>> the board of appeals. president honda is joined by vice president rick swig, commissioner an lazarus and tina chang. soon-to-be present is brad russy. and alex and i'm julie rosenburg. the board's executive director. we'll be joined by reps from the city departments that will be presenting before the board this evening. scott sanchez with the planning department, jeff duffy, acting deputy director, carla short, and stephen keller, acting urban forest for the bureau of urban forestry. now, let me see. someone can go on mute please. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. turn off or silence all phones

and other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. appellants, permit holders and department respondents are given seven minutes to present and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated must commit in the seven or three minute periods and mime may be limb second-degree to two minutes and given that there's a vacancy, three votes are required to brant an appeal or modify a permit or determination or to branch a hearing request. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing the board rules or hearing schedules e-mail board staff at board of appeals. every effort has been made to replicate the in-person hearing process and sfgovtv is broad

catting and streaming this hearing life and we'll have the ability to steve public comments or teach item ong today's agenda and they are providing closed captioning. go to sfgovtv or cable channel 78. it will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 p.m. on channel 26. a link is found on our home page 6 our website and now public comment can be provided by two wales ways. ways. you can join by computer or call in 1-669-900-6833 and enter the webinar i.d. 86085024135 and sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming the phone number across the bottom of the screen if you are watching the livestream. to block your phone number, dial star 67 then the phone number.

listen for the public comment portion of your item to be called and then doyle star 9. you will will two or throw minutes and our legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning, 30 seconds before your time is up. please note that there's a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast and lived streamed on tv and the internet so it's very important that people calling in turn off the volume on their tv or computer. if you need a disability accommodation or technical assistance you can make a request to the board's legal assistant or send an e-mail to board of appeals. now the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment on opinions. now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their

rights under the sunshine ordinance and if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony weight, raise your right hand and say i do after you've been sworn in or affirmed. so do you swear or affirm that the testimony will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. so, commissioners, we have two housekeeping items to address. the parties for item number 8, that's appeal number 21-035 at 2722 folsom free would like the matter continued until july 7th, 2021 so we need a motion. >> i will make that motion. >> is there any public comment on president honda's motion to move this item to july 7th? if so, please raise your hand.

i don't see any public comment. so commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> and vice president swig. >> aye. >> so that motion carries 4-0 and that item is continued to july 7th. now the second item we need to address pertains to item number 7a and 7b. this is 231-049 and 21-038 subject property at 265 oak street and lilly street now president honda and voice president swig have disclosures to make. >> i have a financial conflicts with one of the parties.

>> i'd like to recuse myself due to a conflict of interest according to the city statute. well below 5% in a building that is 499 feet away. >> so given that the board lacks a quorum, to hear items 7a and 7b, these items will be moved to a subsequent meeting after the vacancy on the board is filled. and at that time, president honda and vice president swig will recuse themselves so those items will not be heard tonight and i can follow-up with the parties for this matter at a later date. we will put it on the soonest calender that is available as soon as possible. so, try to expedite that. we're moving to general public comment.

this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction not on tonight's calender. is there any mental of the public who wishes to speak on nt on tonight's agenda. please, go ahead. scott sanchez. >> scott sanchez, this really is an item related to the previous case and it's been more than two months since the board has had santa can a and hopefully the board will be complete again and have a new commissioner to round out the board so we can assure that the permits are fairly and efficiently processed so i look forward to hopefully getting news of a new appointment some time soon. thank you. >> thank you. is there any general public comment, please, raise your hand. i don't see any other hands. so we will move on to item number 2. commissioner comments and

questions. >> none here. >> we will move on to item number 3. for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the june 9th, 2021 meeting. >> motion to approve those minutes. >> is there any public comment on vice president swig's motion to adopt the minutes? please raise your hand. i don't see any public comment. on that motion, commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> so that motion carries 4-0 and the minutes are adopted so we're now moving on to item number 4. appeal number 21-040 midpen housing corporation versus san francisco public works, bureau of urban forestry and subject

property is 1351 42nd avenue including front age on 43rd avenue appealing the issuance or april 122,021st to midpen housing corporation of a public works order. approval to move five trees, two trees on 42nd avenue and three trees on 43rd avenue because of the poor condition and the denial of the removal of 14 trees, nine trees on 43 avenue and because they are healthy, established and sustainable and a new development is proposed for high density housing at this location. the appellant is appealing the denial of the request to remove 14 trees. this is order number 204615. and we will hear from the appellant first. and i'm not sure who is speaking? lauren furey. >> welcome. >> thank you. >> you have seven minutes. >> ok. share my screen.

is the powerpoint showing correctly? >> yes, we can see it. >> thank you. >> so my name is lauren furey i'm an associate project manager with midpen housing who is the developer of shirley chisel village at formally 1351 42nd avenue and i wanted to provide a brief background on the project. shirley chisel village is 135 units of affordable educator housing proposed to be located on the site of the former francis scott annex building and the school was deemed, the existing school building was seismically unfit in the late 80s and used for storage and administrative purposes until it was determined to be redeveloped into housing for educators. it will serve low and moderate income households earning between 40% and 120% of san francisco area median income and midpen was selected by sfusd and

the san francisco mayor's office of housing and community development as a project developer in 2018 through a competitive r.f.p. process. we filed for a tree removal permit in august 2020 as part of our larger building and site permit process and we requested to remove all 21 trees street trees at the project site. that was based on our arbor assessment of the health of the existing trees and their small size. the outer sunset neighborhood has notoriously difficult growing conditions for trees and there's sandy soil and salty air which prevents trees from growing big and tall without significant investment resources and we'll also be repaving all sidewalks surrounding the building as part of our construction and our arborist thought it could impact the root systems and also the soil

surrounding them and and with other trees and then also with additional landscaping and it exceeded replanting requirements. one of the things that drove our landscape plans were request from the neighbors during our community outreach process to plant larger trees that could contribute to a larger, more dense and full streets can pee. the image below is the picture of the francis and it's building that is currently on site and some of the trees that we have requested removal for. and then this is the view of the other side of the street, 42nd h and south and some of the additional trees that we had originally requested removal for. so the background of our appeal, after submitting for the permit in august, they issued the ruling on it in december of 2020

and approved from using five of the trees but denied removal for 14 of the trees. and two of the trees of the site had died during that period. we filed an appeal and they held a hearing in march of 2021 which they upheld the nine removal and at that hearing we learned that they planted many of the trees on 42nd avenue four years ago and was hand watering until recently. we filed our appeal with this board in april and met in earl june to propose a new plan that was focused on preserving more of the trees on site. they submitted their brief to the board and whoa now have a revised appeal to this board. we made several changes to our landscaping plan.

we reduced the tree removals from our request for 19 removals to 10 removals and this excludes two that died on site. we agreed to water the trees during construction to help with their preservation. and we also agreed to use cages on the new tree plantings to protect against the potential vandalism. so our revised request to this board is to approve the agreed upon plan between midpen and buff and issue a permit for five additional tree removals to bring the total number of removals to 10 trees. that's it. thank you for your time. i'm with midpen and i'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> we have a question from president honda. >> it was spelled out specifically. i am a supporter of urban renewal and how many projects

have midpen done in the city where there are tree removals? >> this is our first project in san francisco. we've been a bay area non-profit affordable housing for 50 years but this is our first in city limits. >> that's what i figured by asking this board to remove this many trees. i don't know how much homework you've done. we don't allow healthy trees to be taken out for a project. next question is, who is going to gain the sustainability and health of the tree and for how long that will be guaranteed for? well, midpen is the developer and owner and property manager. we continue to own all our projects after development and so it would be our responsibility for as long as we own the development? >> is there -- if this project were to be allowed, what would the guaranteed minimum -- so you would guarantee all trees damaged would be replaced within

a certain period of time and it would be a deep restriction? >> we are in favor of as many trees as possible on this site too. >> thank you. we will now hear from the bureau of urban forestry and welcome mr. keller. >> can you hear me. steve keller acting urban forester at the moment and it's the agreement we have come to. essentially, the director had an issued 204615 that denied 14 of the trees to be removed and upon submit alf their brief, they reduced that requested number

down to six trees to be removed. we agreed that removal of an additional five trees, one less from their request was responsible ask and that in the long-term, it would be good for this site to remove younger trees that haven't established as well. and then something that pushed us towards allowing five more trees to be removed was that the new trees they plan on planting will be large, 36-inch box trees and they will also bring in new soil and install irrigation and they'll be planting a very wind tolerant species that does well in the sunset and what is currently planted on

42nd avenue and is thriving and whoa decided it won't have a significant impact on the canopy cover as these trees establish over the next decade. one of the main reasons we had originally denied so many trees, was because they planted these trees and we did not want to loose lose all the trees we invested so many of resources in but when they asked to only remove six of those trees, they were six of the worse remaining trees. in short, we have agreed in five additional interests to be additional five trees and we ask the board to overturn the order and allow the issuance of a permit for 10 removals in total.

thank you. >> thank you, we have a question from president honda and vice president swig. >> vice president had his hand up first. >> it's fine. >> so, where is chris buck? that's the question mark? >> he is taking a leave right now. he will be back eventually. >> welcome. >> thank you. >> i believe in the package there's irrigation. what is the watering plan for the new trees? >> this is a large development and they're planting a lot of trees and installing irrigation, they'll have water running from the property and to the sidewalk and they'll be required to i iremember agate the new trees until they're established and establishment is three years and

depending on the box side of the tree it's a different amount of water. the development will be on the hook until they're established and that's three to five years. additionally, there's still young trees on 43rd avenue that are just getting passed the timeframe where they node to be watered on a weekly basis to survive so they've also agreed to supplement the water to help mitigate the construction impacts. >> last question was, so, a lot of times when we allow developers to remove trees, often times they come back to us and say that we were unable to install said trees because of a ball or utilities, there's anyone gone through the plan to what they say is removing is feasible to put back in?

>> yeah, i efficientlily reviewed this construction permit a year ago and when i reviewed the permit, they had already shown where they were going to install a lot of their sewer lines, gas line and water lines are laid out clearly and the tree planting plan is more or less set in stone. i don't know the exact number of, how do i say, a lot where they're currently installing their utilities, the trees that were there were dead. they were empty basins or trees that really didn't survive so none of the trees that are currently being removed are going to have restrictions on replacement due to utilities. >> thank you, very much. vice president -- >> sure. what interested me in this case

was not only the disagreement over returning overtaking on trees, but also putting in a new development. everyone in san francisco is expensive but new and important housing and i looked at the tree settings and i read the documentation and there seems to be a lot of field traces and also very little continuity with regard to the trees that were already in place. and, are you comfortable that the trees, which are not being replaced, are they the right

choices and are they going to survive or taking on a more dramatic act here, is this a chance to review the whole program and provide two things, one, continuity so that all the trees are the same and two, ensure that the trees are the right choices. so, first of all, again, to reiterate, are the trees that are going to survive if according to your negotiations, are they going to survive and are they the right choices and why not in the context, of the within derful new development, it's not take the opportunity to replace all the trees with some trees that are maybe better

chose. >> i guess i'll address it kind of frontage by frontage. on 43 avenue, all the tree remaining are pattersonyi that were four-years-old and it's one of our species that lives in the sunset the best and i believe the development has chosen to plant at the end of construction and there's also one olive tree as well on that is also 10-years-old and it's also a species that does well in the sunset. in terms of is it the right decision, i think so. i think when you trees were planted four years ago and they're establishing well and when you plant trees at a smaller box size and you water them well, they're more well adjusted and have a better root

system over time so the fact that they are thriving in that area is a good sign that they do have a good chance of becoming good trees and if they're protected well during construction, it's a nice accent at the end of the project. in terms of 42nd avenue the only two trees remaining are i believe like two -- i don't know exactly how old they are. they're two 10-year-old olive trees and they're doing pretty well as well so i think it will be a good combination of preserving trees that are healthy versus allowing them to plant many more trees. additionally, on 43rd avenue, the development is essentially installing what resembles a public park. we didn't want to detract from that and i don't think we're detracting from that new park setting and it will have the finished look they want.

>> thank you, very much, for that answer. >> thank you. i don't see any questions at this time. so we'll move on to public comment. is there anyone here to provide public comment on this item, please, raise your hand. >> welcome. >> caller: go ahead and unmute. do you want to go on video? mr. carnes? you can go ahead.

>> i unmuted myself and you muted me. >> my apologies. >> that's ok. >> so,. >> the prime rose trees were on 42nd avenue, not 43rd. the comment i wanted to make was, after reading both briefs, my head was spinning. i'll give you two trees for that one, et cetera. the brief is more of a horse trading session than an argument against the public works decision. the responded around's brief is similar to the trades offered in the appellant's brief. the purpose of a hearing, as i understand it, is to hear the facts and arguments from both sides. side agreements to retain or

remove different number of trees is not an appropriate use of the briefing process. the public deserves a hearing based on the d.p.w. order as written and an up or down vote on the appeal by the board, possibly with recommendations. and i just to refresh my memory on how these meetings work, i read from the board of appeals website it says parties aren encourage to submit a brief to the board describing the dispute and what ages they would like the board to take and from my reading, neither party signaled what action they would like the board to take. it says keep in mind the correct standard of review of the board will use in deciding the case and in most cases, the board applies dinovo review which means if here is the case fresh and does not need to defer to the findings of factor

determinations made by the underlying decision maker and to setting a case the board may only uphold, overturn or place conditions on the decision and cannot remand, send back a decision to the under lying department for further review or action. and an appellant must get four out of the five board members to overturn the decision and it takes two board members to remain unchanged. so i'd like to respectfully request the board decide up or down the appeal of public works order. thank you. >> we will now hear from john nolte. you have three minutes.

>> caller: can you hear me? >> yes, we can, thank you. >> caller: i had to figure out which button. i was at the hearing and i do find that this is a very interesting how the owner has discussed for (inaudible) and i'm concerned what is being said, which normally happens to any property after you ininstruct a building on it is to take out the sidewalk because that's one of the last things that are done. so my issue is, which i really didn't hear, was that the protection of the trees that are currently there they may not be taken out. and also, it was kind of crossed

over by buff that there's possibly going to be irrigation to the trees that are being kept. i want to make sure that there's irrigation to all the trees at the end of the day and when this is voted in and put in part of the motion because it's important that we found out by the appellant it's owned by them and they should be able to maintain all three when the board of appeals tonight decides on this case. thank you, very much, for your time. >> thank you. is there any other public comment on this idea? i see one hand raised. mr. michael nulty, please, go ahead. >> this is michael nulty and i'd

like to see the decision makers but at the same time, there needs to be following a procedures. i heard the presentation by the developer and they kind of implied that they would be putting in more trees and i didn't really hear that in the settlement if there would be more trees put into the sidewalk or any other surrounding areas because they're doing a whole development site, they're not just dealing with the sub hearing is the and i would like to hear the actual what kind of graining they're going to did is it just going to be trees or more and i leave it up to the commissioners but there seems to be outstanding issues and i

think the developer should have done their homework before they started putting bits in san francisco and understanding the policies that san francisco has especially around trees and other environmental issues and they have to during a development in san francisco. thank you. >> is there any other public comment. we will remove on to resut but the and hear from the appellant first. >> >> well, thank you again for your time today. i would just say that as the project developer, we are very interested in creating robust street canopy near our project and that response to the neighborhood desire to see the

and the goals of san francisco as a city. we have a plan that includes planting new trees which is briefly touched on in the previous that was submitted as well as the drawing plan that accompanied that and we'll also be look to go see if it's possible to include one or two trees based on if this appeal request is approved and we can remove the additional five trees. that is it for my rebuttal. >> press honda has a question. >> so, i didn't mean to start the furey about you guys not

doing projects in san francisco. honestly, it was a little row refreshing looking a lot your brief as most developers have done business in san francisco so it's accordingly and it was refreshing to look at. so you said that your company midpen generally retains their project, is that 100% or have you developed and resold? >> if alley is available she's the director of my office. i believe it's 100%. >> yes, i can take this. good evening, commissioners. this is alley gaylord. we do own and operate and retain and we've never sold a project before and also just to let folks know, our consult apartments and design team that we've hired are local architect d.a. r. and it's based in san francisco in our landscape

designer fletcher studios, which say local, small, san francisco business. >> thank you. i do like the concept and i do like facilitating housing for elderly. thank you. >> and low income. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the department. mr. keller, you have throw threeminutes for rebuttal. >> thank you. yeah, i guess i'll answer some of the last questions first. the project is doing more than just tree planting. they'll be landscaping the sidewalk to install a lot of curbside and property side perm' able sidewalk landscaping so the plans i've seen essentially maximize the new landscaping as planned and again, there's going to be an inproperty park-like section as well that will add a tremendous value to the community. and in terms of making a side

agreement or essentially when buff went to the hearing, we did not want any of these young trees removed because buff had planted them four years ago and spent a lot of resources watering them. as we read into the brief and looked at the condition of some of the trees that they wanted to still remove, we realized that we may have over valued what condition they were in and we do truly think that you know, with their landscape design and their plans for planting and new soil and irrigation that the trees we're allowing them to remove now, you know, what they will be replaced with is a better long-term solution. that's my response, thank you. >> thank you. so commissioners, this matter is

submitted. >> would anyone like to start first? >> i'm happy to start. it sounds like there's been a lot of work that the midpen and urban forestry and it sounds like there's been a lot of thought and consideration regarding precisely what trees should be allowed to be removed and how to update the order and it sounds like everyone is coming to an agreement about the best course of action. so, i would be inclined to support what's been proposed before us by midpen and i'm interested to hear from other commissioners. >> vice president swig. >> i have no problem with the

negotiationed settlement as i hear has been presented. >> i was going to say the same thing. when parties come to an agreement, it's a signal as wait to go. >> i also agree but i think and i'll go in line with whatever my fellow commissioners want to do. i think that would condition the permit there's going to be a tree presented will be there and that they're also be a guaranteed watering plan in place and a replacement plan in place. as the developer said they do sell anything, which i will believe them but if the projects gets replaced, the new developers can say you know what, we're not going to take care of this. so, that would be my consensus. >> are you making a motion? >> we're still in --

>> i would accept what i see your motion is accepting the negotiation as put fourth and i think advice are appropriate and proper. >> we've been bated and switched on this board several times and i think looking at the plan, it's great. if that's what comes out of it, i think it's row freshing to look at the drawings and the layout and it was very specific on what they were going to do so my motion would be to grant the appeal and subject the condition of the permit that there would be a watering plan in place, one, and that the number of trees were as per the agreement is there a date or a page we can reference, madam director.

>> can i just read the conditions that i've gathered. >> ok. >> from this agreement and then we'll go from there. i understand that the first condition would be the removal of two trees on 42nd street and tree number 64 and 68 and, 42nd avenue and three trees on 43rd avenue, tree number 51, 55 and 58. the second condition is replacement with 36-inch box size trees of the species lagunario pattersoni and third is water irrigation of the new trees until established and four is cages on all existing and new tree plantings. is that encompass everything? >> i want to make sure that there's a condition of replacements if there's a loss of the tree. and two, that --

>> a one to one replacement for all removed trees? >> as per whatever plan the tree replacements as per the submitted plan and reference that. >> i don't think they have one document that constitutes the plan ex they talk about different conditions in each of their briefs. >> i have one modification i wanted to offer and i saw it. >> as per the plan submitted to d.o.a., today's date and our reference. >> you mean the plan and we can

address. >> just a minor point. at this think you said so mandate watering of the plants or the trees until they're established which is vague and i thought it was a minimum of three years. >> or established. >> well, i guess i want to say at least a minimum of three years. >> ok. >> ms. gaylord. >> well is it established or at least throw years, which comes first? >> i guess i would defer to buff on that. >> yeah, watering of new trees, minimum of three years. >> ok. >> yeah. >> or and until established. >> and or until established? >> minimum of three years or

until established. >> or until established. >> that actually isn't logical because they could be established in one year. we want them to do it for -- >> yeah, so watering can take for a tree to truly establish it takes three to five years. and it can be established after three years but that is why we say -- >> so a minimum of three years or until the department -- >> yeah. so, any time someone plants a tree within the public right-of-way, on a construction project, buff doesn't accept maintenance of the trees until we determine it is established. so after three years, or five years, one of those trees is dead, wore going to say you have the planted and start the clock so, that's why we say a minimum of three years of water or until

established.

>> new soil you continued to add many of there was a condition about them bringing in new soil. >> new soil and irrigation and there was a condition that was said to put protective cages or existing trees but i don't think it's required if the exiting trees are old the cages for vandalism of small trees. >> this is very require the board allows tree removal. count your victories and run because normally we do not allow tree replacement for healthy trees, per item. and the amount of people that speak against it, we would be

here on hour or so. i think the trees, let's keep that in there the trees that are to remain be to be protects as the guidelines of the bureau of urban forest. tree protection in place. >> can we clarify. the new soil coming in for the new trees only? >> yes. >> and the water irrigation is only for the new trees? >> yes. >> but if you are doing a full sidewalk thing, will you i remember gate the existing trees as well. that would make sense to me. it's not an existing tree that would need it. >> the thing is, since you are redoing the sidewalk and everything already, i mean, that

way those trees won't have to get watered. now you have no irrigation for that one slot. are you going to be willing dr. this is rare we allow this, we condition it that all trees, including existing be included in the irrigation as part of the conditions. >> are you making this motion, president honda? >> yes. on what basis would this motion be. >> that it is an agreement worked out between the department of burin specifics and the developers and it's good for the community. >> ok. >> sounds great. >> and i will do my best to

recount that. we have a motion on the condition it be revised to require the removal of tree numbers 64, 68, 51, 55 and 58 and replacement of all trees removed with 36-inch box size trees and there are water irrigation of the new trees for a minimum of three years until they're established and irrigation of the existing trees and is there a timeline on the irrigation of the existing trees? >> i can chime in. we want them to give additional water during construction to help mitigate construction impact but just the course of

the construction. >> water during the course of construction and additionally, cages on all existing and new tree planting so they're protected and it's made on the basis it represents the agreement between the parties and it's good for the communities. so, on that motion, commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> vice president swig. >> aye. >> so that motion carries 4-0. this is appeal 21-042 kamran against and appealing the denial on may 13th torque 1 to kamran

ghadaksaz and to legalize the construction of a one story and permit the 15 square feet for a full bath and this is case number 2019-013872 and the appellant representatives are here. you have seven minutes. >> good evening, i would like to share my screen. and am i sharing my screen. >> we can see your presentation. so basically we would like to appeal the decision for the rare she had. the existing dwelling is 821 square feet with one bathroom

and one bedroom. this structure in the rare yard was built prior to my client's buying their very first home in san francisco. they were under the impression the structure was legal. there's a listing in 621-18 that listed the structure single story 127 square foot with a half bath. we did not find out it was not permitted until the city showed up. we would like to show you there are massive homes around this single family dwelling and this is in question at the moment. we held a neighborhood outreach to legalize this structure and no one attended. we had our 311 notice posted and there was no d.r. filed

whatsoever against our building permit. we have satellite showing it was here in 2013. we were it showing it was here in 2011 and in 2009. we have letters from the neighborhoods stating the structure has been there for over 10 years. two letters. i would like to finalize this slide presentation later, don, the owner.

we are 3-foot 11 too high and i want to remind everyone this was built by the previous owner and that my first-time homeowners buying their first home in san francisco and had no idea that it was not permitted at the time. so, we are asking you to please grandfather the structure in so that the clients can remain enjoying the extra little space that they have since they can't afford for an expansion. and we would be willing to

willing to talk about expansions if win would respond. >> president honda has a question. >> president honda: this is no foul against your clients but are they seeking resource from the sellers from incorrect disclosure? >> i believe and i'm not 100% and i'm not sure what happened to sahar but it is my understanding that it was bought as is. >> president honda: as is doesn't happen in california we're a full disclose your state. unless it was a trust sale. it was not a trust state it's full disclose your in the state of california. in your brief, you asked for it to be grandfathering in. it's only if it was permitted at the time and the zone and the code has changed after and in this particular case, it was not

been in 2009. so when you purchased it as is, was it from a individual seller or a trustor probate sale? >> hello. do you hear me? >> yes,. >> hi, my name is sarah and i'm the new owner and i appreciate everybody's time. so, basically, when we bought this house, we were representativing for 12 years ir 12 years and the previous owner was the principal of the school and they were colleagues for over like 10 years so, when she told us this is a permitted place, we basically took her

word for it. it was naive, it was my first house. we have never gone through this before and so we didn't actually know it until three weeks after we moved into the house and someone knocked the door from the city department and it was a nice gentleman and he told us basically that an anonymous neighbor complained about this structure that we built it and we are renting it out to airbnb and he even said that he didn't have to come in because only just submit some photos of the structure. i was so confident that this was within the permitted limits that i actually insisted he came in and he came in and he did some measurements and he said oh it's a little bigger than what it's >> president honda: unfortunatel y the ceiling height is eight feet and it cannot be exceed more than 100 square feet many

of that's the question i have and the department will ask more questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you, scott sanchez. the property is located within an rh-2 zoning directing as was indicated and it's a relatively new owner to the property in june of 2018. and in august of 2018, there was a complaint to the department of building and inspection which stated that there was neighborhood concerns over possible unpermitted living space in detached shed at rear of property and possibly utilized for short term rentals and there was no associated complaints to the planning department and on august 26, 2019, building permit application number 2019-04269109

was to expand presently a studio with half bath and 127 square feet would be expand today about 142 square feet and the structure was also a little bit more than 11 feet in height above grade. in july of 2019, the required variants was submitted on june 24th, the variant hearing and they took the matter under advisement and between june 30th, 2020 and july 30th of 2020 the. >> alex: 311 was performed and one of the reasons than they took the matter under advisement to do additional research on the history from aerial photos it appears the structure was constructed by the previous owner between 2004 and 2007 based on the photos and i did just today look at the mls

listing from when it was sold in 2018 and it shows the listing apparently as it was in 2018, and it describes it unwarranted studio with half bath, that's how it was listed and shows as you know warranted which is generally understood or con construed to be not permitted. they denied the variants find particular did not need the five findings to grant the variants which are high standards and this structure was constructed recently and it does exceed what is allows under the crowed which as president honda noted is about 100 square feet and no more than eight feet in height so it is larger than about what would be allowed for that which would typically be a storage shed or accessory structure but it was proposed to have a full

path. there's an active building department enforcement case on it but not a current planning case. we've been in contact with the applicant and understand that one of the justifications that they had at the hearing last year was it was necessary, due to covid to have this structure and lack of a better word, the decontamination and having that structure and they've indicated to me, we'll be flexible and work with them on a timeline for compliance due to the covid concerns but did not find that the findings necessary for the variants have been met by the application and with that, i'm available for questions. >> we have a question from president honda and vice president swig. >> president honda: seeing this, mr. sanchez, it's always

disturbing when it's not the actual people that have committed crime that people after have faced the fact. it was disclosed as you know warranted and as i've been guided to put down from people that instead of using the word unwarranted or non warranted say not permitted and illegal is the proper and correct term. is there any possible way, i mean, going through the brief, i mean, i don't want to see these guys punished but as i see it, there's no way that we can truly legalize this unit. i mean this space. >> in order to legalize it, it would have to be reduced in size no more than 100 square feet and no more than eight feet tall and then typically we don't have plumbing in the accessory. >> or electrical. >> electrical, we would but the plumbing and getting into

residential use. looking at the state provisions for a.d.u.s. >> president honda: does it qualify under the a.d.u. >> it doesn't qualify under that because that requires the setback of four feet from each property line and this is within four feet from each property line so it would have to be relocated elsewhere on the lot more -- it's too close to the side and rear property lines. >> if that structure were to be moved four feet of four feet would it then qualify for the a.d.u. in california? >> there's a possibility of that, yes. >> president honda: do they have an option of what they can do? >> that would be a possibility. there would need to be a separate dwelling unit which i don't think is something they want to pursue. yeah -- >> the only issue is that i think having the rear yard in san francisco because we have a

zero lot line is that fire and safety and identifying units in case of issues, right? >> yeah. >> vice president swig. >> >> v.p. swig: so, basically, what you are saying scott, unfortunately, is when all is said and done, you are going to require them or not you, but the city will require them to turn this partial, small apartment into a storage shed without any electrical or any plum something plumbing.i want it clear for the appellant. >> in order to comply with the code it would be reduced in size as well. it would not be the same structure in order to comply with the code. >> and their other option would be just to tear it down and

that's their only other option? >> correct. it would be removing it and that would be -- this is the process of legalize particular so this was another option. they could remove it or legalize it and this was the legalization process and this variant was denied so in order to comply with the code, it would be effectively demolishing the structure as it is now because it would require something that is smaller and also shorter and i don't know if they looked at the feasibility of bringing it into compliance with that way. >> when you mess with astructure, you take a little off, just tear it down and call it a day. it's more expensive than rebuilding it, probably. and you have an empty slab.

so there's no -- it doesn't meet any of the five findings so is there any other way around this they bought something knowingly and according to them and and the only thing that they can claim really is it's a hardship because they bought something they paid for and now they're finding that they have to tear it down. but is there any other alternative in this situation? according to the statute? >> i don't think so, unfortunately. >> i'm sorry about that but i understand also that if we make exceptions, as we always say --

>> i heard from mr. sanchez do we have some enforcement action on this property and it was in deed for the -- we received a complaint from planning and accessory at the rear the property and greater than 100 square feet and accessory structure and reduce or reduce the size of the structure to less than 100 square feet and that would be exempt from a

building permit and plan ago plg approval. i'm available for president. >> president honda: joe so, the question is, the complaint was 2018, you said? >> that's correct, yes. >> president honda: was this a a anonymous? >> it came from omar at planning so it was referred from the planning department. >> so if it was omar it was an airbnb issue. the reason i'm asking from the picture in the brief i remember that corner property having some permitting issues as well at one time so i was wondering if it was ale beef between the corner unit and that unit. >> i'm not sure. >> it had to be an airbnb issue. >> yeah, these are unfortunate as you said when you buy the property, you cannot buy the problem and you have to deal with it.

unfortunate. >> president honda: thank you, joe. >> thank you. >> acting deputy director. >> thank you. >> we are now moving on to public comment. is there any public comment for this item? please, raise your hand. i don't see any public comment. so we'll move on to rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> linda -- linda. can you hear me? >> do you want her to speak during this time? >> no, there is no neighbor that complained. we've talked to all three neighbors and the only neighbor that has complained is two blocks away from us and she doesn't even see us and it doesn't have a view and our house is very small and i come home and i spend 90% of my time in this unit because am an oral

surgeon and i do my yoga here and i didn't really know and we won't have bought it like this. it's really hard because they're saying to demolish it. our house is 800 square feet. this is where i do all my yoga and meditation and my notes. i have a really hard time job so basically they are asking me to demolish it and they're willing to make it up to code whatever needs to be improved. if they have fire and if they're concerned about fire we never airbnb this. it doesn't even have any doors to this place. no one can come through this other than us and i park my car in the garage, i asked linda to put some to see there's no interest to this place. there's no airbnb this place.

it doesn't even have a shower. at least if we can keep what we have i'm willing to give up on the shower. i've been isolating here and i'm a doctor and my husband is a diabetic and he is sick and i'd like to keep it as is. i would appreciate it and keep it as what it is. thank you. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. just to add, the complaint has stated concerns about short-term rental and i'm not aware of any evidence of a short-term rental violation on the property and the property owner has said that was never done and if omar was the staff person who referred the complaint to d.b.i. then, he is our short term rental and he wouldn't have done that without

first verifying there was no short term rental violations just to clarify that point and i'm available for any questions. >> vice president swig has a question. >> v.p. swig: sure. again, i'm frustrated and saddened for the property owner for their circumstances. what is the -- so, clearly this is in breach of statute and clearly there has to be a cure. what is the term or how long can you give them to cure this situation? or what is the expectation from the department? >> president honda: also, just

to add, piggy off to yours, this board has the ability to potentially extend that but go ahead. >> v.p. swig: that's where i'm going, sir. >> president honda: the willingness to work with them and that's one of the reasons why we have this hearing last year and the decision was not issued until a couple months ago and part of this is we're not in a hurry to see the building removed and happy to work with them on a timeline that is the zoning administrator didn't indicate a specific amount of time if the board has a comment on that, we can certainly discuss that with the zoning administrator. we do have a active case with d.b.i. >> v.p. swig: we have, in the past, in circumstances like this where there is duress but where

there is no intention, no observation, no evidence of any kind that of malfeasance to be very liberal and our prescription, i believe, i remember that we provided some levee the opportunity of reparing their windows and i think we gave that individual about 10 years to do so and i would like to provide, as benevolent, this property owner, this is a very unfortunate situation, and so, you know, is that a potential for us to do? >> i could discuss that with the

zoning administrator. i mean the zoning administrator was thinking something in line with the covid emergency because that was one of the justifications given at the hearing was that this was an additional space to help the impacts of covid and so i think the zoning administrator was keeping along that timeline which would be in a year or two or three. we can certainly discuss a longer timeline. i guess, what i would say and to bring in d.b.i. into the question is, we would want to ensure there are no life safety issues with the structure that would be allowed to continue and during any extended time, which is something that i think director duffy can help us deal with. >> v.p. swig: so how do we do this? how do we -- i actually grow there should be a d.b.i. and if

there's faulty wiring, faulty plumbing, faulty anything that should be fixed and that should be an issue. when can you give us advice with regard to flexibility from the zoning administration to give these folks the opportunity to cure their situation over a longer period of time and faced with this, it's obvious to all of us this comes as a great shock to the owner and to the appellant but it also gives them, i would like to give them a long period of time to make a decision not only to tear down the building but also to look at an alternative place to live if need be if this presents them

with so much duress. >> what is a little bit unique here, this is a variant. it doesn't even authorization construction. it's required for the legalization but it's not directly related to an enforcement action where it's been an n.o.v. and the board said we delay the n.o.v. for ex amount of time and we had a similar case on a letter of determination regarding storage shed in the rear yard but the board had simply, requested that the department not enforce for a period of up to three years and also commenting that this also doesn't go to any future realtors, right. it was something limited to the future owner for up to a certain amount of time and so i think if the board gives that kind of direction or request i can take that back to the zoning administrator and d.b.i., which has the pending case, that bob out of our hands and separate

from planning department and i think we would want to hear from the deputy director duffy and he has his hand up as well. >> before deputy director duffy gives us his good advice, so hearing our discussion and the direction at least that i think would be appropriate here, you would recommend obviously we deny the variants and then do we offer you specific instructions or how do we move this forward in the way that you are suggest suggesting it might go. >> recommend to planing and to building to delay enforcement on

the structure for a certain amount of time and to ensure that the structure is safe at this time and that the certain amount of time that you are extending it does not also extend to a future owner that you know, it would be for the current owner up to a period of a certain amount of time. >> thank you. julie is taking notes on this to draft something appropriate if the commissioners want to vote in this direction. thank you, very much. >> president honda: commissioner lazarus was first. >> i would defer to acting chie- >> acting deputy -- >> to mr. duffy and then i would like to speak. >> thank you. i just wanted to speak up and maybe i should have given you this information. i checked on the enforcement on

this case and d.b.i. has an order of abatement posted on the property for that. i would need to probably go back to code enforcement to see how far that is down the road but that's going back to 20th of may 2020 and it was probably contacted and the last note was in may of of 2020 that there was a permit filed and the violation remains active with our progress so you know, i know that they want more time here but just if we have orders posted on this, i'm not sure how much time that would help because if they were refinancing or something like that on the property and there's anna baitment it can get messy at that point. obviously, happy to work with the board and the applicant on a good solution here and i'm just wondering, as well, in fact,

sometimes i have seen people, i'm not sure what the structure looks like in its self but reducing it in side could be the best option and i don't want to, i know the lady is upset about it but it might get it completed because sometimes we put this off for five or 10 years but it's still a problem in five or 10 years. i'm available for questions. thank you. >> president honda: deputy director, i'm not up for more than two years. it was disclosed earlier by the department that it was not warranted basically that it was illegal and so, purposers whether they're getting, even though they did not do deed, i'm not trying to be mean, when they purchased it they knew it was an illegal structure. and so, if we were to lean over to go to two years, maximum, vice president swig what's can we do regarding the enforcement?

is there a way this board has the ability to delay that enforcement for 24 months? >> well that was where i was going. the order of abatement is not in front of us so i don't know where our boundaries are on this and we have a variance decision in front of us. >> we've gone way off into the grass. that's your line usually. >> keep us out of the weeds. >> president honda: like i said -- >> that's only so much we can do and maybe our executive director could even chime in. >> because there's anna baitment on the department of building of inspections, i think some guidance from deputy director duffy, ddd, can shed some light on this. >> i can certainly request that d.b.i. hold the enforcement. if we can't go back on our

enforcement but we can hold it and with the abatement posting, i don't think it's been record yet on the property for some reason which is good for them but it definitely got posted and i can speak to inspector hernandez to go with the bored's decision if you guys want to give them more time, we can do that. >> president honda: thank you. triple d, that's your new name. >> we haven't heard the rebuttal portion from deputy districts of you would like tuesday your rebuttal time. >> i'm good. i'm good thank you. >> ok, thank you. so, commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> president honda: i'll start. i understand where you are vice press swig and i am definitely, definitely sympathetic. because, like i said, it was completely unknown and this was a surprise but as a department

has indicated, it was disclosed from the m.l.s. which as you know, that is what you read, sign and approve and that is an illegal structure in the back of the property so the way i see it personally, is that either they can reduce it to eight and a half feet high by 100 square feet which is the legal description or they potentially can file for an a.b.u. application but according to scott, would have to move four feet off the wall so there's expense. i don't mind deferring the enforcement for 24 months. and not to go to -- if the property sells it not to go with the new buyers, it has to stay with them. are you ok with that? >> i think that we should -- that's fine with me. i just would not like to see them faced with the burden of

this issue imminently and 24 months will give them some good breathing rooms and opportunities and take some necessary steps to help them out. it would just be wonderful and that's fine. >> go ahead. >> good evening, commissioners. brad russy, deputy city attorney. i wanted to add, this was basically what he was saying, the board doesn't have authority over when that add enforcement proceeding proceeds. this is an appeal decision. if you were to make a

recommendation, which you could do, that would be a recommendation that would not be binding or legally enforced by the department or in court. >> president honda: ok. i think that mr. honda would be glad to make that recommendation at some moment. >> president honda: so, my motion would be to deny the -- this is for variance and -- deny to both the departments or the departments to defer enforcements or how about 30 months? and that not to be transferable to any new ownership that is only for the current ownership. >> that's just a recommendation. >> that's just a recommendation. >> would this be on the basis the five findings required under planning code have not been met? >> i only see one or two at the most, to be honest. >> i'd like to ask mr. sanchez

and triple d for their -- if they would suggest that this is a reasonable direction and a thorough direction? given our conversations. >> yes, scott sanchez. i think that is. i will talk to the zoning administrator after this hearing. >> i agree as well. thank you. >> i would suggest if the a pel appellant has any questions about what we are trying to make happen, they either call the executive director and she might explain to them. >> ok, so we have a motion from president honda to deny the appeal and uphold the denial of the variance from the five findings required under planning code section 305c have not been met and with the further

recommendations that the departments, just the planning department, delay enforcement for up to 30 months. >> we might as well include the planning too. >> this is the planning department action. the planning department delay enforcement for 30 months for the current owner only. on that motion, commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. and i guess not to belabor this, i just want to encourage the property owner to explore the a.d.u. option where you can offset the structure four feet because that might be the most viable way to kind of retain your structure and there's complications involved with that. that is one way to kind of legalize it and bring everything

to quote-unquote code. i'll leave it at that. >> so, vice president swig, what is your vote on the motion? >> aye. >> so that motion carries 4-0 and the appeal is denied. so, we are now moving on to item number 6, this is appeal number 21-047 jean allen versus department of building inspection and the planning department subject property is 130 vixberg street on may 6th, 2021 to lawrence lee of an alterations permit and new bathroom and ex enter from section 311 demolish rear pop out and replace windows and aluminum to wood clad and new exterior stairs in the rear it's permit 201 and we will hear from the appellant first. >> good evening. i'm here with my architect whom

i will share my time. alex, if you would please screen share exhibit 1 page a3. there are two issues on appeal. drainage and the privacy sense. little history on the drainage problem. there's no dispute about the existence of a drainage problem coming from my neighbor's property. the problem requires that the permanent fix and given the scope of my neighbors two projects, as well as previous communications we've had about the problem, with you imagine my surprise to see nothing addressing these known drainage issues on the approved plans. i lived here 31 years, i have no drainage problems for water that falls on to my own property, and my landscaped yard absorbs waters and a drain manages what drips through to the concrete patio below in photo number one, the surface drain is located in front of the far-right door.

show exhibit 1, page a1. i've experienced multiple indoor water intrusions from the project sponsor's property including the need for an insurance claim. for damage caused by overflowing drainage from the pending a.d.u. structure, see photo 1 and cite plan view of exiting garage and future a.d.u. roof, and as well as the main residents. see photo 2 and also on the site plan showing the main residents route drainage. each one discovers down spout is right next to the property line. in terms of their main house drainage there's no foley age near that system. my property line hedge stops over 10 feet before the drain for the main house. alex, please show exhibit 1 page a3. i outlined in my grove what i've done at my own expense to prevent property damage from

their rain drainage but the problem can only be solved from their side. in the spring of 2019 when the main residents backed up, the water sat against my north property line wall and came through another storage area as well as the cracked court yard property line which has no curb and when it drained on to my property. see the red indicators at the top of age a3. as identified in our proposed continues to the project sponsor permit we need a permanent fix those detailed in the scope of work and plans. now turning to the fence. alex, please share the drawing exhibit 3. it pro dates my purchase in 1990 and the prior owner and i replaced it as a 50/50 shared cost at her request.

and the privacy for my immediate neighbors is critical to my continued enjoyment of the spa. i would like to maintain the current and longstanding height of 11 feet six inches as shown on exhibit 3 however i'm willing to accept a lower fence to a total of 10 feet from their grades it meets the current planning code requirements and provides adequate privacy. please share exhibit 4 and jim will address the proposed conditions to the permit. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. jim, the architect. and i just like to review the proposed conditions which you have in front of you now for the existing permit. and these include changes to the project. and also, i'd leek to thank the project sponsors, we've been meeting them and they've offered

valid solutions to the drainage problems which i'd like to further identify here to go forward. and item number 1 on our proposed conditions, is a comprehensive repair replacement of the cuppers and project sponsorsy house with code compliant connections to the surer line per the project sponsors' exhibit b. and these include installing larger throw inch die am ner spouts on the main residents providing water-tight sealed connections to all the down spouts and screens to prevent debris from water flow and in all cases connecting the down spouts drain pipes to the sewer lines to ensure it doesn't splash and these items will obviously all be done in accordance with california plumbing code. if you can show exhibit 1, 3, this is photo number 2. the project sponsor has offered to replace the existing no

concrete wall between their house and their proposed a.d.u. unit. with a new high concrete wall. typically this type of wall would include a filter drawn lot and foundation drainage pipe to assert connect plumbing and that is an additional item to the meeting that has been talked about previously. there should be a new four inch with the top of the wall to extend the house at the property line to the corner of the project sponsor. this was an area where drainage and the water had collected previously and causing an incursion into the house. the he will vision should be verified with the according (inaudible) and every case the sidewalk patio areas should be sloped away from the a pel appes house. they will have perm' able artificial grass with no automatic irrigation and

described in 10 of the drawings which is great and this landscape area should be sloped away from the a pel apartment'ss property and all remaining landscape area should be sloped and it's a typo here it does not direct water obviously to the property. if you can show the drawing again of the property line fence. again, per this sketch, jean is requesting that the appellant is requesting -- the appellant requested lower the height of this which totals six inches to a height of 10 feet and this tight is measured from the project sponsors and this would be a code compliant by planning 10-foot high fence even though this reduced height of the fence will not maintain the privacy when the existing hedge which is planted 31 years ago dies and

the appellant is going to compromise with that and thank you. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> ok. thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. i believe their representative is mr. rothblack. andre rothblack. >> i'm here. >> you have seven minutes. >> ok. can you hear me? >> yes, i can. >> thank you. >> great, thank you. so i'm andre the architect for the project sponsor and so our project is an over the counter permit so it's mostly an interior remodel and in 311 or neighbor was required and our project was to perform an extensive remodel for the main

house to expand and enhance the center court yard and convert the rear garage to an a.d.u. and we intended to do everything, new electrical, plumbing, mechanical system and a major overhaul to the main building and the a.d.u. which is under a separate permit. we're actually reducing the building footprint and we were demolishing a two-storey pop-out so we can enhance and expand the court yard. so this appeal voices no object objections to our plan and ask we have a (inaudible) that was displayed by the appellant and her architect. the main culprit of the problem are down spouts and the can't down spouts are narrow, old and

they leak and so we plan to, for all the down spouts, calculated them to be large in diameter and we're going to connect them to the sewer and we're going to put a new sewer line and we're going to do a comprehensive remodel of the drainage system. the other issue is a low wall between the shared properties and it's cracking so we were going to replace that and we're going to put a curb so it catches water and we're going to regrade our soil so it slopes away from them so we're trying to do a thorough and reasonable remedy to the problem and we've discussed this and we've promised to them that we were going to do it. so, the appellant proposes some conditions and all the conditions that were in the exhibit with us cut and paste from my e-mails and exhibits and that's a good thing, it shows that we're really in close

agreement and there's just basically two issues that we don't agree on. so we grow on new down spouts, new wall, new curb, an artificial grass with no irrigation, and the two things we don't agree on is one, the height of the fence, and so we would like an eight foot fence, not a 10-foot fence and this foundation drainage. so in the appellant's brief she never mentioned subsurface water many of the complaint and all the problems was surface water and so there's been no evidence of sur surface water and there's no code requirement we do a foundation drain and foundation drains are appropriated by we have to connect to the sewer and we have to have a buffer and we have to be a c.n. box and a christie box and so it's a

comprehensive and expensive thing to do and again there's no evidence that there's been any problem with subsurface water and everything in the appellant's brief is surface water. regarding the fence, remember, we have a court yard, we have a main house, we have an a.d.u. and so this south wall, south fence, would be like the third wall. so we would be boxed in on three slides. so a 10-foot high fence which is 12 feet on their side is just too tall. it increases shadows, diminishes light, the appellant wants the privacy on her deck and the san francisco residential design guidelines do not protect privacy for rear yard decks and it does protect our right for light and that is the south-facing fence and the 10-foot high fence would diminish or light and increase

shadows. it defetes the purposes of why we reduced the building footprint for the usability of the court yard to be boxed in by three sides with a 10-foot high signs when my client is 5'2", that fence would be twice her size w made a lot of good faith effort to ensure we will correct these showers. we made those promises in writing to them pressure to them filing an appeal but we just don't grow upon the height of the fence and i don't think that there was a need for a foundation drainage. so, we'll implement these corrective measures and we promise to do so. we would like this appeal to be rejected and no conditions imposed. if i might, i'd like to give the rest of my time to my client, sophia. >> thank you, andre and commissioners for your time. i would just reiterate that we're well aligned with the

appellant on most of the issues and the substantive issues related to the drainage concerns that she raised in the actual appeal, that was made on the 21st of may, i think where we disagree are on some of the these ancillary issues not related to the permit itself. our objective scheer to reach agreements so we can move forward as expeditiously as possible and this is already cost us several thousands of dollars and architect and contractor time and it's delayed our construction timeline two months which is actually relevant here because our contractor would like to do some of the work before the start of the rainy season and given that this is the drainage issue and in addition it's increased the uncertainty we've had to forego a rental agreement that we had since we need to move out of the house so again, we urge you to

move quickly on this point. thank you. >> you do have some time left if you want to use it. >> alex, can you put on exhibit b. >> exhibit b? >> it was exhibit b with our initials reply brief. >> i can pull up your brief,

give me a second. >> that would be the attachment. >> i have it. it's here. >> if you want to share it, if you have it ready. >> yeah. >> can you read it in the time please. >> resuming time. >> so, again, in addition to redoing all the down south of the reconnecting to the sewer lines we want to rebuild this low wall, build a curb there, we want to slope away our soil. so, again, we're doing everything possibly we can that is feasible so that no surface water will go onto the appellant's property and we think this is very reasonable and thorough replay and sponsor concerns. thank you. >> that's time. thank you. >> thank you, we have a question from vice president swig and then president honda.

>> v.p. swig: thank you, very much for that briefing. i'm a little confused. so, the appellants architect ran down a laundry list of many items. what i heard was that you were ok with those items with the exception of two, one being the height of the fence and something to do with the underground water versus the surface water and then i'm hearing from the property owner that it doesn't seem that she was quite as accepting as you. i need a real clear answer on

this and then i'll ask a following question -- are you comfortable, going back to your testimony, are you comfortable with what the appellant's architect presented with the exception of the fence and the underground water situation, which i would like further clarification on, please. >> that is correct. we're fine with everything except we don't want foundation drainage and we don't want a 10-foot fence, we want an eight-foot fence. >> v.p. swig: ok. so, are there plans prepared already to be able to submit tonight with regard to all of this which you are being kindly

flexible to? >> well, submit drawings tonight, no. so, let me explain the elements -- >> v.p. swig: it's ok. it was -- i needed a yes or no answer and i got it. you are going to have rebuttal but i'll give you something to think about and i would suggest, here is what will happen. i'm hearing that your flexible. we'll have to interpret what that laundry list is and we know clearly that that laundry list is acceptable except for the fence and the under water, underground water issue. i would suggest that since you are so close, that you come back

at a later time with completed plans as a result of your solution presented by the appellant and if you want to work it out between yourselves and if it's legal according to planning and d.b.i., i would again, i would suggest that you make a decision amongst yourselves and instead you want us telling you, planning says whatever is legal. it's just -- would you consider that direction? >> we'll consider it. >> v.p. swig: thank you, very much. can you have rebuttal.

>> thank you, president honda. >> president honda: the question here is, first of all, what is before us is the a.d.u. the drainage is not -- >> the a.d.u. permit is not before us. this is the permit for the internal remodel and demolition of the pop-out. the a.d.u. permit has not been issued yet. >> president honda: so the water intrusion is a separate issue. i'm glad you are willing to work it out. i looked at it and it seemed ok. is there a sewer issue? the fence in question, is it 11 feet now? >> are you asking me? >> president honda: yeah? >> yes. >> so have you determined ownership of the fence? how are you knocking the fence down? have you done a site survey? >> no site survey. >> how going to new york down aa fence you don't know when belongs to. >> our permit doesn't show anything about the fence, it was an issue brought up by the

appellant. >> president honda: so that's not before us. >> we didn't include it. >> president honda: that was it, thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. >> scott sanchez planning department subject property within a rh-3 zoning directing as was noted there are two resent permits for the subject property. the one that is before you relates to an interior model new bathroom and dormer and the dormer is such a size it's ex cements from 311 notice and a rear pop-out and minor work that is approve able over the counter. the permit was properly reviewed and approved and it's completely code compliant and the second permit which is not before you, as director rosenberg stated, was for an a.d.u. converting the existing attached garage at the rear that is under review and

most of the issues that were raised relate to drainage and more properly question for the department of building but in regards to the fence which from the permit holder is not on the permit but it is of much discussion and debate. under the planning code, a fence of up to 10 feet is allowed within the required rear yard that is 10 feet above grade. so with the fencing 11 feet is definitely too tall and this is on the south side of the property. i would say general you have fences between six and 10 feet tall and the permit holder proposal is reasonable especially given the concerns related to sunlight, as i mentioned it's on the south side of the property line. the concerns from the a pel appt with regard to privacy.

the privacy of a deck that they have that is within some proximity to the side property line that's about 7 feet above grade. it does put, if all of the privacy has to be provided by the permit holder it's placing some burden on the property owner to provide all that privacy for an elevated above grade deck that is on the appellant's property. it sounds like they have generally a good relationship and it made a lot of progress on addressing issues that are probably not really a part of these permits and hopefully they can continue to work on that. it may come down to the board meeting to make a decision on the height of a fence but again, i don't think that is part of the scope of work that is before the board as stated by the permit holder that that is not a scope of work that is on this permit and so the fence and

property line issues can be delicate and if the fence is theirs on their property line i would defer to deputy director duffy on this, i don't know that a permit would be required to move that it might be given the height but i don't know you do need a permit of up to six feet height so, you know, it's something hopefully they will continue to work on and come up with a reasonable compromise. i just wanted to highlight that from the board and i am available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. we have a question from vice president swig. >> v.p. swig: what was your -- given again what was discussed in testimony and then extended by my line of questioning, given there is everything but the fence that has been agreed to or by the property owner, permit

holder, what would you suggest that we do here? again, some of those stuff may or may not apply to this permit certainly the stuff that does apply we can tag on to anything that we talk about tonight. given that there's another permit coming down the line, given the discussions, which have been mostly agreed to with the exception of the events, what would you suggest that we advise us to do as commissioners and what would you advise the appellant and permit holder to do. >> well, a path of least resistance. >> i don't see any reason to delay this permit any further. this could move forward. i radio defer to director deputy

is the work is something that needs to be on this permit or a separate permit. they have agreement on a set scope of work and if they need whatever permit they need for that, that could be applied for separately and agreed upon and it comes down to the fence issue and again, i don't see removal of the fence on this permit and i don't see insulation above fence on this permit and that could be added, i mean it's something that could be done but i think to do that would delay this permit. hopefully they can work that out. eight feet is reasonable and maybe if the bored has an opinion they can express on the height of the fence that might push the momentum to get that question resolved,. >> thank you.

>> we will hear from the department building inspection. >> joe did you have eye d.b.i. and the permit was forward over the remodel new bathroom and rear pop-out windows and the rear and they went through the appropriate issues and issued on the sixth of may and suspended on may 21st, 2021. i did see the list of conditions and a lot of them are actually to code. you have to do the work because it's for the california planning code which i did see that item number a works with the california plumbing code and everything above that would need to be up to code anyway so our plumbing inspectors are going to be asking for a lot of those things and you know, maybe the screens to prevent the leaves and debris and that's just all commonsense stuff. most of this directing the water away from the property and making sure it goes to the sewer, that's all in the code

and will have to be done anyway no matter if there's an agreement or not between neighbors d.b.i. will look for that to be done. i guess i'm available for any questions, if any commissioners have them. >> commissioner lazarus has a question. >> thank you. i think it was scott who raised the prospect of a separate permit potentially for some of this and are you saying it's not even necessary and they're going to have to do it but it's not really related to this particular permit, is that correct? >> that's what i get as well. any work that's getting done on this and item number 1, abcd, those are all things that are -- i'm not sure if they're on this permit or the next permit but whatever permit they're on they have to be done anyway per code and i mean, at three inch i do am ter is pretty standard size and i haven't seen any smaller

and all the other things, i believe they're all going to have to be done anyway. >> so, i guess my question is that work is required a permit? >> if that work is taken, on the part of the scope of the work it would have to be to code but it doesn't need a separate permit per se. either way, it's not something that you would get a separate permit for. [please stand by]

>> if what you say is so, then there wouldn't have to be any revision of plans as they are submitted now. those issues would surface naturally in the inspection

process and moving forward in the project would be naturally requested and required by your department, contradict? >> right. i think the architect a lot of the water issues not be counted on somebody's property. has to go to the sewer and a lot of it is common sense. the height, that's something that would need another permit or a plan if there's a change in the height of the plan. the other stuff, i just see it as all code compliant. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. we are now moving on 0 public comment. is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any public comments. so we will move on to rebuttal.

ms. allen, you have three minutes. >> so there seems to be a little factual incongruity here. the fence is actually attached to the walkway, the second floor walkway of appellant's home. that walkway is shown on the plans as being demolished which will bring the fence down with it and the fence is sitting on top of the concrete wall that this cracked and has the drainage coming through it. so if that wall is going to be replaced, it necessarily involves taking down the fence. and all of these -- these need to be, i think commissioner swig initially hit it right on the head. these need to be conditions on the permit, the history, of the drainage has been long standing. and nothing has been done. any of these simple fixes could have been done at any time in

the past 10 or 11 years and they haven't been done. the plans should show the scope of work should show the courtyard work. it's part of this permit, not the adu permit. it should show the change in the sidewalk areas, the drainage there, the taking down of the walkway, the fence coming down with that, the new wall and associated drainage. it's not as simple as just a bigger stopper and a down spout. and i'd like jim to weigh in on that as well. >> commissioners, yes. the information on the wall that's being replaced, the existing wall has cracks in it. so there is potential sub surface drainage as an issue on coming through to jean's property. but i have to support jean's

comments that historically there have been major water incurrents on her property that have not been addressed during a remodel of this size. it's just a logical event. if i expressed the down spout, it needs to be a comprehensive solution to the drainage on her property unless it's somehow codified in a curb or the conditions that can be adopted, there's no guarantee it's going to be done it just needs to be identified as work that needs to be completed. thank you. >> as to the facts for any additional time i have left. the current set is 11'. so whatever light they're receiving, they've had the entire time they've lived there and whatever's been blocked has been blocked and i'm perfectly amenable to a 10' fence which

is a reduction in the privacy i have and also would be code compliant if it was done 10' from their fence. >> we have a question vice president swig. >> yeah. we're getting is whether all these things that you're talking about right now, and i'm not in disagreement with you. what is in this permit and what is appropriate to take action on now as part of this permit and and i don't get a sense of maybe scott can help me. if this is not part of this permit, then it's kind of problematic because what we're doing is dealing with this permit which is primarily

inside stuff and then pardon my technical terminology there stuck and then forthcoming, maybe another permit which where it is appropriate to deal with this stuff that being the wall and the height of the fence. so what -- i'm not dismissing it in any way the concerns and the ability of your comments, but we may be discussing items that are not appropriate to this appeal and to this permit. so i need some help. i'll need some help from mr. sanchez on that discussion. and do you understand what i'm speaking about? do you have any comment on that? >> who was that question being directed to?

>> that's to the appellant. >> oh, i understand what you're saying. i disagree with the underlying content with the new and changing aspect of this permit. the fact that the scope of work doesn't refer to drainage doesn't mean that it's not part of the project. it's clearly not part of the adu permit. i looked at the plans for that and the reality is the history here is that nothing's been done to resolve the problem for a long period of time and i would have expected this to come up as part of this project. it addresses everything else down to the niche for the shampoo and the shower, but it doesn't address something that has caused me ongoing drainage problems including insurance claims and the courtyard is clearly part of this project as is the demolition of the walkway. the walkway at the second floor is attached to the fence.

it's attached to the fence. >> so i'm going to -- thank you. i get your point and i'm going to restate my advice to you all and if you're this close, you might want to choose to request that you have another couple of weeks to discuss it and come back with clear plans and clear direction. i'm also going to ask mr. sanchez to get me out of the woods and clarify what is in this permit and what is not in the permit and what is appropriate for us to do as far as permit in consideration of your very important issues. thank you. >> thank you. we are still on rebuttal. did you want to ask a question of deputy administrator, you're on mute. >> i'm getting in an opportunity to prepare for and i'm asking right now.

>> okay. so we are on rebuttal and the planning department is next. >> mr. permit holder is julie. >> i'm sorry. the permit holder. yes. my apologies. mr. andre bothblatt. you have three minutes. >> can you hear me now? >> yes. thank you. >> okay. so there's a lot of stuff here. so let me clarify and i agree with joe duffy and i said this this. it's common sense and we're going to do it. we're going to fix all the drainage. we're going to do everything. i'm not going to repeat that. even though this is an interior model, we are tearing off the exterior wall and we're rebuilding that. so it's still technically an

interior model, but we're redoing the siding, the down spouts, and the windows. so the fences that are built around the walkway, the courtyard work is apart of our permit, so we will be doing the low wall on the permit. we're going to be regrading that. new landscaping and new hard scaping. so a lot of stuff that's implied, we're going to do it and, again, the only thing that's at issue is the fence and this underground drainage. to answer commissioner swig's quiry, we do like the board of appeals to decide on this now. first, we promised this before the appeal. this project has been a hardship and if you'd like to continue with the project and

the only thing that would require a second permit would be the fence and otherwise everything's included or applied on the main house including the courtyard. so, again, the way it's been a hardship to us sadly, the communication patterns kind of fallen short and, you know, it's been frustrating for the appellant. it's been frustrating for us. we have a feeling that the appellant keeps on adding things. we do the down spout. do the low wall. things just keep on adding on and piling on and it's become a real problem for us. so we would like the board of appeals to make a decision for us. >> thank you. we will now hear from the

planning. >> thank you. the fence is not on the plans. it's not clearly shown on the plans. it's not called out in a scope of work. whether the demolition of the walkway area which is shown on the plans necessitates removal of that fence and replacement of that fence, that is unclear to me. i mean, whether that scope should be expanded at this time to incorporate that fence, you know, i would kind of defer to the permit holder as to whether that is properly shown on the plan. it certainly could be and i think i don't think we would need to come back for another hearing to document that because i think we're just simply talking about a fence height above the wall and i understand the wall will not be changing in height and actually even the replacement of the wall wasn't clear to me from the scope of work that i saw written on the plans and the

plans themselves. but, yeah, i think that's where we are and i do agree that it kind of would be great to get some direction from the board as to the appropriate height of the fence. thank you. >> thank you. we'll now hear from the department building inspection. >> i don't have anything to add. thank you. >> thank you. so commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> who would like to start here? >> i think i'm encouraged by the fact that there is a lot of grim between the parties here. there's a question about the height of the fence. i think i can certainly understand, you know, the

comfort around the existing part of the fence which appears to be taller higher on the and it doesn't infringe upon the privacy of the appellant. so i suppose that's kind of where i'm leaning with respect to the fence itself. and it seems like it seems like that's the only issue related to the appeal or to the permit at least we've knocked that part down and it sounds like

based on what that the concerns on drainage would be addressed simply through code compliance and it appears that that issue is addressed as well. >> i mean, the thing is that once every property owner is responsible for the water that drops her drainage is able to handle her water but she's had to have an insurance claim due to the water from the neighboring property. given the fact that these people are doing an extensive remodel. the delay is i'm sorry unfortunate. hopefully, three months ago but i also agree that, you know,

the drainage issue is not that much common sense. it's code compliant if it happens on the appellant's property, you know, we're going to have to go -- they'll have to go to another level. if they're spending that much to redo it, that should also be included and doesn't necessarily have to be written into the permit. does anyone have a motion. >> sure go ahead. >> i move to deny the appeal on the basis that it was properly issued and if there is a recommendation with respect to the height of the fence which is questionable. i remember that we as the board recommend the height of 8'. does that satisfy the motion requirements? okay. >> absolutely.

perfect. >> may i make a comment, please. the only thing that i. i don't disagree with the motion as to the height of the fence. if i lived in a place for a long period of time and the fence was 11' albeit illegal and suddenly, the height of that fence was arbitrarily dropped by 3', i'd be upset. i guess, you know, i'd like to see a compromise somewhere between the 8' and the 11' and, of course, neither party is going to be happy with it. but that's what compromises are about. again, if i'm the neighbor of the appellant in this case and i'm used to an 11' fence and

i'm used to that privacy and it's dropped by 3' it's going to interrupt my privacy, is that really appropriate and fair for us to do that so i'd like some thought back on that before we set the height. i'd like thought on that from fellow commissioners. >> mr. vice president, first of all, that's a property line dispute. i mentioned earlier it hasn't been determined. there's been no survey to determine. >> hold on one second here. hold on one second here. sorry, folks, i have my 70-year-old father in the room. i think again, it's the property line dispute and the -- that's something that the neighbors have to address themselves.

i don't think that it's before this body to determine what the height of the fence is and i think that has to be determined between the neighboring properties. >> i think we had -- i don't want to be argumentive, but i will what i'm concerned with is the fence is not a typical fence as i'm hearing. it is a fence which is apart of the structure of the permit holder's house and so it is not a property line dispute because it is part of their house which they have to tear down to complete their proposed improvement. so the property line is very clear. it belongs to the permit holder and what we are allowing the permit holder to do is change a

legacy issue that has allowed a certain level of privacy and light in there to the appellant. and, so if not, i have to correct you that i don't believe this property line dispute. it's a result of it's on a piece of the house that's going to be altered according to the permit. so that's why i'd like to take it further. >> if i may, sorry. i was just going to say, i think regardless of whether or not it's split in the middle between the property line or if it's waves slightly on to the permit holder's property. i think the issue is privacy and i think the difference between 8' and 10' in terms of privacy is nulled i mean, unless someone getting on a ladder or step stool, it

doesn't seem like it's diminishing the privacy. it's allowing more light and it's measured from the grade at the property -- the permit holder's property. so i guess i'm scratching my head a little bit as to how this diminishes the privacy aside from if just lowering the height of it. >> remember, the appellant mentioned she has a side spa and the height of that side spa is right there. that's the reason probably why initially it was at 11'. again, that's kind of in the weeds for me. >> can i clarify. i thought that commissioner chang was putting forward a recommendation because the issue of the fence was not associated with this permit. i thought what scott sanchez suggested was that we given some notion of where we thought it should come out. am i wrong, commissioner chang? did you put that in the motion?

>> it was the recommendation. that's correct. >> so i think we're leaving it to them as we should to sort it out. >> okay by me. >> okay. so you want to proceed with your motion then? okay. so we have a motion from commissioner chang to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that it was properly issued with further recommendation that the fence be 8' high and, on that motion, [roll call] so that motion carries 4-0. and the appeal is denied. so we do not have any further items. president honda, did you want to adjourn the meeting. >> president: meeting is adjourned. thank you everybody. have a wonderful evening. thank you, guys. >> bye.

>> thanks. >> after my fire in my apartment and losing everything, the red cross gave us a list of agencies in the city to reach out to and i signed up for the below-market rate program. i got my certificate and started applying and won the housing lottery. [♪♪♪] >> the current lottery program began in 2016. but there have been lot rows that have happened for

affordable housing in the city for much longer than that. it was -- there was no standard practice. for non-profit organizations that were providing affordable housing with low in the city, they all did their lotteries on their own. private developers that include in their buildings affordable units, those are the city we've been monitoring for some time since 1992. we did it with something like this. where people were given circus tickets. we game into 291st century in 2016 and started doing electronic lotteries. at the same time, we started electronic applications systems. called dalia. the lottery is completely free. you can apply two ways. you can submit a paper application, which you can download from the listing

itself. if you apply online, it will take five minutes. you can make it easier creating an account. to get to dalia, you log on to housing.sfgov.org. >> i have lived in san francisco for almost 42 years. i was born here in the hayes valley. >> i applied for the san francisco affordable housing lottery three times. >> since 2016, we've had about 265 electronic lotteries and almost 2,000 people have got their home through the lottery system. if you go into the listing, you can actually just press lottery results and you put in your lottery number and it will tell you exactly how you ranked. >> for some people, signing up

for it was going to be a challenge. there is a digital divide here and especially when you are trying to help low and very low income people. so we began providing digital assistance for folks to go in and get help. >> along with the income and the residency requirements, we also required someone who is trying to buy the home to be a first time home buyer and there's also an educational component that consists of an orientation that they need to attend, a first-time home buyer workshop and a one-on-one counseling session with the housing councilor. >> sometimes we have to go through 10 applicants before they shouldn't be discouraged if they have a low lottery number. they still might get a value for an available, affordable housing

unit. >> we have a variety of lottery programs. the four that you will most often see are what we call c.o.p., the certificate of preference program, the dthp which is the displaced penance housing preference program. the neighborhood resident housing program and the live worth preference. >> i moved in my new home february 25th and 2019. the neighborhood preference program really helped me achieve that goal and that dream was with eventually wind up staying in san francisco. >> the next steps, after finding out how well you did in the lottery and especially if you ranked really well you will be contacted by the leasing agent. you have to submit those document and income and asset qualify and you have to pass the credit and rental screening and the background and when you

qualify for the unit, you can chose the unit and hopefully sign that lease. all city sponsored affordable housing comes through the system and has an electronic lottery. every week there's a listing on dalia. something that people can apply for. >> it's a bit hard to predict how long it will take for someone to be able to move into a unit. let's say the lottery has happened. several factors go into that and mainly how many units are in the project, right. and how well you ranked and what preference bucket you were in. >> this particular building was brand new and really this is the one that i wanted out of everything i applied for. in my mind, i was like how am i going to win this? i did and when you get that notice that you won, it's like at first, it's surreal and you don't believe it and it sinks in, yeah, it happened.

>> some of our buildings are pretty spectacular. they have key less entry now. they have a court yard where they play movies during the weekends, they have another master kitchen and space where people can throw parties. >> mayor breed has a plan for over 10,000 new units between now and 2025. we will start construction on about 2,000 new units just in 2020. >> we also have a very big portfolio like over 25,000 units across the city. and life happens to people. people move. so we have a very large number of rerentals and resales of units every year. >> best thing about working for the affordable housing program is that we know that we're making a difference and we

actually see that difference on a day-to-day basis. >> being back in the neighborhood i grew up in, it's a wonderful experience. >> it's a long process to get through. well worth it when you get to the other side. i could not be happier. [♪♪♪] >> it is june 23, 2021. the time is 5:05. this meeting is being held via webex. during the covid-19 emergency, the fire