>> president swick will be presiding officer joined by vice president and lazarus, commissioner darrell honda and commissioner lopez.also present is the deputy city attorney who will provide the board with needed legal advice . i am julie rosenberg, board executive director.we will be joined by representatives from the city department that will be presenting to the board this meeting. tina chan representing the planning department, matthew greene, in your building inspector , chris buck, urban forrester with the of urban forestry and san francisco public works. the board meeting guidelines are as follows.

the board request you turn off for silence all phones or electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings . appellants and respondents are given seven minutes to present their case in three minutes for remodel . people affiliated must include their comments within this period. members not affiliated with the parties have three minutes each to address the board .time may be limited to two minutes if there are a large number of speakers . mister longley will give you a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up . floor votes are required to grant an appeal or modify a permit or determination. if you have questions , please email board staff at boardofappeals@sfgov.org. every effort has been made to replicate the process . sfgov tv is streaming

mishearing live and we you will have the ability to receive public comment for each item on today's agenda . sfgov tv is providing close captioning for this meeting . to watch the hearing on tv go to sfgov tv cable channel 78 . it will be rebroadcast fridays on channel 26 . a link is on the home page of our website at sfgov.org/boa. public comments can be provided 2 ways . you can join by computer, click on the zoom link or call in . 669-900-6833. enter webinar id 848 9092 5315 . again, sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen. to block your phone number when calling in please dialá67 and then the phone number. listen for the public comment and dialánine which is the equivalent of raising your hand

. you will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn. you may have to dialá6 to unmute yourself . you will have two or three minutes depending on the length of the agenda. our legal system will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up . note there's a delay between the live proceeding . therefore it's important people calling in reduce or turn off the volume on their tv or computers otherwise there is interference with the meeting . if any participants or attendees need disability accommodation you can make a request in the chat function to alice long way or send an email to boardofappeals@sfgov.org. now the chat function cannot be used to provide public comments or opinions . now we will swear in order for all those who intend to testify . any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance .

if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight raise your right hand and say i do after you've been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth ? thank you.if you're a participant and you're not speaking put your zoom speaker on mute. item number one is a special item, consideration of adoption of the resolution which makes findings to allow teleconference meetings under california government code section 54953 subsection a . >> i have a motion . >> any public comment on commissioner honda's motion to adopt the resolution? please raise your hand . i don't see any hands raised so on that motion commissioner lopez . [roll call vote] okay, that motion carries 520 and the

resolution is adopted . we will move on to item number two, also a special item . this is the board of appeals budget priorities for fiscal year 23 and 24, an opportunity for members to provide board input on budget priorities pursuant to section 3.31 of the administrative code in advance of the board's consideration of the fiscal year 23 and 24 budget . so there's no action being taken , this is just for the public. any public comment on this item, please raise your hand . seeing there is no public comment we will move on to item number three which is general public comment . this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter that is not on tonight's calendar.is there anyone here who would like to speak at general public comment, please raise your hand . i don't see any hands raised so we will move on to item number four, commissioner comments and

questions . commissioners . 's . >> chair: i think that i wish it before but happy chinese lunar new year . >> any public comment on this item? please raise your hand . i don't see any public comment so we will move on to item number five, adoption of minutes . commissioners before you are the minutes of the january 26, 2022 meeting . >> chair: a motion please . thank you. >> emotion from commissioner honda, any public comment? please raise your hand. i don't see any public comment so commissioner lopez . [roll call vote] that motion

carries 5 to 0 and the minutes are adopted . we are now moving on to item number six and this is appeal number 21 110 , christina o'bannon versus public works. subject property to 20 campbell avenue appealing the issuance on december 13, 2020 12 dge moment from california for a wireless installation of a personal wireless service facility and a zoning protected location . permit 21 wr 008 a and we will hear from the appellate first. mister o'bannon you have seven minutes . is mister o'bannon present ? >> i don't see her on the participants . >> alex, did you hear from mister o'bannon ? >> i got an email with a website she wanted to show .

>> i would like you to call because the permit holder is here with quite a few representatives so if we can take a moment to reach out to her . >> i'll call her . thank you everyone for your patience .>> the appellant

did not supply a phone number for her appeal . >> president swig, she only provided a video to be shown , not of her butt out a website . what would you like to do ? do you want to move this item or wait and see if she will show up ? >> can we move it to a bit later on in the agenda and so as we move through , let's move to the next item on the agenda . >> then we will check back after . >> we can't control our appellants . so i appreciate that patients in waiting for the appellant to show up . >> alex, if you could send her an email as well that would be helpful . >> out send her an email right now .

>> going to move on to item number seven, appeal number 21 111 at 1632 20th street . this is jill jarrett versus san francisco public works of urban forestry, appealing the issuance on december 21, 2020 12 jill jarrett of a public works order . denial of an application to remove one street tree with replacement, the tree has minimal structural deficiency does not pose a significant risk to safety or property. the canopy has been reduced for overhead utility wires and the tree limbs are not overextended . this is 205848 and we will hear from the appellate first , miss jarrett or mister zucker . >> i think i need to make a disclosure. i wish to disclose i am a partner in the project that hired ruben's counsel therefore this body will not have any effect on my decision .

>> iq. miss jarrett , welcome. welcome, you have seven minutes. >> my name is jill jarrett and i'm the new homeowner of 1630 3/20 treat . thank you for giving time to our request replacing a tree on our property . i've been on this trail for 14 years at that entire time i've admired the backyard of 1542 20th street . our current home backs up into backyard. once we had our kids who are now 10 and 12 over the years we've gotten to know the prior owners and expressed our desire to purchase the home. the house has been largely vacant since we lived on the lot with the prior owners having a small room remodel project or renting the home for short-term vacation rentals . some lived there for a bit as

well. sorry, but somebody was trying to talk.but they moved in themselves and when the opportunity came we put in an offer. once we started the plan for our home , the more time we spent at the home we became concerned about the tree up front . the reason i'm talking to you today is because i don't believe the bureau of urban forestry fully understood our want to replace the tree. more specifically during the hearing it was stated our request was purely aesthetic reasons and that not the case . we love having trees, we want a tree in front of our house absolutely. the reason we requested the tree is for safety. now that were spending time in the home we are aware of how much foot traffic is in front of the home and the situation creates something i consider very unsafe and a scary situation. of course we're worried for two reasons, one is it's a tough line of sight and there's a lot of people that walk up and down

the street and we detailed data. the second being the power lines above the tree , the tree is all about those power lines. not knowing anything about trees, i reached out to an arborist to get their expertise and to consider what our options might be. after several months of information gathering both from the arbiters and more time was spent in the home and i've become even more concerned. as the homeowners we are exploring options to utilize that space . while putting our personal touch on the home. the home is almost 100 years old and as a 30-year-old roots so truly there will be some work to be done there in the future but the reason right now i'm talking to you is purely because of the trees and safety concerns . i want to thank you guys for taking the time to do this and i will pass it on to justin who can give you more information that he feels relevant so you guys can make your decision .

>> good evening president swig. justin zucker on behalf of the applicant. congratulations are on your appointment president swig. the subject is in a precarious location for several reasons . the trees in regular contact with power lines which are not prohibited but not ideal and a fire hazard . her city guidelines as noted by the opposition would neither allow these existing tree type of any anywhere. it can't it's very big nor any tree for that matter . it's too close to existing utilities. we asked the city to allow miss jarrett to remove the nonconforming feature at the base of the street tree. there will be no net loss. as noted miss jarrett and her family appreciate and desire ruben county but one that is safer and more suited . to that end, miss jarrett will

be maintaining the tree for the first three years after planting and is willing to replant the tree if the tree were to fail during that time. the existing street tree guidelines are a safety hazard. accordingly we request you grant approval to remove the one street tree with replacement of a new tray selected and located in conjunction and in line with current city guidelines. that concludes my presentation and i am available for questions . >> thank you. i don't see any questions at this time so we will hear from the department . mister buck. >> good evening president swig and vice president lazarus. chris buck with san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry and i want to start right away that we understand this is not purely for aesthetic reasons. i want to make sure that's clear and understood if that was stated at the hearing .

that was speculation but i can tell from the quality of the briefs and testimony of the applicants and statements they've made earlier they are sincere about their wish to remove the tree for safety reasons . i'm but go ahead and promote and share my screen . just go through a bunch of photos of the tree , what i enjoy doing so that we can take a really close look at the subject tree and the site conditions and some of the challenges we see there. so with that let's go to slideshow . from the beginning.and can we just confirm that there is a generic looking powerpoint up front ? thank you. so this is the subject tree in the center of the image. it's a liquid amber tree .and i don't get a lot of opportunity to do this so i thought i would do it tonight . it's the tree that's native to

southeastern united states and that's the native range in the bottom right . and it's planted in all the areas to the lower left diagram. it has really neat fall foliage . as these star-shaped leaves so thanks for indulging me. i rarely get to talk about trees, the actual tree. the high-voltage lines above are true and away every year. and there's definitely plenty of clearance for high-voltage lines, of clearance from the transformer are those great canisters attached to the high part of the utility pole . there are low-voltage lines however that do go right through this canopy and when i was preparing for this hearing and taking photos of my own to

see the tree myself i was a little surprised to see how low the low-voltage lines are. i have an image to show that location . this low cross arm shows the location of the low-voltage lines .again pg andy and pc requires clearances from the high-voltage lines . they don't have as stringent requirements to keep vegetation off low-voltage . typically what happens is pg and e would reach out to public works if they thought there was a safety issue present here so i want to point that out , we have no record of pg and e reaching out to us. they do inspect this tree and utility lines once a year. just stepping back overall some issues raised in the brief our visibility which is understandable because there's a telephone pole on the other side of the driveway and then of course there's vehicles that park there . i do want to point out this photo shows the tree in its deciduous state. it's starting to drop its

leaves in november so it's not because it's sickly or in poor condition. this however is how it will look sometimes as it starts to lose its leaves . a couple of lower branches can be pruned and cleaned up so it's a little bit more presentable but overall we felt that even though the tree is under power lines , there's still a value to have this tree . to really screen a lot of the utilities and provide more benefits in san francisco. the overall canopy and mitigating environmental challenges. again just showing you photos . one concern we don't have, we don't have a concern about grand failure because the trees has been heavily pruned because it's under those power lines but i'm not concerned about grand failure . i do want to point out this looks a little strange but this is comcast or telecommunication line and it has this looped equipment literally encircling

the main trunk . that's a little bit odd but again if there's an issue they communicate to public works to say that they have a conflict . so the tree is heavily involved with the overhead lines . regarding sidewalk damage there is current sidewalk damage. there's been sidewalk damage before . there's some damage to the curve. however the overall path travels is not that bad so again, typically this is something where public works would come out and make these sidewalk repairs but not remove the tree . one of the chief concerns in the brief was about proximity to gas lines so in preparation for the hearing we had the utilities marked . they do run the yellow line is the gas line and it runs perpendicular from the circular bolt into the roadway. there's less than three feet there . if approved for removal we have confirmed that there is location to move a replacement

tree to this approximate location. this is in view of where that would be when you're facing the property. so there is a valid room for the tree to be planted here. we have confirmed that. we typically do not have issues with the gas line .but again, we require three feet from center of utility to center of new tree. we would never remove a tree simply because it's less than three feet from the gas line and i want to say it's extremely rare for trees to impact gas lines. that said i do want to point out if approved for removal we will ship it to the other side further away from the gas lines while also keeping it away from the water line and sewer line as well . overall , this is a little bit of a , it's not a slamdunk . from the bureau's perspective. we understand there are colleges with this tree .

when we plant trees we always say to ourselves right tree right place. we don't want to put paul growing large stature trees into the power lines . that said , there have been decisions made in years past which we look to avoid in the future and this tree was planted and it's there now.so we still believe there is value to having the tree there . we want to acknowledge the challenges of the site. regarding visibility to the motorist. it's a challenge . we've got cars parked on either side of the driveway . you just have to back out very carefully. i will note there is quite a bit of pedestrian activity on the block . i saw it myself.i saw kids going to and from school. there is a high volume of pedestrians on that block and down the block from the school at the library .

if approved there is room for replacement but we ask at this time you deny the appeal and keep the tree. >> we have a question from commissioner conduct, then president swig . >> my question is i mean, the tree in the departments decision is healthy but it looks to be a little disheveled. when was the last time this tree, have the tree been serviced by city and county and if not when would it be looked at because it looks like it could lose probably 20 to 30 percent pretty easily . >> sure. i don't believe we've been out there for its routine maintenance. i could pull that up but likely in the next year or two . there are a couple of lower branches that could be pruned off and the public works has

not yet repaired the sidewalk as part of street tree sf . so it has not yet received maintenance through our maintenance of street trees. but i agree it could use some basic maintenance . even though pg and e is pruning it every couple of years from the top . >> it looks like when they are pruning it there pruning it specifically to accommodate their lines. it looks like a bad haircut to be honest . >> correct . >> thank you . >> president swig . >> president: chris, i'm not used to you being so wishy-washy on confirm or deny the replacement of the tree. normally it's like absolutely yes, sir absolutely no . you've thrown me basically on

what your bottom line is that you're recommending against the removal of this tree . i'm not hearing the strength of conviction to justify why this tree should be ... maybe i'm coming to my own conclusions . what would you say would be the argument , strong argument, not conjectural but strong argument for the way we've been used to hearing you present for removing this tree? because i'm finding that you're being wishy-washy on the subject. that's not a criticism but i used to a more dynamic yes, sir no so help me .

>> thank you commissioner swig. when i received this assignment so to speak , i felt a little challenged and that there is no compelling need or reason to remove the tree at this point in time . that said , some of our goals are of not having conflicts with utilities . well, there's a conflict there. selecting the right tree for the right place . it is a species known for doing a lot of sidewalk damage. there's some damage that exists there. there's only been one or two cycles of repair but that can be repaired . one way i think of this is in some ways this is sort of a throwback to the way that trees used to be managed where the city only maintained a third of them and two thirds property owners were responsible for

maintaining the trees . so we had a lot more of these types of cases where the property owner just is looking at the tree, feeling like this isn't meeting the eye test . could we please start over? we didn't have the maintenance responsibility for the tree and we would tell the owner repairing the sidewalk . pg and e will ruin the canopy. in this case the city will repair the sidewalk . the city will prune the tree . no compelling safety issue per se . it's a tree like any other with a trunk that blocks visibility . that said i think suitability under power lines long-term is the biggest sustainability not against the tree. so i'm here to defend our decision to deny but i also want to do it with wiseguys wide open about the fact that it's not a tree . i just think the department will sleep well either way

tonight regardless of whether it's tree is obtained or removed and replaced at the owner's cost . it's just not compelling but it's still good enough for us to say you know , there's no compelling need for us to remove this tree at this time . >> president: to questions, i don't know who's in public comment anticipating if there was one of our good friends who comes in and defends every tree they would say well, a mature tree i was hearing now the mature tree has an environmental impact even when you replace it with even when you replace the tree at the greatest level number one. and then so question number one , is there an environmental

benefit to keeping this tree to maintain all those benefits that we hear about on a regular basis from tree advocates and 2, what replaces this tree , whose choice is it and whether the recommendations if it would be replaced , if you have those recommendations . >> thank you commissioner. although the tree is essentially stuck underneath this invisible ceiling or visible ceiling which is the power lines above , this is considered a relatively middle-aged tree. the tree is providing benefits. there's carbon sequestration in this large trunk and established its canopy although not a large tree it is much larger than the other trees that exist on that block . replacing the tree we will lose , there's going to be an

environmental loss to carbon sequestration . there's going to be a momentary habitat loss or habitat reduction . that gets encountered when pg and e is pruning those lines. that eliminates the heavy arguments for habitats potential cause of those disruptions but there is a benefit that this tree is providing environmentally . the smaller replacement tree even when they get to the size of the neighboring trees will provide the same level environmental benefit . i think it has to be acknowledged and this is where i am threading the needle that i think there's a fair argument that it's the sustainability of having a tall tree under power lines and what we're losing in carbon we're spending in carbon by having it come out , by pg and e having to come out here . i think there's arguments for

both of those that say protect every tree we would say yes, if it's truly in a sustainable location. there are benefits this tree provides that the replacement would not but regarding a replacement species , i have spoken with the consultant for the property owner and applicant . i've kind of vetted and feel that they are committed to planting a replacement tree and we spoken this afternoon . if we're overturned here i want to understand the commitments. clearly they've researched things .one of their leading ideas is to replant with friends of the urban forest . we're starting to discuss what those replacement species options are including what are the existing species on the street . one of our ideas is to match trees that grow on a single

block or a corridor to match growth rates so that when we are pruning trees we can come in and prune all the trees at the same time more or less and not have to prune a tree that's growing at a different rate . that's one ticket in the corner of removal is that these other trees are growing at a slower rate and this other tree is growing a lot more quickly. regarding replacement it would be a 24 inch box species to be reviewed and approved by bureau of urban forestry staff. i do feel the owner is committed and is clearly researched planting and establishing the replacement tree . >> is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. if you are here for public comment, raise your hand . i do not see any hands raised so we will move on to remodel. miss jarrett you have three minutes .

for mister zucker. >> while we appreciate there are some benefits we do not believe on balance they outweigh the safety risks . the subjects tree is afoot in dynamic diameter and creates a significant obstruction at the driveway and bus stop. where are there are lots of kids going back and forth daily and in addition to those there are all these numerous nearby services. this is a particularly concerning when a driver heading west on 20th street turns right into the driveway and there's a large vehicle parked on the street . upon turning the corner eight foot wide obstruction prevents drivers from seeing pedestrians walking west towards them . there is justifiable fear someone will eventually get clipped . this is not a situation of if , it's very much like covid.

it's a matter of when it will happen. renovation though not planned at this time may occur down the road and regarding homeowners who are getting settled. then even if renovations do not occur home maintenance is inevitable including possibly to the gas water or sewer lines. next to the tree. due to the location of the tree and utility it seems any maintenance requiring access would require extensive work . damage to the trees critical root zones could result in the death of the tree and an empty tree well . miss jarrett is happy to work with us on a species that works for the local nation with the other trees. that concludes our presentation . we are available for any questions . >> vice chair lazarus has a question any conditions involving another car? >> we are not aware of any

incident. miss jarrett just a home in fall but i am not sure if you caught it. it was choppy on my end. the homes had not been a primary home . there's been a lot of rentals throughout the years so i don't necessarily believe it's been fully utilized on a day-to-day basis . >> but to your knowledge there haven't been any accidents or anything related to driveway use . >> no . >> thank you . >> can i say the driveway hasn't been used because others did not need the garage so for the last 10 years there hasn't been any buddy parking and coming into the garage . >> we will now hear from the bureau of urban forestry you have three minutes . >> i don't have any additional comments or remodel, just available for any questions . >> thank you, commissioners this matter is submitted .

>> do i have emotion ? >> i guess i'll start. this board is tasked with carrying hundreds of tree cases over time . to be honest i know there's not enough compelling evidence that the tree needs to be removed . if this board chooses to remove it i guess i would go along with that . the only problem is that the tree replacement is comports with the tree removal . >> to chime in here , i support the tree removal , the replacement and it sounds like the project sponsor is open to

replacing the tree and working with us to finding an appropriate replacement. it doesn't sound like while they would recommend retaining the tree over its removal for the reasons that chris articulated quite well earlier . >> i'm not persuaded it needed to be removed . i'll likely go with the majority on this . >> commissioner lopez, any comment ? >> i am with vice president lazarus . in my mind it's a jump ball and jump ball goes to the tree . i can be persuaded to go along

with the proposal that's being discussed . >> i'll back clean up . i have a similar including that i'm not going to persuade either of you to move to the other side . there isn't , there are arguments about removing the tree and arguments about saving the tree but in a grander scope there has been a significant rigor that has been established with regard to tree removal , individual tree removal in these areas and i think we've had it beaten into our heads . i don't mind the beating from us and with dpw that the removal of the tree really has to be a big deal . and what i worry here is some

of these wishy-washy situations is that if we don't go with the consistent practice of taking a very strong rigor against removing trees , then next week somebody's going to walk in with a wishy-washy tree and where stop because you know, we should not ask to carry it down this week . i'm not being casual about tearing it down. so i think there's not enough of a case and an urgency and i think that's paraphrasing commissioner lopez, commissioner honda and commissioner lazarus . i just don't think i could support taking down this tree at this point until it becomes a

hazard . true, obvious hazard. anybody want to make a motion? >> i'll make a motion . moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was appropriately denied for lack of sufficient reasons to bring the tree down . is that word okay? >> that sounds good, i might tweak it a tiny bit . >> be my guest . >> we have emotion from vice president lazarus to and i the appeal and i'll hold the order denying the tree removal on the basis that it was properly issued for the reasons set forth in the order . on that motion , commissioner lopez. [roll call vote] that motion carries 50 and the appeal is denied .

residents, were going to go back to item number six . alex, did you have a chance to connect with the appellant ? >> i sent an email and no response to that . the appellant sent that website that she wanted to show and also she did not submit a brief period . >> the appellant didn't show up, didn't submit a brief . she's not responding to our inquiries . she did want a website shown so she did email that in . president, should we proceed with this case and show what she sent in and then let the permit holder have an opportunity to respond ? >> i would support that as long as we just established were going to show the website for what is a sufficient period of time . should that be 30 seconds?>> she didn't give any direction. she sent a link to the website

and what did she say ? >> she sent in a website and said i want this to be added . it was not clear in her direction. i did have the website available just in case she showed up and so i have it ready to go. we could glance through it quick if you wish . >> why don't we show it . we don't have to hold it up for seven minutes . >> mister rossi, what would be an appropriate time to show it so that somebody cannot come back and say that we be discriminated against and didn't present a brief ? >> rad ruskin, deputy city attorney. hard to say without looking at the website . i think alex would scroll through it and his discretion provide enough time for an ever person to read what's on the

website . >> in my review it should take less than a minute . >> i appreciate it if you would . ...

>> i think i was on mute .

>> ...

>> ... did you raise your hand to tell us that snow? >> deputy city attorney, i have no due process concerns with reporting this on the website. the appellant was given an opportunity to return and chose not to appear . i don't think we need to review a very lengthy website . >> we have it available if anybody wishes to .>> in case you want further coverage , radiation health risks.com was the site in case you were watching on the tv and it's too small for you to see or in case

you couldn't catch the website , that's the address. if you have any public comment you will have the opportunity for public comment to raise any concerns or commentary . i think we are covered . >> we will now hear from the permit holder . i believe mister albright is here. attorney for the permit holder . >> i am here and miss melanie's and go to . >> welcome . >> looks like you have a cam there, where did you come from ? >> my backyard. >> as julie mentioned we have representatives here today from motive matt mckenzie and albritton to address any questions you may have . while the appellate didn't submit a brief in this instance she did include a statement of appeal where she raised 2

issues. one related to notice and one was related to rf so we will walk through these issues quickly if that's okay with you. this is the proposed facility we are talking about . this is what it looks like now. this is what it will look like with the wireless facility on it . this is our smallest design that complies with dpw order 24901 . this building, you can't tell from this angle. it's at the property line between 2 properties. the closest window on either side of this is 26 feet away . and the pool height will increase by less than five feet width of the addition of this facility . this is it from the other angle . the distance from this window and the distance from the

previous window that you can see here on this building is 2060 each away from the pole. this application will be complying with all of the article 25 requirements and guidelines . and with respect to notice , verizon wireless has provided three different forms of notice . the first is mail in notice . this is the proposed pool right here and under article 25 they have to give notice to any property within a 300 foot radius . you can't see it there's a faint green circle around here. which encompasses the properties that received the mailing notice and they are also highlighted in blue . this is what the notice looks like. if you receive one in the mail it's clearly marked is a verizon wireless facility that it's time sensitive.

the appellant missed o'bannon you can see this is just one page of the mailing list that she received a notice as did many of her neighbors on campbell street, as did the board of supervisors . the notice was also posted outside existing locations in the area . you can see them here marked in yellow . this is what a posted notice looks like. it goes within a plastic envelope and it's taped to the hole at the bottom . and as you can see here this opening at the top for a passerby to pull out a notice if they so choose . finally, as a courtesy , verizon wireless also emails notice to the parties who have requested it including neighborhood organizations as well as the

supervisors . with respect to radiofrequency emissions , article 25 requires verizon wireless to submit a report prepared by a third-party engineer which is then reviewed by a department of public health , dpw cannot issue a permit until they have received a department of public health determination and we have roger hear from hammond and edison.they are the firm that prepared the rs report and i will yield the remaining time to her. >> thanks melanie, good evening. my name is rod walker . we are independent and located in sonoma and i am a licensed professional electrical engineer in the state of california . our job as engineers is to evaluate sites like these for

radiofrequency or rf exposure compliance . we have been duly hired by city and county, by homeowners and landlords and by wireless operators like verizon , a company at work. we completed analysis for this site and find it will comply with fcc limits . as melanie noted our proposal was sent to your department of public health and they agreed with our conclusion that the site will comply with fcc requirements . at the maximum rf exposure level 234 campbell avenue is 1.2 percent the fcc limit . this means the levels are about 80 times below the fcc limit . there are two main reasons why the levels are so low. the first is this is a low-power facility . it's about 100 times lower power than a typical macro facility , macro facilities are

those with 69 antennas that you see on rooftops . again this small facility would be about 100 times that on the map and the second reason is that something called inverse well comes from basic physics and what that says is the energy from the antenna falls within the square of the distance. what that means is when you go twice as far away from the antenna it falls by a square of two and when you go 10 times as far away energy falls by a square of 10 or 100 times so there's an exponential drop in radiofrequency energy with distance . i'll stop there but if you have any questions i'm available to answer them . >> we have a question from commissioner honda . >> my question is first of all after hearing hundreds of these pages it sounds like you're going to change your game a

little bit . i like the way you presented and showed that the person was notified which we normally don't present as well as the admission that was tested from the site. the only question i had was although the appellant appellate is not here she did what supply one page and send that letter . the tower, various telephone poles and the exposure was placed on various poles under plastic sleeves that were impossible or nearly impossible to get them out . you guys ran their notice for that public disclosure i personally have seen that . they're very tight and hard to get out. how do you guys combat that ? >> i think that there tight by design so that they don't fly away or people don't grab them

perhaps you have no interest in the wireless facility . as i showed they are tight teeth tightly at the bottom but at the top of the plastic envelope where there is an opening you can pull it out . i'm sure with some effort. not just blocking by that's why we provided three different forms of notice. she may have not been able to pull it out of maybe one specific hole. there were four other polls that had a similar notice attached and she also received it in the mail. so it is a little bit tight and that's by design. we don't want the notices flying away . notices are provided in three different forms . >> if i can add briefly i actually personally inquired of the person who would take those

onto the pole and she made it clear to me that she takes the side and top in a manner that the sleeve envelope is always open and available so we did inquire based on the appellant's concerns and confirmed that they are specifically take in a manner where someone could pull out . >> not to rat on you guys too much but it seems like there always a less moist messed . >> i was going to point that out. you can see the condensation here so clearly you can get into the envelope . >> thank you . >> we will now hear from the bureau of street use and mapping . welcome. >> hello president, vice president and commissioners. and leo plot hills representing public works . we believe this permit was issued in compliance with

permitting procedure to find public works code 25 for personal wireless facility. for this application article 25 requires public works to prefer the applications to department of public health and planning commission. both determined this application complies with permits. the planning department is in attendance and can speak more if the board has questions . the health department is available for questions and response . >> i have one question, leo do you not have any internet connection ? your voice is okay but your face freezes . >> maybe it's a little late and . apologies for that . >> now we will hear from the planning department if they'd like to wait in . deputy administrator chan, did you want to wait in ? >> good evening president swig,

vice president lazarus. the property at 220 campbell avenue is in the orange one zoning district . on november 16, 2021 the planning department did complete an evaluation of the project and concluded the proposed wtf facility is designed in a streamlined manner to locate a replacement pole in the location of the existing pole. three located in its undesignated purview which is the lowest of the four categories of street you found in our general plan and for while not significantly detracting from any of the defining characteristics . as such the planning department recommends approval of the project . >> we are now moving on to public comment. anyone here to provide public comment, please raise your hand. i see derek wong , one moment. i'm going to promote you to panelist so we can see you on

video . derek wong . please go ahead.yes, welcome . >> i did want to bring up some concerns . i am one of the , currently living in one of the areas where it's on the property line 4. they just said it would be alert so it would be an injunction to the second floor . how will that impact , we're worried about how that would impact us because based on the pictures , it would align directly with one of our directly from one of our windows . >> this is your time to provide public comment, it's not question or answer so did you want to add anything else ?

>> we just had concerns about what this would be , with this disrupt us essentially ? >> thank you, is there any further public comment, please raise your hand . if you're here for public comments, please raise your hand. i don't see any other hands we will move on to remodel . appellant is not here we will hear from the permit holders . you are on mute . >> you want to take this or should i? >> i guess i'll jump in and say to respond to the public question , i think we will have raj, if you want to address the emissions and relationship to the adjacent buildings , maybe that would be helpful . >> so as part of our report we evaluate all nearby buildings and ground areas, any area

that's publicly accessible during that presentation i mentioned that as the maximum we calculated 1.2 percent and the maximum availability of the building which is the closest building about 20 feet away, maximum exposure there is a .9 percent and that is in the flow elevation of the building so those levels would be about 11 times below the public limit. in addition i'll add there is a condition of approval that requires coastal instruction measurements specifically go in and we also go in with a bucket truck and measure at the second floor or third floor . and confirm that there complying with fcc limits.

i am here to answer any questions you may have . >> i would add to that we think based on mister wong's testimony he is the resident at 1386 which is the property that is next to the front facing church which we showed you and the closest window is near the 27 feet from the pole. just using an existing pole rather than putting in any. >> also in the condition of approval the squad can request testing at his home if he wants to but i'm sending an email to the department of public works . >> thank you, president swig is a question . >> just for the benefit of ourselves for our continuing education as well as the public . since i've been hearing the cell phone cases we've graduated from 3g to 5g .

as you know mister albritton i am the furthest thing from a scientist on the face of your butt so i'm really good average joe public at the same time. when i hear or when members of the public might hear the graduation from 3g to 5g , which implies to us playful that your phone is getting more and more powerful in its ability to capture and relay data. that would assume that that power directly relates to more power coming out of your transmitters. when are we to think on these health issues given that the sec guidelines was in 1996 and this is 2022.

i don't think 5g was given a glimmer in the parents i in 1996 .so for us playful out there, why is 1996 fcc guidelines valid at this point. how much emissions really have , how much have emissions really grown from even the transition over the short time i've been on this panel from 3g to 5g, however those emissions grown and impacted public health ? >> i'll start out because we had a discussion about this forum . outlet him speak as well because he's on the commission of the ieee as we recently reviewed and updated standards as recently as 2019. might be 2020 i think but the converse is true of what you're describing. in the early days we had large

macro facilities with large antennas and the signal had to travel miles to the cell phone and cell phones had to talk back to the tower. so the early cell phone was the cb radios were six watts telephones with three watts and you hold that right up to next your head . and as the cellular network had matured we've moved down from the macro sites which are 30,000+ watts down to this facility which is about 300 watts. the same is true of your telephone. it's gone from 3 to 6 watts down to one watt or less. so it's a almost half a watt. the actual signal going back and forth has decreased rather than increased in power. there's also a proximity with respect to 3g the 5g , as i mentioned last time i spoke

that the technology of salisbury so were using the same frequencies, the same power we've been using since cellular phones started in 1984 but it's just like moving up the os on your iphone or your windows applications. it's just more efficient at delivering the data for the voice but it doesn't represent any increase of power in any way. so it's really just like watching pictures on your screen faster rather than slower or higher definition because you're not getting any more energy off your screen and you did originally . i must let the expert add to that rod if i can impose upon you to answer chairman swig's question . >> it's a great question and just to add to what he said , the technology does not matter as far as the rf exposure .

and that's because it's the frequency of transmission. not the technology that determines the limits . and the exposure levels. so just to give you an example of something other than 5g and 3g if you look at something like fm radio it used to be analog. not as analog and digital so that also had a transition to different visual technology but the limits have not changed that's because it's using the same frequency . 290.3 your tuning in to 90.3 megahertz which is a frequency that frequency has not changed so the limit has not changed even though the station has gone from analog to digital. same thing with the wireless carriers .we've gone from 1g to 5g and in the future they'll

go to 60. that's just as paul said a change in technology . that does not change the underlying frequency and so it does not change the fcc limits. then your second question regarding the fcc standards. you're correct that it was established initially in 1996. since that time the fcc has reviewed it twice . once in 2015 and then again more recently in 2019 and 2019 they took a thorough evaluation of the standards and concluded that it did not meet need to be changed.so there was the explanation by the fcc very recently was there 1996. hopefully that answers your question but i can answer any follow-up questions . >> i appreciate your feedback.

>> i don't see any other questions but presidents way it appears the appellant did show up so do you want to allow for the rebuttal time ? mister o'bannon, welcome. you have three minutes to address the board .>> i'm sorry i came in late for the meeting. i was helping a neighbor out with something and for some reason i thought it started at six . i do apologize. i'm not sure how much i miss . but a lot of the research that i've done in the time leading up to this meeting i got the hundred and some odd page document from the company that works with wage , the 5g box next to my house where i was with my family. and i don't have any scientific background to argue with what people were able to come up with attorneys to put in the reasoning why it's okay for them to put it right there but i just would like to speak on the fact that i live here , other folks that did also not

feel comfortable with that growing up . we don't want it here . is the fcc guideline the lack of even knowing what the long-term effects of 5g will be because you don't know because we haven't had . what are we being forced to place this in the middle of where we live with our families and i saw the maps of the radius of where the tower will be placed and where it will be i guess admitting the data or giving data, collecting data or whatnot and i'm next to the bowl . my house and my two little sons, my daughters . me and my husband . my neighbor who is 92 across the street and another family was across the street with two kids . can you tell me what the long-term or short-term effects of us being close to exposed to whatever radiation or whatever is going to be emitted from the

thing that you want to place next to our house is going to have ? i would like to know that, can you tell me what's going to happen were not going to happen for sure in five years, 10 years 20 years . 30 years. >> if this is a question answered time, this is your time to give your presentation . that's . >> that's my presentation, i don't want it next to my house. why does somebody get to put it there even though i don't want it . is there anybody besides the company or the lawyers that wanted there? >> are you finished with your presentation? thank you. we will now hear from mister flossie, do you have anything further ? >> i wanted to add that on the notice there is a condition

that the permit agreed on in department of public health. so it's the third bullet that verizon should be aware of the general public may have concerns about the antenna and potential rf source near their dwelling. verizon should have a procedure for taking rf power density levels. when referred to by members of the general public . if there is any concern from the public and they wish to have a reading of the antenna post installation, the applicants do have to submit a post installation radiofrequency study but further than that if the public is concerned they can definitely request it from verizon . if that's their decision they can also contact us at public works and we will coordinate with the department of public health to get the reading . >> thank you, anything further from the planning department .

ms. tam, anything further. >> no public comment. >> this matter is submitted. >> comments, questions. >> i'm prepared to make a motion. i would move to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued . >> we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal . >> i feel badly in these circumstances when we hear from unfortunately the appellate showed up late and she is still left with unanswered questions and probably i'd like to be empathetic . i'm feeling just a little

frustrated and not getting answers to those questions . first of all, i just like to say that we handle many of these cases just like this . these cases have to do with a piece of legislation that really for the most part binds our hands to do much of anything even if it's not aligned with our values or your thoughts. thirdly, you have every reason to be concerned because there are no answers to your question that you posed . what is the five-year prognosis ? although probably the current holder would say no problem or there's no indication that there is a problem . but i would suggest that thank

you mister palacios presenting some level of safety net so that the concerns real estate owner holder in san francisco feels invaded upon and slam dunk . i'm trying to be again empathetic on this issue . at least she has an option to get a reasoning on radiation and hopefully some comfort that there won't be a terminal health issue for her family. that's all that i want to say because this probably would have come up earlier again if there would have been a full hearing for the appellate . thank you and now we can move forward with the vote . >> we have a motion from vice president lazarus to deny the

appeal on a full permit on the basis it was properly issued . on that motion commissioner lopez . that motion carries 5 to 0 and the appeal is denied. we are now moving on to item number eight . this is appeal 21 113. henry chen and julian versus department of building inspection planning department approval, subject property 2206 seventh avenue. the only issuance december 14, 2021 for an alteration permit . file complaint number 28159421584981 build a deck at the rear of the house replaced with the sliding door on the floor. this is permit 2021 1214 4344 and we will hear from the appellants first, welcome.

>> can you hear me okay? seven minutes. >> first of all thank you for hearing yesterday. my name is jeffrey chen . my parents asked for me to speak on their behalf . respectfully english is not their first language . they would like to delay their concerns. my parents moved to san francisco in the early 1990s and they've been moving in the san francisco for almost 30 years now. like her i would like to think they watch out for our neighbors and watch out for their homes. we helped her several times when they were on vacation . more than anything, i would say my parents are quiet, private people. they'll party to my knowledge. and they like to keep to

themselves. it's why we thought was so important to talk about today's case . when told us back in october that they were building a deck , we were truthfully upset by that . we were worried about how it would affect us because my parents heard they were building a deck . when her invited us over to this deck , i'm trying to pull my screen. we felt even more concerned. and you can see with her that they originally don't adapt and when we were standing on the deck we noticed that anyone standing on the deck would feed directly into their bedroom. it would in particular include the many people her husband has over at his house for parties .

it's why we were relieved when talking with her they agreed to build a higher fence. my parents are not trying to interview with her rights, they're trying to protect their own likelihood and when they discussed building a higher fence , anyone standing on the deck walks into the home. his wife as we can see here for second pillar on our side and offered to do that construction . it's also like my parents were confused when weeks later they noticed no work was being done and why they were upset after tackling her, her communicated there were others. in her defense he did say he was going to build a deck three feet away that this would not create a concern. so we're hopeful this issue would be but the reality is one morning she opened the blinds and was shocked to see someone standing on the deck was able to make direct eye contact . and again, for the kind of

people like my parents this is terrifying . so this is why in the last few weeks they haven't uncomfortable in their own bedroom and haven't felt comfortable opening of those lines and then ask that for today's case i hope to mitigate those concerns. but her, i see your here as well and honestly from one former neighbor to another , i'd like to say something. i met your brief last week . i was honestly upset . in the brief you talk about how you been dedicated and you have been. the reality is i would sit with my parents for days and they would tell me about how they're going. they would tell me about the joke they told my dad that day . and what or they would talk about the gifts and they would exchange many gifts in the past .

it's why i would like to thank that if the roles were reversed , we would have at least listened to you and had a conversation.herbert, is why we felt so offended that when we got the letter saying you are now given permission to build this deck why we wanted to have a conversation and why we called you, why we texted you and why you're upset when you were turning out calls . so for honestly what made me most upset in your brief was that you insinuated that the reason you wouldn't build it is when i read that, i didn't eat dinner. the first thing i did was set a fire hazard. i thought i was a horrible person. that they would put your kids in danger. i didn't even tell my parents because i knew how they would

react . not to be accusatory but if this was really the concern why didn't you tell us ? cause i promise you you refused to build the deck because it would be a fire hazard we would have listened and we would have tried to come up with another solution . as an example we built a higher fence in your half of the fence last year were years ago. and it wasn't a concern then i don't know why it's a concern now. i'm sure we would have agreed to build an elevation to the fence a little bit closer to the wall . we would have never done anything to put your family in danger. so i apologize for getting emotional. that does make me very upset . because again her , we're still neighbors . there's no reason we can't work this out.

the end of the day were not trying to get in your way . we are just trying to protect my parents way of life and we feel that's not too much to ask that we at least try to have some type of compromise in this situation .so members of the board, that's our request and we would like to have some type of compromise where her can enjoy his debt but my parents can feel comfortable . >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holders . >> do you have a question? i'm sorry i didn't raise my hand. in reading the brief, it seems that this permit came after the construction was done . were you aware of the existence

of a permit as you were going through this initially before ? if i read it right you said that the deck was built . and then , you got notice that a permit was being issued . so am i getting that straight or am i wrong? >> that's right and my parents realized it was given in december . >> from your point of view , not only were you unhappy that the deck was being , was going to get built but you realize that this deck was building even before the city of san francisco. >> thanks. >> we will now you're from the permit holders also . you have seven minutes .

>> iq, can you hear me well? good evening president vice president lazarus and members of the board . thank you for hearing our case . i'm one of the owners of the property . >> i am hurt his wife, we have lived on the property since 2013 with our two children . isabella and herbert junior. due to the pandemic , first my husband and i have been working from home and since we have a small backyard , we wanted to build a to enjoy some fresh air before we started our deck building process, it took a while to navigate the process of getting a permit and my husband went to the city building department to inquire

all this information needed and we followed all the necessary steps . >> the permit is code compliant. the appellant would not have brought the case unless of privacy concerns. we are constructing a small deck that was approved and hopefully you have the opportunity to read our brief we provided many materials related to its . as we mentioned the appellant had a six-foot tall fence from the deck which is 12 feet from the ground but unreasonable and is putting our family at harm as well . this high fence would again be a drop for our family. our deck not only serves to enjoy a view of fresh air but also serves as a fire escape .

it would be impossible for anyone to scale up and over or escape from the fire especially our two children . they put us in harm's way. >> secondly in regard to the appellant saying that we can see from our back to their bedroom, based on the dbi zoning we can build up to 10 feet back from the deck but we reduced it to only four feet down already to compromise. alec, can you show us the exhibit 1 please ? >> give me a second. >> i can file for time. >> as you can see on exhibit one it has three feet set back from the property line .

alec, can you go to exhibit 2 also ? thank you. in addition you can see from here the back of our house is five feet longer than the appellant's house .the extended length plus the four feet which is very shallow deck really doesn't allow the subject to see much more than just the side of the window . >> alec, exhibit 3a please . our current deck configuration has a minimum 25 foot difference distance from the end of our deck appellant house for window . which is the mind of the backyard property line and 15 feet to the appellant window. exhibit 3b please. as you can see with this distance and the sharp angle

doesn't allow subject to see much more than just the side of the window.no direct line of sight . since we have lived here we have been good neighbors and we were. to everyone in our neighborhood . like they say to us as well. we always lend a hand when we are in need especially a few months or so ago . if there was something wrong with jeff's dads bar and i took care of it. he even was surprised i knew about something like that . so even then that's the other side of the coin. we show that we have our neighbor support. we know it's not required. we have gathered the signatures. alex, 2 a and 4b. our neighbor lives right next to us. alex, exhibit 582 5b please.

as you can see there are many houses in our neighborhood that have decks that are similar or even bigger than our side. keep scrolling. these are ours right here. the other ones are three doors away from the appellant . >> the houses in san francisco more so in the sunset district are built so tight next to each other it's hard to have complete privacy. alex, exhibit six please. that's why people put blinds in their bedrooms. could we go to exhibit 7 please? yes. if the appellant stands in the backyard they can see our window or inside our bedroom if we don't have curtains or blinds which we do . we never complain to them about

looking into our bedroom window . as far as the claim about we always have friends and family coming over to the house which we only have once in 20 years in our backyard. when you have friends over , when we have friends and family gather in the backyard as we stated and you can see from exhibit 7 anyone can see our neighbor's window including the appellant from the backyard . so when they raise the issue about having the stairs in the back that will allow people to see into their window , we compromised. we didn't build the stage in order to meet their needs. however even after that they said we will let our friends go into our bedroom and go to the back . i think it's a bit overreacting .

>> example 7. again, we only have 30 seconds. again , we want to emphasize we followed all of the rules with our deck. our deck is very small compared to many. we're not interested in looking at our neighbor's window . we have as the board denied the appeal and affirm it so we can finalize our project . >> thank you we have a question from the president swig. you are on mute . >> president: thank you. did you start the deck , start construction before you had a permit ? >> we started sir . >> that's it. that was a yes no question, thank you very much . >> we will now hear from the planning department . >> that evening once again, this is tina tam , the subject property at february 2, 2006

27th avenue is in the art each one zoning district . the permit is to comply with the 2021 dbi complaint for work performed without a permit . permit includes a rear deck painting of an existing window for a new sliding door.the new deck measures approximately 12 and a half feet in width and four feet in depth. it is within the aerial lot, not required and is set back three feet from the south side property line which is adjacent to the appellant's property . the planning department does not believe the design is inconsistent with public decks that are routinely reviewed and approved by the city. it is only one story in height and more importantly , it's set back from both side property line. the project complies with the planning code. it's consistent with the residential design guidelines .

including the departments deck handout and the department recommends approval of the project . >> we have a question from president swig and commissioner honda . >> president: the issue related to , we heard from the appellate that their view was the deck was built without a permit . the permit holder confirmed the deck was built without a permit . what would have been different had the permit holder complied with the law or the process required by the planning department and applied for a permit for this deck ? would we still be in the same place today or where would we be and how should we react as a board of appeals knowing that the deck was built first and then basically the answers were

provided first and then the questions unfortunately were simulated later . >> thank you for that question and tina tan from the planning department . from the planning department standpoint there's no difference . while we don't have a complete file for the planning department, if there was a planning complaint for the property our review would have remained the same. we work with the applicant and we often see people not knowing or realizing their permit is required for something so our intent is to educate more than anything else and not penalize . if someone didn't get a permit and the work needed a permit we would work on helping them get the permit and review it again . the same standards are required for all projects whether they are filed in advance of the

work being done or after-the-fact . but i'm not going to speak for dbi. dbi may have a different approach to work under that permit . >> ask the same of dbi or if the dbi speaker would like to address it off the back . with regard to the fence, is that also a dbi question ? the height? tina? >> i am not aware of a proposal for a 12 foot high fence on the deck . but if there is a 12 foot high fence on the deck it would exceed the 10 feet limit . we would be able to approve

over-the-counter and that would require notification and that's another process that's different from how this permit was handled from us over-the-counter . >> this presents in fact maybe an education process in play here. this presents a problem when somebody in fact builds a deck for filing for a permit because then the next door neighbor is set up with a fatal comp lead. that would be a built deck and then when the conversation precedes what about my privacy and what about them and the two neighbors try to collaborate and enough on using i'm using a genteel term. then they run into trouble because they start talking about 12 fences and don't

realize if they would have gone through the process in the first place of having a discussion , then they would have been guided to what is legal and what is not etc. is that true? >> i'm not aware of the project with a 12 foot tall fence . i haven't seen plans for that . i don't know how that's going to look like . i don't know whether the railing on the deck is actually set back three feet or not setback . there are a lot of questions that we might have and because that was in force we didn't dive into any of that conversation . >> that presents the opportunity for this panel tonight . is it a deck that was built in a nonlegal fashion and a neighbor who didn't have a chance to have a post permit

filing process discussion now they're stuck with something that's already built and there's maybe a fence, there is an offense . it gets confusing . the answer is probably yes . >> not sure how to answer that . >> is there a fence, is there not a fence, all the things you raise . i want to let the permit holder know what happened and why they're here tonight and why they need appeals the way they do because the whole process was done in a backwards, it was done in a backwards fashion .i think. anyway, we will move on to dbi .

>> we do have a question from commissioner honda first . >> gina, thank you.welcome to our pain. everyone is in close proximity and i hate to see what happens when the fence is here between these two neighbors but one, this is an over-the-counter permit . there's no notification required so even this is not the first time the card has come before the horse before this body. if someone wishes to apply for a permit over-the-counter and wait 16 days to perform any work at which point it would be non-appeal . my question to you was how much further can they go? there's a 30 percent lot and in the permit holder's testimony which i know unfortunately it's very emotional between neighbors right now and there's

tension but i believe they could have gone quite a bit further and built quite a bit larger debt . >> that is correct. the setback requirement for the art h1 zoning district is 30 percent . they have a fairly even size lot depth . i didn't do the calculation, i don't know whether 10 feet is their maximum . we have seen. those that site visit and you saw one not too long ago at the hearing i think in december that was for i think eight or nine feet . this is 4 feet. we confirmed . >> that is completely back from what we see for this for . whether they are being nice to their neighbors if or not it's almost a minimum size. you can barely get a chair out there . that was my question. thank you .

>> we will now from the department of building inspection. welcome senior building inspector green . >> that evening vice president swig, matthew green, senior building inspector . would you like to address president swig's question first ? >> in regards to the deck december 1 dbi received a complaint concerning a deck being built without permit . on december 9 dbi attempted a investigation. the inspector , owner stated they were 10 people before the building permit . dbi received a second complaint for the building that permit. december 14 the owners apply for an over-the-counter permit and obtained a permit that day to build a rear deck , replace a rear window with a door.

the permit was approved and issued properly and that being said there has been no inspections on the step either be by the owner did not allow access to the investigator and thus in inspector with the district was at that state. basically the however we do believe the permit was issued properly to be upheld and request the owners schedule an inspection as soon as possible . as to inspector president swig's question, you're asking about the deck . sorry, about the set . the fence up to 60 high without a building permit to over six feet high they would have to have a brick building permit. in the rear yard. >> thank you. i don't see any questions so we will move on to public comment. anyone here to provide public

comment on this item, please raise your hand . i do not see any public comment so we will move on to remodel and hear from the appellant . mister chen , you have three minutes . >> the first thing i guess i'll say is i apologize if our suggestion was out of code . really the installation behind what we said was again, her has already built the entire park. we told us in the past this is due to privacy rules. because to us it's only logical to say if you're willing to do this here can we do it the first half as well to protect our own side. if this is a project, if it's not allowed to be 12 feet i apologize . we were not aware of that. the issue at hand is why we don't disagree with her old , we feel we have a right . at the very least the right to at least try to have a

conversation and the neighbors are not returning our calls and texts . i don't know what to say because you are great neighbors . and i don't know why this is gone to the place it has, let's leave it like that . this showed as an example in their design is four feet away . we don't need the fence to be at the same height where it was built in the second half . we just want some type of correction with some type of prevention code . thank you. >> we have a question from commissioner honda.>> first of all you guys are neighbors and you've lived next to each other for a long time it gets awkward when nobody wants to say hi to each other anymore. we do understand my questioning through the department on how large of a scale their

neighbors could have built . and so for us next seen multiple changes regarding decks and fences we are really treatment that people from the city. we see extremely large party decks that are that. really the smallest decks we've seen our three feet and four feet . just my opinion . that was , that design may have two kids. they really considered privacy in creating . that's just my personal take on seeing a lot of these places . and i understand there's some will between the two of you but it is really a small and they removed the stairs already. because it's is such a small deck we can suggest some potential screening or privacy methods.

things such as some plants but before we got four feet to work there. it is quite a small deck . as you said i see your parents are not super pleased with this but at which what you guys are not , you are going to live next to each other . so at this point, share a bottle of wine and bread figure this out. from what i can tell from the brief the fence in the rear is basically put there because they have a basketball net there and if that's not there they would unfortunately either have to call you guys for hop on the fence and get themselves. we have a basketball in our house and we're constantly going over to our neighbors who we are friends with . just please take that into consideration going forward and maybe you should break some bread . >> we will allow you from the program holders, you have three minutes . >> i think i second the motion

of commissioner honda. can you guys hear me well? >> we can hear you.we second the motion of commissioner honda. i think we're building it small. it is correct, we can put the table there. we've been friends.we've done a lot of good things. i was really surprised about the submission even though we spoke earlier . i'm not going to go into much detail but alex, can you show exhibit 7 please? if it's privacy, it's the concern doesn't matter to the appellant . there are a cross from the rear

yard.there's nothing at all between the appellant's property line with the neighbor across . that neighbor has direct 80 degrees line of sight to the appellant window. but surprisingly there not complaining with their neighbor across at all . instead the appellant is complaining about us having a small deck . it doesn't even allow subjects to see much more than just the side of the appellant's window . no direct line of sight . there is no fence between that neighbor across their property line . there's none . and they're complaining about what they cannot even see. alec, if you can see three feet. that is the view that you could build . if you could show exhibit 3 please . i guess alex cannot hear .

>> we can pause, it just takes a moment let's pause for time. >> 3b. come on. it's just a side of their window. we don't exaggerate the feature like they do in their pictures. i like them, they like us. i took care of their cars . we've got along very well. we may compromise but they just don't want to come to us other than 12 foot deck , that's it . we were trying so hard but they would not listen to us . >> 30 seconds . >> again, i second the motion of darrell honda. i can have a bottle of wine with them and bread . i love them . i'm in tears .

>> thank you and to the appellant's you already had your remodel time so you won't have an opportunity to respond. is there anything further from the planning department? >> no further comments, thank you . >> anything further from dvi ? >> i like to add that 12 deck is in the rear. i don't see any permits for that height and i'd say the owner should reduce from six foot to allow the building permit to attend to that height. thank you.>> thank you . >> sorry, i didn't have time to raise my hand . if the fansite is illegal are you allowed to put two posts and the net ? >> if it's less than 60 it

would require a building permit .>> if you put a post in the net would not require a building permit? >> i would have to do further research . >> i don't know the answer to that. >> i didn't mean to put you on the spot . >> i'm sorry, there's no further comment from the party . >> i'm sorry, inspector green yes go ahead . >> i guess in his defense we could have two posts. the gap between the both could just be netting. >> thank you, commissioners. this matter is submitted . >> commissioners. public comments. and emotion.

does somebody else want to? i think that the permit was issued properly . unfortunately , the neighbors aren't getting along. i think they should hopefully try to figure this out. but the permit was issued properly although i would deny the permit on that basis and in fact i was starting about at this point the process is corrected and the permitting was followed so i would deny the appeal just because the property the permit was properly issued . >> i agree with commissioner honda . and for the appellant to put it in context, we do see a lot of these permitting having been former planner . then get they proposed is

incredibly modest and perhaps once you break bad and share a bottle of wine , when that happens it will , perhaps there are things that could be proposed , commissioner honda mentioned the planter. it seems like it's a it's the very edge of the deck that the permit holder can actually get you into the bedroom window so there are intrusive suggestions and options that could be explored if press is a concern and we do live in a dense urban environment so true privacy is incredibly challenging in san francisco. i'd like to offer that . >> you are faded out.

okay, anybody else have any thoughts or did i hear a motion . commissioner honda.>> i believe we had a motion from commissioner honda to deny the appeal on the basis it was properly issued. so we will move forward. on that motion , commissioner lopez.vice president lazarus. [roll call vote] are we ready to move on to item number nine? does anyone need a five minute break ? >> i could go forward .

>> we are moving on to item number nine which is appeal number 21 102 , holmes lost chance versus zoning administrator, subject property 126 roland avenue. holmes last chance llc of request to suspend building permit 2016 0930 9329 subject permit issued by dbi november 21, 2016 and suspended her board of appeals letter for appeal 16 195 on december 12 . the subject permit was reinstated january 19, 2017 . the scope of work includes 512 square feet on the second floor of existing at the root of two bedrooms and two bathrooms remodeled kitchen and new bathroom, new mechanical plumbing and foundation replacement . october 1, 2021 staff confirmed work has exceeded the scope and

it appears portions of the existing building were dismantled and reassembled. as such careful review and demolition calculations are needed to determine if the work exceeds the demolition thresholds outlined in planning code section 317. the planning department requests ascension of the permit to allow required review . permit number 20 16 , 09, 30, 9329. mister patterson is the attorney for the appellant . >> the evening president swig and commissioners . >> welcome . >> thank you very much. commissioners the first question in this case is what exactly is the planning departments concerned because the complaint seems to be changing. we've already invested specific concerns we are aware of and we

don't know why the permit is suspended in this way. it has to be more than a generalized concern . i'll start with a brief history. the subject permit was issued november 2016 . the property was sold in 2017 and current permit holder purchased the property in may 2019. neighbors for some reason had been complaining of a project for a long time and before the issue before us today there were a variety of dbi complaints . they alleged demolition work and work beyond the scope of the permits. all these complaints were closed out . then the planning complaints started . on october 1, 2021 enforcement inspected the property for complaints . he told the permit holder they were fine and had no other concerns . five days later the permit holder asked why the door had not yet been abated and replied he wanted to have someone more experienced take a look at the properties so the planar return october 2021 . mrs. long told the permit holder neither the floor in a

row appeared to have been demolished and ending floor would not count towards in any way. four days later, october 25 the department filed a complaint with dbi alleging hastily installed gypsum board over plumbing , electrical work that had not been faded and work in excess of demolition structures . however , dbi had already inspected and approved this with inspections in sheer wall, electrical rough framing and sheet rock. so dbi closed the complaint two days later after visiting the property in determining the work had been properly completed and inspected. planning department responded by issuing object suspension request the next day and i will try to share my screen. bear with me just a moment please.

>> the suspension request says quote, it appears portions of the existing building were dismantled and reassembled. this was not part of the approved and issued permit. so we assembled a team to review the project and care photos documenting this issue as requested . so what is the issue exactly? the enforcement planner had been staged on december 14 that the issue is whether the walls were removed and replaced versus being sister and i'll show you a photo here that illustrates the question . as we explained, it would have been physically impossible to remove these existing walls because there was nothing left to hold the exterior siding on the house. and you can see here the existing studs still there and existing siding is still there. so here's what was done.

the permit holder removed the drywall, sure the existing studs in place and replaced the studs , removed and replaced the exterior siding and covered with sheetrock . the old studs were never removed and the few exceptions were replaced which is appropriate. these walls were not demolished . and even if the studs have been removed and replaced as which they were not, section 317 d9 maintenance exemption allows this. without counting it as a demolition . we have team to confirm this. he was the platter created section 317 and implemented its application and is here to answer any questions about that . even if the walls had been demolished which they were not still be well below the demolition threshold of section 317 . at this point, we are unclear what the planning departments

concerned is and answer the concern about replacement which provided photos, confirmation of construction and demo. and today at a site meeting enforcement planner showed us a new photo which was not disclosed before today be taken sometime before the permit holder purchased the property . and if i understand correctly he sent it looked like certain walls don't match up. but we don't know what that means . and so specifically what is the complaint . we do know one part of the building that does not match the plan.the ceiling height inside the basement level is higher than shown in the approved plans and it seems the architect just made a mistake showing the height and existing commission . you probably cannot access that area because it looks like garbage so the basin ceiling height does match prior approved plans from 1971. and most importantly , the

height has not been altered so this is not revealing to the permit. there is one exception which is the one bearing wall in the basement was moved about four feet towards the rear but this is something that holders inform the building department of when they started and were , there was already a note on the job card to file a revision permit . this is not part of the suspension request we're talking about and it will be properly documented with the revision. so in conclusion, the suspension request was issued an outcry to stop sharing . and perhaps mister wong, thank you very much . the suspension request was issued because of the suspected wall removal . to enter that concern documented the walls were not removed. we really need to know at this point what the accusation is so that we can respond to it as we've already responded to each

and every complaint that's been raised so far. the enforcement planner as i mentioned gave us a new photo and if there's some new complaint the permit holder has a right to know what it is and meaningfully respond. our request tonight is the clear list of work the department alleges exceeded the scope of permit or at least a week to review that and respond before the board makes a decision . if the department does not have evidence of any particular problem with the project then the suspension request should be overturned . i'm happy to answer any questions you might have residents swig has a question . >> you are on mute . >> sorry. it seems you are asking a similar question although sometimes simple questions aren't that . but you and your client have been in contact with the planning department . and it's not like you're from

different planets and haven't seen each other recently . have you outside of this courtroom posed the question to seek that clarity and if you have posed that question what has been the answer to what seems to be a very direct question ? >> we had fairly extended discussion of that this morning at the site inspection with the planning department and building department representatives . we did not receive a clear answer about what the specific concern is. the request from the planning department and of course planning can this but the request as i understand it is show us everything you did so that we can see if there's a problem. that's not how the complete process works. >> thank you, we will now hear from planning department.

>> thank you. commissioners, president sweetie. tina tam, deputy administrator. the subject property at 126 mullen avenue is in our h1 zoning district and the height and bulk district. while it does have a mullen avenue address it's on a narrow walkway part of an unimproved right of way . a lot measures 27.83 feet in width and 70 feet in length and is approximately 1984 square feet in size. the site plan submitted for the current work on the property shows a different lot with . it erroneously claims a portion of the mini park that is owned by the city is part of this property. 126 mullen avenue contains a one-story over base single-family dwelling based upon historic maps and permit records the property was constructed prior to 1900s as a

single family dwelling. however by 1950 was converted into a two family dwelling . in 2012 the building permit application was filed to merge the two units back to the single-family dwelling and despite opposition the permit was approved by planning . as for the property status it is a potential historic resource based upon its age. in 2016 and alteration permit was filed to create two new veterans and two new bathrooms of the act. the permit also included installing for new dorm rooms and relocating the existing kitchens and dining room . no work was shown for the basement level . see how there's minimal change of building structural framework , expansion to the building envelope, the 2016 permit was approved over-the-counter planning staff on september 30 2016 .

in august 2021 complaint was filed with the planning department . the complaint explained the project exceeded the scope of the permit and cited that significant changes were made and the review of the permit was required by the bruno heights feast slope design review board . so on october 1, 2021 the enforcement planner did conduct a site visit and took a lot of photos of the property. after reviewing the photos for the senior planner and the zoning administrator questions and concerns arise on the amount of removal that had occurred on the property . on october 28 2021 the planning department requested the suspension of the 2016 permit . for the appellants' brief there are two declarations that were submitted in support of the appeal . these were submitted by patrick bostitch.

they assert removal of existing walls will result in roof framing allowed by the planning code. while it's true that sections reese 317 didn't deny does allow for repair and even removal of building framing for maintenance purposes , the removal can only be done with preapproval by the department of building inspection and planning. this was stated on page 8 of the code implementation document and had been in practice by the planning department and dvi for the past 5 to 6 years . this section states quote, if additional removal is required by ddi during construction due to life and safety concerns correction notice issued by dbi and review and approval of a correction permit as the planning department must be obtained prior to such removal . this requirement of obtaining approval first is important because it minimizes any potential for abuse of the

section allows the district inspector to document any structural deficiencies during construction and provide input on next steps before a unpermitted removal takes place. to my knowledge no such correction notice was issued for the property. mister moskowitz admits existing framing was done on the property and does not disagree many old buildings like 126 mullen avenue may have required a great deal of reinforcement depending on the scope of the permit and projects. we have seen and reviewed numerous examples of when this is done correctly and when it's not done correctly . when system is done correctly, the walls remain in place and stay connected to either the bottom spill or the top still plate. a new structure is customized to fit the existing framing condition .this did not

happen at 126 mullen avenue . the existing walls set steps up your to be have been removed and kneel back to and reattached to the new framing that was installed . mister moskowitz also states even if more existing framing was in fact removed during construction and demolition calculations are far less than the threshold specified by the planning code to be called demolition. given the review of the demolition calculations are part of the permit review process, this information should be submitted to the planning department as part of the corrective permit .if calculations impact do not exceed the demolition threshold than the projects require further review or enforcement action and we have made this explicitly clear to the project team as early as october 2021 . today no corrective from it has been submitted for 126 mullen. instead an appeal to the

suspension request was filed . legal counsel has asked and received two extensions or the appeal hearing there any delays on the part of resolving this matter is due to the appellants' delay in submitting the corrective permit. and in summary the planning department would like to go ahead and continue work with the team to submit the complete and accurate plan for the project. until then we asked the board to uphold the suspension of the 2016 . this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions . >> commissioner honda has a question . >> deputy va. this particular project has had a lot of process both with this board and with both partners here. and i believe there's been a change of ownership as well . so when i looked at this i also saw it was done and i saw the bottom fill was new material and also the top plate was also new material. is that , so is it possible that

if this does remain there able to put the top seal on the bottom seal and it not be a problem? how does your inspector determined that it was removed ? i guess i mean, how does one determine because the onus evidence we should be on the department regarding that since there making the claim. >> when we review for projects that have sister and methodology , approach, we often times will see a set attached to the lease either the bottom plate or the top plate. we haven't seen one where the system was done correctly for both the bottom and top were removed. there would be nothing holding up the stud . >> i was thinking that myself . that's how you hold it up if you take the bottom plate and

top plate out of the property but hasn't this property gone through a lot of scrutiny at this point. and we just have an unhappy neighbor . and the east slope is kind of a tough group to work with . i've been there personally. so where are we now ? what does the permit holder need to do to make this correction other than this appeal ? >> to go back and answer your question and thank you for that . the permit that we saw was over-the-counter. i don't know what you meant by extensive review . it was an over-the-counter review so if there was additional removal that occurred on the property which we believe has happened and documentation about the amount of removal has to be in the correct department.

just like the deck we saw earlier on 27 needs a permit to kind of rectify all the outstanding issues with the city. for us there is discrepancy in the lot size . there is information that needs to be cleared up about the basement and additional removal as well . to the extent how much i am not clear that we are waiting for that information to be presented to us . once we have that we will run the calculations and if the calculation comes out to be less than the full no further planning review would be required and the suspension would be listed . >> the concern going through the brief was i just saw specific photos . i imagine a project that has gone on for this length of time

would have more photos documenting nothing had been tempered with but i didn't see any of that in the brief. thank you . >> we have a question from presidents way . >> in answer to mister patterson's question what's wrong , is the answer we don't know because your client has not given us the information to enable the complete study which would allow us to tell you what might be wrong or not . is that the answer to this question ? >> i believe his question is does the planning department believe this for demolition then you are correct. we don't know whether it is or not because we don't have the

necessary requirements information to make that determination but we have been clear from the beginning . i'm going to emphasize he's not understanding what we are asking for. we've been connecting with the project sponsor miss kate mcgee who has said we will review the plan. that's in october 2021 . we are now in february and we have not team the site design so that's what we're needing and requiring to move forward with the process . >> so the purpose of the suspension is the ability for you to ask for further information you have in the formal plans to review a plan and whatever else you need to do to do your job . and then during that suspension hopefully you will get the response to your request . that would be the plans and any other things that you need to do your job . at which point you will do your

job to review those plans and those other things that you need and then give them a firm response based on proper vetting, is that correct ? >> that is correct.>> that's a great answer. thank you very much . >> now does dbi want to weigh in on this ? >> that evening commissioners, matthew green senior building inspector . this property is in four separate complaints between november 2020 and october 2021. it's been expected by two separate building inspectors who both put forward complaints. sorry, three complaints by one inspector and the fourth complaint was inspected by a separate inspector.there's six scheduled inspectors for

building permit 2016 093-0929 . on two of those inspections the inspector advised the building and revision would be required for the basement of the work . and all those inspections were never issued for removal of the elements as the planning department described. revision number 2019 10 179 two add habitable space was filed in december 10, 2019 but was withdrawn prior to issuance on october 13 2021. this morning confirms the approved plans did not reflect the conditions at the basement level nor did the plans reflect the work done at the basement level . unfortunately we were unable to determine if the site where the whether the demo calculations have been adhered to or whether they passed that . the department will recommend to uphold the suspension the stipulation that the work on the basement is also addressed .

thank you. i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. i don't see any questions at this point so we will move on the public comment . the one year to provide public comment on this item, please raise your hand . i understand we previously someone indicated they wanted to provide public comment . this is your opportunity to raise your hand. i guess people have decided not to provide public comment so we're going to move on to remodel . mister patterson you have two minutes . >> i appreciate inspector greens comment that this was inspected by dbi and no correction notice did inform access removal. and with all due respect to the zoning administrator tam, without hearing or the first

i'm hearing that one of the complaints is that the lot was noted incorrectly in the plan which seems to me not at all at issue certainly not noted in the suspension required . i don't about park space also is not part of it . the issue it sounds like is still this question of removal . and that is the issue we have to dress with extensive documentation including photos explanation and sequencing and demo on plans. i believe the request that missed him just made is actually not her plan but the new permit is not indicated in this situation. certainly not in response to a suspension request to determine if something is wrong.you don't file a new permit to determine if something is wrong . the issue of the basement is also not part of the suspension request.

that was raised by the permit holder. the very upset and is already noted in the drop card as they showed in the slideshow so that's really not the issue here. so again, it seems like the issue remaining is where the stud walls removed when the plate was removed and if i could please share my screen again i want to go back to this photo because it's important. this shows that after the walls were sister the existing siding was still there. if they had removed the old existing studs , what would be holding up the exterior siding. the answer is an asp is tested to buy the permit holder who asking a second to confirm this , the movie. they sure them in place and then added in , they removed the sill. and then added in the new sill . added in the studs. all-star walls were not removed

. it's very unclear to us how that could still be a question at this point. and we did provide again plans and accounts to document this. thank you. the photos showed the planning department showed those photos showed that sister walls and place the new framing, that's to be expected. there's no hiding it there. and as mister kaplan can confirm the district leaves it in place . >> they were short. we had to put in a sheer wall on the exterior . >> it's the exact way we did it . >> thank you. we have a question from president swig . >> president: mister patterson,

i think i asked the question to the planning department as to why we are here in the first place and she answered it very clearly . she said the purpose of the suspension was to enable them to do their job and confirm that everything on this project is correct . to do that she said and i'm paraphrasing but i'm getting pretty close that she requested from your client a set of plans that way back in november to enable the planning department to assess the issue and make their findings as well as to process whether they needed more information to in fact ensure this project was up to the standards set forth by the

planning department . the purpose of the suspension is for them to do their job . all this, what i'm hearing is that fine that you can make these points but that's not why we are here . these are points to make the planning department while you're having a discussion about why they're doing their assessment is my belief. but mister patterson why don't you ... i would beg to you please listen to the answer to the question that you asked and i posed to planning which was what's holding this up? she said the delivery of plans that we have requested long ago to allow us to provide a decision . i don't want to be sarcastic but i have to be . are you attending the same hearing i am ?

>> yes sir i am and these are attached within your packet so then now we have to go back and ask planning is this good enough to make , to waive the suspension request because you have enough information to render a decision . would that be the question that we ask of the planning department ? because that seems to be the issue. none of the other stuff that goes back and forth whether the cistern was correct, it seems to be they don't have enough information to make their decision . if that is true you have supplied that unless it was just in the last couple of weeks since your motion was filed . it seems we shouldn't have an issue but let's ask that

question them . >> my question would be there is no evidence supporting the continued existence of the suspension request at this point . it did take time to put the documentation together and we appreciate that time but at this point there does not seem to be any basis for maintaining the suspension request . >> again, is not the point of the suspension request to enable the planning department to do their job according to their needs to deliver you a clear answer and as well as be clear that they are doing , allowing a project to go through that has gone through all their property diligence . is that not the point of the suspension in the first place ?

why therefore not allow them to do their job and why should we the court of appeals get in the way of doing them doing their job, that's what i'm wrestling . >> it's a good question and i think the answer is the board of appeals has jurisdiction and authority to hear the suspension request because the board is charged with determining whether that request is proper .is there a basis to suspend the permit ? in this case we have provided substantial evidence documenting there is no basis to maintain the suspension request . no disrespect to planning doing its job . >> when were the plans the planning department spoke of each were requested from your clients, when were those plans formally presented to them in the process of letting the master plan with your project go up to par?

>> those were provided to the board and planning department and then we had subsequent meetings with enforcement staff and zoning administrator and deputy zoning administrator and then the site inspection this week . >> i live. why did we have to get to the point or why didn't have to get to the point that you were filing this motion to get your client to present plans to the planning department that they had requested months ago and therefore stop, period . >> it took time to assemble the team to prepare this and i'm happy to go through all the members of the team that worked on this . >> the question was why weren't they supplied and the answer is either you didn't have the time

and where you didn't get around to it . which do you choose ? >> neither sir. this was done diligently, it simply takes time to put these together. it's not a simple ask to put something like this together . >> thank you. >> we have a question from commissioner honda . >> can kaplan, are you the contractor on this ? is the contractor online here ? >> i am the owner . >> are you the contractor that does the work as well ? >> oversaw the work . >> a question that i had understanding the building and everything is already challenging and permitting is very challenging. can you explain the process of how this happened because as i look at it i see the old solid two by fours that are solid two by fours and i see this sister

ring but the big question that comes into place is and i see the original siding that was there . how do you replace the still plate and the top plate and not have the house of cards come down ? >> it's a good question and i understand the answer but the guy that can probably it best is the structural engineer who walked us through. i can ask the process should be . you have to understand that the piece of this process , the plans which we inherited called for harding ports on the outside of the building. that was the siding and hardy board siding on, you have to put up a plan for that siding would have overcome the ball but that's the way to answer the question precisely is the structural engineer.

as i the entire thing so i let him speak on how it was done . >> where was this project, how long have you personally owned this or your group has personally owned it and how long ? walk me through this process of where this was when you purchased it . >> another good question. we audit in 2019 . we didn't want to commence construction during covid. we bought kind of half built . and it looked like some work and started but it was difficult to ascertain where they were so we treated it as a new project . >> the reason i'm asking is for most people that don't know if you buy property in that state are not able to get a loan. at that point he has to pay with cash .

so did you stay with the same team that was doing the work prior ? >> no, i didn't stay with the same team. the same construction team in mark . >> maybe your structural engineer can give us an answer how this work took place and how maybe just get an explanation how the top and bottom was still there yet the studs were naked . >> can you hear me? the contractor elected to replace the bottom cell and top sell for proper plywood anchoring for both the seismic work and for the party board so if you remove the cell in segments, you can't take it out top and bottom. you have to remove it in short segments. you take out , you shorten the wall. you sure it's in addition to

the existing diagonal sheeting and you remove a section and put it in a new section of soleplate which is part of the reason why you're going to have a at the top and bottom because the old wood was either real to buy or real pre-by and the new wood is conventional two by four which is an instant 58 . you're going to have gaps when you do that . >> mister boscovitch was this done under your client or the previous person ? >> some of the work was done previously. some of it is i had to re-create in terms of how they did . >> let me ask the question mister boscovitch . when you took the project over were you working with the previous owners or are these new clients? >> i got hired july of last year . >> when you took the job you

have any documentation of what that structure look like prior ? >> i didn't document that because my original assignment was to address regarding a dormer.>> pretty much answers my question so i think we will have to go with the process that the planning department is recommended . >> thank you and we will now hear from the planning department . >> tina kaplan with planning department. as we all knew and expected things to happen during construction and everyone understands that in examining the structural conditions you can tell if there are any unforeseen deficiencies . however when that arises the policy has been to notify dbi right away so dvi can document and discuss next steps . removing and reconstructing walls , floors and roofs and something that is for maintenance purposes without

informing dvi for planning first is simply contrary to what is stated and required by our review process . i believe there was a discussion about information about what's required. a notice of enforcement was issued october 29, 2021 . i believe that's the day before or after the suspension of request was issued . outlining the requirements of the process. it states what's required , what kind of information should be included and i believe there's extensive conversation between the enforcement planner about what's needs to be detailed in the plans, floor plans, elevations etc. in summary the planning department work list performed on the property that exceeded the 2016 permit . we feel strongly that additional wall framing and

possibly even roof framing was removed . so at this point the department we asked the board uphold the suspension and allow the department to work with the project team to get the middle of a corrective permit. the plans that mister pendleton referenced were not submitted to the city . they were part of the appeal brief for this hearing. they were done so in no way where it would be difficult three . and we're going to have more questions about them once they do get submitted to the planning department and it gets assigned to a project planner to review. so thank you . >> we have a question from president swig. >> i think you answered my question when i want to make clear.you still even though these work equal to the this appeal, the plans that we talked about that you didn't receive when you were supposed to receive them , they never seem to arrive even though

these were able to the rest of the material that was part of this appeals brief in fact these plans still in a formal fashion have never been submitted to you personally or two and representative in the planning department, is that correct ? >> that is correct . >> so one, you need that formal submission and two, there may be as a result of those plans other items which you may be requiring as a result of further study of those formally submitted plans, correct ? and therefore that is the point of this suspension in the first place is to allow you, the planning department , to allow the planning department to do a full and competent job in assessing the condition and

move forward needs for this project . >> we will now hear from the department of building inspection, you have three minutes . >> i wanted to clarify that the district building inspector did not witness the removal of the place as described by mister boscovitch. he recalled for inspections after it was or was not done . i also like to point out that the jews if you choose to lift the suspension today the department will have to supply a notice of violation for the work done at the foundation and that is all i have . >> thank you. commissioners this matter is submitted . >> i raise my hand again . you brought up at the very end of your first presentation the issue of the basement and that

you have some problems with that.you then now just reiterated that if we were to lift this notice of suspension that you had filed a notice of violation on the basement issue and i believe you. i need you to say it again or clarify what you would like included if we were to continue to uphold or deny this appeal and uphold the notice of suspension . that you would request some recognition of this basement problem so that it would be considered part of the in the process . because i'm stumbling here. >> certainly, dvi would like the submitted plans to actively respect the original conditions

of the basement including the height and locations of the retaining wall and also have the accurate drawing depicting what is there now . and then moved retaining wall at the rear . >> is that necessary if we are to deny the appeal tonight for the removal of the suspension , is that something that's appropriate for us to add to that? is that condition appropriate for us to add under this , in this situation ? i'm asking it of you and i'm asking it of julie rosenberg and council as well. >> i would defer to the city internal attorney whether it's appropriate but for this building ever received the final inspection revision accurately

documenting the work done on the basis . it will need to be done . >> . >> if you want to modify the order you be granting the appeal . the suspension request and modifying it . but i'm not sure the relationship between the basement and the information and the suspension request. the planning department is looking for . >> i guess in this public conversation there's no clear notice that dvi has a problem with the basement and that you have to be done with . >> dvi can separately initiate any kind of enforcement action for the basement . right now we are focusing on the planning department's request for suspension . >> i would assume, i have to use the word assume but given this issue in the basement has been noticed and the planning is going to .

if we denied the appeal the planning would be looking at scrutiny with the plans in general that the basement would be included in that me of the plans . i'm making that assumption given the public discussion tonight but i look for guidance from somebody . should that question be post to the planning now since we've heard the basement discussion . will that be part of your review in this suspension period? >> thank you for that question. i did do the size of it this morning with mister matt greene . people observed the permitted work in the basement love. and we will want to know more information about the basement level and the amount of

excavation that took place so we will be including that as part of a corrective permit .>> so we don't have to touch it . thank you. >> vice president lazarus . >> are we now in our deliberation . >> i'm not sure, this matter is submitted, are we in the liberation of . >> if dvi is finished i think we are . >> . >> to me this is is as clear as an unclear situation can be . i see no reason to grant this appeal . there is no concurrence on what has happened, what needs to happen, what should happen and the only course of action i can see is to allow planning with dvi to address what's going on . so i have no hesitation about denying this appeal .

>> is that emotion?>> unless there's other comments i'll make one i moved to deny the appeal on the basis the suspension request was issued appropriately . >> the presiding administrator did not air . >> yes . >> we have a motion from vice president lazarus to deny the appeal and uphold the request for suspension on the basis the zoning administrator did not error in his discretion . motion commissioner lopez . [roll call vote] that motion carries 5 to 0 and an appeal is denied . so president swig that concludes the hearing, did you want to adjourn? >> i would move to adjourn yes

and hopefully we will see each other next week . >> i will be here, don't worry. thank you. have a good night . >> thank you very much.

when i shoot chinatown, i shoot the architecture that people not just events, i shoot what's going on in daily life and everything changes. murals graffiti store opening. store closing. the bakery. i shoot anything and everything in chinatown. i shoot daily life. i'm a crazy animal. i'm shooting for fun. that's what i love. >> i'm frank jane. i'm a community photographer

for the last i think about 20 years. i joined the chinese historical society. it was a way i could practice my society and i can give the community memories. i've been practicing and get to know everybody and everybody knew me pretty much documenting the history i don't just shoot events. i'm telling a story in whatever photos that i post on facebook it's just like being there from front to end, i do a good job and i take hundreds and hundreds of photos. and i was specializing in chinese american history. i want to cover what's happening in chinatown. what's happening in my community. i shoot a lot of government officials. i probably have thousands of

photos of mayor lee and all the dignitaries. but they treat me like one of the family members because they see me all the time. they appreciate me. even the local cops the firemen, you know i feel at home. i was born in chinese hospital 1954. we grew up dirt poor. our family was lucky to grew up. when i was in junior high, i had a degree in hotel management restaurant. i was working in the restaurant business for probably about 15 years. i started when i was 12 years old. when i got married, my wife had an import business. i figured, the restaurant business i got tired of it. i said come work for the family business. i said okay. it's going to be interesting and so interesting i lasted for

30 years. i'm married i have one daughter. she's a registered nurse. she lives in los angeles now. and two grandsons. we have fun. i got into photography when i was in junior high and high school. shooting cameras. the black and white days i was able to process my own film. i wasn't really that good because you know color film and processing was expensive and i kind of left it alone for about 30 years. i was doing product photography for advertising. and kind of got back into it. everybody said oh, digital photography, the year 2000. it was a ghost town in

chinatown. i figured it's time to shoot chinatown store front nobody. everybody on grand avenue. there was not a soul out walking around chinatown. a new asia restaurant it used to be the biggest restaurant in chinatown. it can hold about a 1,000 people and i had been shooting events there for many years. it turned into a supermarket. and i got in. i shot the supermarket. you know and its transformation. even the owner of the restaurant the restaurant it's 50 years old. i said yeah. it looks awful. history. because i'm shooting history.

and it's impressive because it's history because you can't repeat. it's gone it's gone. >> you stick with her, she'll teach you everything. >> cellphone photography that's going to be the generation. i think cellphones in the next two, three years, the big cameras are obsolete already. mirrorless camera is going to take over market and the cellphone is going to be better. but nobody's going to archive it. nobody's going to keep good history. everybody's going to take snapshots, but nobody's going to catalog. they don't care. >> i want to see you. >> it's not a keepsake. there's no memories behind it. everybody's sticking in the

cloud. they lose it who cares. but, you know i care. >> last september of 2020 i had a minor stroke and my daughter caught it on zoom. i was having a zoom call for my grand kids. and my daughter and my these little kids said hey you sound strange. yeah. i said i'm not able to speak properly. they said what happened. my wife was taking a nap and my daughter, she called home and said he's having a stroke. get him to the hospital. five minutes later, you know, the ambulance came and took me away and i was at i.c.u. for four days.

i have hundreds of messages wishing me get well soon. everybody wished that i'm okay and back to normal. you know i was up and kicking two weeks after my hospital stay. it was a wake-up call. i needed to get my life in order and try to organize things especially organize my photos. >> probably took two million photos in the last 20 years. i want to donate to an organization that's going to use it. i'm just doing it from the heart. i enjoy doing it to give back to the community. that's the most important. give back to the community. >> it's a lot for the

community. >> i was a born hustler. i'm too busy to slow down. i love what i'm doing. i love to be busy. i go nuts when i'm not doing anything. i'm 67 this year. i figured 70 i'm ready to retire. i'm wishing to train a couple for photographers to take over my place. the younger generation they have a passion, to document the history because it's going to be forgotten in ten years, 20 years, maybe i will be forgotten when i'm gone in a couple years but i want to be remembered for my work and, you know photographs will be a

remembrance. i'm frank jane. i'm a community photographer. this is my story. >> when you're not looking, frank's there. he'll snap that and then he'll send me an e-mail or two and they're always the best. >> these are all my p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p

p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p

p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p

p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p >> mayor breed: as we celebrate the new year. it is time for a new beginning. it is time for hope happiness pride in who we are as san franciscans. it is a tough two years. be proud of what we have done. on february 19th we will be back in san francisco! the year of the tiger,

>> the meeting of the transportation authority board. the vice chair is aaron peskin. the clerk is angela saul. mad madam clerk please call the roll>> clerk: yes chair. f one moment here. [roll call]