so what exhibit would you like to show? you said slide 1, but we didn't get any slides from you in advance of the hearing, so i'm not sure -- >> i did send alex a series of

slides in advance of the hearing, but i'm happy to proceed without them if that would -- >> no, we had time and we're going to get them. we want to make sure you adequately present your case. >> here is slide 1. >> residential tenancy agreement. >> that's right. so that's slide 1. i just wanted to show that i had an actual written and oral lease for the premises. it is for the third floor apartment, including kitchen, bathroom, private room, as well as access to the backyard, a private balcony, and use of the garage and storage space and parking lot. >> okay. what would slide 2 be then?

>> slide 2 would be documentation of my tenancy and payments of rent over the course of six years. >> okay. and that's a handwritten exhibit? >> no. that would be -- that would be the one that is a chart. >> alex, she did send slides at 8:02 this morning. >> this is the file i've got here. >> if it's gumming up the progress, i'm happy to proceed without them. >> it's fine. we have slides 3 and 4 as well? >> this is 2. >> so 3 are the oral terms of your lease agreement? >> slide 3 would be -- no, that

would be the proof of tenancy. the neighbors' signatures in support of my tenancy in support of this appeal. >> okay. >> this is what i got from her. no, i'm sorry. >> slide 3 should be the handwritten one where people had signed in support of my tenancy and continued. >> this is slide 2. >> actually, maybe if it's all right, i would like to proceed without the slides.

it doesn't seem like it's quite functional. either it was a mistake on my part or it didn't transfer over correctly. maybe if i could just speak, it would make it easier to understand. >> absolutely. please proceed. if you could start the time again ab alex. >> i guess. >> thank you. please proceed. >> thank you. so one of the pieces of evidence of my part that is, in fact, part of the two separate apartments is a db.i. permit that is on record in the d.b.i. archives, thos that there are two legal units in the property, that there are three storeys, that it is an i-3 property and that is evidence that this property has had two units going since at least that job card was

completed in 2000. another piece of evidence, that there are two illegal units on the property. there is a letter of support that i supplied. this is a letter of support of another unit who occupied the third unit independently for three years. i wanted to include that because it seems that with the december 8 removal of the second floor department, the city and the department planning was unclear about whether the second floor was, in fact, a separate and discrete unit from my third floor apartment. i feel like that letter from a

former tenant indicating that the second floor apartment didn't have a front locking door, that the unit was separate and discrete from the third floor apartment that i rent would be an important piece of evidence. that's exhibit u. i just wanted to share in addition to that that in a more general sense, since the beginning of my tenancy, i have only occupied my third floor unit and never used the second floor apartment or had any access to it at any time. there was a physical barrier, a front locking door on the second floor apartment. i have an image of it. that would be in one of the slides, but there is actual evidence that the door was once there. even without the front door, however, it's very clear that if you look at the drawing of the

apartment on the third floor and the drawing of the apartment on the second floor. this would be in exhibit m of my brief, you can clearly identify that these are two discrete apartments. even without the second floor apartment front door, there's no connection visual or spatial between the two units. there is direct street access to both the separate second floor apartment and my third floor apartment. while this is something that is clearly decided by the experts, i do feel it is important to say there is direct access from my apartment and access from the second floor apartment

independent of a third floor. i would request the board consider reversing the respondent's permit on the grounds that they are procedurally and substantively flawed. the apartment that i lease is not a room or rooms, it is a single-family home. they are two separate units in a two-family building that has been a two-family unit for over 20 years. additionally, i would hope the board would consider reversing the permit and would evict the current resident. and while all these entitles -- >> 30 seconds. >> are something up for a discussion, i do feel that if

the landlord does not have possession of the third floor kitchen and the third floor apartment is in my possession and the lease hold rights are in my possession, the landlord should call for removing of the kitchen according to the rent ordinance, which has not happened. >> time. >> i would ask the board to reverse. >> thank you. thank you. now we're going to take time for the interpreter to provide a summary to the permit holder, ms. mah. let's take you off of mute. one moment. we can't hear you. please go ahead. >> [speaking foreign languag

language] -- the interpreter has

finished interpreting. >> thank you. we will now hear from the attorney for the permit holder, mr. ryan patterson. if the interpreter can again listen and prepare to interpret afterwards a summary. >> will do. thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm here. can you hear me? >> yes, welcome. >> thank you. i'm ryan patterson on behalf of the permit holder lillian lee. the subject property is one legal dwelling unit on the second and third floors above one unauthorized dwelling unit in the basement. the owner is legalizing the basement under a separate application process. this all came about because the appellant apparently filed a complaint with the planning department, alleging that the

third floor where her bedroom is located contains an unauthorized dwelling unit, essentially, that the second and third floors are separate units under planning code 317. the planning department made a site visit to investigate and the planner and zoning administrator determined that it is not, in fact, an unauthorized dwelling unit. the reason is that the third floor has no independent access from the second floor. i will try to share my screen so you can see what i'm talking about. are you able to see? is the photo on currently? >> yes. >> that is the front of the house and i will go to the plans. there is a single front door which hopefully you can see my cursor moving. the front door is here.

while there was previously an interior door at the second door, even then you had to cross through the vestibule and straight to the open third-floor staircase to get to that floor. there is no separation between the floors. you will see the appellant has included a letter from a former co-tenant, both exhibit o and u, saying he did not have access to the third floor and she didn't have access to the second floor. this proves the opposite point. i'll go to the better. to quote, there is an outside front door that only allows access to my front door and the stairs that lead to the upper unit. the second and third floors have a common front door and that runs up straight to the failured

floor. the failured floor has no separation. you can see in this photo, this is looking down the stairs from the third floor to the second floor. the front door is here. if you were to go through that front door, it's into the second door. if someone were to come out of the second door and go outside the building, they're crossing through what is here, open to the stairs with the third floor. also, there is no independent access from the rear either because the basement u.d.u. blocks any access from the rear yard. the permit backs this up. to show here there are a couple of permits saying the property consists of a two-unit dwelling and there are also permits that say it is a one-unit dwelling. the assessment records say it is one unit.

presumably the records saying it is two units are referencing the unauthorized unit on the basement level. the planning department determined that the third floor is not an unauthorized permit. but they did find an extra syrianing on the third floor which violates the matrix and they were told to remove it. this is what this is actually about, not to remove a unit or to evict a tenant. it is to comply with the planning department's tenant that an illegal thing can be removed. the appellant says, great, this is my kitchen. you can't remove my kitchen sink. she's included in her brief a photo showing this space, which looks in some ways like a kitchen. there is no stove there, but here is a sink that looks like a kitchen sink. there is a kitchen setup there

and a kitchen hood. the fact, however, is she neglects to show you that this is actually her bathroom. if you were to pan the camera to the right, you see this is inside the bathroom. whether this sliding door blocking off the toilet that you see here renders that a second bathroom or not, this is all one room, one bathroom that we're talking about, with an illegal third sink in the bathroom, where the appellant has apparently been preparing food. the stuff about the owner adding and removing features doesn't make a lot of sense, but it also doesn't affect the existence of a u.d.u. and the existence or lack thereof of her turning in her unit to the planning department doesn't make a lot of

sense. . the parties in this case have had a lot of access to the planning laws. my client does not speak good english. the appellant's underlying complaints are really about her tenancy, about services and construction services and the like and those are complaints to go to the rent board. to use this permit as leverage for the rent board would be wrong. the permit holder has to comply with the planning department's directives. even if this board were to say, what's the big deal, leave the sink there, you would be sanctioning using the bathroom as a kitchen and there are health concerns about that. i'll respond to a couple of other points she made in her description. she showed a copy of the lease referencing the third floor, which she did not reference this

is noted as sharing that space. it's not the entire unit to herself. although she's made some allegations and assertions about how landlord-tenant law works, the fact is if the co-tenant vacates, the possession reverts to the landlord. the remainder of the space does not go back to the tenant. it's noted she is not losing her unit and there is still a full kitchen on the second floor which she will be able and welcome to use. we expect them to deny this appeal, allow the landlord to comply with the directive. thank you. >> thank you. okay. ms. mah, if you could -- i'm going to unmute you now and if you could provide a summary to the permit holder, that would be

appreciated. >> [speaking foreign languag

language] -- i've finished summarizing. thank you. >> thank you. we now have a question from vice president honda. vice president honda, if you could ask your question and we'll have the interpreter interpret it. >> after reviewing the brief, the appellant supplies a large brief, including a divorce settlement. i didn't notice or see that there was a brief prepared by the permit holder. is there a reason why? >> we had a brief. >> really? >> yes. >> did i mix it -- well, let me go to my second question. who did those improvements on the third level as far as the

kitchen is concerned? >> who are -- so you're asking this question to mr. patterson? >> or to his counsellor or the permit holder. >> i'm going to unmute you and we'll have the interpreter interpret that question. >> [speaking foreign language]. >> so i need to find out. i'm looking into it right now. i think some of these may be fairly long standing, but bear with me for just a moment and i should have an answer for you. >> and then -- okay. i'll wait. >> i can respond to that during rebuttal, if that's all right. >> okay. so my understanding and --

lillian, please correct me if i'm wrong, my understanding is the permit holders made at least some of these improvements. >> [speaking foreign language]. >> julia, i have a question, please. >> yes, i see that. so was there going to be a response? we have a question now from commissioner swig. >> just dovetailing the question. the fly in the ointment is above the alleged stove, there is venting for a stove. i never saw a stove hood in a bathroom before. what seems to be missing is the wall between the alleged kitchen

and the bathroom. the hood for a stove is kind of the give-away, mr. patterson. i would like to know who put that in. what was the intent of putting a hood stove in something that was supposed to be a wet bar? it's kind of a contradiction or an enigma, shall we say. >> okay. so we'll have the interpreter interpret that question. >> [speaking foreign language].

>> my understanding is that the hood and sink were installed in approximately 2013. the term "wet bar" is -- it's thrown around and used for different things. sometimes that's meant to include -- some people think of it as a full kitchen and some people think of it as what we have here, a sink with no stove. wet bars are only allowed in certain circumstances. this one does not meet the route dominitrix requirements. i think the answer is this was

installed without the benefit of a permit. the exact reasons for that i couldn't say, but what i can say is that's not a criterion for the existence or not existence of an unauthorized dwelling unit. there are plenty of spaces with wet bars that are not free to use and there are other spaces that do not have cooking spaces that are not e.d.u.s. >> it would seem to me -- thank you for that date. that's very important. it would seem to me that your client had intent possibly to rent that space as a free-standing lodging unit, given that in 2013 they put in a stove hood and what seemed to be the intent to put in a stove. was there intent to put in a legal unit is the question and

what do we do with that is something i will ask of mr. sanchez, most likely, or d.b.i. >> so we will now hear from vice president honda. >> the question to counselor. it's a single-family home with an illegal dwelling downstairs and an illegal dwelling upstairs. if you're trying to legalize, what was the purpose of this? >> if we could have the interpreter to interpret. >> [speaking foreign language].

>> so clarify, this is an unauthorized dwelling unit in the basement level. that is correct. but there is not an unauthorized dwelling unit in the third floor, as determined by the planning department. there is a sink there along with two other sinks, but no stove, nor would the stove or lack thereof make it a u.d.u. or not a u.d.u. the basement unit is more of a true unit. it does have a stove, my understanding, and is in the process of being legalized. the upstairs cannot be feasibly legalized as a separate unit because there is no independent access to the street. the third floor exit through

this entry vestibule, which the second floor has to pass through as well and there is no separation there. so if you were to call this an unauthorized dwelling unit on the third floor, you would have to be people living on the second floor to pass through a separate unit to get out. they would have no privacy there. it does meet the criteria to be deemed a separate dwelling unit and there is not independent access to make it one, including through the rear, even going out the rear stairs to the backyard, they can't go in through the basement ask to the street because of the basement u.d.u. that blocks a path. there is no way to walk through there. >> and the second question, on the illegal unit downstairs, did your client construct that

without permit as well or was that there previously? >> i will check on that and try to have an answer for you. >> can you translate to your client because she's listening. >> [speaking foreign language]. >> is it possible to unmute ms. lee? >> absolutely. one moment. okay. i'm sorry. i see her. unmute. ms. lee, please go ahead.

>> [speaking foreign language]. >> [speaking foreign language]. >> when i bought this house, there was a unit in the basement. all i did was to remodel it. >> thank you. >> thank you. if there are no other commissioner questions at this 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 forestry, but if it is found to be feasible, it is the responsibility of mercy housing. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion passes, 4-0. let's move onto item number 8. let's make sure that everyone is here because it's taken a while to get to this point. yes. i see -- i see the parties. okay. we're at item number 8. this is appeal 20-020, mike the litton versus department of building inspection with

planning department approval, subject property is 14 haven street, exterior addition of a roof deck over existing first floor. this is permit number 201907125762, and we will hear from the appellant, mr. litton, first. so let's put you on spotlight. welcome, and thank you for your patience. >> thank you very much for your time. first thing i must say is i congratulate the board, and not just the board, but people working with the board for your patience, your perseverance, and your professionalism. you guys really go through a lot. to go through quickly, my life and i have lived at 1115 silver street for 25 years. we are the property directly to the north. i had hoped to have a little daylight so you could actually see the situation on camera, however, i'll proceed as best i

can. first of all, in looking at -- first of all, it started out -- well, i won't follow my script -- i'll follow my script. the legal description on the application states three-story occupancy and one dwelling unit. in fact, it's a three-story building and two dwelling units, and there is somebody who owns -- or a couple that own the building jointly with the applicants. in item 16 of the application, it states, exterior addition of a roof deck over existing first floor. i'm in basically a first floor, and i have outside me a garden, and if i wanted to build a deck out there, i would not call that over a first floor. a roof deck implies to me is something over a roof, and what is being proposed is not a real roof at all.

in item 19, interestingly, surprisingly, it does not create -- it states that the alteration does not create a deck. clearly, it does create a deck. what is there currently is a freestanding pergola and they want to attach the deck to the building and basically expand the size to 27 by 8 feet or 216 square feet, which is relatively huge for the space. item 20, interestingly, is blank, and in fact, it should state that there's 216 square feet of new deck space being added to the building, i believe. and i apologize for my lack of proficiency on the fine points of this, but and i were a

teamster, and somebo teacher, and somebody gave me this form, and i were grading on technical aspect, i would give it an f just looking at it. the application notice or preapplication notice said it would be subject to a section 311. at the time of the meeting, i attended and politely expressed our objection and was told that there would be something forthcoming. we did not hear anything until the permit was issued, and i -- i feel that something was lacking. the property is on a dead end street. there are only a few neighbors, and most of us, including the people that shared the building with the applicants, were in all against the deck, and we wondered how it went through. i don't blame the building department or the permit department, i blame the

applicants for frankly misleading or seeming to mislead -- and it seems more than accidental, it seems deliberate. there's no mention of a second property there, and it's -- you know, it seems to me the description is incorrect. again, i'm not an expert, but it seems to me the zoning calls for a rear yard. there is literally three sides of the building have almost no space. the west side is -- abuts another building. the front side is on an alleyway. the backside of their space is 3 feet from our fence line, and the front, if you want -- and i don't know what the front is, if it's facing east or it's facing south.

they seem to arbitrarily conclude that it's facing south. there is a cc&r agreement that governs the building. again, not to repeat myself or my brief, but no structure of any kind may be erected or maintained upon the common area until approval in writing by the association. they didn't get approval in writing as far as i know, and as recent as this evening, five minutes before the meeting started, i received an e-mail from the coowner of their building, the subject building, stating that they wished that the deck would not be there. they're elderly. they live most of their time up in lake tahoe, and they just don't know how to fight this, so basically, they wished me good luck, and they said they wished it wasn't going to be a deck because technically, the deck is going to be right

outside their bedroom window. there are three floors. the applicants have the ground floor, the coowner has the third floor, and they split the second floor, and they want to put a deck outside their side of the second floor when the coowner is going to be looking right outside this huge deck, but that's their business. i thought there were a couple of issues here. the technical issues, the practical issues of putting a large deck in that spot, and from our point of view, as i mentioned in my brief, we live on a very steep street, fillmore street that intersects to leavenworth street. in the back, it's looking up. i wish i could take this camera

and take you out there. i mean, we're already in a well, and -- [inaudible] >> -- into which we're falling, and they're really -- forget the view. obviously, there's no view, but there's an air and a light and a sound issue, which is really creating a problem. alex, are you there? >> yes. >> he said he could run through photos real quick. >> clerk: you'll have time in rebuttal, too. >> you're out of time, but i can do it in rebuttal time. just make sure you want me to run through the slides, okay? >> okay. >> i'll have them for you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: and we have a

question from vice president honda. >> vice president honda: and i do have those questions in front of me in records to your disclosure packets, and i do see the allegation of no h.o.a. approval, but that's between them. when you had the meeting with the project sponsor, was it with the project sponsor or a hired professional? >> to the best of my knowledge, it is both. the sponsor was there, and i believe from memory their architect was there. >> vice president honda: okay. and at which point, was it just you and them or was there other people attending this meeting? >> i think there was maybe one other -- one other attendee from leavenworth street. and you can't see it, but maybe on the map, you can see it. there's a classic -- >> vice president honda: okay. that's fine, sir. and on the application, you represented that the project

sponsor represented that there would be a 311 notification for this? >> yes, sir. it said so on the application notice. >> vice president honda: okay. i have no further questions. >> clerk: okay. thank you. let me see if we have any further questions at this point. i don't see any. okay. president lazarus, did you have something in. >> president lazarus: no. >> clerk: okay. so we are now going to move onto the permit holders, miss busterud and mr. videbaek. you have seven minutes. thank you. >> yes. thank you to everyone, and thank you for your time. we all saw some of these photos, but i'm going to go ahead and share my screen just to frame the -- frame the conversation a little bit more?

>> clerk: why don't we start the time when you actually start your presentation. >> i'll start talking. >> clerk: no, that's fine. you don't have to start talking. at this point, when you get your presentation up, that's when we'll start the time. >> okay. i rye set your clak. >> i -- i reset your clock. >> so this permit was issued legally and appropriately. we believe that mr. lynn's concerns about the light, privacy, and the noise impacted about the proposed deck are unsubstantiated and do not violate the planning policies. given the existing structure that the proposed structure would replace, the pergola, there would be no impact to light from the proposed deck.

there is no blocking of light from the existing structure, that pergola. this is illustrated visually in the photos in our brief which also include a mock up photo of what the edge of the deck would look like which showcases that there's no impact to light or air. the concern about the proximity of this deck to his property we believe to be overstated. the proposed deck will not give any additional or clear views into mr. litton's property as it is both further away and higher up than our current patio and dining room window. so one of his major concerns was that we would have additional views into his building, into his back yard, but actually this deck would have a worse angle of view into their property, so we believe this concern is moot. we actually believe that he agrees with us on this point. on march 8, mr. litton entered

our property with another person without our permission or without notifying us that he was on our property. our security cameras recorded the two men discussing the deck proposal and mr. litton's friend or colleague who was with him stated that our current patio and dining room already have a direct view into their property, to which mr. litton agrees. the first and only time that we met mr. litton in person was during our neighborhood outreach meeting which took place on june 25, 2019. during this meeting, he stated his concerns about privacy and light, both of which were noted and included in our discussions with the planning department. we offered to discuss potential concessions, like privacy screen are or permanent plants on the deck. we were not contacted by mr. litton about the deck after this meeting, and he was aware of it for more than seven months without taking any action prior to this appeal. were we sharing now?

okay. great. so the screen share now shows the existing pergola, which is outside of our front door and the patio entering into our kitchen and dining room as kind of a frame of reference, and it's from this vantage point directly behind where the photographer would be standing. below that is mr. litton's yard. >> and as you can see, there very much is a structure currently in place there, which mr. litton's peal claappeal cl there isn't. >> mr. litton's appeal focused clearly on the application, but we believe our appeal did not violate the planning policies. the architectural drawings and application clearly show the extent of the proposed deck. we were open and honest about our intentions throughout and never misrepresented any

information. we followed the procedure, answered the questions of the planning department employees and finally had our application approved as nothing violated planning policies. [inaudible] >> -- and therefore are not -- we have a great relationship -- [inaudible] >> all of this is in an e-mail and documented in our brief which includes a written confirmation and acceptance of our permit, which says there is nothing they object to. after the appeal was filed by mr. litton, it is clear he contacted the encinas', and

they said they had changed their mind about the deck, which of course they are entitled to do. we've since engaged with them to talk about it further. we received an e-mail from the encinas', claiming that they do not object to the deck, claiming that they want something more in line with the architecture of our building, which we've agreed to, and we thought it was a nice touch to the building. we would never begin any projects without their consent and again will continue to work with them, but we thought this was relevant to the proceeding and find it frankly offensive that these claims were made up, that we never received written confirmation from them when all of the written evidence in our brief proves that. we believe that this appeal is baseless and that the efforts to falsely procedure tray our communications history with our

up stairs neighbors are equally offensive and inaccurate. we believe this permit was issued by the s.f. planning department correctly. we believe the board should deny this appeal. we'll go into a little bit more detail around some of these -- >> yeah. so we just wanted to show you all what we're trying to achieve here with this project, and want to highlight the current state here. we have a pergola. i've been enjoying this almost every day for the last month. it's very nice. what we're trying to achieve here in this next picture, this is just a very quick mock-up. as you can see, there are no additional light infringement, no additional light or noise or anything. it looks like it's part of the building, and so we just wanted to claim that, state that, sorry. as becky mentioned, we received

an e-mail from the encinas' yesterday, supporting that. we have a great relationship with them and have maintained one since living at this property. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from vice president honda. >> vice president honda: hey, guys. thank you. so very concise package you have here, and i think you're going to have some very attractive swas wh attractive space when you're done. can you just have a statement about how the preplanning meeting went and how it was attended? >> yeah. i can address that. so our preplanning meeting was attended by mr. litton and another neighbor, mr. snow, and mr. liskas, and one of his attendants, as well. mr. litton had concerns about

privacy and light, both of which were included in the permit application. we even offered concessions in terms of putting up a screen, but mr. litton wanted both privacy and light to come through, which is pretty tough to do, but we tried to work with him, and he did not do anything. >> vice president honda: okay. that answers my question. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. so i don't see any other questions at this point, so we will now hear from the planning department. mr. sanchez? >> hi. scott sanchez, planning department. this is a fairly straightforward permit. the subject project at 14 havens is located in an rh-3 zoning district. it is my understanding the houses were condominium units and were converted sometime ago. there's no side yard requirement in this

neighborhood. the rear yard here is generally 45% blocked out, however, it can be reduced based on the depth of adjacent neighbors but in no case can be reduced to less than 15% or 25 feet, whichever is less, so they're showing on their plans of minimum -- 25% or 15 feet, whichever is less, so they're showing on their plans of minimum of 15 feet. the depth grade at the floor level does not actually require section 311 notification. while we do have a very robust notification process, not every project is subject to notice. all decks less than 10 feet in height are not subject to notification unless they have some other triggers such as a fire wall because they're located in close proximity to a side property line, but this project does not appear it has that. this project was thoroughly reviewed and approved by the

department over the counter. the preapp was performed. i'm not sure exactly why -- maybe there was a misunderstanding about the preapp process, but actually preapplication is not required for this project. it would have been required if it extended into the rear yard or the deck was more than 10 feet tall. i don't know if the project changed in between the time of the preapp or afterwards, but it appears that the permit holder is shaking his head know, so i'm assuming that there were no changes, and it may have been an error that it was done. in this case, it was an error that led to more notice and dialogue with the neighbors than was required under our requirements and policies. there was an issue on the permit form and what was stated on the permit form. certainly, for a two-unit building, i think the board of appeals would have the ability to make any needed clerical changes to the permit if that was an issue, and those are

primarily -- they're under the jurisdiction of the department of building inspection, and they wanted it to be accurate, so perhaps chief building inspector duffy can speak to these issues regarding those, but it would seem relatively minor clerical issues that could be addressed by the board this evening if the department of building inspection feels that that would be appropriate. finally, issues raised about cc&rs, and just to remind the board, as you well know, those are private agreements, and the city does not enforce those agreements, so we would not consider that in our purview. so i think that covers the points that i wanted to raise. i'll leave it at the project is in compliance with the residential design guidelines, and i'm available for any questions. >> clerk: okay. thank you, mr. sanchez. let me see if there's any questions. there doesn't appear to be any at this point, so we'll move

onto the department of building inspection. mr. duffy? let me see if i can locate him. >> i'm here. >> clerk: okay. >> hi, commissioners. joe duffy, d.b.i. the description on the permit is exterior addition of roof deck over existing first floor. it did go through planning building, issued on the 24 of february and then suspended on the 24 of february. i do tend to agree with the appellant on some of the issues that they brought up on their permit application. calling this a roof deck, it's probably not the proper description. i think it should have just been called a deck. and i wouldn't call the -- i think the pergola. that's -- i wouldn't consider that a roof, but that can be probably exterior addition of a deck over the existing first floor. i wouldn't consider it a roof deck as we normally see.

it is a straightforward enough project from what i've seen. i do tend to agree, as well, that box number 19 on the permit application, does this alteration -- [inaudible] >> -- i would say that should be f, so that's just items that need to be corrected. the other thing is how about that is a single-family residence dwelling unit, when in fact, they did a project there. th a two-unit building seems to be more familiar. there's a few errors on the permit application that could be corrected by the architect. other than that, it is a straightforward project, and i'm available for any questions. >> clerk: okay. let's see if we have any questions. yes, we do.

president lazarus and then vice president honda. >> president lazarus: thank you. mr. duffy, given those corrections or given the information that was provided, would there have been any different decision on the permit? >> not from a d.b.i. point of view, no. >> president lazarus: okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. vice president honda? >> vice president honda: mine's similar. so if the board decides to deny the permit, that it was properly issued, will the department clean that up or would the -- or should the board grant the appeal and condition the permit to reflect the work that's to be performed? >> either way, but probably condition the permit to correct the errors on the permit application, with the number of

dwelling units, 9-a on the building permit, and then correct it to be just a deck. and then, the other horizontal, to be a deck. so if we were in the field, and we find these errors in the field, we would ask them to do a revision permit just to correct these items, and that would be another option for them. >> vice president honda: okay. thank you, senior inspector. >> clerk: okay. thank you. and let me see if we have anymore questions at this point. i do not see any, so we're going to move onto public comment. we're on public comment for item number 8. this is appeal 20-020, and we do have some public comment from miss cline. >> thank you very much. good evening, members of the appeal board. my name's adrian cline.

i am a neighbor of anders and becky, and i have lived and owned this residence for 25 years? i submitted a public comment letter to you, which i hope you've had a chance to read? it is provided in the package of materials i saw. i would -- it's always awkward to be in disagreement with your neighbors, but nevertheless, i would like to state my opposition to the proposed project, which is not exclusive a cantilevered deck. it also involves a stairway on the northside of the building, and i would also like to -- i would address some comments to that. i do concur with the concerns of the appellant in this project will result in increased noise to the neighborhood. our homes are located very

close to each other, and i do have a concern over the fact that windows will be converted to doors and outside space, as one of the commissioners mentioned, while it will be attractive, will increase traffic for neighbors in all four cardinal directions in this location. so there's an apartment building immediately to the east that has, i believe -- i'm not sure of the number of units, but those residents will be affected. the appellants to the north will be affected. my bedrooms are on the northside are west of this building, and the noise, i believe, will come around the side of the building, and also the stairway could have impact -- light and noise impact as to the rear of my property. excuse me. so i did take a quick look at your design -- residential

design guidelines which do highlight the unique character of the san francisco neighborhoods and the importance of preserving these characteristics, and your guidelines do extoll the importance of design guidelines and material. so to my review, the new deck does appear to have some aesthetic impact on the architecture of the building, which you have copies of images. and haven street, i think is one of those unique -- oh, dear -- and it's called out in the stairway walk books. so i did not consent to this project. that was stated in the rebuttal to the appeal. i did not oppose it, but that was not equivalent to consent. that was a misstatement, and i

believe stating that there won't be impact -- >> operator: it's time. >> -- and that's it. >> clerk: and just a reminder, public comment is supposed to be by telephone. i think i mistakenly shared the link with you, but in the future, if someone is here for public comment, please call in on the phone number on our website, but thank you, miss cline. is there any other public comment on this item? if you called in for public comment, please press star-nine, and that will let me know you want to speak. we're going to give it a little time. i do not see any other public comment -- oh, i see -- okay. we do have a caller. okay. so the caller whose phone number is -- let me see. i just lost that person. can you raise your hand again?

is it 51 -- can you just raise your hand again, public comment on this item? so the caller whose phone number ends in 0094, please go ahead and speak. are you there? it's 510, area code, phone number ends 0094. >> it's mute. hold on. hello? would you like to speak in public comment? hello? would you like to speak in public comment? >> clerk: we had someone raise their hands calling from the 510 area code. number ends in 0094. we're ready for you. can you hear us? i -- unfortunately, we're having some difficulties.

i'm not sure why we can't hear you. okay. let me see if there's any other public comment. any other public comment on this matter? 14-a haven street appeal? we can try one more -- i mean, i can try calling that number just to see. they've raised their hand twice, so it sounds like they want to get through. one moment.

>> clerk: so okay. that's up to the permit holder whether or not you can speak or not, but we can't hear you, so can you get through on your computer or -- for some reason, we couldn't hear you on the phone. okay. well, why don't you just stand by, just stay on the line in case they want -- i'm going to mute, though. okay. so that is the architect for the permit holders who wanted to raise a few point.

so if the appellants wanted him to speak during rebuttal, i can hold the phone up. i'm going to scroll up. i don't see any other public comment. we are going to move onto rebuttal. mr. litton, you have three minutes. >> okay. just quickly on the comment about me reaching out to them, becky and anders. the last time we met, there was a meeting. i did express my objection, and, in fact, i did not hear anything further. you did not advise me that you were going to change the size of this deck or the deck. by the way, the e-mail that i received from eddie and esvalda said they were opposed to.

i received an e-mail at 4:45 today, just before the start of this meeting, saying, in c conclusion, i would prefer not a deck, but i don't know how to object. so my question is, if it's not just a matter of correcting te technicalitys on an application, is there any way of objecting to an oversized california deck on an older mediterranean house seems totally inappropriate. i agree with adrian's comments, also, and it seems to me some aesthetic and size limitation, just not the idea of the whole deck being rejected, at least limit the size, as the size of

the deck is relatively large, compared to the property. so like they implied, they can come to some kind of agreement with the other building owners, i think they should make it a little bit smaller, like a mediterranean balcony, something smaller, i wouldn't object. but 8 by 27 is huge. i think it's inappropriate for the building. i think this is a terrible way to submit an application and make it look professional, and that's all i have to say. >> clerk: did you have some slides you wanted alex to show? >> i guess you've all seen them. i'd be happy to run through them, if you have them. that's the south part of the building which faces haven's lane. the rear of that building has

sat about two or 3 feet -- that's how close their deck -- that's our bedroom, and below that is the room that i'm sitting in right now. i look up at their current patio, and needless to see, their deck is going to be almost 10 feet higher. this is where their deck is going to be, where -- the curlicue part of the building. the window that you see to the right part of the building on the second floor, that's not their property. their deck is going to be above that pergola but in front of those four windows -- >> your time is up. >> the closest window is somebody else's window. i can't imagine that's legal. >> clerk: okay. thank you, mr. litton. okay. we have a question from vice president honda. >> vice president honda: so mr. litton, did you enter their property without their

permission? >> when you say enter, i didn't enter their property, there's a deck -- sorry, a gate -- a small gate, and i don't believe i entered their property. >> vice president honda: so what side of the gate were you on? their side of the gate or your side of the gate? >> i have been there many times. i am i w-- i was friends with previous owners, and i've been there many times. >> vice president honda: okay. >> clerk: i have the architect on the phone here. did you want to give your architect any time? >> sure. if we could start and then hand it over. >> clerk: okay. you have three minutes. >> i'd like to talk about the staircase. we just got that with the

planning department employees, and the this was added for egress and emergency. there's no reason why the walkway and door would ever be used unless there's an emergency. it's longer, further away, and out of the way compared to our regular entrance. next, with regard to mr. litton, we have a closed gate, and he did go through that, and we have that on camera. i know we haven't lived here quite as long as mr. litton and miss cline, but we love the neighborhood and hope to be here for a long period of time, and we'll now hand it over to their architect. >> clerk: okay. architect geddes? >> we did want to speak about outreach. we thought it was required for a vertical extension, so we did do that extra step of outreach.

when we went for the permit, the planner agreed that actually 311 notice was not required, so it's not like our office tried to change anything or, you know, make any modifications to the -- the process that should have happened? and so, if anything, we did more outreach than what was required and there was a dialogue with the neighbors. as the owner said, we were very willing to make accommodations in terms of privacy and screening, and we tried as much as we could, and that's what i want to state. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. you may have a little time left. >> no, i think we're okay. thank you, guys. >> clerk: okay. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: so we'll now hear from mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. just a couple of points. first, the proposed deck does not look directly into the

adjacent unit. that is -- the adjacent unit is shown on the plans. it's somewhat unique, and that's the level, that second level is split between the two units. there's the permit holder's unit, which is on the ground floor, and a portion of the second floor, and that second floor is shared with the other unit, and then, they have the top floor, but the deck does not look into those windows, and that's shown very clearly on the plans. that's set back a few feet, probably 3 feet from the windows of that other unit. you know, the deck does meet our design guidelines, it's set back fairly substantially from the adjacent property lines. i know the board here has heard quite a few appeals about deck yards and privacy concerns, and some projects that do have the deck right up at the property

lines, and in this case, it's set back from all lot lines. it is a small lot, and, you know, perhaps for the size of the lot, it is a generous size deck, but it is within reason for a deck in san francisco as we've seen it, and it does meet our design guidelines. so with that, i'm available for any questions that the board may have. just confirming, it's code compliant, does not need modifications, and i'm available for questions. >> clerk: okay. just -- i don't see any questions from any of the commissioners, so we will move onto chief building inspector duffy. do you have anything further? >> no, nothing further. i'm available for any questions. >> clerk: commissioners, this matter is submitted -- we do have a question. vice president honda, do you

have a question? >> vice president honda: i don't have a question. i was just raising my hand for commissioner comments after. >> clerk: okay. this matter's been submitted. >> president lazarus: commissioner honda? >> vice president honda: thank you, president lazarus. so commissioners, what's before us is whether this permit was properly issued. you know, in remembrance of our late commissioner -- or our commissioner that moved onto the planning, frank would have had a ball with this, but in this particular case, you know, this is san francisco. we do live in an urban environment. you know, granted, that the permittees actually had additional process to this matter. my opinion is that we would accept the appeal and condition it on what inspector duffy recommended. >> clerk: okay.

commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: i was going to say the same thing. thank you. >> president lazarus: any other comments? >> clerk: i would like clarification from inspector duffy. he referenced two boxes that -- >> vice president honda: 9-a and number 9, and to eliminate roof -- number 19 was to horizontal. correct, senior inspector? >> that's correct, yes. >> clerk: so box 9-a should say yes, box 19 should say horizontal? >> you could check the people that pulled the permit, but it's a two-unit. i believe it's a two-unit building, but on the application, they have listed as single-family. i believe it's a two unit, so it should be corrected to say two units.

>> clerk: geddes, are you still there? hello? geddes? >> i just wanted to clarify, this is a two-unit building, that is right. >> yes, i'm still here. >> clerk: it is a two-unit building, correct? >> yes, there are two units there. >> clerk: thank you. and inspector duffy, just to be clear, you wanted it corrected on the permit if that is an exterior deck offver the first floor, not over the roof? >> correct, it's not a roof deck. >> okay. we can make that change. >> and then, box number 19, julie, it's to say yes on that one. >> clerk: yes on 19 and yes on 9-a. >> 9 to 9-a, just from one to

two. >> clerk: okay. okay. so who's making this motion? >> vice president honda: that would be my motion to grant the appeal and condition the permit that the foregoing corrections be made on the permit. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion -- >> that's good language. that's fine. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from vice president honda to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that it be revised to require the following changes: that they remove the reference to a roof deck. it's an exterior addition of a deck over the existing first floor, and box 9 should change from 1 unit to 2 unit, and box 19 would be horizontal, and on the basis that these correct the errors on the permit and permit application, correct?

>> can i add one other thing? >> clerk: sure. >> box 7 and 7-a should not say single-family dwelling. >> clerk: okay. box 7 and 7-a should not say single-family dwelling. >> yes. >> clerk: okay. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 4-0. thank you. i'm going to hang up on you now, okay? okay. thank you. okay. >> vice president honda: before we get started, i think we should congratulate -- i think we have the acting chief deputy building inspector in our midst right now. >> clerk: yes, we do. >> vice president honda: congratulations was it deputy chief inspector -- so does that mean that we're going to lose you here at the board of appeals now that you're the big shot? >> no, i'm not the big shot.

i'm just the acting chief building inspector. >> vice president honda: congratulations, joe. >> clerk: congratulations. >> yeah, i'll keep at the board of appeals. >> clerk: okay. excellent. okay. so we are now moving onto item number 9-a and 9-b. these are appeal numbers 19-135 and 19-137, brian raffi and roxanne davis versus department of building inspections concerning the buildings at 40 and 50 alta street to jerold balzer. proposed work includes industrial moment frame at ground floor, plywood sheer

walls and foundation. the same work is to be performed at 40 alta street under permit 20170909596929, so we will hear from the appellants first. since we have two appeals, we have 14 minutes. so mr. raffi and miss davis, who would like to go first? >> i hope if i got the time right, cheryl takes part of the other. good evening. any time? >> clerk: yes. so do you want to take seven minutes and miss davis take the other seven? >> yes, and i'd like to eat into her time because i know her statement is shorter than mine. >> clerk: okay. is that okay with her? >> i don't know. >> clerk: miss davis? miss davis?

miss davis. >> i'm here. yes, that's fine. >> clerk: okay. so we'll give you a warning when seven minutes comes up, and you can decide what you want to do. >> yeah, i'll give you a seven-minute warning when it comes up. >> okay. so good evening. i hope that everyone's family and friends are healthy during this time. i know that this is the fourth time that the board has heard this case, and the board is conscious of the time spent on this. i'll just introduce myself. my name is brian raffi. i'm a native of san francisco. [inaudible] >> until march 15, when lots of employment ended, this march 15, i trained medical students at ucsf and also led walking

through tours celebrating two of our neighborhoods, san francisco and north beach. i say this because i love the city, and i've given back to it. 50 alta is only my second adult apartment. i didn't plan on staying, but i've lived here 34 years. it is my home, and i'd hate to be displaced from it because i cannot afford to remain in san francisco. i know this hearing is now only about the two remaining permits. the other two permits scheduled for today have been dropped by the appellants. i want to remind the board that our appeals were never ever about appealing everything as is falsely stated by the defendant's attorney in our current brief. we are here because we as 40 and 50 alternate -- we as 40 and 50 alta do not want to be

displaced from our homes. the first plans approved ultimately stated there would be no tenants in the building during the construction. we welcome the seismic upgrade. we agree the seismic retrofit is necessary, and it's mandated by the city and law, but the board of appeals has the ability to revoke this permit because of the landlord's malicious intent and dishonesty. san francisco code 37.9 states an owner can do capital improvements in good faith without intent. owners and their attorney have argued that the reason they explained our ignorance, they made a mistake in the plans and

the filing. specific examples are on record at prior board hearings regarding this property and their briefs. one example, if this was a simple mistake, there would be no tenant in the building during construction. it should say there would be tenants in the building. why did they wait until the last minute to withdraw that permit? it caused tons of confusion and we put tons of hours into something essentially moot at that time. if for whatever reason the ownership and management had changed, and they start open and honest communication and do everything they can to keep tenants in their homes without harassment, we welcome that. however, only time will show if these stated changes are lip service. i really thank mr. balzer and

leafi leavitt for getting many of our questions answered. [inaudible] >> -- if the sterile work is no longer required, why does the unit need to be vacated? there is no documentation that this is necessary. it is also read that the tenants may be evicted for a seismic retrofit? why is 50 alta a unique case? they've withdrawn permits for other work and just want to proceed with the retrofit. that suggests to today, they've been misleading the boards and other tenants. [inaudible] >> they sent a short letter

stating they were revoking the stairwell permits but no other information by only mentioning the new intentions for temporary evictions in their brief, there is a stated lack of transparency the last few years. in an e-mail dated may 8 by their attorney, ryan patrick -- [inaudible] >> why did their attorney say there were no plans? after us and julie and you pressing, they admitted there were no plans, and we got them late friday, so that communication remains unchanged. owners and management are delaying the process -- [inaudible] >> to change the nature of the discussion. they want to make sure the appellants cannot provide a concise argument and they want to make sure the board of

appeals don't have the information they need to make a decision allowing the management and the attorneys to argue at the hearings that the tenants are misinformed and don't have any evidence. the tenants don't have the need to have a law firm on retainer 24 hours to handle submittals. last-minute changes leave us scrambling. is this intentaional strategy? the fact that no notice by e-mail or letter about the plans for 50 intentional or unintentional? does that mean that the april 8 e-mail applies only to 40 alta

and not 50? i mean, should it be the policy for us to constantly chase and correct the owners and management's constant mistakes? >> that's seven minutes, if you want to continue. >> i have about two minutes left. thank you so much. i can forward you a copy of that e-mail if you want. our fears have not changed, and the questions we now ask ourselves is did they change their strategy about how to empty the building because we resisted? have they figured out some other way to get rid of us? they did take a rental unit off and put their office in their illegally? are they planning to make life unbearable by having the seismic work drag on and on. these are not unreasonable concerns of ours given the past history.

all the wonderful talk sounds great in the moment. a dog that's abused by its owner always remains cautious and trusting when the owner gently holds out his hand and talks gently, saying that's okay. why? because the dog knows that he was abused previously after the owner's words. mr. balzer e-mailed an answer, which is great. we thank him, about the timeline, which would be the same outlined in the first package, but upon a day's reflection, is that answer realistic? has anyone talked to the construction crew about the plans, if they change anything? does social distance change anything? it would be better to get an actual timeline from the construction team to address covid-19. mr. ryan twisted and

misrepresented the intent of working out in good faith some monetary assurance to make sure we would not be displaced permanently. secondly, mr. ryan existed the reality of what i said. the lawsuit was unjust and without merit, therefore, the holding of the check was not allowed. in closing, i would like to say again, all of us welcome a real change in the owner's intent and actions, but we are skeptical. we trust the board's decision regarding the issuance of these permits with or without restrictions or in whole. i thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you. miss davis? >> okay. thank you very much. thank you. okay. well, first of all, i'd like to thank the board for your patience and just for your being there to help us. you know, help us refer to the facts that help us make our

lives safe and fair. i'm grateful that you've given us the opportunity to state our case and to defend our tenants rights. i'm also grateful that the owner has decided to cancel the work outside of the mandatory retrofit so that we tenants don't have to be displaced, especially now with the world sheltering at home. in order to keep our discussion relevant, i want to stick to or bring up two concerns just for the record, the transparency and the timing. this is a little bit redundant because the transparency, even though jerold balzer says they will stick to the retrofit work only, his history of keeping us off balance so our arguments with always irrelevant, so they don't have any trick up their sleeve, we want the building to be safe, and we don't want to lose our home. so as for the timing, it's

concerning because out of the 12 units, two have been under construction, under renovation for two years, and, like, there's no urgency to complete. it's just like there's no end date. even before the lockdown, these units have been empty and off the market, and what's concerning, without a deadline, the work could go on indefinitely. it should take four to 12 weeks to do the retrofit, and then, is there a way to ensure a completion date for the retrofit within, like, standard building requirements so that the job doesn't languish, you know, into infinity? so these are unprecedented times, and i'm hoping we can come through this healthy and with the necessary rebalancing that needs to occur. just a little kudos, san francisco has done a good job of keeping the numbers down. i feel blessed to live in this beautiful city and beautiful

neighborhood where i've lived for almost four decades. and it's exceptional and welcomed. i'm a teacher with the san francisco school district. this is my son's -- my son was raised here. he's not living here at the moment, and we want to do whatever we need to keep our home life focused on fairness and safety, and we thank you again for helping both the city and us tenants. thank you very much. >> clerk: okay. thank you, miss davis. i also want to make an announcement. i see a lot of people who are on this zoom meeting, and if you're here for public comment, we're only taking public comment by phone, so you need to go to our website and call in on that phone number. so i don't know -- i just see a number of names, and i don't think they're direct participants, but if you're here for public comment, we do have a phone number and an access code that you need to call from our website. go to sfgov.org/boa, and all

the information is there, so thank you. i just want to -- i'm giving you time to do that now because we're going to hear from the permit holder. mr. patrick, you have 14 minutes to respond, and we're going to put you on spotlight. i'm going to unmute you. one moment -- maybe we're doing it at the same time. >> can you hear me now? >> clerk: yes, i can. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. thank you for this opportunity. it's good to see you're healthy and well, and you guys are doing a great job. doing a hearing like this presents a lot of logistical difficulties, and, yes, thank you for your efforts to keep the gears turning during this whole crisis. i'd just like to clarify what's at issue. it's whether or not the seismic permits for 40 and 50 alta were issued properly. there hasn't been any evidence

to suggest that these permits were issued improperly. t what the permit owner is asking that you deny the two appeals and approve the two seismic permits. there's going to be displacement of the tenants of 50 alta and un one, ain unit o temporary, for 17 days. [inaudible] >> we've tried to, given the long history of when we first got here, presenting everything we wanted to do to upgrade this building to streamlining it, to say okay, well, because it's going to be such a battle and because there's going to be all of these logistical hurdles, how can we stream line this to make it as -- to take care of these safety issues, and that's what we've done here. if the project has moved and been refined, it's because we

want to take care of the mandatory seismic, and that's it. and that's where we are here today. i asked jerold balzer here if you want him to answer any questions. i also have our architect to speak to any questions, and i'm also available to answer any questions. thank you. >> clerk: okay. are you -- are you finished? >> yeah. >> clerk: okay. i'm not seeing any questions from the commissioners -- yes, i see commissioner swig has a question. >> commissioner swig: thank you. let me actually put my -- unmask myself. i'm confused about displacement. is there going to be -- in this new set of permits, is there going to be displacement of tenants or not, and if so, how long? >> mr. swig, the displacement

is stated in our brief. the work -- the seismic work will cause the temporary displacement of one tenant, and that is the tenant in unit 1 at 50 alta. neither of the appellants will be displaced. >> commissioner swig: okay. and in hearing the appellant's testimony, something concerned me, and in previous hearings, we've been through a number of hurdles and things have changed and there's been switches in the past, and it's been fairly inconsistent. so i -- but now you have a hurdle that none of us anticipated, which are new construction rules, and those new construction rules including social distancing. so in your -- in your plans and in your timing and timeline

spreadsheet, what is the difference and is there a difference between what is represented in your brief and a new reality that is associated with social distancing and new construction? >> well, we're all dealing with the uncertainty of social distancing and emergency orders, and i -- ideally, the construction's going to have to start after these emergency orders and the social distancing stuff is lifted. that's the only practical way to deal with this. >> commissioner swig: okay. so your -- if this construction is now allowable, and construction is starting, there's no restrictions on you to start this project. but are you representing here that you are going to complete

this project when we are no longer under this -- these new rules or these current rules and stick to that amount of time that you represented? >> yes, and, i mean, i think it would be completely unreasonable to go ahead and start a major construction project while everybody's sheltering in place. just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. >> commissioner swig: okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. is there -- i'm looking to see if there are anymore questions. i don't see any questions at this point, so we will hear from the planning department. mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. so the subject property, we have two properties adjacent to one another, 40 and 50 alta street. both are located in rh-3 zoning district. at issue, what's left before the board today are two permits related to seismic improvement.

these permits were issued in error because as the plans that are before you, they contain work that were required review by the planning department, and that review was not obtained. the permit holder was made aware of that fact after the appeal was filed and has been working diligently with our staff to develop plans for the soft story work that did not require review, and i believe they've submitted those most recently to the board of appeals on may 8, and those plans have been reviewed by our staff and find that they don't require our review. it's a little bit odd we have to take a look at it to ensure we didn't need to take a look at it, but that's where we are, so it would be the position of the planning department that the board should grant the appeal and adopt the revised plans that were submitted last week. they still maintain the required seismic work for both buildings, but they've been changed in height and scope

such that nothing would require our review. the two permits that were initially reviewed at some point originally required our review and could not be changed in a way to not require our review. i think those permits were originally issued in 2017, and stated no occupants in the building, but we informed also the permit holder that those two permits were invalid because they weren't reviewed by the planning department. i think everyone would have preferred that they would have been cancelled a little bit sooner because we advised them shortly after the appeal was filed, but given with everything that's happening now with covid-19 and the city's response, they did ultimately get those permits cancelled, which is what was required.

last summer, they did submit a certificate of appropriateness and building permit for each property for another scope of work. those permits are still on file. the scope of work on each -- permit for each property is pretty similar. a remodel of entry lobby, the four unit repair of decks and floors, including new access stairs, so that is still under review by our department. that's not been approved, but i think that may include -- or they can include some of the work that they've been proposing in permits that have been cancelled in one permit that's been appropriately reviewed by all city agencies. but what's left before you tonight, it does need to be changed to the revised plans that they submitted last week, and that would address our concerns, and i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. sanchez.

are there any questions for mr. sanchez? yes. we have a question from commissioner swig. >> commissioner swig: got to unmute myself. sorry. >> clerk: okay. >> commissioner swig: just for the benefit of the appellants, what -- it is really -- what our discussion has to do with tonight is whether these -- whether the plans and the permits coincide, and whether you approve of the plans to move forward. the issues of how long the construction lasts is not really our issue, but how do we give, given the -- the obvious lack of cross which exists between the two parties, how do

we advise coexistence during this period, and how do we put at ease the anxiety of the tenants with regard to the displacement at least of one tenant? >> excellent question, and i don't know that i have an answer for you. i mean, this is an ongoing issue it has been with communication. i don't know that that can be resolved by the board of appeals here. maybe things have improved over the years this has been going on. i don't know that that is the case, but certainly i think, you know, highlighting -- the board highlighting the need for the parties to communicate and to try to resolve things in a cooperative manner to communicate effectively to make clearly known what the timeline is, i think that's going to be important to the parties. i don't know to what extend the

board can condition the approval of the soft story permit on communications other than perhaps a statement that the board encourages the communications to continue. and i don't know if your deputy city attorney has any other advice that may be appropriate or perhaps advice to that, as well. but it's a question of communication and transparency. >> commissioner swig: and given the one very good point amongst many was made by the appellant, which was when they pointed out that -- that current and previous improvements on the property that should have taken very short periods of time have gone on forever without closure, and -- and they are concerned that, likewise, a simple soft story retrofit

project which should take a specific amount of days in a range will go on for an inordinate period of time. is there anything that this board can do to add some protection so that a -- you know, a -- i'm just going to pick a number -- a ten-day project doesn't become a 100 day or 200-day or two-year project? >> there's nothing in the planning code that i can point you to as a tool. perhaps senior inspector duffy does. i know they have certain guidelines that they have to complete the work, but those can be extended. i think those guidelines in the code are probably longer than anyone would like to see, any way. so maybe your city attorney has some other advice or comments, or other board members, but i

apologize. i don't have a better answer for what the board may be able to do in terms of conditioning this permit. >> commissioner swig: yeah. my intent is full transparency and also bringing comfort to the appellants, so that's why i ask the question. >> clerk: thank you. are there any further questions for mr. sanchez at this point? i don't see any, so we will now move onto the department of building inspection. chief inspector duffy? >> this is joe duffy, d.b.i. both permits are for the soft story retrofit of the buildings. they're under mandatory order, and actually we -- d.b.i. has two notices of written violation for failure to comply, so they're actually under violation, as well. obviously, with the appeals and stuff like that, we do give them some time. but the permits themselves, from a d.b.i. point of true, have been properly -- point of view, have been properly reviewed and issued. there's a lot of buildings in

the city getting the soft story work done. the delay in countering the permits, i can take responsibility for that. probably blame it on covid, because i think i had an e-mail back on march 13 from the architect, mr. leavitt, asking us to cancel the permits, and i can take responsibility for that. there was nothing underhanded done by the building owners, because i told them at that time that d.b.i. was only doing essential -- we were actually closed for a time, but that was the reason for the delay. it was not their fault, i can assure the tenants of that. as soon as we got a chance to do that, we did. in regards to the -- the soft story ordinance does allow for the tenant landlord issues to be resolved. the rent board gets involved, and there is language in the

ordinance that also protected the tenants. also allows the landlord and what has to happen on the severance if anyone has to move out for a while while the work's done. i want to encourage them to get the work done as quickly as possible for convenience for the tenants that are remaining in the tenants and to get the tenant back. the permits themselves are good for 12 months, and that's the time. we do not have anything in our codes to make them go any quicker. and they also -- in relation to the health order, they can work under the health order. there's an appendix in the code b-1, which i imagine this would fall under. they could follow all of the guidelines in that if they so wish. mr. patrick said probably wait until the health order is lifted. i don't know when that's going to be, but there is an allowance to get the work done

if they so wish, and there is an order to follow the protocols. there's a sign-in every day. they have to have, you know, sanitizers, masks, so there's about four pages in there. you have to have the signs posted on the building. so there's some new things that they need to take care of if they do, indeed, to start the work if the health order didn't get lifted for a long time. hopefully that helps a little bit, and i'm available for any questions. >> clerk: okay. see if we have any questions for mr. duffy. and i don't see any questions. i just want to make sure that miss davis is back. she got apparently knocked off the meeting, and she's called in. miss davis, is there yis you o phone, ending in 3272? >> no. >> clerk: no?

okay. okay. i just want to make sure that one of the appellants, roxanne davis, is back on. alex, did you hear from her? >> she's trying to log in right now. >> clerk: okay. if anyone is here for public comment, we're only taking public comment by telephone. i'm not going to accept public comment via zoom. >> the appellant is going to try to call in. i think her internet went out, so she's going to try calling. >> clerk: okay. thank you for your patience. we're just waiting for miss davis to call in.

alec? >> yes. >> clerk: maybe you can call her and just hold the phone up to -- >> yeah, i can do that, too. >> clerk: on speaker? >> yeah. let me give her a call. hold on. >> clerk: okay. okay. i believe, miss davis, did you just enter the meeting on your phone? oh, sorry. wrong person. miss davis, did you just enter the meeting on your phone? >> i did. >> clerk: okay. wonderful. we can hear you. okay. we're moving onto the public comment portion. are there any callers who called in for public comment?

press star-nine now, and i know that you want to speak. we're only taking public comment by telephone. press star-nine. okay. i don't see any callers in for public comment, so we are going to move onto rebuttal. mr. raffi and miss davis, you have six minutes total. how do you want to split that time up? three minutes each, or -- okay. i'm sorry, mr. raffi, go ahead. >> i was just asking roxanne if you want to go first, and there were -- i don't know if they gave up. there were at least two people that wanted to speak, one

tenant and someone else. i don't know if any others officially. >> clerk: okay. i think somebody's trying to call in. hold on one moment. >> yeah, i think somebody was trying to dial in when we were trying to -- >> clerk: okay. so let me -- >> let me try to text that tenant now. >> clerk: if you have that phone number, we can try to call them. who is trying to call in? are you part of the zoom meeting? is it teresa? can you just call in? okay. maybe we should just take you via zoom. it's getting late, and let's just do that, okay, because it's getting late. >> unmuted? okay great. >> clerk: okay. so go ahead, you have three minutes. >> okay. i am teresa flandrick.

i've actually been working with these tenants since 2018, when they were first asked to take buyouts because there would be some seismic retrofit work done, and we discussed at that time how rarely does anyone have to move other than maybe someone at the ground level. so they started watching the permits, and as has already been stated, the first permit that was of great alarm was the fact that it was stated that there would be no occupants in the building. so i just -- a lot of this has already been said by the appellants, and i just want to say that i have witnessed them being -- you know, this has gone over a long period of time, and it has been with delays, it has been with last-minute withdrawals of permits, etc., which has been very confusing for everyone both i know at the commission

as well as for the tenants. so i am really happy that planning will be reviewing things now. that was initially not the case with over-the-counter permits? i also want to say that regarding the temporary relocation of the tenants in apartment 1, as we've said earlier in other hearings, there are havevacant units in building, and for mr. balzer to show good faith, he could, as stated in the rent board ordinance, offer a comparable unit, and certainly one in that building would mitigate a lot of the -- the impact on these tenants in apartment 1. it would also mean moving without risking the lack of social distance? it would be also an incentive for mr. balzer to get the work done as quickly as possible so

that they could return to their home. so i just want to say that -- that i hope that, indeed, the owner and management will attend to the work. it's very important to get this work done, as well as attend to the needs of the tenants in no one being displaced for any unnecessary length of time. so thank you. >> clerk: thank you. is there any other public comment? any other callers? if you're here for public comment, press star-nine? okay. so we're moving onto rebuttal, and miss davis, i believe you're going to go first. we'll give you notice when three minutes is up, and then, if mr. raffi wants to take the remaining three, he can do so.

>> okay. >> clerk: so go ahead, please. >> okay. >> clerk: okay. >> i just want to say thank you. i'll let brian take over. it's okay. >> clerk: okay. mr. raffi? one moment. okay. please go ahead now. >> great. i really have no rebuttal. i just want to reiterate, i appreciate your time. and also, the questions from the board concerning our concerns. honestly, we wish we didn't have to deal with this. none of you take offense, we hope we never see you again in this situation, and that would be a good thing because there would be nothing going wrong. i guess the only questions that i have, and i understand it's not -- that what would be the notice once -- it's a 12-month

permit, so they're going to start sometime in the future. what is that notice going to be, and i just want to make sure it comes in a timely manner so we can do everything that has already been outlined in some e-mails that you and the board were privy to in the last couple days. thank you for your time. i hope that things work out and that things have changed. >> clerk: okay. thank you, mr. raffi. okay. let me see if there are any questions at this point. one moment. okay. so we will now move onto mr. patrick. you have six minutes for rebuttal. let me make it -- i'm sorry. unmute you. okay. go ahead, mr. patrick. >> it sounds like all of us are in agreement that the -- the seismic work needs to go through. i've heard both appellants state that. they have not highlighted any reason, legally basis -- they

haven't highlighted a legal basis to stop the permits. the permits were properly issued, and they should go forward. >> clerk: okay. thank you. i don't see any questions from the commissioners at this point -- oh, yes. vice president honda. >> vice president honda: good evening, counselor. first of all, i'd like to commend you for working this out with these guys. it's been a long and winding road, of course with the board of appeals. and i agree that even though you're allowed to do work right now, 9:30 to 4:30 with a small crew, and having people sheltering in place would more exacerbate the situation. as the public comment says, is

your client willing to relocation the tenant to another unit in the building? >> i mean, i haven't talked to my client -- >> vice president honda: although you guys are looking good right now, i would like you guys to be good players continually. i would wish that you would contact your client, and if you have vacant units in the building, it would only make sense to relocate that particular displacement in the building. >> i hear what you're saying, and, you know, we're trying to act in good faith. the last thing i want to do before you and before the board of appeals is make a promise that i can't keep. this is not a conversation that i've had with my client, and i don't want to promise to put somebody in a unit that's not done or still being renovated or something like that. >> vice president honda:

understood. it's not a threat, but as the guy mentioned before, i would prefer not to see you again because if we do, it probably will not be a friendly get-together. thank you, counselor. >> clerk: okay. let me see if there are any further questions? there are no questions, so planning department. mr. sanchez, go ahead. >> nothing to add, just that the plan go forward with the plans that the project sponsor submitted last week. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from vice president honda. >> vice president honda: so not trying to throw a monkey wrench in this, but what kind of controls are you going to have over this project, mr. sanchez, because, you know, they removed the permits that -- that they

overlooked. i know you touched on that, but i'd just like a little further elaboration. >> thank you. so what would be approved if the board does take this action tonight would be the seismic upgrade of the building, which, you know, our whole reason for taking review was to make sure they didn't need our review. they are required soft story seismic upgrades to the building, so that would be the department of building inspection's purview. they do have separate permits on file for work in the future, and i don't know if that's something they intend on still pursuing, but they have a permit for each building that requires a certificate of appropriateness that we would be reviewing, you know, over

the coming months. so then, we would be reviewing it for compliance with the planning code and by the planning department. >> vice president honda: so we would have way to see keep our eyes on? >> yes. they could potentially cancel those permits and potentially proceed with only the seismic work, but assuming they do pursue that, there would be permits that would be reviewed and issued and those would be appealable to the board of appeals. >> vice president honda: okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. i don't see any further -- oh, president lazarus?

>> president lazarus: yes. i just want to clarify with the new plans that have been submitted, if we condition the permit, do we have to approve and condition the permit on the new plans? >> yes. that's the standard practice of the board. >> president lazarus: there's kind of a disconnect between the permit and the plans, so i just wanted to make sure they are linked. thank you. >> clerk: so there are no further questions, so we'll go to the department of building inspection, mr. duffy. >> yeah, joe duffy, department of building inspection. there are a lot of good information for frequently asked questions. for tenants that have to move out, this ey have to notify th owners. there's a lot of information on the d.b.i. website, and as i said earlier, we are dealing with literally hundreds of

projects in the city. as i said, they are going really, really well. with owners there needs to be good outreach, good p.r. by the owners. if there's an issue, it needs to be addressed quickly, and in district 15, the inspection will be done by inspector g. lancy. if the tenants have any issues during construction, they can contact d.b.i., and inspector lancey will address that. i think i've covered everything. >> clerk: thank you. we do have a question from vice president honda. >> vice president honda: so joe, senior inspector duffy, so if they decide to reinstate the permits, is there a b.b.n. or will the tenants be notified in case there is an alteration?

>> a b.b.n. -- >> vice president honda: or is that a planning thing, i'm sorry. >> a b.b.n., that's a planning thing. >> vice president honda: okay. future permits. >> d.b.i. would only do their things on certain types of permits, and then, planning inspection. >> vice president honda: thank you. i believe mr. sanchez wants to jump in. >> i believe there's a b.b.n. on one if not both of the properties, so the b.b.n. would be triggered by any permit that's subject to planning department review. i don't have it available exactly who has the b.b.n. on file other than i can see that there's one at least on i believe on both of the

properties. i just can't see who has that. >> vice president honda: thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted. do we have another question? i don't see one. commissioners -- i'm sorry. we're not taking anymore comment at this point. thank you. >> just a question about permits -- >> clerk: okay. okay. i'm sorry. we can't take comment. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioner swig: i think that what was suggested to approve the permit with the condition that -- >> clerk: the revised plans be adopted? >> commissioner swig: yes, the revised plans be adopted on the

basis that those revised plans be properly issued. is that correct, scott? >> yeah, granting the appeal for both cases and adopting plans as submitted last friday by the project sponsor to show that the seismic work did not require review by the planning department or does not require review by the planning department. >> commissioner swig: exactly what i said. thank you. >> vice president honda: that's exactly what you said, rick. >> commissioner swig: yeah, exactly. darryl, do you have any further comment? >> vice president honda: no. we seem to always be ringing the same bell. >> clerk: okay. is that your motion, commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: yeah, that's my motion. darryl, do you want to add anything or supplement it? >> vice president honda: no, i think this is covering it. i'm just hoping we don't see this again, to be honest. got to have some faith, right? >> commissioner swig: yep, i guess. >> vice president honda: have some faith. >> clerk: okay.

so we have a motion from commissioner swig to grant the appeals and issue the permits on the condition that they be revised to require adoptions of plans that were submitted by the project sponsor on may 8, 2020 for the hearing today on the basis that the revised plans do not require approval by the planning department and are code compliant. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so that motion carries, 5-0 -- 4-0, excuse me. and that concludes the hearing. >> commissioner swig: thank you, julie. julie, thank you again for your hard work and herding cats and mastering the technology. thank you, alex.

>> as in previous cases before we begin, i will enter the following into the record. on february 20, 2020, the mayor declared a local state of emergency d