>> clerk: welcome to the may 5, 2021 of the san francisco board of appeals. president darryl honda will be the presiding officer. we will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that will be presenting this evening. scott sanchez with the planning department, justin duffy, acting deputy director san francisco department of building inspection. the board request a turn off all phones and other electronic devices. the boards will present presentations. appellants and department are

given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people must include their comments within 7 or 3 minute period. i maybe limited to two minutes if the agenda is long or if there's large number of speakers. for jurisdiction request, the parties are given three minutes each with no rebuttal. our legal assistant will give all verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. three votes is required to grant an appeal or grant jurisdiction request. if you questions about requesting a rehearing, e-mail board staff at sfgovtv.org. public affiliation are important to the board. to enable public participation, sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will have the ability to receive public comment for each

item on today's agenda. sfgov tv is providing closed captioning for this meeting. please note that it will be rebroadcast on friday at 4:00 p.m. on a link to the live stream is on sfgovtv.org/boa. public comment can be provided in two ways. one you can join the zoom meeting by computer. go to our website sfgov tv/boa and click on the zoom link or by phone. dial 669-900-6833. enter i.d., 829 1656 5149. sfgov tv broadcasting is streaming the phone number across the bottom of the screen. if you are calling in to block your phone number, first dial

star 67 and the phone number. listen for the item to be called and dial star 9 which is the equivalent of raising your hand. you will be brought in the hearing when it is your turn. you have two minute or three minutes. our legal system will provide you the verbal warning before your time is up. please note there's a delay between the live streaming. it's very important that people calling in do turn off the volume on their tv or computers. otherwise there's interference with the meeting. if attendees need technical assistance you can make a request in the chat function to the board legal assistant. the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. now we will swear in our firm all those who are here to testify. any member of the public may

speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony weight, raise your right-hand and say i do. if you're a participant and you're not speaking, please put your zoom speaker on mute. we will move to item number 1. this is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but that is not on tonight's calendar. any member of the public who wish to speak not on the agenda. if so, please raise your hand. i don't see any hands raised. we will move on to item 2. commissioners comments or

questions? >> none. >> clerk: commissioner swig? >> vice president swig: i would like to offer my congratulations and happy birthday to san francisco's number one baseball treasure, willie mays who will be 90 years old tomorrow. may he live forever. thank him for everything he's done for our community. >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on that item? i don't see any public comment. we will move on to item number 3. which is adoption of the minutes. commissioners, before you discuss, the minutes of the april 21, 2021 meeting. >> president honda: may i get a motion to accept the minutes. >> motion to accept. >> clerk: we have a motion from commissioner swig to adopt the

april 21st minutes. any public comment on that motion? seeing none, on that motion -- [roll call vote]. that motion carries 4-0. i apologize, vice president swig. those minutes are adopted. we are now moving on to item number 4. this is jurisdiction request number 21-3. subject property at 282 urbano drive. request for the extension of building permit number 2017/0928/9834. the appeal period ended on apri.

the determination description is that there's an active notice of violation issue the on the property pertaining to unauthorized exterior alterations. building permit number 2017 -- additional work has commenced beyond scope of approval. including unauthorized windows. the planning department requires that any pending violations be resolved prior to issuance of any separate permit. the permit that is subject of the suspension request contemplates work to the basement at one bedroom, media room, entertainment room, one full bedroom and wine cellar per

plans to create an interior connection to the plan. we will hear from the requesters first. mr. and mrs. yee, i understand the architect is present. you have three minutes. please go ahead. >> the owners are next to me. i'm going to speak on their behalf. we're requesting for a jurisdiction request to allow us to file an appeal. mr. and mrs. yee, they do not have -- they have a p.o. box in san francisco. they visit it once a week. when they go to the p.o. box to

retrieve the letter, it was on march 30th. sorry, on march 26th. the letter was issued on march 22nd. on march 30th they had the second vaccine. side effects affected their mobility. that dragged on few more days. they reached out to us. i explained to them the process. by the time they move on and trying to file an appeal, the date expired. they thought -- [indiscernible]. it did not include weekends. that's not the case. that's why they had a delay of filing an appeal. they sent a letter to the zone

administrator to appeal the letter. but that's not the right process. they have to go through the appeal process. i directed them and they sent a letter to the board of appeals to appeal. but it was too late. in terms of permitting, we have permits to all the work that was done. there's no word that ceded the scope. in terms of window replacement, there's a permit to replace the window. they replaced the right window. also, there was a violation of them replacing the front facade to different material. we do have a permit for that as well. in terms of structure scheduling, i believe the letter of suspension, the zoning administrator explained that we

did not exceed the scope. now the violations is for the exterior. if they don't work on the foundation first, it's going to be difficult for them to work outside. there's a schedule conflict. they all working at the moment. they did not exceed the scope. we're here to ask you to grant the jurisdiction request so we can file the appeal for the letter. thank you. >> clerk: we have a request from president honda. >> president honda: it was issued the 22nd and they retrieved it on the 26th. when did they contact you? >> they contacted me on april 6th. >> president honda: they had it for almost 10 days before they

called you? >> they had vaccine on the 30th. with their vaccine, both of had tremendous side effects and it took them a few days to recover. i was not available on weekend. they called me the first monday that i was available on the 5th. >> president honda: at that time did you tell them that the 15-day window expired? >> yes. i looked through all the documentation and i told them it's going to close. i did mention to them that it might not include the weekend. but it might include weekend. when we looked further into it, it did include the weekend. that's why it expired. >> president honda: thank you. >> clerk: we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. subject property at 282 urbano there's a known historic

resource district. this is a jurisdiction request of a suspension request. the suspension request was properly issued. the jurisdiction request did not timely file an appeal. the suspension request has very clear language on the appeal process. it is 15 days to file that appeal. no appeal was filed. they did send a letter to the zoning administrator. that was sent on the 16th day and that letter made no mention of an appeal or any intention to appeal. they disputed that they were in violation. the burden that is not been met that the city purposely were inadvertently caused them to be late in filing the appeal. this does relate to a case that goes back a 2017. there was a permit at that time which misrepresented existing conditions on the property.

it referenced existing aluminum trimmed windows and stucco repair. they were saying replacing the windows which wasn't there. we suspended that permit. that was not appealed to the board of appeals. they did obtain a permit to legalize work and that was great and part of that was maintaining the shingles on the building. they have been doing that work. part of that permit allowed for them to replace enkind their windows. our staff made multiple site visits, met with the property owner to thoroughly go through what will be allowed and what wouldn't be allowed for windows. unfortunately after the permit was issued, that permit dates

back 2018, we're still in 2021, the complaint hasn't fully abated. the property owner sometime between february 2020 and november of last year, replaced the windows. not. consistent with the plan. penalties are accruing that was not appealed. the purpose was this was to stop any other work going on with the property until we can get the property in compliance. i'm available for questions. >> clerk: thank you. vice president swig has a question. >> vice president swig: this suspension request goes forward, what it gives you chance to do

is reconcile the project and get it back on track. you said it lagged being on track and on point. >> rather than having them proceed, we want them to focus on legalizing everything here. once we get them making progress on the violation, which is existed in 2017, we can release suspension, then they can continue other work on the property. >> vice president swig: thank you. >> president honda: how would the notice of violation issued. was it a complaint or staff driving by? >> i think this is a complaint originating from 2017. i believe it was a complaint that we received from the community. >> president honda: was it anonymous? >> i don't have that information. >> president honda: what will be the harm of granting this? architect said they has the proper permitting to be presented to the board.

>> they don't have the proper permitting because they've done work that is in violation of the approved plan. the reason that we suspended this permit is because they have outstanding violations going back to 2017 that they haven't yet addressed. just even in the presentation here, they said that the windows are appropriate. they are not. staff has been over this over and over with the property owner. i staff informed them they ned to replace them and not the clad windows. >> president honda: they have been replaced in kind with wood windows. you're not allowed to use any other material fiberglass? >> not in this case. that's not what's been approved. >> clerk: thank you. we'll hear from the building department deputy director duffy. did you want to weigh in?

>> hi, i'm with d.b.i. i think mr. sanchez just covered it. >> clerk: is there any public comment? please raise your hand. i do not see any public comment. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> president honda: anyone like to start? >> i think this is exactly what these suspension permits are all about. i didn't see any problem with its issuance. sorry for -- sorry that the appellant or the person making the request did not receive it.

i think it's properly issued. we would undermine the planning department by taking an important tool out of their hand for the betterment of the neighborhood and to make sure that the property owner held accountable for their responsibility to own ohouse in the city of san francisco. >> commissioner lazarus: it doesn't meet the criteria. the city has to intentionally cause the requester to be late. i don't believe that was the case. i hate to quote this, ignorance is no defense of the law. if you didn't know that the 15 days was 15 calendar days, that's also not the responsibility of the city. i would not support the jurisdiction request. >> president honda: i agree. there's not strong enough case to overturn the department.

anyone like to make a motion? >> move to deny the jurisdiction request on the basis of the city needed inadvertent caused requester to be late in filing a request. >> clerk: on that motion from commissioner lazarus -- [roll call vote]. that motion carries 4-0. the request is denied. we'll move on it item number 5. this is this is noel frelicot versus department of building inspection.

this is permit number 2220/12/30, 1935. the board voted 4-0 to continue the matter on may 5th. president honda, rhymer regarding your disclosure. >> president honda: i'm a partner on a project that's hired in a law firm. >> clerk: commissioners, the permitholder would like to make a request to continue this item to may 19th. they will each have three minutes to address the board on this request before dealing with the case. mr. tom tunney represents the

appellant. >> the appellant is publishing the request. i'm i was asked by ms. hu to assist her with the agreement reached with the neighbors and finalizing project drawing and buildings permit. i know from the hearing this board was encouraged resolution of the creative one where the new wall will be set back three feet from the property line on the second and third floors. that's pursuant to typical planning department residential design guidelines. appellant asked for more time following the hearing, the parties met. i was part of that meeting. appellants were supportive of

the three foot setback. we had an agreement. we still do. as i understand it, they continue to support this. it was the case that the parties and both planning department and d.b.i. wanted some clarification to be made in the permit drawings. we've made most of these clarifications since that time. we appreciated mr. sanchez and inspector duffy willingness to meet with us on a quick time frame. we're confident that the plans can be finalized for a hearing two weeks from now. the drawings are close. we intend to provide exact level of detail and could accomplish that within this two-week continuance time. there maybe way for the board to approve the project with the agreed upon three foot setback today. we would support that. we could continue with revisions

under a special conditions permit. the last alternative to deny the permit would seem inappropriate at this stage given the agreement between the parties, we send it back through a very lengthy process with new notification and enormous amount of time and money for all involved where we're able to finalize this agreement in two weeks. would rather not end up back in the same place here maybe a year or two from now. this is a permitholder's home and family is seeking to move with their kids and parents. we request the two week continuance. it's our understanding inspector duffy and mr. sanchez have indicated they also support the request. we'll hear from the appellant and represented --

[indiscernible] >> good evening. i'm representing the appellant for the owners of 2466 vallejo street. what he said is correct. my clients have come to an agreement with permitholder and they feel confident after looking at the draft plan. the scope of their appeal was limited to the intel of the light well that's their or impacts in the light well. they feel satisfied with the agreement. we request that the board grant appeal this and condition any further approval submitted plan on inclusion of that three foot

setback on the second and third level. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. the planning department believes that a continuance to the next appeal hearing would be appropriate. we would actually have a final complete approvable plan for board to adopt. i appreciate everyone to get the resolve. the planning department is not comfortable with the state of the plans as they are now. in our opinion, there's inconsistencies here and there. it's not something that can't be resolved about lot of thee are drafting errors that shouldn't have gone through the process as far as they have so far. we can get the plans corrected, get them in good shape and have something that the board can

adopt. that three foot setback is going to be there at the second and third level. we want other detail on the plans to be correct accurate meeting our standards and we think with a little bit more time, that can be done. with that, we request that continuance. i'm available for questions. >> clerk: thank you. we'll hear from the department of building inspection. >> i'm director duff fy with d.b.i. it's a work in progress. woe would like to continue to work with them to finalize the drawing.

>> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on this item regarding the continuance? commissioners? >> president honda: anyone who had -- who had their hand up first. commissioner swig or commissioner lazarus? >> commissioner lazarus: i see no reason to rush this. i don't know that two week really makes a big difference. if it's going to make most of the parties more comfortable with what's in front of them, i fully support the continuance. >> vice president swig: i also support the continuance. normally in these cases when there's a continuance, the project sponsor is requesting it and going along with it. that takes care of that. also this case seemingly been one of surprise.

with new things popping up -- i think to make it clean and finished and up to the standard, mr. sanchez wants this to be a continuance is advisable. >> president honda: would you like to make in motion? >> commissioner lazarus: move to continue this item for two weeks in order to finalize the plans associated with the permit. >> clerk: thank you. i want to confirm that appellants are available on that date. we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to continue

this matter to may 19th so that the permitholder can finalize the revised plan. on that motion -- [roll call vote]. that motion carries 4-0. this matter is moved to may 19th. we'll put you at the beginning of the calendar. thank you. we are now moving to item 6. cynthia yee versus department o building inspection. subject property 219, 23rd avenue, appealing issuance on march 28, 2021 ricky dung and carolyn zhen of the site permit. we will hear from the appellant

first, ms. yee and her parents, she's going to speak for five minutes, then per parents speak five minutes -- >> okay. i'm going to share my screen. give me a moment.

>> clerk: you can go ahead. >> great. good evening director and board commissioners. my name is cynthia yee i'm speaking on behalf of jeffrey and jennifer yee. our family has owned and lived at 2015 for more than 25 years. we're here to voice our concern allowing two-story addition to the subject project. we voiced our concern to the original project andrew falk. our backyard is roughly 17 feet in depth and the rear addition will extend for a beyond 20 feet. this is what the yard looks like now. we offered a compromise without the negative impact on our home and property. we spoke on the phone with

andrew and offered up a compromise. to not have part of the second floor addition adjacent to our property line. we feel as they were steam rolled with this compromise. in our first letter to andrew, we explained that the rear addition will impact the access. here's the photo of the south side. in addition, we noticed that the property lines were incorrectly drawn. here tuck see the property line is shown to be lining up with the subject property. this is not correct.

this is a map directly from the sf planning website. you can see that our yard is substantially shorter than that of the subject property. we're concerned that the submitted plans seem to illustrate that addition were to be built, that we're concerned that basically if seems to illustrate if we wanted to, we can build addition to our own. that's completely impossible. the height in-depth of the building is the rear yard that impact the mid-walk of the

space. building expansions may not be appropriate if they are uncharacteristically deep or tall. the submitted plans do not accurately portray the true property line. the plans do not capture the addition given that the addition will extend beyond the line. we feel as we've been steam rolled into what the permitholders want. we have the right to exercise and explore all avenues. we have the right to ask for a compromise. we have the right read the

records. nothing we did was outside of what was allowed. the permitholders tried to accuse us of having unpermitted work done. one it is irrelevant to the topic and it is completely false. we now feel as though we cannot live comfortably without knowing that the neighbors will seek to retaliate. we will mention, we received anonymous complaint regarding unpermitted work being done in our house. no such work was being done. we come to board of appeals

today to voice our concerns. >> clerk: you want to shift to your parents now? >> i'll finish up. our property line is inaccurately drawn making it seem impact is not severe. in conclusion, we ask the board to consider our concerns and the rear addition of the subject property not exceed more than a single story to allow our neighbors to expand their homes. >> clerk: please pause the time. if your mother would like to go ahead and interpreter can be prepared to interpret what she says. >> thank you. hello, my name is jenny.

i'm going to use cantonese to explain what i want to say.

[speaking cantonese] >> that's time. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we'll hear from the interpreter. >> okay. there was some interference in the middle of her speech. there might be three or four sentences i need to confirm with her. >> clerk: okay.

>> i would like to share the thoughts and feelings i have regarding this issue. in 2018, i received a letter from the government for the first time about the addition. it's horizontal and vertical. that impacts the light, the view and also sun light of our property. based on these three things, i think these are very negative. i would like to voice my objection. that's the part that was missed. i have the right to voice my worry and concerns. >> clerk: thank you.

is that the translation? >> there's more. the house is an essential part of human being survival. i feel that any homeowner or any neighbor would do the same. they were forcing us to accept the addition of the two-story.

also they want to enlarge and also improve their dwelling. that will cost our bedroom lose some light and also it's very dark in there. is that fair to me? >> clerk: okay, thank you very much. we do have a question from president honda. >> president honda: my question is to the permitholder. >> clerk: we just finished with the appellants. maybe we should -- whatever you want to do president honda. we can't hear you. >> president honda: i have a question. >> clerk: you have question for the permitholder? >> president honda: for the appellant. sorry.

the question is that in the brief, it indicated that there was a 5 by 5 cut out in the top section that they agreed to do. they also said in the brief it was mistake on the plans they are willing to still do the 5 by 5. are you appealing the whole upstairs? >> the initial appeal was submitted we noticed that the 5 by 5 cut out was not there in the submits plan. however, we feel as though -- we would like them no not have the second floor addition. >> president honda: that's what i'm asking you. at this point, if you had arrangement what this board does is what the cities allows for construction. although, your property will be impacted, they have property rights of their own.

i want to make it clear, are you asking for the 5 by 5? are you asking us that you're appealing the whole second floor? >> we're appealing the whole second floor. >> president honda: thank you. >> clerk: we will now hear from the permitholder, the permitholder are represented by mr. ronald yu the architect. >> hi. caroline and ricky submitted in permit in august 30, 2018. the project is a single family home with two-story rear addition.

initially the project was 20 by 25 located in rh1 zone and into the district. the planning staff made recommendations of reduction. the first floor got got reduced to 20 feet by 20 feet. the second floor got reduced to 15 feet by 17 feet. in may 2019, a letter was sent out. andrew and the yee family came to an agreement with a 5 by 5 corner reduction essentially having no second floor addition along the property line wall.

this agreement was made approximately june 12th and also explained to gabriela. after this happened, some point in may to june 2020, we were hire to take on the working drawings of this project. shown on exhibit. we base our drawing on exhibit 2 which was in the preapplication meeting design. which was subsequently approved, exhibit 4. which is a permit that is currently being defended. we were not made aware of the 5-foot by 5-foot reduction agreement shown on exhibit 3 and used the 311 permit application

as our template. that was approved in error. yee family filed an appeal pointing out the 5 by 5 removal of the corner, not shown on the plan. the plan has been revised specific to number 5 and 6 and removing the 5 by 5 addition. these plans were reviewed by planning and build. staff has gone through countless review. we are asking the board of appeals to grant the appeal so we can have exhibit 7 adopted.

there was few other concerns brought up by the neighbors. one being that the site plan was drawn inaccurately and viewed inaccurately. that was not the case. those inaccuracies were done during the working drawing and not the planning review phase. those instances has been corrected in the plan. shown on exhibit 7. the neighbors brought up addition on their own property. it will be a vertical addition and not a horizontal addition. they would have to talk to planning staff regarding those issues and concerns.

the other issue they brought up was a issue of light. i feel that with all these reductions taking place, that light will be very minimally impacted especially with a 5-foot setback on the second floor. the buildings are oriented in the east-west direction. i don't have anything else to add but maybe the owners would like to speak a little bit as well. >> clerk: you have three minutes in rebuttal. did you want to say anything. i believe you have time left. [indiscernible]

you have 1:54 now and three minutes in rebuttal. >> sun light they're talking about, the sun light picture was taken at sun setting. that's why there's a shade. if you look at the draft, we did take it different time the picture when the sun is going to the east. in front of the house, the sun rise from the east and falls in the west. in the back of the house. we take five pictures of the sun going through the sunset. it tells you minimal of sun light is being blocked. the agreements, andrew made the agreement with the neighbor and told us to accept it. we never forced them to agree or anything. he asked us to accept this reduction of 5 by 5 feet.

we never forced them. >> this is not the first reduction. this was the second compromise. >> we did make a compromise, 15 by 17. i think we're pretty much done with this project. this project has been dragging along. with 311 when we first started, they didn't want us to build at all. they ask us to build a third level.

>> clerk: thank you. president honda has a question. >> president honda: let me see here. you or the representative out project sponsor. you're still willing to do the 5 by 5 cut out for your neighbors? >> yes. we did make a mistake on that because the original architect wasn't responsible for the work. when ron took over, there was a mistake when he submitted the paperwork, we were never informed with the plan. he submitted with the 311 plan, that was a mistake. when julie contacted me, i went through everything with the planner and gabrielle.

we contacted the yee family. >> i try to explain to her over the phone. told her that we'll compromise. we'll continue to do that site plan. >> president honda: i hope relations get better. it was a mistake. >> it was a mistake. when ron revise the plan, we adopted another one, draft number 7. >> clerk: thank you >> president honda: it's the central sunset.

okay. >> sorry about that. >> clerk: we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you, scott sanchez with the planning department. the subject property at 2019, 23rd avenue has front setback at the front of the property. the subject property is 25 feet wide by 120 feet deep. the appellant's property a much shorter lot at 25 feet wide and approximately 57.5 feet deep. the building permit for horizontal rear addition was submitted in 2018. it was a larger design that the planning department application

and the residential planning guidelines had setbacks and incorporated into the design of the project. there's no discretionary review filed during the period. the appellant did reach out to staff and revised plans were proposed. that incorporated an agreement which had a 5 by 5 notch at the property. >> president honda: everybody kid want to be on the show tonight. >> there was this neighborly gesture to make further reduction what the planning department required for the property. staff approved that on june 28, 2019. after that, there was a change

in the architect and designer of the project. new architect came on. they relaid on outdated plan. they were not aware of the agreement that was reached. those plans were unrevised. i think there were other changes. the compromised solution was removed. it wasn't shown or highlighted on the plans when our staff rechecked it. after getting comments -- after they responded to comments from the building department. we inadvertently approved the recheck. we should have caught it. now the permit has been appealed and issued.

we can confirm that in a minute. i did review the line discrepancy with our residential team staff. that wouldn't changed our recommendation on the project. we support the project shown in the revised plan that they are compliant. they have the ability to file this appeal. they have the ability to make these arguments here. that is their right. we maintain that the project is complying with the guidelines. i'm available for any questions.

>> vice president swig: scott, this is weird. unfortunate lot configuration. do you have in your lengthy background and doing stuff for the city, have you any examples or experiences where small, very small -- it maybe a standard lot size, is dominated by a lot immediately to one side.

>> that's why in our application in these cases, we incorporate those setbacks. keeping in mind, it is a two-story addition is not the full depth. the ground floor extend deeper than the second story. also the overall height is compact. the overall height is little bit less than 18 feet. that's where the setbacks come in to deal with the unique lot circumstance and depth of the neighbor. >> vice president swig: follow-u

p question. if this was -- if you was viewing this today again, would you come up with the same recommendations to the potential permitholder and configure this building the way that it is? it is absolutely the best configuration for the building and consideration of a next door neighbor who will be blocked out of sun? >> the answer is yes. we reviewed it today with the staff planner. considering all the facts i laid out, we have the same application and the code. >> vice president swig: that is acceptable with you? >> yes. that's correct.

>> vice president swig: thank you. >> president honda: mr. sanchez, is the original plan without the 5 by 5 cut out approved? >> yes. the current plan we would say are not acceptable. one because they don't incorporate that revision that was the basis -- that should be restored. the designer has made couple of other corrections on the plan. >> president honda: if the original plan is without the cutout and then -- [indiscernible] >> we can adopt the revised plans as shown in the exhibit. it is exhibit 6. maybe we can add a layer of bureaucracy to that on the

plans. that's revision number two, exhibit 6. >> president honda: they talked about a reduction. with the reduction voluntarily or was it recommended or required by your department? >> the initial direction was the guidelines. the second reduction was voluntary in response to concerns raised by the appellant. they are nowhere near the maximum by the code. which is 30 feet tall. >> president honda: how much more in the back if they have gone? it used to be 25%.

they are much smaller? >> yes. the theoretical maximum, there's going to be a smaller design based upon design guidelines. under the code, they will be able to go back at the ground level 22 feet 3 inches more and at the second level an additional 25 feet. >> president honda: this is really -- even though it is going to have an impact, this is the modest addition? >> yes. the issue is the unique loft situation with the neighbors. >> president honda: that's difficult. we have usually 50 feet, 75 feet and 100 feet.

>> clerk: you will now hear from the department building inspection. >> i didn't hear any building code issues brought up in the appeal. as far as i can tell from the permit application, it seems reviewed and issued properly. unless anyone has questions, that's all i have to say. thank you. >> president honda: thank you. >> clerk: is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. we will move on to rebuttal. we'll hear from ms. yee. you have three minutes. >> okay. [speaking cantonese]

>> clerk: pause the time please. how much time was that? >> you have two minutes left.

>> clerk: we'll have the interpreter now for one minute and then you'll go ms. yee? monica, the interpreter, please interpret. >> if they built two-story, that will become a high wall and also it will corner us. we will no longer have any view or any sun light. then it will be become dark without any view. is that fair to us? there's only 17 feet, space that we no longer have opportunity to have addition on it.

our view will be affected. that's why i hope the officials of the government could make a fair and reasonable decision. >> clerk: thank you. ms. yee, you have two minutes. >> i will chime in quickly. i want to address ronald's comment. i would love to see how you can build this addition considering all the homes on that look is two story. you need to build within the context of walk. honestly, i have no idea how you will do considering the look and feel of all the homes on that block. i want to mention the photos and light how it's captured. all our photos have been submitted, they've been taken during spring and summer.

i don't think anything has really been captured of what the winter light was like. the sun is in a different position. should this addition be built, the shadow will be a lot greater than what it could be. i feel like that's not really being taken into consideration. once again, having a two-story addition up against our fence past our back fence, west fence, it's three feet beyond. we're going to be staring at two-story building. we won't be able to see the mid-walk. we're the fourth house on the block. rest of the lot will not be difficult should this be built. that's all we have to say. >> clerk: we have a request from

president honda. >> president honda: did you understand that your neighbors are not building the max they can build that it city would allow? they had a huge compromise in regards to their addition? >> yes, i understand. >> president honda: most people that come before the board, they come before a maximum built. they are extending maximum the city allow them to built. just recently, the allowable building area was reducely by -- reduced by 5%. they are even farther from that. coming before the body of this board, what's before us is the full plan. as the city department said, we can approve the plan that's before us. since the project sponsors have addressed they will honor their

agreement with you guys. i want you guys to understand, they could have went out further and that wall will be a lot darker. understanding that it will affect your sun light. i live on the same sunset as well. i face the sun. the sun is definitely more to the right. at the beginning of the year, it's more left. i hope the neighbor relations improves. that you understand that your neighbors did do a thoughtful decision considering you guys were next door. they could have went full distance and went back further as well. >> clerk: we'll hear from the permitholder. their architect, mr. yu. you have three minutes. >> i want to make a small

question. [indiscernible] >> i like to adopt the plan that we agreed upon. >> clerk: okay, thank you. we'll hear from the planning department. are you finished?

>> yes. >> clerk: thank you. mr. sanchez, anything further? >> just briefly, views from the private property are are now protected under the planning department that the light and air at the setback. we're not reviewing the designs of other houses on the appellant's property, it is not uncommon for their to be allowed third floor addition. we have that top story, the new story setback from the building wall. typically in the 15-foot range recognizing there maybe some potential for an addition there. i wanted to put that on the

record and i'm available for questions. >> president honda: you can come to us to allow for full story. >> on appeal. >> clerk: thank you. deputy director duffy you have anything further? >> nothing further, thank you. >> president honda: anyone like to start first? >> commissioner lazarus: my inclination is to grant the appeal in condition of the permit on the submitted revision exhibit 6. that's where i'm headed. unless i'm derailed by fellow commissioner. >> president honda: i agree. unfortunately we have to hear these cases. i hope neighbor relations gets

better. hopefully things will get better. is that your motion? >> commissioner lazarus: i would make that motion. >> clerk: what basis are you making the motion? >> commissioner lazarus: on the basis that revised drawing is in agreement with the original understanding of the neighbors. >> clerk: we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to grant the appeal and issue permit on the condition that it can be revised stated april 28, 2021 shown in exhibit 6 of permitholder brief. these plans represent the agreements between the parties. on that motion -- [roll call vote]

-- that motion carries 4-0. we are moving to item 7. renee yates versus san francisco public works. subject project 603-606 congo street. denial of the request to remove significant deodar vee door tree on the property. this is order number 204492. we'll hear from the appellant first. ms. yates. welcome. >> i still want to remove the tree in the front.

i sent a letter dated march 24th responding to the appeals for a decision. the tree is old and it's causing lot of damage. keeping the tree there is not going stop the damage. it's cracking the sidewalk and the stairs inside on the property and it's also on the outside of the property of the walkway. it's going to continue getting worse until the tree is removed. >> i think that you may have received a document that we used for the original appeal. if you don't have that before you, i can bring that up and share it with you. >> clerk: we received it and they reviewed it. if you want to share it, you are welcome to. >> i might just for the sake of refreshing your memory.

i'm her nephew. hello everybody. >> clerk: do you want to pause the time while you get it up on the screen? >> president honda: you have a very tiny home. >> thank you. >> clerk: we can see your screen.

>> the reason for the rejection and the reason why we're in front of the board today is the tree was ruled sustainable. the fact was called out there was a fine levied against renee's mother who had been deceased for quite some time. the fine was levied against a dead person for the improper pruning of the tree. renee worked with urban planning commission and hired an arborist and created an action plan to take care of it. you should know that this tree is -- the arborist she hired and we brought to the hearing, did say it's sustainable, it's ripe for failure. it's going to be just a matter of time before it goes. allow me to forward this screen if i can.

here's an old illustration of all the dead trunks that the previous tree company helped manage to do on this tree. the left side many dead trunks as you see on the right. you can see the center trunks that are very much not going to be rejuvenating. here's the look from the yard looking down. i hope that we can appeal to your sensibility this tree is quite ugly. street appeal is almost zero. to that effect, renee had posed her neighbors. you should have received three or four letters and e-mails calls from her neighbor saying they too like to see the tree removed. criteria for removing the tree will include property damage. she had to do some repair work

overtime. there's now damage on the pathway on the side of the house. there's new damage on the front pathway of the house. the tree sits on the fence and below it, 4 or 5-foot drop to the street is a massive large boulder legacy wall that was built long time ago. it's starting to show signs of failure. this is the sidewalk. it will cause the city or hopefully liable for sidewalk fee. i did a little research myself from public works, why aren't existing trees protected. this is not a broad leaf tree. you can see the tree is shading

the house for most of the afternoon sun. in san francisco, that's not a good thing. it will add more heating to our bills. it doesn't protect wildlife habitat and it does not increase property value. lastly, just because the tree is sustainable, that doesn't necessarily mean that was the only ruling we got. it's sustainable. it can live. i was a boy scout, we have these beautification projects. we would plant trees. it was beautification and improvement of the neighborhood. this tree today exists and is doing the opposite.

we were not giving waiting factors when the ruling came down. said it's sustainable. from ecological characteristics, location characteristics, you can read for yourself. only thing about it being a hazard tree, it's not a hazard tree today, per the arborist comments and input, it will be at some point in time. it will cost renee quite bit of money to repair her grounds and keep the tree going as long as she can until it becomes a problem. >> it will cost thousands of dollars to continue to repair all of the cement and stairs and any kind of walkway. as long as that tree is there, the damage is going to continue.

i'm tired seeing it now. i can't keep with these expenses. it makes no sense to me that this tree should be and needs to be removed. to deny that, it makes no sense at all. >> just another comment. if you look at the block on congo street, the entire block that housesits on, every single home is built out to the sidewalk. there's not a single tree there. it stands out like a sore thumb. if you happen to drive by there, you can see in real life and realtime. >> clerk: hawk. >> president honda: [indiscernib

le] >> i have four. i counted them up before. >> president honda: i'll give you a five five on -- high five on that one. >> clerk: we'll hear from the department. >> good evening commissioners and president. i'll go ahead and share my screen. >> clerk: we don't see you. one moment. okay, we see you. >> let me pull this up. good evening commissioners. we've reviewed lot of the photos

together. both in their presentation. i think the applicant some ways, make a very compassionate case. stepping back, we did issue a fine for the excessive pruning to the tree that occurred couple of years ago. bureau of forestry has access to the recorders office. i do apologize if you still receiving a letter to your mother and she passed away. that's the way you want to receive correspondence. i do apologize for that. we're going to blame the recorder with all due respect. we do appreciate that ms. yates responded right away and did appeal on behalf of the previous owner.

we do appreciate that. i want to acknowledge that in our brief. we really are stuck here. the bureau believes the tree is still sustainable. the fine that was issued because of all those benefits that were removed when the top section of the tree was removed so drastically. neither the family or bureau of forestry was able to determine who the contractor who performed the work. had we been able to do that, certainly we could have given the recommended the owner take that fine and give it to the contractor and treat it as a consumer protection issue.

in this particular case, based on our responsiveness of the commitment to hire an arborist to look after the tree and create a pruning plan, the entire fine was dismissed. there's definitely reasonable how the administrative fine was handled. [please stand by]

>> so in images they presented to showed the sidewalk cracking, essentially it's lower towards where the tree is. i don't believe any of the damage in the sidewalk is related to the tree roots. what that is is we have the damage associated with the path, the walkway and the property. and there is lift and damage. we typically approved trees removal when the amount of root pruning requires to make those repairs to destabilize the tree so there's property damage on the pathway, it wasn't enough from the department perspective to warned removal of the tree. this is an overhead of the tree and where it sits in the property. one thing that i just wanted to touch on is our ordinance requires that a replacement tree be planted so if approved for removal, we would require that a replacement tree be planted in property that would have the

potential to be a future significant tree as it gets larger and a significant tree again is on private property within 10 feet of a public right-of-way that eventually would at least reach 20 feet in height and canopy wider than 15 feet and a trunk diameter of 12 inches or greater. so there's a number of different species that could be planted to achieve that future potential significant tree. we review the criteria for removal. as stated it has a lot to do with constructor buying to the site. this is beauty being in the high of the buy holder but it is a

mature tree and there are a lot of policies the city that's ha districts the city to restage large stature trees as much as possible. i understand it seems like a reasonable can't we get the permission to remove this tree. as the bureau, our perspective is we approve a lot of trees for removal for good reason and we just can't get to that point. we wave the fine as a result. to me and to our bureau, it feels too proactive to remove the trees this time. >> thank you. >> chris, can you display the front picture showing the front of the property in the tree? >> yes.

>> if you look at the tree, that was the picture. you had it. >> so to me, looking at the tree from the angles that were shown. this tree has been pruned, from way back when and probably a poor manner because not everyone is ann arborist. you should see the trees in front of my house, i try. if you look at it, the limb on the left side is vertical and that trunk side is large. you are not concerned about failure in that? >> i'm not concerned about failure on that because the weight of the can pee above it

has been so greatly reduced so i'm not worried about that but the tree does not have -- there's an issue with the structure. it's not public safety concerns but certainly 40 years ago, there were some pruning cuts that created this candelabra as concerned about the applicant's arborist. >> being on the board for the last eight years, we've seen hundreds and hundreds of trees and you know, normally i'm the on your picture and i mean, to me, it doesn't seem as the permit holder has expressed, the benefits are not there considering looking at the tree. i mean just recently, i mean, it was a city that came in front of this board allowing a large tree

to be removed illegally by a developer not that long ago and to me that, tree had a lot more benefit to the city than this particular tree. right? >> yeah, without a doubt. when the.

>> you can see the cut in the picture as well as when you went around it there was a lot of cuts creating this kind of -- it doesn't look safe to me. >> sure, there's a large limb that was removed down by the trunk and when whoa look at this tree, it's not like a ficus tree with known patterns and he has a single truck and it's lateral branches and not the way that these are joined so the structure of the tree is not ideal. we can grand and admit that the

structure of the tree, prior to the excessive pruning is not ideal so i want to disclose that. it's not a public safety issue. i will concede that as there the arborist pointed out, structure is not ideal. we are looking at a maintenance challenge. >> if this board allowed them to cut that tree off and you want another large stat you're tree, what would that species be like and would it be root intrusive? >> we would work with the property owner. there's a lot of species options and so we would work on options same as if it was a treat street. we wouldn't be as beholden to a species pattern on the block because it's not a street tree

in the sidewalk. there's a wide range and there would be -- there are medium to large stature trees at maturity that are less likely to cause damage. >> thank you. >> we are now moving on to public comment. if you are here to provide public comment, raise your hand. if you are joining to provide public comment, raise your hand for this item. we have someone who would like to provide public comment. do you want to show yourself in video? it's from a computer? please, go ahead.

i don't see a name, it just says my computer. you can go ahead and speak, you just need to unmute yourself. please, go ahead. >> i agree she should cut the tree. >> ok. do you have anything else to say? >> it is an eyesore. >> i like that, direct and to the point. >> are you finished, ma'am? >> yes. >> ok. mr. jeremy paul has public comment on this item. >> i do. thank you president honda and members of the board. as a housing anywhere advocate,

i'd like to make note that this appears to be a double lot. if this failing tree can be removed, there may in some point in the future be a possibility for another dwelling to be built on this site and we need infill housing and i would like to throw that into the conversation. thank you so much. >> is there any other public comment on this item? please, raise your hand. we will move on to rebuttal. ms. yates, you have three minutes. >> hi, again, kevin here. thank you. so, let's address the fine. the fine was levied against a deceased person. and the trimming was done by renee's mom about a year before the fine was levied she passed away. give or take.

i don't even see the fine as being in balance in terms of this appear and this conversation we're having here today. as far as public safe took how about homeowner safety, ok. you have to consider that. a branch can fall on her and who knows what happens after that. our arborist told me about the candelabra and he said the center trunks are dead. they need to be cut down and removed to the candelabra which will then significantly impact the healing and strength of the tree overtime so i would like you to consider that as well and again, you guys have criteria and is it going to and be and it's sustainable and i did my

research and i found the urban forest directors guidelines on waiting criteria of when it's proper to remove the tree and i don't see i can way it on and and i think that these agencies should be a place to beautify the city and also to consider that you are there for us, for the citizens of the city and county of san francisco. and we even came back and said yes, listen, let us remove this tree and we'll replace it and we'll work with the department of urban forestry and we'll pick 24-inch box tree and we'll fertilize it and make the neighborhood even more beautiful. renee, do you have anything

further i'd like to finish off on? >> well, i know that virtual hearing that we have is a bit upset when someone was speaking and i can't even imagine that comment was made and like there's no problem as well. the tree needs to go. it's very old and there's a lot of problems there and it keeps clogging the drains. >> her father would have taken the tree out years ago. >> that's time, thank you. >> we're hear from the bureau of urban forestry. >> >> san francisco public words and yeah, i don't have a lot of rebuttal.

a the commissioners know, on why we're perceived always to be removing trees and we're removing trees with public safety concerns and they're for all members of the public, which includes private property owners and we do appreciate where the property owner is if this situation and where they're coming from and i understand that and i want to thank them for being responsible to that administrative fine and the fine beer reduce and acknowledgment of the circumstances was a reasonable thing to do so as civil servants were being responsive, i think in this case, we don't really have the public safety concern that is perceived and i understand that and it's again, how can that be?

well, we look at a lot of degrees and there's on going damage with the walkway but it's relatively routine just like you repair a car, right. you introduce throw it out and start is it over and it's the same idea with the trees but i understand it may seem like a big ask to have property owners maintain large trees. it cost money to do that. with that, i don't have anything much else to add. there was some discussion about the development of developing a lot and if approved so if the public works recommendation is overturned and permission is granted to approve the tree for removal, the owner will be required to plant a replacement tree that is significant in the future and it would be sort of

through this permit tive protected tree so in the future, it's not the end of the world, they would be just to apply to get a permit to remove the replacement tree and it would be a conversation about a much smaller tree compared to this one. i did want to put that out there that replacement tree would be required to be replanted within six months and if removal is thought of that tree would be considered a retirement and i don't have any additional rebuttal. >> thank you. commissioner lazarus then chang then swig. >> mr. buck, you may have referenced this earlier, the appellant just talked about the pots ability of a box size street this is more tree

maintenance and not related to development. i don't, you know, as big as the tree is and we'll miss the carbon sequestering that it's doing, i don't think requiring them to plan a 36-inch box size is really necessary. i think a 24-inch box size is a reasonable box size and it will establish just fine. so i don't think the bureau would be seeking that larger sign. >> appreciate it, thank you. >> sure. >> >>

>> i'll hold my comment until that time. thank you. >> thank you. >> say hey, guys. >> thank you. >> i'm going in the direction of commissioner lazarus. you have substantial tree and my taste is in my mouth but it's not the -- to some people's view, it's an ugly tree path and it's prime potentially dangerous and you say it can grow back and it takes a lot of patients and i'll be dead.

so, why, with all the care and maintenance this is going to cost to maintain it, with all the time it's going to take why a more it wouldn't be mandated because you want to put something significant to replace us and significant tree. i was staying at 24 and not going to 36 or even higher. >> thank you, commissioners. >> the smaller the plant size the quicker it establishes and so when you plan a larger box

size tree we tend to reserve that for development when removal is being sought regardless, really with development in mind. i'm personally hearing about the cost associated with the maintenance of the tree and getting a 36-inch box tree that the site you've got -- it would take a little bit of work to do that and so as much as i want to reasonably, gently advocating for a tree, we'll catch right up to the 36 and so, i have my radar up and i just don't think,

you know, i think everyone's heart is in the right place here and it's going to be a lot more work to plant a 36 and it's within five years they're equalize. so that is where i'm coming from on that one. i think it's reasonable. >> thank you for the education. >> ok. thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> so would anyone like to start? >> commissioner chang, you had your hand up. go for it. >> thank you. i think, well, first, i appreciate chris buck. your remarks and it sounds like you are amenable to allowing, if the board agrees, if the board agrees to removing the tree and to a potential replacement, i

think that what i hear is a tree that has grown to be too large for the property and it's causing significant property damage for an undesired tree in their front property seems to be a huge burden to over and so i think i would be inclined to grant the appeal and allow for the removal of the tree provided that it is replaced with a 24 box tree that it seems like both the bureau and.

>> and just because it causes property damage it's potential of the failure and the figure of the tree has gone and my concern would be safety to a joining property and even pedestrians or the property owner. i would allow myself, for the tree to be removed, and to replace along with the guidance or work with the department in choosing the species for replacement. vice president swig. >> >> i would agree with commissioner chang except i would like if that was your motion. i'd like to put some terms and conditions with regard to timing so this tree, when it comes down

will also the property owner will be held accountable to replacing that tree within a fixed period of time so it -- >> it's six months, vice president. >> is that? >> six months. >> yeah. >> ok. good. then it's fine. >> so i'm going to take the motion away from commissioner lazarus this time. and i'll make the information to, was it grant the appeal for there could be a replacement 25 -- what is it, 25 box size. >> yeah, so you would condition it to be revised to allow the removal of the tree and the replacement with the 24-inch box size tree. >> i love how you just get in my head and make those -- >> just guiding you and hold are your hands. >> thank you. >> did you want to save the species to be determined by box? >> to be determined to work with

the department. >> and i do want to commend and respect the department chris buck gets yelled at all the time because he is there saying he is not saving trees and i believe that the department has always done their job and we always respect what their opinion is. in this particular case, i feel it would be better for this particular tree to ex down. >> so, species would be determined by bus and consultation with the appeal ant? >> correct, correct,. >> and for the reasons you previously stated potential failure and public safety. >> public safety. >> public safety. >> vice president swig, i see your hand raised. >> i'm fine, thank you. >> so we have a motion from president honda to grant at peel and issue the order on the condition it be revised to allow

for the removal of the tree and on the condition that this tree be replaced by 24-inch box side tree species to be determined by box in consultation with the appellant on the basis that there's a concern about public safety with the existing tree. on that motion, commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> vice president swig. >> aye. >> clerk: so that motion carries 4-0. and we are now moving onto the next item. >> actually, can we take a five or 10? >> five. >> five-minute break, please. and we would like to thank you for your decision tonight. which really appreciate it. go giants. >> thank you. >> passion testimony. >> thank you. >> bye now. >> clerk: we'll turn in five

>> clerk: welcome back to may 5, 2021 meeting board of appeals. we're on item number 8. amy yu versus department building of inspection. this is permit number 2019/1231, 1128. we'll hear from the appellant first. the appellant's attorney, welcome. >> non-attorney but representative. >> clerk: you have seven

minutes. >> good evening commissioners. i want to start by lifting up a resolution that this board passed two years ago may 8, 2019. this board passed a resolution urging property owners to provide notice to tenants of a.d.u. projects prior to and at the time permit issuance. the permitholder not only ignored the board's resolution as it has done in other a.d.u. projects but violated the san francisco rent ordinance, the san francisco building code, fire code and committed perjury by signing off on an affidavit regarding housing services. for all these reasons, this permit should be rejected and the appeal granted. i want to introduce my co-appellant and tenant at 530 stockton amy yu. >> tenants were notified of the

a.d.u. the following monday they will lose access of backyard, laundry, parking and exit. that following monday at 8:00 a.m., there was unlawful severance housing services in the basement. the tenants contact the the tenants unit for help immediately. that's when we found out about the a.d.u.s across san francisco by commercial landlord and repeated offenses. there used to be 27 long term tenants when brick and timber bought the building in 2018. there's only 11 long-term tenants left since brick and timber took over. there's been demolition for two years that contributed to tenants from all the noise,

tools left in common spaces, a constantly broken elevator for extended periods of time due to excessive use and construction workers were using as a freight elevator. which remains broken to this day. a front door is constantly broken to this day daily. there was constant water shut off often without any notice for all that tenant 48 units in this building. eight statements have been submitted by current and three previously displaced tenants speaking to the specifics of these issues and more. two units recently vacated due to the planned a.d.u. renovations. >> this permit and project is in inconsistent with the san francisco general plan according

to the general plan, the city should pay attention to rent control units which contributes to the long-term existence and affordability of rental housing stock. by continuing the protection and supporting tenant rights laws. submitted term statements and amy have demonstrated this placement has occurred at this building and likely to get worse if this project continues. the permitholder has shown that the project cannot comply with the general plan support for tenant right laws by starting construction on march 8th and immediately violating tenant right laws. tenants observed violation of the code resulting in loss of egress. there are incorrect details such as incorrect number of units. there are 48 units and not 46.

all these factors have contributed to displacements at 530 stockton. >> we strongly urge the board to reject the rent ordinance and repeated offense towards the tenants all across town. in addition, they ignored board of appeals 2019 resolution on a.d.u. noticing and contradicted the sf general plan provision on displacement of tenants and disregard for tenant's rights. this is not just a 530 stockton problem but a san francisco problem. thank you for your time and consideration. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the permitholder for this project. we have an representative, mr. jeremy paul?

are you there? let's try to troubleshoot this. do you have any suggestions? is your computer on mute? we hear you. >> thank you for your patience. jeremy paul on behalf the

permitholder. this is permit adding three new dwelling units in a space that has provided little benefit to the city and county of san francisco to tenants, to residents or otherwise. this isn't a tenant's issue. there were mistaked meat at the time that the permit was first issued. there were issues regarding communication between the management and the construction team. those have been rectified. i want to walk you through some of the plans and the ways in which these particular issues raised in this appeal do not -- are not actually going to obstruct services.

this is the building. this is nearly 100 years old. it has a lot of deferred maintenance and needs constant work to keep systems working. this elevator, for instance, is there are only two companies that can work on them during covid, they've been able to get any parts. this is a problem throughout san francisco's elevator dependent housing on older buildings. here's where the new entry is going to be going for these new three dwelling units. this is the current layout of the garage of the ground floor plan. this area is entirely used by cars. we all know that our city's future does not lie in providing more space for cars. it's for more space for people. these are quality dwelling

units. these are good family housing units. we've got three bedroom dwelling unit. we've got two bedroom and two bath and single bedroom that has access to the garden. the appellant's claim loss of service include basement access, common area, laundry, bicycle storage and egress. i will show you all those will continue to be provided for. parking will no longer be provided for. there are no tenants who currently have rights to parking on site. this is a poster that's been up in the lobby of 530 stockton street describing the alterations and the way tenants will access their laundry area, access their egress, access trash and access the rear yard. very clearly showing that the -- all of those particular elements

are being provided on an ongoing basis. laundry itself will be relocated to a different unit during the work going on. in terms of basement access, we've got stairs. we've got an elevator that will continue. the laundry is going to be here. we got access to the backyard straight from the street down that corridor to the rear. we've got access to that through this light rail that will be open up here in the center here. bikes will be parked in it rear. egress will be provided. the point is this permit is to add dwelling units. that's an important thing to take into consideration. this is not about tenants loss

of services or tenants with complaints about a difficulties they're having with their landlord. those are to be addressed in other venues. i recognize the difficulties have taken place in the last year and a half in managing these properties. i would like to give the mic over to the construction manager for 530 stockton. >> i'm here. good evening everyone. i want to state the fact that for it past three years it's been challenging for us to find good workers who can do good

work and deliver high quality products. last year because of covid, it made it even more difficult. we've been working with for many years, most of our g.c.s are minority-owned and san francisco local companies. myself, i'm also minority. i'm proud of working with them. they worked really hard. they deliver really good product. i want to say that we're just regular hard working people. same as everyone else. try to work so we can feed our families during these difficult times. >> clerk: i'm sorry, pause the

time. sorry, about that. please go ahead. >> with all the discrimination and everything, that adds on this already deal labor shortage and covid situation. we're just trying to do our jobs here. we're not perfect. we also make mistakes. on this particular job, i realized that there were inecorrect construction information delivered to the tenants. which caused the appeal. or triggered the appeal. since then we created a new process within our company immediately to ensure that we can deliver information clearly and accurately in the future.

we make sure we take care of our buildings. when a unit becomes vacant, that's when we can open the walls and ceilings and check the infrastructure. we see plumbing pipes dry rotted, water damage, mold, led paint. we want to catch those. we fix it so we can prevent disasters from happening. >> thank you, that's time. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question. >> you'll have three minutes under rebuttal. >> president honda: i have a litany of questions. starting off -- i will dry with the last person. how long have you been project manager of this?

>> i've been working with the company for almost three years. >> president honda: how many projects have you done similar to this? is a.d.u. your specialty? >> we've done many projects, all kinds of projects. a.d.u. renovations from maintenance. howard you're not new to this? >> no i've been doing construction for 20 years. >> president honda: did you read the brief from past tenants and current tenants? what's your response? to be honest, it sounds pretty terrible to me. how would you feel if your water got caught off and doors left open and tools left in the hallway. i'm a builder as well. we have crews and except for construction costs, materials is going up, we're still able to

facilitate quality work. why isn't that you are not in position to do that? >> i received lot of projects. i do have engineers. i do believe that we have problems in our communication with the tenants. we can fix them. we will do better. we're trying our best, especially during covid. my point here, we are trying to maintain our buildings. >> president honda: that's not the question. the question was, how long you've been doing this? you're evidently experienced at this. you're aware that when you buy tenant occupied prompt, they are protected under tenant rights. were you not aware of that? >> i'm aware.

>> president honda: if the letters that were provided in our briefs are true, why are you not complying with the tenant rights? >> i think that's probably a mistake. we are providing all the amenities. we're not taking those away. as far as cutting off services -- >> president honda: cutting off services without notification. >> i don't think that's true. we do send out notices. >> president honda: there's always two sides. when it comes to the whole package why you're here p.p.p. .-- >> sending out notices is our practice of procedure. we do send out notices. >> president honda: like the

a.d.u., how far were they notified that the a.d.u. will be done? according to the appellant they said days. >> thank you president honda. in terms of the notice that was given, it was informing them that work, starting on the following monday. however, there were -- the services that were lost were restored very quickly. the laundry was back within the next couple of days. there was no cut off of water related to the mobilization of-in that garage space.

the issue of water is very tricky in this building. of course, there are lot of older fixtures that need to be replaced by code and the water is connected to each unit. >> president honda: i understand that is 100-year-old building. if you're doing work in a 100-year-old building, you have to assume when you replacing fixtures and faucets that will require shut off. that should not be done right away. the question was, how far in advance was the building occupants notified that a.d.u.s were putting in. you're confirming it was several days? >> it was several days prior to mobilization. it was not several days prior to any loss of services beyond a brief interruption in access to the laundry. >> president honda: you let the building tenants know their building was going to have

a.d.u.s three days in advance? >> they were notified on a friday of work to begin mobilization on the following week. >> president honda: is that typical of this company? >> i don't believe it is typical of the company. i believe that much of the information that was provided at that time was incorrectly transferred. very quickly, the company addressed that and put informational posters up in the entryway so all tenants would have access to the information. >> president honda: how much a.d.u.s as the company done. are your clients on the zoom call? >> i do not think that anybody is on the call that will know how many total units there have been. >> i can speak a little bit about our standard procedure.

for any renovations, we will give -- we'll try to give minimum one to two weeks ahead of notice to the tenants. >> president honda: adding an a.d.u. was pretty substantial. three day notice is kind of terrible to let someone know that you're going to take certain things away. i'm trying to get a feeling of since there's two sides, i asked what they said. so far you guys agreed that -- >> president honda. there really are no structural modifications and no interruptions services provided. all of this is happening on the ground floor level. >> president honda: thank you, that was my question.

>> clerk: we'll now hear from the planning department. >> the subject property at 530 stockton is located in zoning district. the proposal was to add a.d.u.s to the ground level. if i can ask mr. paul to go back to the plan he had proposed ground floor configuration. the proposal for the three a.d.u.s requires waiver for density and open space which are pretty typical for such a.d.u.s. the proposal primarily removes automobile parking as noted in the permitholder's testimony and the proposal would pain taken by parking laundry access to rear yard then trash facilities as well.

can you zoom in on the upper right hand corner. can you explain why these plans don't align with the standard approved plans that our department approved? >> that will be my error. i can bring that plan up in one second. >> thank you, please do that. >> clerk: do you want to pause the time? >> yes.

>> clerk: we see it. >> let's get to the ground floor. i want to board to see what the city approved. >> this is the existing at the top of the screen and proposed lower there are that's the wrong floor level. go to the ground floor please. trash maintained at the rear of the property. there's little bit of screening

there. this was all part of our review. the laundry is maintained as is. in terms of the number of amount of equipment that is shown. this is fairly standard for a.d.u. review and approval. it means all planning code requirements. i can speak to the project being code compliant and meeting code requirements. there were lot of concerns and issues under the purview of the rent board in potential loss of service. those are handled by a planning or building departments. those issues should be raised to the rent board who has authority and hear and make determinations about those concerns. we can only speak to the plan and the project and lot of concerns have been raised about the building it is now. this is permit for work to be

done in the future. in terms of project before the board of appeals it meets our standards for a.d.u.s and approvable. >> clerk: we have a question from vice president swig. >> vice president swig: what you said that echoed my view. i'm glad commissioner honda said what he did. i think my view was that the

management of this has been questionable. the manners of the owners and with regard to their customers who are the tenants has been pretty bad. it's pretty shoddy and amateurish with the amount of experience that the owners had with their other buildings. none of that has to do with the permit. the permit is based on the plans and as long as the plans are not at fault. they are going according to the plan, this has something to do with the permit. my question therefore is, your affirmation, scott, which is correct. also, this really should be a hearing in front of the rent

board as opposed to commentary to the board of supervisors. just to talk about it. taking liberty with our customers. is that so? >> yes. that's the project is cocompliant for planning code. must be issues with the rent board. >> vice president swig: those comments that i read in letters coming from tenants, related to they are working too late, they are disturbing our peace, some people are sleeping in the build, some of the workers seen sleeping in the buildings. those are really at best a

d.b.i. comment to make sure that they are adhering to their rules. >> anything related to construction and hours of operation, that's going to be d.b.i., other issues about the housing services, rent board. >> vice president swig: thank you. >> clerk: we'll hear from the department of building inspection. >> the permit under appeal was submitted on 31 december 2019 issued 2nd march 2021. it's for a.d.u.s on the ground floor. the permit has been reviewed by several city agencies including

planning d.b.i., mechanical fire department. the issue thatfuls brought up regarding the a.d.u. program is information sheet. there's a lot of information on there about a.d.u.s under requirement of owners. mr. sanchez did say lot of issues. lot of the issues were dealt with on the ordinance. there wasn't a requirementty seen in attachment b.

that required the notice services completed by owner. notice posted for 15 days of the common area of the building. there's requirement at the start here. it is a rent board issue. anything relatedly to quality of life is dealt with by d.b.i. [indiscernible]

there was a complaint about the elevator. i'm available for any questions at this point. >> clerk: thank you. i don't see any questions. we will now move on to public comment. is there anyone here who like to provide public comment for this item? please raise your hand.

you have three minutes. >> caller: i have been a tenant since 1980 in my current six floor unit. i'm for a.d.u. construction in general i'm against this project due to party involved. their website state bees we believe living states are commit to tenants. contrary examples are not notifying tenants when a new resident manager is hired or what unit he's in. no information about the a.d.u. project. only when request or complaints were made and not until after the appeal was filed.

no copy of the approved permit posted on the building. initial notice was sense 72 hours. no paper copies were posted for the benefit of tenants not signed up for e-mail notices. the notice said tenants would access to services. my request to use the laundry machine in a vacant unit was denied. that mean the building had to use public utilities twice. the building is in a hilly neighborhood. closest laundry mats are at least three blocks away. renovation lasted 17 months and affected all tenants.

the only elevator has never been the same since use of freight elevator. i have filed eight maintenance request in the past year.

i do not think any more units is in the best interest. thank you. >> caller: thank you to this board for allowing me some time to speak. i'm a resident at 530 stockton since september 2017. as amy and brad have spoken to, the quality of building maintenance communication and quality of life since brick and timber took over. most if not all building tenants have experienced disregard for the repaired. i had brown filthy water dripping down.

the maintenance crew cut a hole in the ceiling and said the problem was fix the. it wasn't fixed. the water came down again several weeks later. another tenant moldy water on their bathroom floor. called brick and timber we didn't get no response. in light all of these unethical

practices, they demonstrated inability to perform basic repairs with irregard -- i urge you to withdraw approval for brick and timber's a.d.u. permit. >> clerk: thank you. we'll hear from jesse feldman. >> i'm going to read an e-mail from our general counsel that was submitted today. i'm reading this from his perspective. i'm counsel to brick and timber collective l.l.c. brick and timber collective is an asset management company which owns and controls certain

office properties in san francisco, california. neither brick and timber collective or has any relationship with brick and timber incorporated. a california corporation having principle place of business at 49 powell street fourth floor t san francisco, california. brick and timber owns and manages residential units in san francisco. brick and timber has asserted ownership over the name brick and timber but not brick and timber collective. they have been subject of negotiations between parties. brick and timber ecollective has no relationshiply to brick and timber. thank you. >> clerk: we'll now hear from dave mossen.

you have three minutes it, sir. >> thank you. good evening. my name is dave massen. i speak in support of the tenant's appeal of project approval. i live at 700 church which was purchased by ballas investment, brick and timber in 2019. we share many of 530 stockton's experiences. some ways, brick and timber's has been better. see a need for them to change their corporate mind set and improve their regard for tenant's lives. we have received a follow-up message. we hear you and want to talk. we appreciate that brick and timber has agreed to meet with us tenants. their intent seem to be to sell us, they did not sponsored to requests that we made in our

d.r. also there's no sign they abandoned their original plan to remove parking, storage and laundry room to build two three bedroom and two, two bedroom a.d.u. units with construction plan with at least 14 months. tenants have moved out due to noise to non-essential apartment coe model. one has moved already to avoid the big project. if you make noise that the objectionable to neighboring tenants. i'm struck by jeremy paul's talk about struggling to have low cost housing. 530 stockton tenants have

suffered from dishonesty, disorganization and disregard for their rights and their humanity and the a.d.u. plan include important flaws. i ask that the board of appeals cancel approval of these a.d.u. plans. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from rue. >> good evening, everyone. we have been living in this building for over a decade. things has changed drastically since brick and timber took over. the landlord kept pushing tenants out and all the

remaining tenant have to deal with constant noise, dust, water shut off and elevator break down from's of construction workers. it's very disrespectful. we don't deserve to be treated like this. i remember waking up at 4:00 a.m. on sunday thinking about losing the laundry facility starting next week. there's nothing i can to about. it's sad but not surprising to find out that two other tenants moved out because of this notice.

we all know that living in the city is not easy. when placing this landlord long-term tenant, we have to enkeeping our kids quiet. we don't have inunit wearer and must rely on old laundry facility. if this landlord decide to use construction permit, without any consequences. more tenants will be forced out with in affordable housing lapse. thank you so much. >> clerk: is there any further public comment? please raise your hand?

i don't see any further comment. we'll move on to rebuttal. mr. hearn, you have three minutes. >> to be clear this is not an isolationed incident or communication problem. there were active d.r.s at other buildings. the sponsor withdrew the application of the d.r. was filed. the original plans included the severance of housing services. a tenant who was obligated to parking that tenant still lived in the building. the tenant was displaced. the planning department enough way of knowing that unless they talked to tenants. they only would physical there's a d.r.

there was no d.r. because there was no notice. we have a situation here this would have come up in a d.r. but not the opportunity to file that because there was no notice. the planning department does have to abide by tenant rights laws. 90 a code issue. there's clear language in the general plan. board of appeals should long permit. at the very best, permitholder should restart the process.

>> the permit was issued by d.b.i. d.b.i. has an affidavit they asked the owner to sign. planning had that before they approved the application of the d.b.i. form. then the owner did not follow through on the affidavit. >> clerk: president honda, did you have a question?

>> president honda: i decided to withdraw my question. >> clerk: we are moving on to the permitholder. mr. paul, you have three minutes. >> thank you president honda. commissioners, the g23 form notice was sent out prior to the filing of the a.d.u. application in november 2019 as is required. in terms of services that are alleged to have been interrupted or will be interrupted through this permit application, there are none. the only removal is the potential for future parking,

which i view being a benefit for us all. we're getting three new dwelling units. these are quality units. the access to the rear yard is maintained for all tenants and in response to a question raised by the deputy zoning administrator, we did change a location of the trash from the back to the interior of the building at the request of certain tenants. this is problematic. i heard of lot of -- testimony from tenants not happy with their landlord. what i do like is new rent controlled housing being created. that's what this building permit

application does. the idea that we're going to somehow address proper services being delivered by landlord to the tenants by interrupting the addition of new dwelling units it doesn't make lot of sense. we should get these dwelling units online and by all means, these tenants should have their issues addressed. the problems that they've experienced with services in the building need to be addressed. it must be pointed out that this building is very old and each time a dwelling unit is vacated, we had to replace pipes and plumbing fixtures and they had to replace finishes.

landlords are proactively addressing systemic problems within buildings when those units become vacant. i would ask the board to uphold the issuance of this permit, allow these units to get put in and encourage this property owner to work with the tenants to restore services to an acceptable level. >> vice president swig: do you know if the owner of this building have received any grants, subsidies, loans or anything any other benevolent financial help from the city of san francisco for the purpose of adding new housing?

>> i have not seen that in the documentation that i reviewed. >> vice president swig: thank you. >> president honda: partly because of this board and the issues that we have to face, you get to come here every couple of months mr. paul. we have to deal with this on a regular basis. one of the reasons why we suggest policy regarding a.d.u. was so that this circumstance doesn't happen. from what i heard this evening, your client did not provide proper notification. his permit is faulty at this point. is that true? he signed for him to get this permit, part of the reason why he got this is because he signed and affidavit indicating he would give proper notification

to the tenants it 15 days prior to the work. from what i heard this evening, that notification was only three days. in my mind, the permit is flawed. >> i can explain there was a brief interruption in access to laundry services. construction of the a.d.u.s has not begun staging it has begun. the actual work has not. i agree, they should have provided better notice, laundry use was restored. it will be available continually throughout this process. what they did was simply obstruct access to the laundry room. things like that happened in all types of construction projects.

>> president honda: we don't have the power to address that nor should they. we've got people calling on multiple buildings that has done the exact same work here. i agree that 100-year-old building you need to do plumbing and repairs. it seems that this company is only concerned about the repairs of new units and not concerned about the rent controlled tenants that are in these prior spaces for up to 30 or 40 years. i'm definitely for a.d.u.s. i think more the merrier. someone made a statement earlier that half the building left. nobody had lease parking. nobody had access to the garage.

nobody used the garage? >> that's correct. >> president honda: garage was just vacant for that many years? >> no, not necessarily. the point if time that the application was made for this a.d.u., that garage space was not leased. >> president honda: when you buy a property here in san francisco, when you purchase the property of a multiunit building, they supply you with -- [indiscernible] rent board is require the for any potential sale. how many people had garages? >> i can't answer that question. this is a 48-unit building. there are lot of tenants here that were not present today. we did hear from some unhappy

tenants, legitimately so. there were many tenants that are not present that have been in this building continually and have enjoyed it. there was a great deal of vacancy during covid-19. lot of people left san francisco. >> president honda: i'm going to ask you appellant you seem to be nodding your head. >> thank you president honda for giving me this opportunity. there was one tenant that was paying for a parking spot at the time the a.d.u. was proposed. he was locked out of moving his car because they changed the code on the garage and eventually, because of his complaints, he was actually still paying rent on that parking spot. then brick and timber paid him out most likely. he moved out.

he was one of two long-term tenants that moved out since the a.d.u. construction began. >> president honda: mr. paul, you said there was nobody that had access to the right to the garage. i heard conflicting story. >> that's my understanding. >> president honda: you were not aware of that? >> i was informed that the only tenant this had parking in there had agreed to vacate prior to installation of any a.d.u.s or beginning of any construction. that was a very clear agreement made with that one parker. >> president honda: okay, thank you. >> clerk: commissioner chang? >> commissioner chang: i'm

hearing lot of testimony from lot of the tenants in the building. it sounds incredibly unfortunate what you had to endure over the course of sounds like couple of years. can you describe what you envision ideal outcome. let's take for example that we agree, i'm not saying that's the case, what would you -- what happens after the permit is appealed in your mind? >> thank you for such a great question. as i mentioned, this is not one off incident. there's currently approximately 11 buildings filing appeals of

these a.d.u.s. that was just people fortunate enough to catch it in time to file an appeal. so many people do not have the resources to actually go through the motion. that means many more have not file an appeal. that's how these landlords have been getting away with it for the past few years. that's why considering the severe severances, so many of us was compelled to speak up to fight against this. it sets the tone for city and affordable housing overall. that is why so many people turned up to speak up about it. it's not just the lack of notification, 15-day notification, it was less than three business days. in addition, they most certainly did unlawfully housing services

in the became. they only put it back after he filed an appeal and so many complaints were filed. additionally, -- >> clerk: sore i this is going on too long. you need to address commissioner chang's question. >> we're not in deliberation. >> clerk: we're not. we need to hear from the planning department and department of building inspection on rebuttal. it's getting out of control. >> we hope that it would help all tenants in san francisco by the appeal. >> clerk: thank you. commissioner chang, anything further? >> commissioner chang: not at this point. >> clerk: we'll now hear from the planning department. >> i'll be brief. i cannot defend the permitholder. i can only defend the permit

itself. the permit itself does meet the requirements of the planning code. in regard to the comments and concerns about compliance of general plan. the general plan is used holistically. there are many policy findings. we look at how proposal complies to the general plan and this project does comply with the general plan. this permit doesn't seem to violate that. not all the existing rent control units are maintained with this permit building application. three new rent controlled units are being added to the city housing stock through the a.d.u. program. when issues do come up with building services, we have the parties go and discuss that with each other and with the rent board if necessary.

maybe they did things horribly. they didn't communicate with the tenants. i don't know what happened in terms of the relationship with the tenants and why tenants have left. it doesn't sound positive from the comments here. we're looking at a the building permit here. commissioner chang had an excellent point, we're looking at the permit, what's the best outcome for this permit. we would ask the board to uphold the permit. again, as i said before, we're defending the permit and not the permitholder. i'm available for questions. >> clerk: question from vice president swig and they believe president honda. >> vice president swig: about a year and a half, two years ago, we had not exactly image of this

but we had another building. it only had 20 units in it. it was the same issue. the management company/owner without notice started tear things out. disturbed the tenants. at that point, i believe i spoke up and recommended some action to be taken or codified or legislated or otherwise about a formal notice requirement for future situations.

do you remember that? i think it was the panhandle or something like that? >> the appellant might have more information. that memo calls for notification of tenants through the a.d.u. process. that has not been adopted. there's no legislative requirements for a notice to tenants or buildings in which a.d.u.s are being added. which is why there was no 311 notification for this application. >> vice president swig: thank you for jogging my senior memory.

>> clerk: you asked the permitholderring required to provide plans and there will be a forum for tenants to submit inquiries and get responses. what happened was we did send that to the planning department,

the planning commission as well as the board of supervisors and the building inspection commission. those changes were not made to the planning code. there were some additional term notifications added. only for a.d.u. project approved under the state mandated ministerial approval pathway. >> vice president swig: i think that -- i might suggest, sorry -- i might suggest that at the end of this hearing, we send the same memo again. i think right there, that step that we took and the response that we got really clarifies the position that we are in tonight and unfortunately, what the appellant's position is -- in

position of the appellant. they have know position to challenge unless there was some faulty issue in the plan. is that so, scott? >> yes. the suggestion by the board were not legislatively adopted. appellant mentioned there may be pending legislation from supervisor mandelman. i can raise this issue again with our legislative staff and make them aware continued concerns for the board. >> vice president swig: in fact, there is no legislation that is

like 311 notice that requires a building owner or management company to adequately notify tenants of significant construction. >> not for the scope of work. >> vice president swig: thank you. >> clerk: we should agendize it for future calendar if you want to take action. >> president honda: does this process have a process for discretionary review or does not? there's a process for discretionary review. the application can be filed either during a 311 notification period window or that the planning department has the permit under review.

we have had some a.d.u.s where there was no notice required. tenants were aware of the provisions and filed discretionary review before we approved the permit. >> president honda: that's kind of like tree fall in the forest. other thing is that, they were not aware they had the ability for discretionary review. in this case, refresh my memory, does the notification work for that or not work for that? >> they would have gotten notice had one filed on this property. discretionary review is an important special provision that the planning commission receives. it's from the same authority. they have the same authority

under the code as you do. this hearing is like a discretionary review hearing. >> president honda: it's just a process. it lengthens the process and it gives more time for people to react to more than three days. if this appellant were to file notification on the building, any permit that's required for any unit that opens up, they can appeal single one of those right? >> clerk: we are now on the rebuttal portion for the department of building inspection. >> i missed the previous

comments earlier. this contractor obviously hearing from tenants and this building. it's disappointing from the d.b.i. point of view to hear some of the stuff happened. that leads to department getting the complaints. this contractor needs to know that. i want ask they need a direct point of contact with the tenants during newsletter, get communication going. we're going to be hear about it. the building inspector won't be happy he got a complaint. there's no excuse for that. you shouldn't drop your tools around the place.

you got to be respectful. the permit need to be posted on the site at all times. that's a rule in the building code. to the tenants what i ask them to do, e-mail me directly with any current quality of life issues that you're having in that building. i will be sure to pass along with the senior housing inspector and the district housing inspector so thick pay you a visit, look into complaint and if there's a code violation. that's only way to get this issue resolved. if the owners comply with that, they'll be in the enforcement process. i would encourage you to do that.

>> clerk: this matter is submitted. >> president honda: who would like to start? >> vice president swig: i would love to start. i think the behavior of the building owner and the management company has been not so good. i also feel that this is a rent board issue versus board of appeals issue. i'm sorry that our recommendation, our board's recommendation letter to the various bodies couple of years ago were not heard and not acted upon. you would have been protected. we'll try it again or i'll talk with the executive director to

try it again. maybe get the support of the commissioning to try it again. ildo feel that according to the strict rules and basic rules of permit issuance, this permit was issued properly even with all of the bad behaviors. unfortunately, i would have to file a motion to deny the appeal because i feel that the permit was properly issued. just within addendum on that, within the last conversation, the tenants, you have been given a prescription how to hold your owner and management company accountable. my motion is still my motion

pending further conversation with my fellow commissioners. >> commissioner chang: it was level -- helpful to hear deputy director duffy's comments. it sounds like the permit that's before us was properly issued as mr. sanchez stated. it sound like with respect to the current appeal, there's little this body can do. it sound like there's a lot of these types of appeals that are coming up. there are 11 other buildings n board is going to see lot of these similar -- we're going to be hearing lot of similar items.

i think it's our duty to try to address the issue as much as we can. i find it little bit frustrating. i think the whole a.d.u. process was created in good faith to create more housing expeditiously. it's unfortunate when project sponsors create the situation where lot of people are unhappy because it takes us unhappy bodies to reverse something that was intended to be more -- [indiscernible] although the personality at -- permit at hand was properly

issued, that complaints can be made on this specific permit or the work that is being done. being done in an improper manner. can be complained to the building department. not necessarily an appeal filed. it seems like there's some recourse for the tenants to take. i second vice president swig comments about having use the word prescription to hold the owner and contractor accountable. i do support the idea of figuring out a way to recommend another policy action or something like that so that we can as a body, support approval

of a.d.u.s >> president honda: on contrary i disagree. the permit suspect flawed about. flawed. i will say my peace. a.d.u. process has been going on. i do believe that the a.d.u. process is a good process. will you more rent control housing. in this particular case, to supply those three units of rent control we're helping the city half their building has been vacated. we sacrificed 20 units to gather three units. i don't believe that was the

purpose of an a.d.u. again, some of the stuff that mentioned is really out of our control. to hold people accountable for their actions, we had a.d.u.s for several years. we don't hear cases like this often. the reason why is most people play the rules. they follow the book. >> clerk: we did have a motion from swig. on that motion, [roll call vote]

that motion carries 3-0 and appeal is -- sorry, 3-1, appeal is denied. thank you. we are now moving on to the next item. which is item number 9. we will put that on future agenda and talk to you outside the meeting about it. >> thank you very much for that.

sorry. >> clerk: we are now starting item number 9. robert korman versus the zoning administrator. subject project, 2455 jackson street. notice of violation of penalty decision. the property in violation of the planning code. the subject property is authorized -- five dwelling units. d.b.i. confirmed that the work has been done on the top floor roof and putting reframing of the roof structure on the east second, third and fourth floors.

we'll hear first mr. korman's attorney. you have seven minutes. >> thank you. i will try to be brief. the problem in this case is the planning commission fail to grant the own a fair hearing. the commission prematurely on veened the hearing. they placed burden of proof on the owners proved there was not a violation. failed to provide notice to be considered and simply relied upon the allegations of the notice of violation to show there was a violation. the commission did not present any evidence and failed to show there was any violations. we request that the board of

appeals overturn the planning department january 27, 2021 violation and penalty decision on complaint. i will try to be organized. in the board of appeals brief, there's a lot of conversation about due process. the fundamental foundation of due process notice an opportunity. the notice that was given in this case wasn't sufficient. because the notice that was given to mr. korman stated clearly that given the timeline to respond to this notice will not be given until after both shelter-in-place end aall city agencies were operating level necessary to evade the violation. we're not getting out of yellow until tomorrow. shelter-in-place in place.

the second issue -- the technical issue is that the zoning administrator and zoning commissioners failed to comply with the sunshine ordinance. unlike the commission that appearing before this morning where the executive director have all complied with the ethics requirements of the sunshine ordinance. no one has filed statement of compliance in connection with building and planning. they didn't have jurisdiction to issue any kind of violation order.

however, they went on. they went on and at the hearing, the burden of proof was averted at the hearing. the purpose of the hearing process was to reaffirm the violation. there could be no finding of violation until you have a hearing. when we go on with the hearing, commissioner put the burden on the property owner to demonstrate there was no violation. the property owner has failed to demonstrate compliance with the planning code. i don't think you can have a

better description of and version of the burden of proof. when you look at board of appeals appeal brief, there's still inverting the burden of proof. they're saying to date the appellant has not provided evidence nor have they sought legalize work on the property. once again, even in the brief that they are filing to this commission, the board of appeals is putting the burden on the property owner.

the property oners tried to do everything they could to correct the violations. the permit is sitting there and nobody is acting on it. finally i like to incorporate by reference a letter that mr. korman filed today. i believe he e-mailed to all of you where he's provided a bunch of exhibits and made his own arguments. originally hearing was premature under its own language. there was no evidence to support the violation. thank you. >> clerk: mr. cannon, i want to

acknowledge that we did receive mr. korman's e-mail. however, he's not permitted to submit additional briefing as the brief already mitted in this, do submitted in this matter. we will hear from the planning department. >> based only -- upon department records, at issue here is appeal notice of violation issued by the zoning administrator on january 27, 2021. this violation outlines specific and issues related to illegal construction that was performed on the roof of the building. the subject complaint goes back

to august 2018 when the department of building inspection received a complaint. the department of building issued notice of violation in which response to that, the property owner submitted a building permit application to address the notice of violation. on that permit, there was some potentially issues with the unit count but the main issue was trying to deal and address with the work on the building. the department of building inspection performeddal site visit or a building inspector visited the site and observed that work had been done at the top floor roof including the extensive reframing of roof structure, top floor living space and light well.

that is further confirmed by area photography which we provided to the board. planning department opened an enforcement case in notice of violation. we initially started with our notice of complaint. it doesn't have specifics or results of investigation. it's a general courtesy notice. we advanced through our enforcement process. the property owner hasn't been responsive and having conversations and meeting with the department. there was notice of violation

issue because while they submitted building permit that attempts to address the violation, that didn't actually fully address it. they didn't show all the work which was outlined in the violation. it's not approvable. this permit is under department of building inspection by one of the plan checkers and it's understanding from the staff, had conversations with them, it doesn't address the outstanding issues that doesn't address the violation. because of that, there's been a response, it hasn't been the complete response to address the violation. department of building inspection advanced their enforcement process through an order of abatement, an appeal of that order of abatement which was held october 21, 2020.

the a.a.b. denied the appeal and upheld the order of abatement. there was a rehearing request on that decision. similar to what the board has. they denied the hearing request. we had held our zoning administrator hearing for this case back in october 13, 2020, issued our final decision on january 27, 2021 which was appealed to the board here. i believe, i responded to the issues that the appellant raised. there's no evidence that's been provided that show here's our building permanent that shows the work has been done. here are the copy of the plan that are currently under review. here's how that complies with the violation. they haven't done anything to demonstrate now they're coming in compliance. there's acknowledged violation. they submitted a builting permit

to correct that violation. that permit hasn't been issued because it doesn't contain all the information that is necessary. i would assume any decision here if the board were to uphold it decision would be added to that. i think we did discuss and address the issues. the initial notice of violation which was issued last year, was issued at a time of uncertainty with covid. it did have language this there that provided more flexibility in terms of the timeline and compliance. that timeline of compliance that's separate from the ability

to appeal. they had 15 days notice of violation was issued on may 29, 2020. they had 15 days to appeal that to the board of appeals or to request zoning administrator hearing. they requested zoning administrator hearing. we had discussions with them trying ore solve the violation. they changed legal counsel through the process. we had our zoning administrator hearing. they could have submitted plans that showed the work that i showed on the aerial photograph which are from our system, which is a public company that we have available on our website.

they could have showed the permits. they could have showed how they addressed on their abatement permit and they met all the issues and showed compliance. they haven't done that. they say that they've done that. they say there's no issue here. we have permits where we're all good. they haven't demonstrated that. this is a normal enforcement process where they have to demonstrate and have the appropriate permit. >> vice president swig: scott, i read the brief. i want to make my question as brief as possible. this is endless. has this property owner complied

with anything to do with what has gone on at his building? has there been any permit that has been adhered to properly. has there been any construction done on the property that is anywhere, anyway linked to a properlier issued permit. it just seems that this is -- i could characterized this as -- this is the best of -- it's like a record. the greatest hits. this is like the greatest hits of abuse of everything that you

try to hold building owners to with regard to the law. is there anything on this? i looked at the photos of the before and the after. is any of that construction that i saw, has that been permitted and adhered to part of that permit? >> they do have permits it for the property. which is quite a high number of permits.

they do have permits there are elements that are not permitted. they have not been able to demonstrate permits for much of that work. staff has been denied the ability to do a site visit. in terms of did we address some of these things with the site visit? perhaps, it's very clear and d.b.i. visit and determination, there's work that has been done without permit. they haven't submitted a permit that meets the requirement of the city to legalize that work. >> vice president swig: i feel like this is deja vu all over again. does this act denying the appeal can finally go back and do a reconciliation of all of those permits to what is actually been done to determine what has been done legally and what has been done legally.

what's the right end game that will enable some reconciliation of permit to construction activity? >> we need the appellant's willingness to do that work. to get the appropriate permits and to document that. upholding the notice of violation but allow for the enforcement process to continue which would be then the assessment of penalties and response of notice of violation. further motivation for the property owner to submit the appropriate permit and come in compliance and do top-down review of the building. there's been lot of work done without permit. >> vice president swig: what plans associated with any permits you have in your possession? >> there are hand full of plans

from past permits. some of those are internally inconsistent. what they are showing existing condition don't appear to be existing condition at that time. if you look at the permanents overtime sequentially. the goal is to get a top-down scan of the building and legalize everything that can't be documented with building permits. >> vice president swig: by denying this appeal, that stimulates the brings this project to a point where if they are going to take this forward, they would have to provide you, enter into discussion, provide plans, allow planning to reconcile those plans to what's already been done and access to the building?

>> vice president swig: mr. duff y, you're going to be next. it's the same question pretty much to you. if you can bring your comments to address those questions. >> the complaint description was new story was visible from the back of the property and not from the street. that resulted in notice of violation issued by our building

inspectors on -- notice of violation on 4th october 2018. i believe that amendment following the site visit determined that extensive work has been performed on the top floor/roof. we have light wells. all things will be issued on 10/20/18. the notice of violation would have been sent to planning.

a copy of that would have been sent to planning. that's pretty typical. which is probably how planning heard about the issue. we do have a permit comply with the notice of violation. it has not been issued. you got to legalize the work to begin with. those drawings have to meet standards, d.b.i. standards and planning standards. it seems that this building permit has not met those standards.

obviously, you got to work on the inspection and try to get that resolved as well with the owner. [indiscernible] we had over 20 complaints from this building many years ago. i know mr. korman sold that building. i'm available for any questions. it's work without a permit, which was noticed by the neighbors obviously. >> clerk: vice president swig has a question. >> vice president swig: same

question. denial of this appeal will force the hand of the building owner to enter into a discussion and a reconciliation of all these notices of violations and work without permits and everything else you listed was wrong. is that correct? >> that is correct. this process is still ongoing no matter what happens tonight. they still need it building permit. d.b.i. has issued order of abatement about the process.

no matter what happens, needs a permit and get the work legalized. that's ultimately -- [indiscernible] >> clerk: thank you. we are now moving on to public comment. is there anyone here who like to provide public comment. we have someone calling in. there's no name. you can please go ahead. >> i'm bob korman am i allow to speak? >> clerk: during rebuttal. anyone here to provide public

comment. please raise your hand. i don't see any hands raised. we'll move on to rebuttal. i believe mr. korman wants to speak during rebuttal time. >> i like to speak very quickly. >> clerk: we'll start the time then. you have three minutes. >> for the record, mr. sanchez is very persuasive and very organized and poised. he did two things he should not been able to do. he testified to hearsay. everything they testified to was hearsay. it's no non-hearsay in the record. there's no proof that there was increase in the building envelope.

mr. sanchez was testifying, he indicated that once again, he inversed burden of proof. he indicated that no evidence has been provided. they have not yet done. in addition we talked about due process. he talked about some photographs that were attached to the board's brief. those notices, the first time mr. korman saw the notices is when they were attached to the brief. now mr. korman would like to speak for himself. >> i respect all the people who spoken tonight on behalf of the city. i dealt with them over 50 years.

they've always dealt with me fairly. in this case, they have a belief system, i don't agree with it. if you look at the permit, that was a light well that was granted. that was 14 years ago. i have other permits that came from the listing. there are 29 permits listed by the planning zoning administrator. there are 20 minutes. saying i had a permit didn't have a permit to address the issues, there were couple of permits issued.

it's on my exhibit, 6739 issued on 8/31/15. issued there was another permit deleted by the building department. >> that's time. >> clerk: your time is up. we have a question from vice president swig.

>> vice president swig: i don't mean to be combative, i don't understand something and maybe you can clear it up. when i -- your use of the word hearsay, when i look at photos that were provided to us in the brief by planning of the before and the after. then do not and see an obvious, a dramatically obvious increase in the building footprint with no apparent permanents -- permits attach to that obvious expansion. [please stand by] big

complaints with this entire process is he hasn't been treated fairly. he hasn't been given due process throughout this hearing. those photographs, obviously he knows he's being accused of violations of the building code, but he doesn't know what specific violations he's being accused of. he's asked for all the evidence that the city has that shows the alleged violations on multiple occasions. >> we're going over your testimony again. that wasn't the question. the question was: a photo -- do

you consider a photo that exhibits the growth on the building footprint not associated with a comment, hearsay? how can that be hearsay? >> it's absolute -- it's absolutely hearsay because you need a human being to say this photo is taken on this date and it accurately depicts what the building looks like on that date. you don't have that. >> okay. that's all i wanted to hear, and i think actually if we do deny this appeal, this will give the -- your client the opportunity to sit and reconcile every one of those -- to an activity and a plan, and then the city and your client can walk away knowing that everything has gone through due process. so it might be a really positive action. thank you. >> thank you. we are still on rebuttal and we'll hear from the planning department. mr. sanchez? >> thank you.

scott sanchez, planning department. i think i'll generally refer to the brief. i think we have responses to the legal arguments made by the appellant, and again i'm not an attorney. i don't represent or pretend to be one, but i think we do have responses to the arguments that were made by the appellant, and this has been the appropriate process has occurred for this, and certainly the appellant has had every opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the code. i notice that some -- wish that the kind of permits were included as part of an appeal brief, but some of those permits are referenced, and i notice some of those 2007 permits that mr. corman had cited were actually canceled, and that's one of the reasons we gave to the board the summary of the permit status, and some of the permits that were referenced were actually canceled, but it mainly comes down to the issue is we don't have evidence of compliance. there are specific violations

that were documented based on the visit to the building and has gone all through their enforcement process and order of abatement. the aerial photos were referenced by the zoning administrator during the zoning administrator hearing. i've only become involved in this process since the appeal was filed, and i saw in the appellant's brief they raised questions about the photos, which is why i provided them to the board. those are publicly available. anyone can go to our website and access those photos through the property information map, which is a great tool for everyone to have, and we rely on those for all sorts of enforcement cases. so with that, i'm available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear -- oh, from the department of building inspection. >> nothing to add. thank you. >> okay, thank you. so commissioners, this matter is submitted, and as a reminder the standard of review is error or abuse of discretion. >> commissioner lazarus? >> i'd be happy to finish up

this meeting in the same manner in which we initiated it, which is to make a motion which obviously is up for discussion because i see vice-president swig has his hand up, but i would move to deny the appeal on the basis of the zoning and administrator neither erred nor abused his discretion. it's late enough in the evening i can't even say it. >> [indiscernible] thank you. >> i heard absolutely nothing to dissuade me from that, and you know, i think a lot of me thinks he do the protest too much. >> vice-president swig? >> thank you. i'll support that motion, and i think by taking this action we do both the property owner and the building department and the planning department big favors, because then they will have the opportunity of sitting down and reconciing all of the

innumerable and alleged permits that have been issued and canceled or finished or whatever, and then they can clean up their messes together if there are messes and come out the other side knowing -- having a clear direction and clear agreement. so i think we're doing commissioner lazarus is doing them a favor by making that motion, which i will support. >> i also will support that motion. i think that there's some cleanup work that would benefit both the departments as well as the project sponsor to straighten out and cross the ts and dot the is. commissioner lazarus, that's your motion? >> it is. >> did you just want to add at the end that the n.o.v. was properly issued? >> absolutely i do. >> okay. >> that's what she said. i heard he -- her say that,

actually. >> okay. okay so we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal and uphold the notice of violation on the basis that the zoning administrator did not err or abuse his discretion and the notice of violation was properly issued. on that motion, president honda? >> aye. >> commissioner chang? >> aye. >> vice-president swig? >> aye. >> okay so that motion carries 4-0 and the appeal is denied. >> no more business. >> and this concludes the hearing. >> thank you, everybody. >> thank you very much. >> see you all in a couple of weeks. >> have a wonderful time. bye-bye now. >> happy mother's day. >> good evening. thank you. ♪ ♪

>> good afternoon at this meeting will come to order. welcome to the may 3, 2021 of the land use and transportation committee meeting. i'm chair of the committee. we are expecting vice chair supervisor dean preston shortly. >> supervisor preston: i'm here. >> supervisor melgar: also supervisor peskin. committee clerk is erica major. i like to acknowledge sfgov tv for staffing this meeting.