>> remote meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president louisiana has will preside and she is joined by

vice president commissioner swig and tanner and santacana. deputy city attorney is here for legal advice this evening. at the controls is if legal clerk and legal assistant. i am the executive director. we will be joined by representative the city departments presenting before the board this evening. scott sanchez administrator with the planning department and acting chief building inspector for the san francisco department of building inspection. the board's meeting guidelines are as following. turnoff or silence all phones or electronic devices to not disturb proceedings. apple laboratories and department respondents are given seven minutes for the case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated must include the comments within these periods. members of the public have three minutes to address the board

each. you will get a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. if you have questions about requesting a re-hearing please e-mail the staff at board of appeals at sf governor.org. regarding participation they are of important tan every effort is made to replicate the in person patient. sfgovtv is streaming this hearing live and we will have ability to receive public comment. to watch on tv go to sfgovtv cable 78. it will be rebroadcast on friday. go to sfgovtv. public comment can be provided by joining the meeting by

computer. go to the website and click on the zoom link or call in by telephone. 16699006833 and enter the i id89427762015. sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen. to block the phone number when calling dial star 67 and the phone number. listen to the item to be called and dial star nine that is equivalent of raising your hand. you will be brought into the hearing at your turn. you will be provided a verbal warning. there is a delay between live streaming and internet. therefore it is very important people calling in reduce or turnoff volume on tv or computer. if any of the participants on

zoom need disability accommodation or technical assistance make a text or send e-mail to board of appeals at sfgovtv. it can fought be used for public comment or opinions. we will swear in or affirm all of those who intend to testify. any member may speak without taking an oath pursuant to rights. if you intend to testify at proceedings, raise your right hand and say i do after you are sworn? or affirmed. do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth? anybody testifying tonight? i don't hear. >> no. >> okay. thank you. if you are not speaking please put your zoom speaker on mute.

1. general public comment. an opportunity for anyone to speak within the board's jurisdiction not on the calendar tonight. let me an there anyone here for general public comment? if so, please raise your hand. okay. i am not seeing any hands raised. we will move on to item 2. commissioner comments and questions. i am going to lead off, if i may. we are on the cusp of losing one of our valued commissioners. she, i understand, is going to be before the board of supervisors next week for confirmation. if i were a betting person i would put my money on that happening. there is a chance she will join us next wednesday, we don't want to lose the opportunity to thank her for her service to this board. your questions and comments are

always so incisive, your black ground meshes with the role we as board members have. it is a pleasure working with you and i am somewhat dismayed you are leaving us. i know the planning department is lucky to have somebody of your background joining them. you were an obvious selection. sorry you were with us so short. we suspect we will be hearing about your activities and actions at the planning commission. we wish you all the best. we want you to know we will miss you. >> thank you, rachel, for keeping me awake during the proceedings. no. i echo commissioner lazarus,

your expertise has benefited all of us. you are a loss that will provide a void which we hope to find a good replacement for you, but that will be very hard to do. you know, you have been the best person i have sat next to on a commission since i sat next to london breed. she went on to pretty good things. thank you very much. >> thank you, vice president and commissioners. it is a pleasure to be on the board of appeals. i have learned from you and watched the ways you take matters seriously that are before us, you know, we feel the disputes and take it seriously to administer the laws and try to get people to work together. we are all going to be living in

the city. hopefully, harmoniously. i want to thank you all for the example you have set and i hope you have another commissioner who is better than myself. yo.hopefully soon. thank you all and i hope to still be in touch with you all. thank you very much. >> thank you. is from any public comment on this item? if so please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any public comment. we will move to item 3. adoption of minutes. commissioners before you are the minutes of the september 30th, 2020 meeting.

>> it is sad to see rachel leave. we are out of order. >> was that a motion to approve. >> my motion to approve. >> is there any public commission on commissioner swig's motion to approve minutes from september 30th. please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any hands. on commissioner wag's motion. commissioner santacana. >> aye. >> president lazarus. >> aye. >> vice president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> that carry the 5-0. the minutes are adopted. >> we are moving on to item for. appeal 20-050. 98 broderick streetvorces zoning

administrator. 704 broderick. appealing issuance on july 22, 2020 of notice of violation and penalty. violation of planning code due to noncompliance of planning code 317 for unauthorized dwelling section and 132f for unauthorized parking in front set back. it isnored for two family dwellings one on second and one on third and fourth floor. ground floor was garage for packing. illegally converted to third dwelling unit. pre-existing driveway were not removed despite removal of off-street parking. curb cut was provided off-street parking. this is 2015-001328. we will hear from the appellant first. we have mr. patterson

representing the apple the appe. >> i am ready. >> good afternoon. >> do you want to get sworn in? >> i did swear in with my camera and microphone off. i will ask if my clients are on as well. i believe they are. i can see them there. confirm they swore in as well. >> i can just ask everyone to raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give is the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> mr. patterson, you have seven minutes. >> okay. thank you, commissioners, president lazarus. i am ryan patterson representing the owners of the property. the key question is whether an

unauthorized dwelling unit exists. the termination under appeal the va found first floor is a unauthorized dwelling unit. with all due respect theyered in this. the first floor space did not satisfy the criteria to be a udu. the first relates to fiscal characteristics of the space and asks if there is independent access to the street and importantly lack of open visual connection to another unit of the property. here there is a connection between the first and second floors via open stairwell. second, even if the space satisfies physical requirements for udu it must have been used as separate and district living space. the first floor udu was in existence but removed pursuant to permit in 2007.

subsequent occupants on first and second floors together. that is the first floor was not used as separate unit separate from the second floor. i will hand it over to the owners of the property for further information. >> good afternoon. i am peter lin peter lynch. and this is my wife. managers of 98 broderick llc. 50% owner of 704 broderick. one of the owners and one of the co-owners is also here with us. thank you very much for hearing our appeal. i will basically read my statement, but not to put any

commissioners to sleep while i am reading it. as mr. patterson just said, the heart of the issue in this case is that one of the three requirements for identifying the unit as unauthorized dwelling unit is not present in this case. there is no -- well, in order to be unauthorized dwelling unit it must meet the standard that there is no open visual connection to a residential unit on the property. in the space in question, there is an open visual connection to a residential unit. my friend and co-owner will put up a picture of the stairway which appears to have been there for 100 years. there is no question that there

is an open visual connection between these two floors of occupancy. i think this fact alone, as mr. patterson explained to me, this is the necessary condition. not like you can get two out of three. it is a udu. all three conditions must be met in order for a unit to be an unauthorized dwelling unit. secondly, we think this two story unit is not a udu. there is no privacy for a bedroom on the upper floor of the unit. i am aware of a photo in the marketing materials prior to when we bought the building in 2016 that shows some staging in the space, including a bed in a room next to the kitchen with by fold doors. this is a room with two large openings, including a wide opening to the kitchen with no

door. providing no privacy for a bedroom. it is silly that this wases staged as a bedroom when you have your head on the kitchen floor. there is a double parlor in this upper floor of occupancy of the unit. it including some parlor doors, pocket doors that are quite beautiful. pictures of the doors are in our appeals package. the original use of the building as single family home. the function in any rational way this main living floor of occupancy needs the ad joining ground level for the sleeping area. we have always treated the lower two floors of this building as one unit with one kitchen.

there is an attorney in town who is working on a contingency basis representing clients on a separate matter pertaining to this property, and he is spreading false information through anyone who will listen about this property. however, despite the assertions of the attorney, two of the three young students who have been living at this property, natalie and candice, have submitted e-mails to the appeals board confirming that they have access to both floors of occupancy in the unit. i am sure the commissioners understand why this is a crucial

point in the determination of whether this an unauthorized dwelling unit or not. those are my comments. thank you very much. my friend and co-owner has a few comments to make unless there are other instructions for us. >> thank you, peter. hello, i am one of the owners of 704 broderick street. last week i delivered 30 letters to my neighbors apologizing for the code violation. jim, bill, jean and the three daughters for support and warm welcome to the broderick family. i have been a repter and resident of the san francisco for 16 years. i am a gala tino immigrant

establishing a residency. this is the highlight of my life. thank you for your time and appeal consideration to work together and bring my new home up to code. >> time is up. >> thank you. >> would you like me to submit my picture? >> thank you. you will have time on rebuttal. thank you. we will hear from the planning department. >> thank you. briefly before i begin thank commissioner tanner for the work at boards of appeals. as you know what is involved with the planning commission and you choose to do it. thank you for doing that. you will be missed and a welcome addition to the planning commission. on to the matter here. what is before you is appeal of

violation of 704 broderick street. rh3 zoning and based upon the records two dwelling units. other items there shouldn't be dispute. there have been or at least were three kitchens on the property. it is a four story building, and it originally had been used for the lower two stories one unit and upper two-stories for the second unit. it does appear based on information there is an dwelling unit established on the ground floor. 134 o some of the information pointing to the facts when advertised on realtor.com it did list as three dwelling units. photos from those materials can show there is no connection. nothing that we could define as open visual connection to the floor below between floors one

and two. i can quickly show on that on my screen here. this is material that was included in the -- i hope you can see this. you are seeing now the image. >> yes, the kitchen. >> this is the kitchen on the second floor. [please stand by]

>> these are just some of the facts. additionally, you know, the building was bought in 2016 t but -- by the l.l.c. in 2018, after the enforcement process had started, there was a coowner agreement, and the ownership changed such that the l.l.c. retained 50%, and then, the two owners, mr. campbell and berechea, were 25% owners. and in that, there were two units, including inlaw area. so the materials that they prepared, they are recognizing that there is a separate unit in that ground floor. there is -- the fact is there's

certainly two legal units, but given the material that is provided, there doesn't seem to be three units, the third illegal unit being removed. they are required to pay a conditional use authorization to remove the unit. that's one path, or they can legalize the unit. that's the second path. and in communications leading up to this hearing, the parties, they were willing to pursue that. i think they were going to file it under protests in my conversations with mr. patterson, but they were going to file authorization to remove the third unit from the subject property, and i understand they own multiple properties in the city and in the bay area, as well, so there's probably other places where they could add units. you know, that's certainly

something that they can pursue and, you know, we would encourage them to come up with some path for compliance. they've wanted to continue this item further, but we don't see the benefit of that. we think that everyone deserves some resolution as to the enforcement matter here, and that's what we're seeking from the board today and respectfully request that the board of appeals uphold the notice of violation and penalty. i understand, you know, part of their process, they're very much looking to remove the unit from the building. part of it does speak to as soon as is practicable, you can bypass the city's regular condo rules, and then, you have two years of owner occupancy, and you can condo the building, and then, it can be sold off.

so some of the materials that are provided i think make it more clear than in other cases that we've seen. the appellant has argued that there's no connection between the floors, which is factually incorrect. there's a door, and there's cabinetry in front of those doors, and that door is sufficient enough to meet the physical requirements for the code. there's tenant evidence of occupancy on the ground floor, so that's it. thank you for your time, i'm happy to answer any questions.

>> clerk: thank you. we have a question from president lazarus. >> president lazarus: mr. sanchez, there was questions about illegal parking. was that something that's a continuing concern to you? >> yes, absolutely. and i think that is a violation of -- and i don't think the appellant necessarily disagrees with that. there is a parking in the front set back which is allowed in the planning code. they would need to seek to legalize that, and i think as part of the conversation had with their legalization option, that was part of what they were posing, as i understood it. that was still very much part of this enforcement case. thank you for reminding me of that. >> president lazarus: thank you. >> clerk: vice president honda? >> vice president honda: so i don't know if i missed this in the brief. so how did this case of enforcement come about? >> good question, commissioner honda. it was my understanding it originated as a neighborhood complaint because of parking

conflicts in the front set back, and then, through that process, the issue of the unauthorized dwelling unit came to light. >> and the picture you show of the cabinet blocking the door, you mentioned that it was material from when it was sold, do you have a photo of what that current situation looks like? >> yes, because staff did an on-site, so let me pull up that area. it is quite comparable in terms of physical location. >> vice president honda: milo is helping on your cases? >> i need all the help that i can get these days, so let me -- if he could just run screen share for me, that would

be amazing. this should -- yeah. this is the photo from the staff side. there's still the door that exists. it's open, but there is a door, and i think as we have in other cases, simply the presence of the door is enough to -- for it to be a separate physical separation. and so consistent with how we recognized the authorized dwelling unit -- it is different because the cabinetry is gone. >> vice president honda: they remodelled that. >> yeah, there is remodelling permits for the second and third floor, but i don't think i saw any permits for the ground floor and the cabinetry, but that's something more maybe for d.b.i. >> vice president honda: thank you very much, mr. sanchez.

>> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. so commissioner tanner has a question. >> just building on the question about the remodelling and the site visit, are you aware, right now, if that's what it gets now is a -- you know, that first floor, the floor that you were just showing with the kitchen and remodel, does it now have its own private bedroom as part of the argument? previously, there were no private bedrooms, that everything was open. did staff report back on the remodel? >> i believe that was remodels now as to have the bedrooms on the main floor, but in emergency roterms of the unauthorized dwelling unit, it doesn't need to have its own bedroom. you can call it a parlor or whatever you like. it was a room that was obviously able to be slept in

because they had materials that showed that. >> commissioner tanner: okay. and then, i think the [inaudible] had requested the names to review them. do you recall the name of the former tenants, that they are not living there, is my understanding, that they had rent of the entire, i guess, ground, and that floor above. were you able to find any documentation expressly stating that? >> the lease that we received going back to, i think, august of 2016 described it as unit a, ground floor. >> commissioner tanner: okay. so that would not be above ground floor. and then exterior connection, i assume the unit had an exterior connection coming and going from that area. >> that's correct. >> commissioner tanner: and then, all three portions of a u.d.u. must be met. how do you interpret that?

>> unauthorized unit shall mean one or more rooms within a building that have been used without the benefit of a building permit as a separate and distinct living or sleep space independent from residential units on the same property. independent shall mean that the space has independent access that does not require entering a residential unit on the property, which is correct, and there's no open visual connection to a residential unit on the property, and we believe that also to be the case here because there is that door at the top of the stairs. that is not an open visual connection as we would define in the planning department or planning code. >> commissioner tanner: and then, just the last question. you know, when the current owners, maybe let's say 2016, 2017, that currently own this, they could have sought to legalize that unit or could have sought a c.u.a. to get rid

of that unit. >> yeah, that would have been available to them, either to legalize the unit or get rid of the unit. certainly, that complicates any condo conversion if that is the purpose of this ownership. >> commissioner tanner: and it doesn't have to be an accessory dwelling unit, it just has to be a dwelling unit that's on the property. >> yeah, if it meets density, which are all the requirements of the code. >> commissioner tanner: okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. vice president honda? >> vice president honda: yeah -- >> clerk: we can't hear you.

>> vice president honda: how about now? >> clerk: we can hear you. >> vice president honda: sorry to have another question. how would the ability of the a.d.u. affect the condo convert? is it one to two units or two to four units? >> i'm not as expert as they are in the department of public works in the process, but it's my understanding in order to qualify for what's called a t-unified pass that it has to be two qualified units to qualify for that condo bypass. certainly, there are condos that people will add a.d.u.s in later, but i think if you go into it as an a.d.u., that that would complicate their ability to do the bypass. but that would be something for the department of public works to go on. >> vice president honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> and i don't know that joe

has anything specific to add. i just asked him to watch the hearing in case there were building code questions. that's all. >> clerk: mr. duffy, did you have anything to add at this point? >> i would defer if the commissioners have any questions for at this point on the d.b.i.-related issues, i'm happy to answer them. it was building related permits and some complaint investigations, and just on these types of cases, they are very difficult for staff to investigate because, you know, there's a lot of -- sometimes in my experience [inaudible] i'm not saying that happened here. [inaudible] a lot of this stuff was very moveable, and, you know, it is -- they are tricky cases to investigate, but the

other thing i wanted to add was that mr. sanchez, and there was some discussion if this building went from two three units, that may be in -- two to three units, that may -- the building goes from two units to three units, that it goes from an r-3 occupancy to an r ---r-2 occupancy to an r-3 occupancy.

>> -- entered into in june 2016. she rented with her two roommates ground floor prior to the sale of the property, and she never had access to the second floor from 2016, when the property was sold, to the l.l.c. controlled by mr. lynch

and don and noah through 2018, when the stove was removed because of the city inspection, as mr. sanchez indicated. and the -- so the lease, there's many factual -- unfortunately factual assertions that are not accurate where -- [inaudible] >> and so from 2016 to 2018, no part of the second floor was

used or shared by miss shahane. what miss noah did was try to force the tenants to sign new leases with her daughter so it gave the impression her daughter was living at the property because of their intent to convert to condominiums. other than that, the kitchen, you know, was removed at some point. my only -- i just want to be really clear, mr. lynch has said i've made factual inaccurate statement. my goal, as i asked mr. lynch at his deposition was, if he had any objection to me making truthful statements to the city. my participation is not as an

advocate, it's merely to provide documentation to assist the city in their determination. however the determination that's made is the determination of the city, so the until miss noah removed it -- >> clerk: time. time. >> if there's any questions, i'm available. >> clerk: okay. there is questions from commissioner tanner and commissioner honda. commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: can i ask if your client -- if the stove was removed, your client had access to the upper unit? >> for a brief period of time. the lock was removed because there needed to be something for her to cook on.

the second floor was in disarray. remain my client had to call the police when one of the contractors tried to access her unit at 1:00 a.m., and that's when my client and family members demanded that the other lock be put on the door. >> commissioner tanner: and then, was your line [inaudible] or if that was a different unit. >> that's correct. so it didn't -- so sue cheta, was told to leave the property. there was an owner eviction by mr. berechea, so i'm assuming prior to their plan to condo convert, they had mr. berechea

titled at 25%. it should be noted that eshe is engaged -- so mr. berenechea said he wants to be a homeowner at some point. he and miss noah were living at their $1.5 million condo at -- >> commissioner tanner: okay. thank you very much. >> clerk: we have a question from vice president honda. >> vice president honda: actually, commissioner tanner always answers my questions.

>> clerk: okay. i see a caller with the 808 care code, did you want to speak in public comment? i see miss bolard. do you want to speak in public comment? okay. we have no public comment, so we'll move onto rebuttal. mr. patterson, you have three minutes. >> i do think it's fairly clear that we have an outside attorney that's been -- there's more going on behind the scenes here. i do want to correct one statement from our earlier submissions. we did find a photo from the staging, showing folding doors on the second floor near the

pocket doors. it looks like they may have been there for staging purposes, but i can ask the owners to speak to that in a moment. my assumption is this photo was taken -- my understanding is the former owner had passed away, and he had installed a kitchen set up for himself on the first floor as he was getting older and having trouble climbing the stairs, but that the second floor was never separately occupied. and once he passed away, and his heirs leased the lower unit to these three women, the understanding was construction

was happening on the second floor. they were going to use the first floor with that kitchen until the construction was done because, you know, as they complained and wanted a lock on the door, the construction workers were down stairs. the information about this being called units a, b, and c, i think is easily understand by the fact that there was an illegal unit in the property that was removed in 2007.

happy for the owners to address any of these issues if you have any questions. >> that's time. >> clerk: we do have a question from vice president honda, commissioner swig, and commissioner tanner. vice president honda? >> vice president honda: thank you to you, counselor. we haven't seen you in a while. i have several questions. one is the door between the two unit's still there. does it look like in the

picture there's a door that's still there? >> it is not there, and we have a picture. >> okay. and so who lives at the property right at this moment. >> i do. >> vice president honda: okay. and what else? >> my son, brian campbell. >> okay. so they live at the property right now? >> yes.

>> vice president honda: and when you took ownership of the property, did you have tenants at the property? >> yes. >> vice president honda: and did you have tenants move out? >> there was a tenant move in at that time. >> vice president honda: okay. so it was an o.m.i. question to mr. sanchez, actually. so mr. sanchez, doesn't an o.m.i. disqualify you from fast tracking a unit condo? >> i can't speak to that. that would be department of public works. >> vice president honda: okay. thank you. that answers my questions. thank you. >> clerk: okay. commissioner swig? >> just unmuting myself.

thank you. >> commissioner swig: so there is evidence of unit a, b, and c, it was stated that there is signage that says it's a, b, and c. it says in the offering memorandums of the past, a, b, and c, and generally, if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck, but anybody other the -- in this hearing tonight, mr. patterson, i'd like to ask you again, does anybody have any knowledge or knowledge or evidence from history of whoever lived in unit b of the second floor in question? >> no, it was the history of unit b, the lower two floors of occupancy. but ryan, go ahead.

[please stand by]

. >> commissioner swig: when can somebody establish that yes, there might have been an illegal situation, even though it's representative of a, b, and c? tied into that, what seems to be the ambiguity in this case is the gentleman who lived the final years of his life on the first floor, and the conjecture that, in fact, he was occupying

the first and second floor but really couldn't occupy the first and second floor as one unit because he was physically incapable of doing that, and therefore, that second floor of the unit went to blight. that seems to me what's buzzing around here, but you can address those thoughts when your time comes, please. thank you. >> clerk: okay. commissioner tanner has a question. thank you. >> commissioner tanner: when you purchased the property, did you have in mind that it was three units, a, b, and c, that that's how it was represented in your marking materials? is that your understanding, that it was a three-unit property? >> that was absolutely not our understanding. we did have a little bit of a laugh about it [inaudible] it's

a two-unit building, and we were -- it was funny that they tried to stage it. >> commissioner tanner: and then with the lease with the three roommates who were occupying it -- to the three

young students who lives there, one of whom is mr. cuciman's client. we said look, the right way for you to be in compliance is for you to be roommates, and we're going to have another tenant on the top floor, and you will share the unit as roommates, and they said fine. >> commissioner tanner: but when you say the other unit, that's unit c. >> no, a tenant who would share -- >> commissioner tanner: there were three roommates, plus a fourth roommate, is that correct? is that my understanding? >> after we bought the

building -- >> commissioner tanner: no, there's two units. there's upper most unit, and then, there's three students. is there a fourth person in that unit, and they're occupying as a bedroom that middle floor or, i guess, first floor. is that what i'm understanding? >> there were three students living there. they said yeah, fine, we'll be on roommate agreements, and then two of those students left. and three of them were paying $3,000, and one man said hey, can i pay $1,000 until i find something else. we said yeah, pay 1,0$1,000. we can't do that on a regular

basis. >> clerk: president lazarus? >> president lazarus: yes, question for mr. patterson. you haven't addressed the illegal parking situation, which would seem to address whether there was a u.d.u. or not? >> sure. i think it's an issue in that

needs to be addressed in the other process. >> i can make a comment if there's an open visual connection to a residential unit on the property. >> clerk: okay. right now, president lazarus had a question about the parking, not about the open and visible. president lazarus, do you have anything further? >> president lazarus: no, not on that topic. >> clerk: now we're moving onto the rebuttal permission for the planning department? >> i'm not allowed to make a comment? >> clerk: no, sir, your time is up. thank you. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. the board of supervisors and the mayor adopted the legislation to protect housing, and specifically in general for rent controlled housing and tardable rent controlled housing. it is not the easiest code provision to implement.

whenever you have something that's looking at unlawful conditions -- if it's on the building, we can do aerial or street views. it can be a challenge to implement this provision, and we do our best to do it. that said, i haven't really seen a case that had quite as much evidence as this one does. it's been interesting for me, and i'm just handling it for the appeal process, but seeing that the appellant's arguments are built on shifting sand. we have the violation coming about. then, you have before d.b.i. was going to do a site visit, a stove being removed. and then, you have one the appellants, i believe it was donna, in her statements, she had submitted an affidavit in part of the enforcement process saying the tenants on the first and second floor, they always have use of the first and second floor. the tenant on the first floor can always go to the second

floor. the client, when we were there, we got contradicting information, and then, donna had revised the affidavit to say well, a little bit more information, that actually, they were remodelling, you know? so during the remodelling, they could only use the ground floor, but when the remodelling was done, they could only use the ground floor. that had to have been a self-contained unit back in 2016 when the lease was signed. additionally, we have, you know, text messages through this process between carl, who i believe is the tenant in unit c on the top floor and donna, that when kathrcatherine, in t middle unit, moves in, she

wants exclusive use of the [inaudible]. i think this has been a little bit of a frustrating process. we respectfully request that the board uphold this. we think that there's sufficient information to justify the decision and respectfully request that the board uphold that. if a unit reappears, whether or not there has been an illegal unit removed is somewhat

irrelevant. we're looking at the facts here, and the fact is that there was three dwelling units. >> commissioner swig: so your biggest issue, mr. sanchez, if i could dovetail on my question, since you brought it up, is the shifting sands. conveniently what happened here is the owner shifted the sand and opposes to any fix situation. and your point of view, and please confirm this or not -- it's abandoned due to the previous -- the previous owner, then just maybe their argument

might have stood up. >> if anything, i think what they're doing, and this is based upon my review of the history here and seeing how the arguments and the facts have -- have cancelled over the course of, you know, the years-long enforcement process. and i think it would have been an even more clear-cut case of the authorized dwelling unit back when the case was first brought to their attention. but they've taken steps to muddy the waters, to make it more confusing. unfortunately, that appears to be the case, and i can understand. we shouldn't have to resort to

independent attorneys to give us fact -- >> i was giving you the truth. >> clerk: excuse me. you can't speak out. please -- please stop. are you finished, mr. sanchez? we do have a question from vice president honda. >> vice president honda: i've been on this body since 2012, and in 2012, nonpermitted or nonwarranted work could be removed, no matter what the tenancy was. i believe in october 2014, i believe it was david chiu that introduced legislation that then as a supervisor to legalize rooms down, to make a path towards legalization, correct? >> yeah. that's when the first legalization provisions came into effect, and subsequent to

that, the board of supervisors felt like they wanted to ensure that people weren't removing units. they wanted them to legalize the units. >> vice president honda: that's my next question. i know the legalization was roughly in october 2014. when did the mandatory a.d.u. or unauthorized -- u.d.u. or unauthorized dwelling unit take place? >> i don't no exactly. it was either in 2014 or 2015, about two years after the legalization process was unveiled. >> vice president honda: to me, it's pretty simple. the permit holders mentioned a 3-r report from the city and county, and that's usually presented during a transaction. for clarification, the residential report of records is often different from the actual makeup of the property that's sold and generally

represented as unwarranted or nonpermitted work. i don't believe anyone would have bought this as a true three-unit without doing their due diligence, but at the same time, they were aware that the unit was being used as a did he go unit, and if it is, it cannot be taken off of -- dwelling unit, and if it is, it cannot be taken off of housing stoc stock. >> the mayor approved the unauthorized dwelling unit in 2016. >> vice president honda: if you look at it chronologically, legislation indicates that you

cann cannot -- [inaudible]. >> they indicated that they would be willing to -- they'll have their day before the planning commission to make their arguments. >> okay. i think there was a violation from the building department that, i believe, was removed because that work was completed. that your understanding of the

timeline? am i understanding that correctly? >> i looked at some of the materials from that time frame; but it doesn't seem to be relevant to what's happening here today. >> yeah. there does appear to be an illegal unit that was removed. the gentleman who owned it over the next decade maybe then, you know, put in some upgrades and

upon his death, his heirs subsequently leased it, and we have the information that we have. for it to not be its own unit, it would seem if it was just truly bedrooms there with no kitchen, would that be not considered an independent unit if there were no kitchen or washing facilities? >> yeah. if it were just bedrooms on a ground floor, and there was a connection to the other floor, it would have everything that you would need for an apartment. >> rest room facilities and bathrooms and everything also that are a part of it. okay. i think that's all the

questions. thank you. >> clerk: okay. commissioner swig, you're on mute right now. connecting into a kitchen, and that would be a horrible living situation. i'm having a hard time with it -- should i have a hard time with that argument based other what you and i, mr. sanchez, have seen come into our hearings where we've seen some pretty wacky configured apartments, illegal or not, where, you know, certain people live certain ways and accept

that and pay rent. so should that actually be a factor that there isn't a formal bedroom on the second floor? >>. materials -- it was listed for sai sale. it showed a bedroom in the front, with things blocking going down to the ground floor. that wasn't during construction, that was photos of the building for sale in 2016 listed as a three-unit building. >> commissioner swig: and what should we be doing with the parking space? it seems like mr. patterson is saying that shouldn't be a violation just so we can go on

the record, and since it's your suit, give us a point of view on that, please? >> yeah. so the board of appeals will also be upholding that portion of the violation. i believe that they will go through the process and go through the appropriate legalization process to deal with the parking and the front set back as well as the removal of the dwelling unit, and we will work with them on that, however they want to pursue it. if they want to legalize the unit or demolish the unit, we'll work with them on that. >> clerk: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: i wanted to go back to mr. bernecea, i hope i'm saying your name right. i wanted to hear from you. are you currently living at this unit right now? >> that's correct. >> commissioner tanner: okay. and when you took up residency

there, did that begin when the owners were there or had they already left? >> they had already left. >> commissioner tanner: okay. there was no time overlapping with them? >> unfortunately, i wouldn't know anything about down stairs since my unit is [inaudible]. >> commissioner tanner: okay. so you're on the upper floor, not on the one that's connected to the ground floor or the first or second floor. okay. great. and is there anyone currently living on those lower floors, then? >> currently, brian's sister,

kathrin, catherine, is living on the first and second floor [inaudible]. >> commissioner tanner: okay. thank you. >> clerk: so i'm just confirming, mr. duffy, do you have anything in rebuttal? >> no, i don't have anything. thank you. >> clerk: okay. so this matter is submitted. and i just want to remind, the standard is err or abuse of discretion? >> commissioner swig: i'll start. so as i summarized it, it's very reasonable discussion thatha that, at some point, that there

was someone else living there, and i couldn't get -- and he couldn't get up the stairs, and that argument would seem to fly if things were simple. but what bugs me here is, to use mr. sanchez' point of view, the shifting sands, as it seems, that there was a conscious effort to remove a stove from a first-floor unit from an inspection which would have identified the space as an illegal unit, etc., etc. if there was, again, using my words, if it quacks like a duck, it might be a duck, you know, if there was signage a, b, and c units, if there was,

in the marketing materials, advertised to the current owner, that there were three units in the building, didn't identify if they were legal or illegal, then there were three units. so i -- i don't think there are errors and omissions in the planning department, and i think that the notice of violation is a valid one, and it can be cleaned up, including the parking. >> commissioner tanner: i agree with commissioner swig's comments and, yeah, i don't see any error or abuse of discretion in finding this violation and finding that -- there to be -- essentially, i think you said it well, if it walks like a duck and quacks

like a duck, it would seem to perform as an independent unit, and it would seem to be an independent unit. >> vice president honda: i would also agree. i think the law of the day says that whether the unit was warranted or nonwarranted that it has to seek the path of legalization, and only if that path of legalization cannot be completed, then it would be referred back to the two-unit. unfortunately, during when they purchased -- and hopefully, this is going to affect the condo conversion from t.i.c., but the law of the day stood, whether that unit was conforming or nonconforming, warranted or unwarranted, it was automatically considered rent controlled housing, and that cannot be removed. and unfortunately, that is up to the board of supervisors to decide whether they want to -- want to agree on that or not.

>> president lazarus: do we have a motion? >> commissioner swig: commissioner tanner should make the motion, given her transition opportunity. >> commissioner tanner: thank you, commissioner swig. i would move we deny the peappl and uphold the n.o.v. on the basis that the owner did not abuse his discretion. >> clerk: so on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so that motion carries, 5-0, and the appeal is denied. so that concludes the hearing. we have no further items. see you next week.

>> my name is colleen chan, and i'm running for district 1 supervisor. that's including the richmond neighborhood and golden gate park. i was a a first generation immigrant. i was horn in honeg kong and -

born in hong kong and i came here when i was 13 years old. san francisco has been a great home for me and my family. today, my partner, a firefighter, we are able to afford our home in the richmond, raising our child, a second greater, avenue lafayette elementary. i've spent the last five years in my life working in city government the, starting out at a legislative aide on the san francisco board of supervisors. also advocating for more than $500 million grants and funding to improve our park system at rec and park. last, but not least, but also at the city college of san francisco, champion free city college that is a higher education program froee for al san franciscans. i'm proud of the things that i

have accomplished, but also, at the same time i have seen the income divide significantly increase in san francisco, especially during this pandemic, it has disproportionately hurt something the working people in our communities. it's the reason why i'm running, that i want to bring my skills and experience to the table to help close that income divide gap and making sure that all working people can stay housed, stay healthy and safe in our beloved city. thank you. >> hi. i'm sherman dasilva. we have problems that we face daily when we walk out or door to shop, work, and enjoy the precious neighborhood we call home. on homelessness, it means no camping or sleeping on streets. instead, we will use city-owned

garages to provide a safe, clean, and private space where we can offer mental health and he diction offices. on crime and safety, we'll increase beat officers to deter theft and vandalism, but we will not defund, reduce or reappropriate the number of sworn officers. on pedestrian safety, we will install traffic lights on all major corridors. for accessibility, we'll have a neighborhood department to serve you. for infrastructure, we're going to set aside money every year to replace sidewalks, roads, and public buildings. on police accountability, we'll increase transparency and randomly review officer actions. we want to be independent. it means we will not accept money from unions, corporations, or special interests.

i've seen the decline of our neighborhood happening over time. refocusing these priorities will make our neighborhood cleaner, safer, and a more enjoyable place to work and live. i'm sherman da silva, and i'm looking forward to being your next richmond district supervisor. >> i'm a small business owner, with my wife, we operate a small business on gary boulevard, and we have been serving the community over a decade. i'm running because i'm deeply troubled by the current state of our district. we now have more homenessen campmented, closed businesses, and increased crime. the richmond district has been neglected by city hall for too long. it's time for new city leadership at city hall. it's time for a supervisor who will put the richmond first. i'm the only candidate with

extensive civil rights experience needed to effectively represent the richmond district. first, the richmond and san francisco more broadly must build more affordable housing. second, i will fight to expand healthy san francisco so that uninsured middle class residents will receive health care coverage. additionally, i am the only major candidate in this race to oppose any tax increases swoosh the covid-19 -- during the covid-19 pandemic. we should not kick people when we're down. let's first look at our current spending and fight government waste before we increase teaks. we net better environmentally friendly options to help getting citizens to and from the richmond. that's why i'm for bringing b.a.r.t. to the richmond. lastly, our current homeless policies have been ineffective. i support caring for our

homeless without turning our neighborhoods and our parks into homeless encampments. i believe my policies will help all residents and help put the richmond first. >> hi. my name is marlhausen, and i'm running for supervisor because for too long, politicians have allowed the problems in our neighborhood to worsen without taking action. we can't afford four more years of this. the devastating effect of the covid-19 pandemic has increased the need for new leadership at the board of supervisors. to make a significant impact on homelessness, we have to recognize the different needs of our unhoused population. there is no single simple solution. we must prevent evictions by

stabilizing tenants. we have to meet the immediate needs of our unhoused population by acquiring more safe sleeping places, shelters, and safe spaces. i have over 30 years experience in government, business, and community advocacy. two years ago, my sister and i opened our family business on balboa street, and now, like so many other small businesses, on you future is uncertain -- our future is uncertain. many owners are stalled or defeated but our bureaucracy before they even had a chance to begin. i will support policies and legislation that make it easier to run a neighborhood business in san francisco. finally, we need to make our

streets more friendly or residents and families. ill owe prioritizes more street cleanings in our business corridors. we must bring our neighborhood together to ensure that none of us is left behind in our recovery. >> hi. my name is veronica cinzano. for far too long, our government has been out of touch with the problems of so many san franciscans and struggling families. i'm a 30-year richmond district. i'm your neighbor to make sure you have a voice at city hall. you need someone who understands your struggles who represents, and not the same old politics. i'm a working mom, and a small

business owner. i'm working for all of san francisco, not just the privileged few. i'm running to offer concrete solutions. we have a 2 billion shortfall. make no mistake, we cannot tax our way out of this pandemic. my priorities, economic recovery for all. with historic unemployment and a pandemic with no end in sight, budget cuts cannot be made on the bams working family he ands -- backs of the working families and middle class. resilience, identify additional sources of revenue to fund city projects and reevaluate government spending carefully. calibrate budget cuts without hurting those who are already feeling the brund of income

inequality before the pandemic. as a community taxpayer advocate, if you're tired of politics as usual, then i'm your candidate. vote for veronica. i'm not backed by any political machine or special interests. whether you're a moderate, progressive, republican or independent, join us, and please stay healthy during these tough times. thank you. >> i'm kevin duffy, and i'm proud to have represented district 9 in san francisco on the b.a.r.t. board of directors, when i first took office, i was really concerned about the filthy conditions at some of our stations, and you may have read when b.a.r.t. management wouldn't add any custodians, i started sweeping

with supervisor hit re-ronen, and we swept the stations for four months -- hillary ronen. we swept the stations for four months. now, there are two cleaning certifications with quadruple the amount of cleaning staff. despite being in this pandemic, i think we can say that the b.a.r.t. trains and stations are much, much cleaner. i've worked to make civic center a better station, and i think you can visit that station and feel safe much more than previously. i'm proud to have stood up for a youth fair. with leticia simon, i pushed to get it through. we have elevators in our system, and we needed to have attendance on there, and the homeless outreach team, so i've been a very nuts and bolts b.a.r.t. director, with a vision