>> good evening and welcome to june 15, 2022 hybrid meeting to san francisco board of appeals. joined my lazarus joining remotely, commissioner chang and commissioner jose lopez. alsoprint is deputy city attorney rusy, will provide the board with needed legal advice. (inaudible) and julie roseenburg the board executive director. we are joined by representatives from the city

departments presented before the board. tina tan and matthew green, senior building inspector with department of building inspection. the board request turn off or silence all phones. no eating or drinking in the hearing room. appellates and department respondents are given 7 minutes toprint the case and 3 mnlts for rebuttal. people affiliated with the parties must include the comments within the 7-3 minutes period. have up to 3 minutes to address the board and no rebuttal. time is permits to (inaudible) for rehearing request the parties are given 3 minutes each with no rebuttal. mr. longly the legal assistant will give a verbal warning 30 seconds before time is up. three votes are required to grant appeal or grant rehearing request. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing the board rules are hearing schedules e-mail board

staff at boardofappeals@sfgov.or g. we have ability to receive public comment for each item. sf gov tchb is providing closed caption. go to sf gov tv channel 78. it will be broadcast (inaudible) link is found on the home page. public comment will be provided in three ways. one in person, two via zoom, go to the website and click on the zoom link or telephone. 1669-900 to block your phone number calling in dial star 67 and phone

number. listen for public comment and dial star 9 the equivalent of raising your hand. you are brought into the hearing when it is your turn. you may have to dial star 6 to unmute. you have two or three minutes depending on the length of the agenda and speakers. the assistant will provide with a verbal warning 30 seconds before time is up. there is a delay therefore it is very important people colic in reduce or turn off the volume on computers otherwise there is interfoornsh with the meeting. any participants need a disaability accommodation you can make a request in the chat or send e-mail to board of appeals@sfgov.org. we'll take public comment from those members in the hearing room. now we will swear in or affirm all who intend to testify.

note any member may speak without taking oath pursuant to rights under the sun shine ordinance. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give testimony weight raise your hand and say i do. do you swear or affirm the testimony is truth whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. if you are participating and not speaking please put your zoom speaker on mute. we will start with item 1. consideration and possible adoption of resolution to allow teleconference meeting under california government code section 54 nineg 53 subsection e. do we have public comment on the item, please raise your hand? i don't see any hands raise so commissioners, we need a vote. >> motion to adopt. >> okay. we have a motion from president swig to adopt the resolution. that

motion, [roll call] >> thank you. so that motion carries 4-0 and the resolution is adopted. we'll move to item 2 which is general public comment. this is is a opportunity for anyone who like to speak on a matter within the boards jurisdiction but not on tonight's calendar. anyone here for general public comment, please raise your hand. i don't see anybody so move to item 3, commissioner comments and questionss. >> commissioners, any comments, questions? ann. >> okay. no commissioner comments or questions so will mover to item 4. the adoption of the minutes. before you discussion and possible adoption of june 1, 2022 meeting. >> motion to adopt. >> okay, we have is a motion to adopt from commissioner lopez. is there any public comment on the motion? please

raise your hand. okay. no public comment so on that motion- [roll call] >> that motion carries 4-0 and the minutes are adopted. we are moving to item 5 rehearing request for 22-024 subject property 1024 capp street monica ortega appellate is requesting a rehearing of appeal 22-024 deciding may 18, 2022. upon motion by commissioner chang the board voted 4-0 to deny the appeal and uphold based it was properly issued. the permit holder is 1026 capp llc and permit is construction of new accessory dwelling unit. (inaudible) this is permit 2021/08224/5270. we

will hear from ms. ortega. >> audio cutting out] >> you have three minutes. >> thank you. i wanted to thank you board and commissioners for taking the time for my rehearing. the request is due to i feel it was a manifest in justice given the questions i was asking and items i did address, when the commissioners asked the other respondee the same question, their party responded to the current construction, not the adu that has not been built. so, the questions i want to ask is, if a adu is facing the rear, like a different street, wouldn't that be considered regular construction versus a adu? i'm just

confused how a adu can be facing a different side street and have a completely different address. second question i asked is, the height and no one addressed the height given that we have one story maybe a two story, but they were talking about a three story garage-sorry, 3 story property where there is taking a lot of natural light and privacy and that goes into privacy. given that because construction is going on, alma has not been able to reduce the height of the vines and the trees. given if i could have the time it wouldn't have so much privacy. now, my grandma doesn't like too much-facing into the garage and that is what is happening right now and the fourth item i wanted to

bring up is the rear facing windsoes in the back yard which will give privacy concern and no one asked about the frost. the frost put on for privacy concerns, again, the respanding party talked about thecurrent construction not the construction of the adu. i had other neighbors also mention that the attorney made the point that my yard faces north of the property where the sunrises east and sets on the west. there is no shade. but this only applies-any other time of year given if we are in the northern (inaudible) the building would cast a shadow over the entire yard, and the three story building is going to most likely cover the entire

property and that will impact us tremendously. i am asking the board to reconsider the questions i asked and listen to the respondent making sure- >> thank you, that is time. >> thank you. we will hear from mr. volco the attorney for the permit holder. you have three minutes sir. >> thank you and good evening. sorry for the apoorns appearance, the background (inaudible) basely all the questions raised were (inaudible) i did not hear the party addressing the main point, the standard for (inaudible) the extraordinary circumstances or any circumstances which prevented evidence not to be

heard originally or (inaudible) i did not hear any of that. we did discus the adu construction not the current construction. the transscript (inaudible) talking about the windows of the proposed units, the deck of the proposed unit and height and how (inaudible) the proposed adu will be filling in the (inaudible) as far as the points ms. ortega did not disclose in any particular way how the address or dedication of assignment of a street address for the unit was (inaudible) [difficulty hearing speaker due to interference] i dont know why the question was raised but it was not previously raised and there is no reason why it has to be discussed now. the height of the unit, the light issues and privacy concerns were all

addressed. the only thing in the reference to the existing building was addressed is that the existing building windows already look into both sides of backyards and not eliminate the privacy concern as raised. that was the reference made to the existing building on the capp street and that was in our-shown on both of the images submitted by the original brief and shown in the images i believe it was (inaudible) responding regional-for the may 18 hearing and it shows both sides. i hear mentioning about the neighbors, other neighbors are not moving for any position to our permit but just in case it shows that we see from those (inaudible) the frosting of the

light was also addressed. san francisco code is more strict in california code, it requires the natural light to be taken into consideration and from that alone even if a window would be frosted which was (inaudible) if it were frosted the windows would be open with the natural light (inaudible) >> that is time. thank you. >> thank you. we'll now hear from the planning department. >> good evening. tina tan deputy zoning administrator. this is a rehearing request of permit heard by the board may 18, 2022. as you may recall, the permit is construct a new 3 story detached accessory dwelling unit 1024 capp street with direct street access on

lilack street. the board voted 4-0 to deny the appeal and uphold the issuance of the permit. based upon the rehearing request ms. ortega restated light and privacy impact to the property. the issues are still about overall size of the new building and number of new windows facing on to her property. the permit believes there is no different material facts or circumstances where such facts or circumstances is known at the time of the hearing that effected the outcome of the original hearing. there is no manifest in justice the department ask the board deny this rehearing request. >> thank you. we have a question from president swig. >> just to be clear because i like to be fair to the public, we did discuss-i think i asked about adu and why is this-this is weird because of normally a

du is part of a existing building and you explained that to me and touched on that. we discussed the height of the adu and structure of the adu so that was handled. we discussed the windows facing and i believe there was conversation about the existing window and capp street. there is lots of stuff that looks in. i want to make sure i wasn't- >> that is all correct. >> i want to reassure the appellate that we have discussed everything and there is no evidence newly presented. >> that is true. >> thank you. >> thank you, we'll hear from department of building inspection. >> good evening president swig, vice president lazarus and commissioners. matthew green. i will short the permit application is for construction of new adu at the rear of the property 1024 capp street. the appellate questions the legal address is a new adu.

this would will be irrelevant (inaudible) dpi believes there is no new information presented and no manifest in justice and recommend denial of the rehearing request and available for any questions. >> okay, thank you. we'll move to public comment. is there anyone here to provide public comment on this item? these are people not affiliated with the parties. okay. i see hands raised. nick (inaudible) please go ahead. >> hi, i would like to say i'm a community organizer on the same block as the project in question and believe there is manifest in justice mainly based on information given by the brief of the respondents. i do believe there is issues with the brief. the appellate claim of privacy and

sunlight issue should be addressed whether you keep the vegetation so regardlessf othe vines light could be blocked all the adjacent properties and therefore a shadow assessment should be more deeply required especially considering the applicant didn't have the vines. it is adjacent property had issues receiving sufficient sunlight for whatever reason it should fall on the architect and planning commission to insure as much sunlight as possible can be afforded so the request for slope roof or lower adu i dont think is unreasonable. i also feel that the respandant claimed the building would give the appellate more privacy by blocking others from looking into the property over a open space. that implies there is a blockage so as sunlight goes up there will be blockage there the appellate has concerns about and the blockage that would be created would more occupant that would

look into the property and adjacent property. the existing of entry and exit on lilac (inaudible) temporary parking or loading zone will make it harder for residents who exit and enter garages to use lilack lic. this also means the respondents claim the recollect paing will not be adversely effected does not hold up. i don't think there was adequate community outreach in response to the mischaracterization of the mission district saying it was distressed and talking down on the art in lilac alley. therefore more-want to raise this. shows ignorance as to the knowledge of the district but what should be done is more outreach, more public comment and- >> thank you. your time is up. jeremy halter attending i announced you can't leave public comment in the chat. if you do it one more

time you removed from the meeting so please observe the rules of the meeting. we will move to the next person for public comment. nicky. please go ahead. you may-go ahead. >> hi. can you hear me? >> welcome, you have two minutes. >> i'm nicky long time resident of san francisco and community organizer based in the mission (inaudible) will be built. i support mr. monica orteg a appeal. claim not out of character (inaudible) denigrate the character of the neighborhood. [difficulty hearing speaker] features local gallery on gookal map making this mission district destination rather then eye sore. tourist frequent the area and exploring the culture (inaudible) further

3 story unit would reduce the privacy for the residents windows facing theirs where knun none exist now. (inaudible) therefore should fall on the architect and planning commission to insure as much sunlight is afforded. therefore this means the appellate request for slope roof or lower adu is not unreasonable. in addition, the existence of entry exit way on lilac street (inaudible) this make it harder for residents to enter exit the garage as a parking space through lilac including the appellate. this means the respondents claim parking will not be adversery effected does not hold up. furlther community outreach must be done in response to the mischaracterization of mission district and lilac alley and (inaudible) objection to the adu. the outreach and

public comment was done at beginning of pandemic and (inaudible) thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from keith pavlack please go ahead. >> thank you, i would like to speak to the neighbors in the properties adjoining to 1024 capp street. both which have objected to the development as it is proposed. the three story unit would reduce their privacy currently afforded them with windows facing theirs. due to elevation differential between property the proposed roof deck of the structure would rise 36 feet above one adjacent property. while the respandant claims no shadow or blocked light is result of east/west trajectory of the sun this would be so at the equator

during winter and summer months the sunlight is significantly impacted by the sun northerly or surtherly location and neighbors in both adjoining properties agree the structure would block their light and requested modification. the structure could additionally impact the value of their respective properties so we ask that your modifications be granted as the neighbors have asked for in the respondents brief and the appellates brief. thank you. >> thank you, we will hear from jeremy halster. please go ahead mr. hallster, you have two minutes. >> yes, i wanted to support the letter that was sent previously by coowner with regards to the height of the building. we don't object to the overall adu itself but we believe it is too

high and we had requested and believe the first draft of the building had shown a much lower structure. it will as mr. pavlock mentioned block light on both sides of the property so kindly request it be reconsidered. at present the building does not-the next door building is 1024 does not have access and cannot view our backyard, but the adu that is proposed will directly view into our backyards and will limit our privacy as well as our sunlight. my sincere apolicies with the issue of the chat before. >> no problem. thank you. we will hear from ann gamboni. please go ahead. you have two

minutes. ms. gamboni, please go ahead. i see we have something in the chat from nancy t. nancy t please go ahead. you may need to press star 6 to unmute yourself. nancy t, try pressing star 6. so you are not here for this item? okay, nancy t isn't here. we will try one more time for ann gamboni, ms. gamboni, please go ahead. i see you are unmuted. your hand is raised. can you send a message in the chat?

i'm not sure what the issue is. okay. should we move on from public comment? okay. okay. thank you. so, this concludes public comment. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> just remind the commissioners this is not a hearing for this, this is a rehearing request and this is subject to new information being submitted and any manifest in justice that may have occurred in the process of the last hearing so with that, commissioners, any comments or do i have a motion? >> i would move to deny the rehearing request on the basis there is no new information or manifest in justice. [roll call] >> that motion carries 4-0 and request denied. thank

you. we'll move to item 6. appeal number 22-038. tara habibi nancy taylor emily brown rebecca woods and kristana tor reano. subject property 1624 sacramento street. appealing issuance of april 26, 2022 to veritas inment. two accessory dwelling units to existing 15 building unit per ordinance 162-16 for total of 17 units. the 2 proposed units are located on the first floor. permit 2020/11/20/943. we will hear from the appellates first and believe brad hern is present representing the appellate. >> yes. >> okay, welcome. you have 7 minutes. >> okay, thank you. i will start and pass it to

ms. nancy taylor. thank you commissioners for hearing this tonight. brad hern housing rights committee of san francisco. i filed this appeal on behalf of the tenants at the property because the issue in agency in the case ddi is also actively investigating 9 act ive tenant complaints issued-put forth through dbi. four go back to april this year. in these complaints 9 complaints all currently active as of today, dbi is investigating management ability to oversee work in the building in a safe (inaudible) including management contractors on work that has been going on. the board should up hold the appeal. dbi should finish the investigation before issuing the permit and insure the landlord and contractors are

compliant with applicable codes which they have not been. a sampling of complaints, we have includes dbi attempting to get contractors to implement dust and debris mitigation going back to april 28, 2022. dbi attempting to get management contractor to comply with plumbing inspection before closing a wall. this is separate complaint. the number 202290114. the denial of this appeal if the board denies the appeal will restore a permit that allow the landlord to continue to engage in the correction practices while a member of the protected class resides in the buildsing close to the proposed site for the adu. under the board's jurisdiction and code

section 87 it is my argument the board cannot restore (inaudible) who resides ing the building. i will thank you for that. i will pass it to ms. taylor. >> can we pause the time? >> time is paused. >> is this nancy t? >> yes, nancy t. >> okay. nancy t, please go ahead. if you called in you may need to press star 6 to unmute but looks like she appeared via zoom. we can't hear you. maybe promote to panelist. i don't see

her. she is still- >> she isn't accepting the promotion. >> mr. hern, do you want to have her call in. >> she is on the phone, she is not on the zoom. >> what are the last 4 digits of the phone number? i think she joined by zoom and phone. nancy if you can put in the chat the last 4 digits of your number. mr. hern, do you have that information? >> her phone number?

>> the last 4 digits of her phone number. we only have two callers. >> 7500. >> she said 7500? okay. >> hello. can you hear me? >> yes, we can hear you. please go ahead. >> hi. thank you for patience (inaudible) i want to first of all thank the commissioners. thank you commissioner lazarus, chang, lopez and president swig. my name is nancy, i am calling you and know you are balancing many interests thanklessly so will try to be as consize as i can. (inaudible) 1624 sacramento urge you to read the comments submitted including video audio and (inaudible) building

inspection citation. there has been construction projects and building management here exacerbated the housing crisis and think the permit should be revoked by the city for this item and given probationary status until they can behave responsibly. i'm disabled with serious illness residing in protected class home which the commission knows it is presumed stable housing been here since the corporation rentsed it to me in 2020. i want to give a example of what my first day was which is what many people experienced here and why many vacated the (inaudible) apartment because of the damage in the apartments. i was told there is no construction. i was told the building was in excellent condition. the first morning in the apartment a person issued the key to enter the apartment while entering the shower. (inaudible) we were told there wasn't

construction going on. they have been using my apartment as a restroom. there is dirt and debris. the dishwasher was broken. a disabled tenant looking for stable housing and this is beyond what you can handle. it was (inaudible) one window didn't close. window neglected by property management and continue to do construction on every floor of the building including during fire season. that is day one. the last approved permit approved and still working on since january this year is also above my units and lead to construction debris (inaudible) dbi verified asbestos and lead paint chips. it neglected again for several months by the same property management which was doing other construction projects atop the floors. it

was neglected until the city came out twice and cited the corporation. they claimed the permit was approved february 22 with demolition start march 7 which city officials verified the permit was not approved. it want approved for month. it was approved april 26 and april 28. they were cited for the debris and construction debris. veritas lied to tenants who were under 2 years of non stop construction which the health department dbi (inaudible) reliable agses to water hot water turned off last week. there is something every week. power and basic housing prolonged and neglected while new construction began again and again on every floor. construction damages caused debris to fall into apapartments including from city approved rehabed apartments. this includes a construction crew and ceiling above are falling into

her apartment home and on her. it includes mice infestation, (inaudible) this is two years i have been here across all apartments when demolition began. it includes septic water from faulty construction to flood into multiple apartments and that is a complete as march 25 and also has in the past (inaudible) city approved rehabilitated apartment. this is how they treat the tenant who make financing the project possible and in contrast to general plan and purpose. i are want to make a clear point, any claim which is what they claim in it the analysis (inaudible) over 50 percent of the building has been vacant most of the past year. new 2021 tenant have quickly vacate the city approved renovated apartment due to poor

construction, (inaudible) retal tore building manager and every time the city cites them. 2 and 3 bedroom rent controlled housing has long been available in the building and veritas struggles to retain the renters. i are want to ask (inaudible) >> thank you your time is up. thank you. we have a question from president swig. >> i have a question to council for the lead person on this. we did not receive a brief from you, and i'll say this later for others who didn't put forth a brief. when a brief is not received by us we are in a real bad position because we have nothing to rely on to help us make a decision on your appeal. is there a reason that we did not receive a brief so that we are flying blind on this case? this is not to your benefit to not is a brief and but i like to know why did we not

receive any information, any brief because it sounds like there are significant issues here obviously. >> there are significant issues. i will take responsibility for the brief not being submitted. it was simply a miscalculation of timing and was not- >> okay, just understand that it puts you significant advantage because we were not allowed to prepare in the hearing of all this material for the first time and will do the best we can. thank you. >> thank you, we will hear from the permit holder, i believe mr. jamie mast ro, the permit holder representative is here. >> i'm here. >> you have seven minutes. >> yeah, i'm ing the same situation. i really love to address what seems

like issues that should be addressed. unfortunately there was no brief and i was not prepared to go through previous permits or construction issues on these previous permits. there are quite a lot of complaints that i see. it will take some time to go through it and figure out the status of these had complaints. i do know there has been a number of units remodels the building recently. that is something that as a architect i'm seeing a lot of because a lot of buildings had a large amount of vacancy during shelter in place, so a lot of landlords took advantage of the vacancies to update the apartments that maybe haven't seen updates for 50 years or so. yeah, i-this looks like there is a lot of permits that have been pulled. i dont know if that is highly unusual given

the age of the building and also the situation with just having those units vacant. i do understand construction can be frustrating. i do want to somehow address these issues. i know in the past when we had tenants not necessarily through this process bring up concerns about construction, we offered to have regular meetings with a representative. i actually have been the representative at times and had somebody you can call and get a answer within a certain period of time during the process as well. i love to address this again. i can't look at all of these complaints and do proper research in the middle of a meeting. >> thank you. you still have approximately 5 minutes. are you done with your

presentation? >> yeah, unnorchinately i'm not able to address the issue because there doesn't seem to be a issue with this permit specifically, it seems to be a issue with construction on other permits and a concern that these issues may continue on this permit. i can offer on this permit to set up regular meetings and give the tenants or even neighbors a phone number they can reach somebody with a guaranteed time they will get back to you and like i said, frequent meetings so you can talk about these things. i have done this before with other projects. that is something we can offer. >> okay, thank you. we have a question from president swig. >> so, i understand you're the architect, you are not

the hands on person or the principal, correct? >> i am not sure what you mean by principalf had >> you are not the owner or fiduciary? >> no. >> you are not the person paying the bills you are doing billing to provide a service is what i'm getting at. >> yep. >> is there a principal owner the actual permit holder participating in the meeting today? >> no, but i'm representing them. >> i understand that but you just told me rightfully so couldn't address because there is no brief some of the things that are addressed so that is fine. thank you very much. >> thank you. we'll hear from the planning department. >> thank you, tina tam from the planning department. 1624 sacramento street is is a 4 story 15 unit apartment

building in the rm3 residential mix medium density zoning district. constructed in 1908 the property is potential historic resource. the permit is to convert under utilized storage space and laundry room on the ground floor into 2 accessory developing units resulting in a change from 15 to 17 dwelling units on the property. no expansion to the existingbleding envelope is proposed. trash bins relocated and new laundry room created as part of the project. the project did receive zoning administrative wage. the project meets planning code requirements. the appellate or tenants are in the building and concerns have little to do with the 2 new adu and more to do with the safety and housing conditions of the existing tenants. the appellates notes thrd is water infillitation, flooding, sewer leakage,

excessive debris and noise and disruption during construction. while this is serious issue by the city and should be addressed by housing inspection they are not related to the proposed adu from a planning code perspective. the permit was properly reviewed approved and issued and the planning department asked the board deny the appeal and uphold the issuance of the permit. >> thank you. i i don't see any questions. we'll hear from department of building inspection. >> goods evening. matthew green representing department of building inspection. permit application 20 twen 11209423 to add 2 accessory dwelling units to 15 unit building units added within the existing building envelope with no inkbation required. after planning approval dbi began review december 16, 2020. the application revaued and approved by the dbi sections

and city agencies. the permit application was approved issued april 26, 2022. there are several current active permits renovating existing yunlts. the renovations have been proceeding and obtained the proper field inspections from dbi. dbi received 38 complaints mostly anonymous since march 10, 2022. many complaints were duplicates. these complaints included compaints tohousing service, electrical (inaudible) these complaints were investigated by the appropriate staff. there is one active notice of violation currently. the notice of violation addresses lose paint chips and plaster in the rear yard. this is for the housing inspection division which enforce the requirements associated with maintenance and disturbing lead base paints. i started my career at housing and happy to answer

any questions you might have lead based paint requirements. i'm sure living in a buildsing with ongoing construction can be unpleasant dbi believes this permit application was approved and issued properly and as such we recommend the permit be uphold. we will continue to investigate further questions-sorry, any further complaints by the tenants and i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. we have a question from president swig. >> sure. you are operating in the same void we. you didn't get a brief and don't have list of complaints. >> i did review the complaints- >> let me finish. i understand you have advantage over me because you have a list of complaints that have been filed and we verbally heard a little laundry list of complaints which i take very seriously and sure my fellow commissioners take very seriously. but not sure this is the right place to discuss those. because we are

focused on a permit for an adu and complaints about previous construction don't impact a permit undur discussion, correct? >> correct. >> i want to make that clear to the appellate. i like to get-everybody to get educated on what can be done in fact if there are these issues. we had a laundry list here of water problems, rat problems, intrusion by construction workers. it sounds like a pretty awful place to live while there is alleged mismanaged construction going on. might fair making that statement. so, what happens when-what should these tenants be doing? this is i believe the wrong forum for this because we are talking about adu and new permit, but we have

had situations here before where construction management has been shall we say lack luster or there has been complaints filed by residents. can you please advice this commission and therefore the public and are therefore the appellates what is the proper way to get these problems addressed so they can get satisfaction so they can get their lives back? >> sure. the department of building inspection has four separate section divisions housing inspection division, which would respond to any complaints concerning maintenance of the building. they are also responsible for enforcing the lead base paint practice ordinance. we have electrical inspection division, which will investigate any complaints about the electric work. plumbing

inspection investigate plumb work and building inspection investigate complaints concerning the building permit. like i said we received 38 8 complaints since march 10 and investigated all of them and only one resulted in notice of violation. (inaudible) there hasn't been update on that yet. we have pretty strict codes about how to contain the work degree disturbing lead base paint. it seems to be a concern of the appellate. the building code presumes any building built before 1979 has lead base paint unless the property owners decide to have it tested so operate under the (inaudible) any work disturbing the lead base paint the neighbors should be notified prior to the work

starting, notification on thefront of the building, supposed to be containment set up keeping the work debris inside the work area. supposed to clean up the work area the end of each day. like i said, once we see the complaints we respond and investigate. >> we had 38 complaints where there is smoke there is generally fire even though you haven't filed notice of violation. at a certain point with any building not this building don't want to target this building, when there seems to be a chronic issue does dbi have any way to red flag a particular building and pay especially attention to be proactive about stopping the flood every punt intended, of complainths? >> the complaints are allegations. >> exactly. >> confirm they are

violations. if we confirm there is a violation. like i said a lot of complaints are duplicate. a lot are anonymous. we make more difficult to follow up. building is on the radar. >> that is where i'm getting at. on the radar. thanks a lot. i think there is somebody else who has a question. >> yes, commissioner lopez. >> i are think related question for me, if this is also partially for my own edification, but if a complaint were to result in notice of violation, particularly if it was a serious violation that could threaten the health and safety of current residents, is there a process by which other permit applications from the same permit holder at the same property would be disrupted by that existing violation or what

does that look like? >> so, if we are investigating a complaint and the complaint is work beyond of the scope of the permit, it egregious, we could issue stop work order having them get proper permits for the work that they intend to do or revert back to the way it was approved. maintenance issues generally given like issues here are given 30 days to comply. if they don'ts comply the next step is to move to code enforcement process. have a hearing for notice of abatement. next step after order of abatement may go to city attorney office for litigation. we also are the option to refer the property to franchise tax board. the building is still not in compliance after 180 days the building is considered substandard and the property owners are not allowed

to expense-on the taxes are not allowed to write off expenses. none of the complaints here have gone to that stage yet. >> thank you. >> president swig, did you have another question? >> no. >> thank you. we'll move to public comment. is there anyone here to provide public comment on the item? please raise your hand. don't see hands raised so move to rebuttal. mr. hern, you have three minutes. >> want to ask the board for a concontinueiance to allow dbi to complete investigation of open complaints. again, section 87 of the admin code, this is detrimental to protected class this development then it is within the jurisdiction of this board to insure that a

permit does not allow the landlord to move forward with the work. that has been established. that is very clear who is impacted and the section of the admin code. i take responsibility for the brief not getting in. i understand that and in terms of the existing work and the connection with the proposed work is absolutely reasonable to assume if this landlord and the contractors cannot perform work on remodeled units in safe effective healthy way that practice would continue with any future project that is more complicated as a adu project so the two are not separate, they are part of a overall issue with how construction in the building is done and it is not

reasonable to isolate these as each permit is somehow not part of a whole. again, we at least ask for continuing. dbi is investigating the practices and does not make sense to allow the landlord to continue in the same vain and rack up more complaints on a more ambitious project for building adu while practices are in question. thank you. >> are you finished? okay. thank you. we'll hear from ms. mastro, agent for the permit holder. you have three minutes. >> so, i have had a little bit of time and also thank you for dbi having all the cases ready to talk about and i do want to point out and (inaudible) which is that complaints should be taken seriously but

they are essentially allegations until somebody has gone out and confirmed a condition. so, i think that you can make 38 complaints but that doesn't necessarily mean you have 38 instances of wrong-doing. i definitely have seen situations tenants may have misunderstood what was supposed to happen on a certain day and sometimes there is miscommunication. that can happen too. but the point is that sometimes people will make a complaint for something that isn't really a violation. it is just something they misunderstood or they feel the construction is too loud at a certain hour but it is within reasonable levels jest maybe didn't understand it will be that loud. i want to address the concerns

but don't think it is the rights place to do it. i would be happy to set up a etmooing with the tenants and maybe somebody they can get in contact quickly if they have questions during the construction process. i also like to point out the building is 15 units going to 17 units. it will now be required to have a resident manager which would presumably help the situation even if all it is is misunderstanding or not understanding what is happening on the day or whatever it is, it would help the communication. it could actually improve future permits for things not related to the adu. that's all i have to say. thanks. >> thank you. anything further from the planning department? thank you. dbi?

>> matthew green department of building inspection. we are investigating these complaints. building inspector has gone out and written down that several of the complaints are okay to close. just reluctant to close them because more complaints keep coming in. we just got one this morning, so the idea that we are not investigating these complaints is inaccurate. we are investigating them and there is 38 complaints since march 10 and one notice of violation. er thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted and president swig i believe vice president lazarus has her hand up and like to speak. >> great. commissioner lazarus. >> thank you. sorry not to be there. i completely understand the situation that these tenants are in but i think it is critically important to separate those from this permit. i heard nothing that suggest to me this permit was not properly issued. i don't

think a continueiance is warranted oen the basis of assumption because there potentially have been violations in the past there will continue. i believe the building department addressed the proper route for dealing with those issues and i for one would deny the appeal. >> i would support commissioner lazarus direction. we are talking about a issuance of permit for a adu. the planning department testified that this complies with what it takes to do adu. the issues of unhappy tenants, this is not the forum for that. again, 38-where there is smoke there is fire and i would absolutely not doubt that there is some problems in that building and i would recommend the building owner take more aggressive

proactive steps to make their customers happy and satisfy those customers because i have a sneaking suspicion if they don't mr. green and his department will be very very busy and as he said, you are on their radar screen and so it is just better to keep the customers happy. but, that has nothing to do with this hearing today and therefore i would support commissioner lazarus direction on that. anybody-is that motion commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal on the basis the permit was properly issued? >> if there is no other discussion i would make the motion. >> any other discussion from the commissioners? commissioner chang. >> no just echo everything you just said. >> okay. we have a motion from vice president lazarus to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued.

[roll call] >> that motion carries 4-0 and appeal is denied. we are moving to item 7. this is appeal 22-36. biana chic man and len freedman. 4221 cesar chavez street. appealing the issuance of april 18, 2022 to kalpana and adam ettenson of site permit remodel and addition to existing building new unit addition on first floor aadditional square footage and decks added to the second third and 4th floor with bathroom said kitchen and windows. we will hear from the appellates first. welcome, you have 7 minutes. we won't start the time until you are set up.

sfgovtv, i think we need the laptop. [echo]

>> you want me to test it? sounds okay now but i don't see the presentation up. okay, there it is. now we are back with the echo. [echo]

[trying to resolve echo problem]

>> >>

[trying to resolve echo problem] >> thank you alec. we

appreciate it. [echo continues] i don't believe we had anyone share on the laptop before in the room. is it working now? okay. please go ahead. thank you. >> my name is bianna shikhman and this is len freedman. thank you for taking the time to see us. we are hear for the appeal for the permit at 4221 cesar chavez for overview for the appeal for the board. the planning documents were not previously reviewed.

the respondents brief is intentionally misleading. the appellate made good faith efforts to avoid the appeals process. the appellates have future plans for our property and the design guidelines recognize basic needs for privacy. the respondent has reasonable options available to them. in terms of the planning documents not previously reviewed thep application discussed by parties in 2015 but no specific design reviewed. appellates have no record receiving the final plans for review. the same concerns would have existed for the plans at that time if they were understood as today and we have no objection with the size and shape of the proposed expansion only the

enormous amount of windows on the side wall facing the property. the brief is misleading. the respondents brief is misleading and incorrect statements of the case that attempt to distract from the fair and reasonable concerns of the appellate. all most entirety of the respandant brief is incorrect including the highlighted statements with corrections in red after each point. fail to file a brief and complete ly fail to submit any written or documentary evidence in support of the appeal perfectly demonstrate for the board no basis exist to support the appellates fribilous appeal. the appeal was required as the respondent were unwilling to address the appellate concern before the deadline for the appeal was reached. the proposal does not present reasonable impact on the appellates considering that the proposed plan has increase from 4 windowings the

appellate property to 24 windows is a understatement. appellates never specified how there is greater concern for their privacy then that of the ettenson family. the appellate suggest that privacy should be equal concern of both families as 24 windows 5 feet away facing each other allows for very little privacy for either sets of residents. if the appellates are concerned about privacy they will welcome landscaping on the property line or erect specific privacy screens. the appellates welcome such measures at the ground level. it remains a mystery what landscaping would apply in a narrow space at height over 10 feet. the appeal was filed for the purpose of delay and leverage so the appellates could request the ettenson family provide approval of some future unspecified project that the appellates may submit. the appellates principal concern the request for

approval of future development comes from the appellate belief the respondent realize once completed that 24 windows facing a few feet away at potential set of windows is not ideal. it increase the unit density at the site closer to the maximum allowed under zoning but still consistent with character. we agree and support the increase in unit density however not in character to have more then a few wingdoes directly facing adjoining proper. typical san francisco buildings may share a handful of windows or light wall, 24 windows facing within a few feet of adjoining property is not consistent with similar properties in this neighborhood. appellate made good faith effort to avoid the appeal process by working with the respondent and the

architect. phone calls and design changes discused to address concerns. the appellates were willing to work out an agreement with the need for working through-without the need for working through city agency. the respondents and or architect were either too slow and or reluctant to make adjustment in time to avoid the appeal deadline. appellates future residents plan. the appellate rejects the respondent attempt to classify them as absentee landlord we are neither absentee or landlords. this is home we purchased for ourselves at the time we were married. the appellates represent three generations of families in san francisco with two sets of grandparents in the 70 and 80 residing in san francisco. one set of grandparents under threat of eviction and 3 children in san francisco schools. some combination of families are likely to reside at the location in the future which provides more

then adequate reason for us to have concerns about issues of privacy. in the respondent brief they state their new unit could accommodate adam and laura 84 year old mother to allow her to be close to children and grandmother. cood as a qualifier is a shameless attempt to pull at heart strijs without the strew intent. the san francisco planning design and guidelines. the guidelines recognize the need for privacy. the portion in the design guidelines there may be special (inaudible) the guidelines go to state in the situations the following design modifications can minimize impact on privacy other modifications may be appropriate depending on the circumstances of a particular project. incorporate landscaping and privacy screens

into the proposal. appears challenging as heights above ground level. use soliderallying ong deck, not applicable. develop window configuration thats break the line of sight. this is part of the dialogue taking place between us as neighbors before we got here. respondent has reasonable options. these are the plans that the respandant had provided us with a revised window sketch we were in the processf onegotiating. this is theing east elevation of the property with 4 windows. this is the proposed east elevation of the property with 24 windows. >> thank you your time is up. you will have more time in rebuttal but we have is a question from president swig. >> yes, as with the previous hearing, you did not provide a brief just as i said in the previous hearing and

when we don't get a brief we are flying blind and it doesn't serve you well, and is there a reason you did not file a brief in a timely fashion? >> we are not professional objectors to development. we are pro-development. i have resided in san francisco for 40 years- >> simply you didn't engage counsel and respond and file a brief. >> (inaudible) >> okay. just so you should know, it is really hard to come into a court room, which this is, without being given the opportunity to prepare. it places us at disadvantage and yourselves at disadvantage and we'll do the best we can but not receiving a brief is really tough. we are hearing this for the first time and heard one side and wasn't yours.

thank you. >> understood. we actually tried to reach out and provide a brief buts we were past it deadline. >> yeah, it is fine. thank you. just want to notice that. >> thank you. we'll now hear-you can be seated. thank you. we will now hear from mr. williams the attorney for the permit holders. welcome, you have 7 minutes. >> thank you. good evening president swig, vice president members of the board. steve williams and represent the ettenson family. (inaudible) live in unit number 2 and adam's sister laura lives in unit 1. not only does it make it difficult on the board to understand without a brief or any of the arguments you just been thrown in front of you, it is fundamentally

unfair and stands the appeal process ong the head by making us respond on the spot to these wild allegations that are in small print thrown up on a screen never provided before. this is a very simple project. one of the purposes of the project is to add the third unit at the garden level which one day might serve as a home for adam and laura's mother. a project to expand and ren vaitd a true pan family homes. they owned this home more then 20years. it is a good project. well vetted. couldn't understand the allegations thrown out that planning didn't see the different papers or plans or applications for this project. indeed, it has been well vetted. it was originally proposed in 2015 and not challenged and fully

approved in 2017 and not challenged. even though it was fully approved without objection from the same absentee landlords who do not live at the site, they have tenants there so didn't understand that part of the presentation either. the project went forward without objection. the project is fully code compliant adds additional housing unit and tell you the truth in the 30 years i have been appearing in front of this board never had a case where the appellate didn't file a brief. never had to show up and sort of wing it and address arguments that appear on a fleeting screen and disappear. it is clear that the appellates have provided zero evidence. they provided some argument, but they provided zero evidence that any error appeared below at building or planning. any error that might

warrant granting this appeal. the project was fully vetted by planning, satisfies all the residential design guidelines. the original project was discuss ed with the neighbors. they were given the original plans back in 2015. the 311 notice wnt out february 2016 and expired saint patrick's day 2016. dbi fully approved the project july 2017. the ettenson family was for their own personal reasons decided to hold up doing it in 2017 when it was approved but decided to revisit it this year in 2022. neighborhood notification went out march 20, 2022. they found out that the permits had not expired so they paid the $8 thousand in fees and the permit was reinstated. they informed the neighbors march 22 about

this project. they were told there were no changes to prior approved plans and again forward a set of plans to the neighbors. goes back and forth about possible meetings. they participated in a group zoom call on april 4. april 7 and 8 arny seelander the architect offered to meet with the appellates at the site. adam provided 3 dates and times for calls or meetings, no response. you saw the drawing that they put up of a different window configuration. this was in response to concerns they had provided to them may 2. there is still no response to that alternative window configuration. i believe an e-mail they sent was weeks after on april 25, but the issues that were discussed

regarding the windows, the sponsors are satisfied with the window configuration approved by building and planning. they also proposed a alternative window configuration to reduce the windows and or provide some sort of different look in the windows. the recollect architect is here and drew it up as a alternative and can answer any questions you may have. again, they didn't respond. i don't understand fully it the privacy concerns because we haven't been given perspectives how the new windows wouldn't be just as sus ceptable to privacy concerns as the existing windows for the neighbors. i heard the bore board over the years say buy curtains and don't understand how the purchase and hanging of curtains couldn't probably solve most of the appellate's perceived problems with privacy. deny this

appeal. it is without merit. there is no evidence to support it. vague references to privacy are not sufficient to justify granting an appeal. there is no evidence what so ever, no proof provided any of error below the residential design guidelines as i pointed out in the brief do not call for removal of windows they call for screening such as curtain or landscaping or other means but no part say remove the windows because somebody fears their privacy might be invaded. there is no error by planning or dbi. the project was vetted 6 or 7 years ago and just recently vetted and reviewed again and reissued, so that's all i have. i'm hear for questions. the architect is here and memberoffs s of the family are here. i understand

members of the zoom are ong. >> thank you we have a question from president swig. >> don't do it now because i don't want to waste time for you to find the drawings, but all we have been presented tonight are the drawings from the appellate in the presentation of the windows. in your rebuttal could you show the two options for the windows unless dbi or planning has them in advance of your rebuttal testimony? thanks very much. >> okay. >> thank you. we'll hear from the planning department. >> thank you. tina tang once again from the planning department. 4221 cesar chavez is 4 story r1. constructed in

1912 the property is potential historic resource. the permit is construct a new 4 story rare horizontal extension. the permit also includes the addition of 1 new dwelling unit resulting in a change from 2 to 3 units on the property. the appellate is adjacent neighbor to the east. the concerns raised in the appeal application include privacy impact from the new windows facing east. while there are new windows proposed along the east facing facade, these windows are set back 5 feet 2 inches from the side property line and will not create a unusual or extraordinary circumstance in the neighborhood. side facing windows are common throughout the city. in fact the appellate has side facing windows including one on the property line on their property as well. the permit was properly reviewed by the department design team and determined to be

compatible with existing character of the neighborhood. the permit also wnt through a 311 process and no dr filed during the notification period. the project complies with planning code and design guidelines and as such the department ask the board deny the appeal and up hold the issuance of the permit. >> thank you. we have a question from president swig. >> there was testimony that there were two options for the windows. would you bring in your testimony. what were the two options and which option did or did planning deviate from the originally presented option or were there two options or tell us about the window s because that seem ed to be the big conversation point here. >> thank you. i'm not aware of

a alternative design plan for the windows. all i have is the plans stamped by planning back in 2016 and 2017. >> okay. that's fine. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from department of building inspection. >> good evening again, matthew green representing department of building inspection. permit application 201510200305 is site permit to remodel expand existing two unit building in addition to the expansion the permit is also for the addition of one more dwelling yunlts. after approval by planning the application resulted to plan check april 7, 2016. after review by dbi and relevant city agencies the permit approved july 26, 2017. the application apparently sat for a while. a notice of cancellationsent on april 6, 2018. the applicant payed the extension

fees. a second cancellation letter sent april 8 this year, tension fees paid and permit issued april 18, 2022. i pleev believe there is a total of 6 extension. that is a lot of extensions. the building code allows each extension limit to 360 days for a project of this valuation. you may be interested to know the department recently changed the policy to not allow more then one extension on any given permit application without a compelling reason for additional extension. new policy instituteed shortly after this permit issued. the change of policy was unrelated to this specific application. the department believes this application was reviewed and approved and issued properly under the policy and recommend upholding the urmt p. this is site permit. construction agenda will be required to be submitted and approved prior to

work beginning. available for questions. >> thank you, we have a question from president swig. okay. thank you. no questions. we are moving to public comment. is there anyone here for public comment? please raise your hand. i don't see any public comment so we'll move to rebuttal. we'll hear from the appellates. you have 3 minutes. >> president swig- >> if you can speak into the microphone, please. thank you. >> president swig to your question earlier about the second set of drawings, if you are-if we are able to pull up the presentation, we were provided by the ettenson family architect the attached drawing on may 2, 2022 with revised window plan. we were in the process of discussing this to which we communicated to them that we felt there was

a more reasonable window plan then what was submitted which was this. [echo] at the back of the property close to the south facing wall be removed so the windows x out in the image are the ask those windows be removed so that it may have a bit more privacy then what was originally submitted. >> the image of the reduced windows was provided by their architect and we were coming to an agreement until he said in the e-mail we have-we will give you the revised windows in exchange for the topping up of

the property. >> here is the e-mail. he says in return for the window reduction, we would like assurance you will not object to our flattening of the old roof which is not something that theycurrently have approval- >> when we said it is not in the plans they said it will be in the future plans and that's when this negotiation stopped and we received the lawyer letter. we did everything in good faith and we were under the impression that we were coming to an agreement. >> in fact here isen a e-mail from june 7 from the property owner acknowledging the call a few days before where we asked if the two issues be separated. we address the issue of the windows first and deal with flattening of the roof separately. we were trying to avoid having to be here before you. we lived next to them for

14 years. >> raised our kids. >> raised our kids. we had a good neighborly relationship. [echo] this is not the route that i like to be going down with them. >> [unable to understand speaker due to echo] we were under the impression we were moving towards agreement until we received the e-mail that said in exchange for flattening of the roof and (inaudible) >> (inaudible) >> thank you. your time is up. i don't see questions at this time so you can be seated and we'll now hear from mr. williams. >> thank you. steve williams again. the approved

plans with no configuration is found on sheet a-5. if i can have the overhead, please. so, that's the approved window configuration. the alternative window configuration was something drawn up by the architect and provided to them as a concession to try to get them to drop the appeal to try to get them to come to agreement. they still never responded. may 2 this was provided. before the appeal was filed. here we are 6, 8 weeks later and they are still in the process of reviewing and responding. here's the alternative provided. as i put in the brief, they sort of stood this on its head. they who brought up a unspecified phantom project they wanted blanket approval for for the future to the ettenson in exchange for

withdrawing the appeal or not filing the appeal. made a number of request like that. what earny suggested here was flattening of this gabled roof to create more interior space without making the building any larger. it may be something that planning wouldn't require a new 311 for and that was what they were asking about. it was never conditioned. if they would have accepted this alternative configuration and not filed an appeal then we wouldn't be here tonight. again, to not support your appeal in any manner and not provide any evidence what so ever of a error by planning or building means the appeal must be denied. and that's what we have tonight is appeal by ambush. show up and rattle off a bunch of things and flash things on the screen

and say this happened or that happened or have e-mail. i have a bunch of different e-mails where my clients are asking for meetings, asking to meet on site and no responses for weeks on end. when they ran out of time it was because they were non responsive. i think that the board has to let the consequences fall where they are supposed to fall when appellate fails to meet the threshold to support the appeal and that's exactly what we have here. no evidence what so ever. mere argument. there is nothing in the record to support the appeal and as he said my clients proposed this to avoid this whole process and satisfied with either window configuration to tell you the truth. deny the appeal, please. >> thank you. we will hear from the planning

department. any further? okay. dbi, anything further? commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> i'll ask commissioner lazarus if since i can't see her, whether she has any comments first before asking the other commissioners. >> thank you. again, i appreciate that. part of me wants to consider a continuance to see if these parties can sit down together and iron out their differences. there seem to be options. not sure i want to be the one to impossess one or the other so i want to toss that out as a option to consider, but i'm open to other possibilities. >> commissioner-any other commissioner? >> thank you president swig. i like that suggestion. it seems like the appellates were trying to negotiate in good faith and

it seemed there are a couple options on the table and seems it is a little more time might be helpful reaching that agreement. >> point of information. >> sorry? >> point of information. >> okay. >> if we do that and find ourselves back in this room would the appellates have a opportunity to brief at that point? >> it is up to the commissioners to allow whether or not you want to allow further briefing. usually sometimes 3 pages are permitted. >> i would say in this situation we would be doing a big huge favor to an appellate who did not supply a brief who seemed to be unresponsive and had every opportunity in the world to get this done before. sorry for being so aggressive with you appellates, but at the same time i would go along with

a decision tonight. but with the caveat we are either going to see a settlement based on the windows, no new information. we got it narrowed down to something tight. if they come to agreement so be it. that takes about 1 minute, 1 page. if they can't come to agreement they have to live with each other as naich neighbors for the rest of time so give the advice especially when they are families that live next to each other. you have to live with each other so be sweet. if you can. it is tough. answer your question i expect if we allow them to come back 1 page did you do the windows or not, no new information, let's move on so hope that answers your-that would be my direction. >> i understand. i

wouldn't support-that was the reason for the question is i wouldn't be supportive of restarting everything. >> yeah. >> i think it looks like we are leading that way. i would support that, continuance given the fact there has been communication and there is the history of living together or side by side, but i do think it would be with understanding that if a deal cant be reached and we end up in this room again the briefing and the facts as they stand today dont support the appeal from my perspective. >> i would agree with you completely, but i would have the flexibility to support the option of hearing one more session if the other two commissioners want to go in that direction.

>> vice president lazarus has futher comments. >> okay. >> you are on mute vice president lazarus. we still can't hear you. >> okay. thank you. sorry. question for ms. tam, which is simply, if they decided to change the window configuration is there implication as far as planning is concerned? >> planning department. it would require revision to the permit. it would require another review by planning, but there wouldn't be a need for neighborhood notification. there is going to be a cycle of review that goes back to planning. >> okay. i think you answered my question then that we would have to-this would have to come back because if they

agree on a change we have to grant the appeal and approve revised permit, correct? >> i believe so. >> okay. that isn't quite your area but thank you. >> you want to make a motion commissioner lazarus? >> sure. so, i will move to continue this item. we need a date for bringing it back? >> we can put this on the july 6 or july 20 calendar. are the parties available july 6? >> i would prefer july 6 because by doing this we are- >> the permit holder isn't available. >> permit holder isn't available. then they are choosing their own-if you to move back 2 more weeks that is your distress. >> july 20, does that work? okay. is it permissible for him to speak?

>> ms. williams-hu? >> it is just on schedule. >> just on schedule. it is really--you all got to come back. right now what you heard from commissioner lopez and myself is we don't have a problem moving forward today but have two commissioners willing to hear and compromise to move this to a later date. but, so the longer-we'll do that probably, and that places your permit holder at a disadvantage because it pushes back the beginning of a project further if that-i don't want it to happen to me so your choice to push back as far as you want. it isn't affecting the appellate. >> if there is a date sooner. >> we dont have a

hearing. >> i am camping july 6. i'm available on the 20. >> stay out of the poison ivy. july 20? >> the next date-you have your attorney representing you, but the next date after that would be-let me see- would be the 27. thank you. july 27. right. i think they know that. i think someone is camping and someone isn't available. >> august? we can push back. >> july 27. the appellate isn't effected by this. it is your project. do you want your project to move forward? 20. fine. >> okay. okay. so, do we have a motion from

commissioner lazarus to continue this matter to-vice president lazarus to continue to july 20 so the parties have time to work on resolution? >> yes. i don't want if we want to specify what would be submitted. i would suggest we just see what revisions if any are made to the permit. no additional briefing beiand that. >> and can we restrict to the discussion on the windows since that seems to be the only thing discussed today? >> i wouldn't necessarily if they decide they want to do something else that is fine with me as long as they reach an agreement. and permissible by planning and works for bulding. >> president swig recommended one page? >> yeah. >> that fine with everyone? okay. we have a motion from vice president lazarus to continue the item to july 20 to allow the parties to

have further discussions on potential revisions to the permit specifically the windows and on that motion- [roll call] >> as specified as part of the motion the parties can submit a 1 page double space brief. you want to allow exhibits or just one page? >> one page plus. >> one page plus exhibits the briefs are due thursday prior to the hearing. we are now moving to item 8. appeal 22-032. brett mart y andrea hutchinson and gemma cohen.

719-721-723 baker street. appealing the issuance on april 4, 2022, to robert bernhard, of an alteration permit (voluntary replacement of existing post and beam system at ground floor). permit no. 2022/03/25/0932. we will hear from the attorney for the appellates. welcome you have 7 minutes. >> (inaudible) >> we won't start the time till you are ready. hopefully we won't have a echo. >> there is a technical issue here.

>> sfgovtv, thank you we will take a 5 [meeting resumed] >> welcome back to regular meeting of board of appeals. today is june 15, 2020. we are on item 8. brett marty andria hutchinson and gemma cohen 719-721-723 baker street. appealing the issuance on april 4, 2022, to robert bernhard, of an alteration permit (voluntary replacement of existing post and beam system at ground floor). permit no. 2022/03/25/0932. before we start the time (inaudible) >> good afternoon. i submitted

this afternoon a declaration from an engineer named jeremy gold to supplement his earlier declaration. based upon information we did not have before when we submitted our brief. it is based upon a photograph that were submitted in support of the response to our brief and so we ask that this be accepted so that i can go through quickly all the information that is provided to show that the dwellings that and planned submitted on behalf of the respandants do not adequately show what is actually on site and it also will show what's missing from the drawings but this board can make a good determination whether to allow the current permit to be approved and closed. >> i understand your

position. first of all, against bord rules. second of all, does no good because we can't prepare any further. we are in the midst of testimony so i suggest is that you present your document as part of your testimony. that's all we can accept. we will accept the testimony but won't accept the document, it just too late. >> i will do so thank you. it is a little unwieldy because i think alex has to flip through. >> okay. alex do you want to pull up the document, please? and then you can direct him what page you want to go to. i understand you have it in front of you. it also will be shown up on the screen. >> to remind if you run out of time- >> could you give-did you provide this to the permit holder? the declaration? >> yes, she was on the

e-mail. >> okay. >> how do i get- >> overhead. one thing at a time. [multiple speakers] >> if you want to share the screen say share screen. >> wait a moment and share photos and then the declaration. >> okay. let us know when you are ready. >> one minute. okay. >> thank you. please go ahead. >> good afternoon president swig, members of the board. we are requesting the

board of appeals direct the dbi to not final approval to the permit until after the structural plans are properly drawn and also that the remodel work is done pursuant to the plans that are drawn and what we hope to be modified plans. there are three primary arguments that we submit. there is not a preexisting structure that this new structure can be based upon. it was a structure put in by unlicensed contractor in 2009 done with no permit inspection or sign off. the unlicensed contractor at the time drumented the porch structure it is holding up is

sagging and that the sagging is not being resolved or remedied by the current structure that has been put in. current structure per the terms of the respondent's brief is not meant to do anything to effect and preclude the porch structure from sagging further. the evidence will show through the declaration that will have to go through with your-will show that the porch is actually sagging and it is a 4 story structure that is being held up, basically on pins and needles. like to show in the over-head. a

photograph of the original structure. >> please speak into the microphone, because nobody can hear you. >> this is a photograph that was attached to respandant brief of the original structure that shows three beams on three piers. if you look at thefront pier you will see a space underneath basically floating in air. i have a enlargement of that photo, is and you can see it is not embedded into the cement. you now have a photo that shows-this is also in the brief in the respondent's brief. this is the current structure. it shows

tie-downs and straps. these straps are not the straps that are in the plans or the-that was submitted by respondants. looking at-in the first pier-dont know if you can see-first pier, that was the pier that was floating in the air. at this time, it is buried deeper then the other piers. what you got is this is a picture of the first pier that shows it is (inaudible) high above cement grade. the other piers are-don't know if this can be seen properly. the other piers are 4

inches high. what happened is the pier has been sunk and the foundation has been changed but that is not what is shown in the plans. felt page 2 of the plans submitted by respondents and you look at what shows as the existing and the proposed plans all of the piers are drawn to appear as if they are the same height. they are not. they have been dropped down and there is no indication that there is a foundation of any kind underneath them, other then dirt. they are put into unreinforced cement and they have no support for

the above 3 floors of porches, so the plans are inadequate. they don't detail the foundation and they don't show that there's sufficient support which that's the function of this support structure, and in the response what you have is a sinking corner and downward movement that is not acknowledged that that's what is going on in the porches above. so, what we are asking is that dbi reinspect, go out and take a look and then ask that the dbi require new plans be drawn up and that the

construction be put in-line with the plans. i will save for my rebuttal the reading from mr. gold's testimony into the record. i thank you for your time. >> thank you. we have a question from president swig. >> so, fundamentally with regard to what is being asked to be constructed your issue isn't what is asked to be constructed, it is really that what is being asked to be constructed is basically on metaphorically clay? it may be illegal, it may be dangerous, but the what is to be constructed is not what you are opposing, but rather

the safety issues due to the piers you showed? i just want to get some clarity on what the basis of your appeal is. >> okay. it is kind of multi-level. we want a safe structure. >> yes. >> that is paramount. the structure that is there at this time is not sufficient. if it was made sufficient, no complaint, but on several levels it doesn't show-doesn't have support for the structure above it, which is obviously coming down in degrees and we dont want it to fall in the event of earthquake or some other disaster. >> again, if everything was in your-if we were sitting here

and those piers were in your eyes appropriate, if the infrastructure to support the new structure was appropriate and safe then you would have no problems with this, this is just what this is being built upon? >> yes, no real foundation there so yes. >> okay. thank you. >> okay, thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder, i believe mr. stanley riddle is present. the attorney for the permit holder present on zoom. mr. riddle. >> can you hear me? >> yes, we can. we can't see you, but we can hear you. >> i apologize for not being there, i tested positive for covid monday night and not (inaudible) >> did you want the video on or no? >> because my video is only showing up that, so--i think i'll pass. i can

speak clearly. >> okay. >> president swig, i heard you say twice this evening in prior cases where there is smoke there is fire. i'm 68 years old and my life experience tells me frequently where there is smoke you should check for a (inaudible) that is purely what the appellates have presented here. it is a disjointed argument that really makes no sense and i apologize to the board of appeals what i'm about to say is all gone from the department of building inspection's permit information services available online to the public. the permit that is being appealed here today was issued according to that service on april 4, 2022. on april 7, three days

later mr. carton called and appealed or sorry called to complaint to the dbi. complaint regarded what he represented as illegally installed structural support, and having open the complaint dbisent out inspector power for site visit on april 11 and on april 11 on the dbi website it appears mr. power has entered the following citation or following comment. "site visit. work for approved structural drawings with structural calculations". i believe the brief that was submitted by our engineer explains quite accurately the process of how what is

currently on the end of building at 1719 baker street, that the appellate came about. there is a process under the san francisco building code common in all building codes throughout california where you can pull a permit for having work approved by the responsible governmental agency after the work has been put into place. what is required in san francisco is that the permit holder has to hire their own engineer and their engineer has to develop compliance letter pursuant to building codes and that was done here. i was at the building a little over a week ago with my clients. i walked up

and down the stairs which by the way i didn't know were the stairs in question because the whole i was with my clients i had been assuming until that visit that the "deck" that mr. carton keeps referring to was exterior deck. it isn't, it is a enclosed structure. it is enclosed laundry room and when mr. carton keeps referring to not preexisting structural elements, i am just-i dont know what he is talking about. i frankly dont know what he is talking about. i would just urge the appeal to go ahead and adopt what the department of building inspection has aapparently done. ratify the work rfs done with structural drawings and structural calculations and uphold the

permit. thank you. >> okay, thank you. you have three minutes left. are you finished with your presentation? >> yes, i am. >> okay. is there anyone in your party who wants to speak? someone is walking up. >> albert (inaudible) structural engineer. >> welcome. please go ahead. if you can resume the time. >> the issue-mr. carton presented these new findings today. i got an e-mail at 1:30. i didn't see it till like 3:30 and it comes up with new arguments about something that want in any of the previous arguments. the wash porches that have been in there and install ed at least since the 50's and they have been supported on those

three existing posts and existing footings since the 50's and we have just provided a new permit in which to provide a more robust support of this area and that is simply all there is to it. everything else here is just smoke and mirrors. if there is a dispute between the 10 tenants and owners because they have a pass-through going to the tenants for previous work they had done and they are just trying to prolong everything to make-and prolong the dispute. thalities that's. thank you. >> thank you. there is still a minute 44 seconds. anybody else from the permit holders group? okay, so we'll move on to the planning department. nothing from planning department? okay, we'll hear

from the department of building inspection. >> good evening, matthew green. permit application 202203250932 is voluntarily replace existing post and beam system at the grond floor. the permit provep over the counter and issued april 4, 2022. on april 12 building inspector robert power inspected the project. director power approved the work. special inspections are third party inspection in addition to city inspection. the building inspector review does not negate the need for special inspector or vice versa. this project included special inspection for installed and dpisting concrete and structural observation for wood framing. we tend to conflate the two but special inspections can be quantitative and structural observation to be qualitative. the appellate

raised cerb concerns engineer (inaudible) state licensed engineer qualified to make this design. normally performed by engineer of record for jobs such as this. the california building code 1704.2.1 allows the engineer of record is to act as special inspector provided they are qualified. the special inspection for the project did not require specialized testing so (inaudible) permitted to perform the special inspection as well. mr. (inaudible) submitted a letter dated april 11, 2022 to clear the special some spection. dbi reviewed and approved the special inspection observation letter april 20, 2022. if the board up holds no work is required and dbi would close the permit. the board wishes i will have a senior building inspector go out again to review the observations robert power made. where will say robert

power is one of the best inspectors we have. this (inaudible) engineer may have differ rnsh of opinion dbi is impartial. if the design meets minimum code the plan checkers aprusk. believe the application was approved and issued properly and recommends the permit be upheld. if there are other complaints of the building dbi can open complaint and investigate. i'm available for questions you may have. >> thank you. president swig has a question. >> there are two issues here. one is that the original structure may have been built without permit and therefore be an illegal structure. how do you ascertain when something--your pedcessor or planning used to come

in and show pretty pictures or come with files that showed it was there or not there when we had these type disputes. how do you know that that original stair way and various levels of wash rooms were built legally and in fact safely in the first place? >> well, this permit is not to legalize the structure, it is beam supporting the existing structure. >> yeah. so, it doesn't matter if they were built illegally and maybe unsafely in the first place? or is this--or is this is a good thing if it were built illegally this fixes the makes legal and safer. >> i don't know when the original beams to support the

overhang were installed but this is a fix, it improves the building. it is not-you have (inaudible) not a new structure it is a beam supporting existing patio. i wouldn't -based on appearance sure the patios were open wash rooms and enclosed, 60, 70 years ago. i don't have the permit history. >> okay. and in fact my other question is, i did see you saw the pictures of the footings. one footing is clearly deteriorated and there is the gap supposed to be supporting the structure so isn't supporting anything, it is supporting air but in fact is this what is requested the fix to that and even though in the drawings what is now an existing situation

where two footings, may be 3 inches higher-my reading that fix will be implemented by the replacement of this situation or instillation of this support mechanism >> mr. (inaudible) is state licensed engineer who came up with the design. yes. - >> that is the purpose in fact when he has the opportunity to be in rebuttal whether in fact this is the fix that the appellate is worried about. >> i would say this permit is the entire purpose of the permit was to fix that. >> okay. thanks. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. i where dont see hands raised so we'll move on to rebuttal. we

will hear-mr. carton you have three minutes. i see one of the appellates is raising their hand. brett marty. i dont know if you want him to speak during your time? you have three minutes. okay. you have 3 minutes total. so you just want alex to show the declaration, correct? >> make this quick so mr. marty can speak up. in

response to what was said, first, mr. power inspected before the work was done. he did not see the work on april 11. i was there when he was there. he looked at the work prior to modifications, so -there is a problem with what mr. (inaudible) has presented in that he says he saw the work prior to being done, not in his brief-not after it was done, and so there is no evidence before us that there was a special inspection after the work was done. mr. power came out not because of the permit, he came out because we

filed a complaint. this is being done unlawfully. the structure that you see in my photos is the current structure. there isn't going to be another one put in. i dont know if president swig brought up the information thinking that there was going to be another structure put up. it is up. the piers are not balanced. they are sunk into the ground at different heights and there is not sitting on any foundation and that the foundation could not be seen before mr. (inaudible) looked at this because it was covered over in cement. i'll give mr. marty- >> okay. let's pause the time for a moment. mr. marty. >> hi, there. >> you have a minute 11 seconds. >> i just wanted to note quite quickly that the

cement work where the pier was lowered was done in 2018 by the permit holder and then sealed in concrete before mr. (inaudible) was engaged to come look at the structure so no one has any idea what is under the cement and why the pier pan was lowered and that is one big point and the other one is this preexisting structure built in 2009 was done unlawfully and illegally without permit and trying to use the new structure without fixing the issues that was built for to basically (inaudible) >> you have 30 seconds. mr. marty. >> i yield to mr. carton. >> can you pause. we have 24 seconds. what do you want on the screen, the

declaration? okay. why don't you go up to the microphone and you have 24 seconds. >> i just like to point on the screen the tie shown is a ps218 which is what is listed on the drawings. it is different from the what was actually put on the modified structure. >> the 3 minutes was up. you had 24 seconds to show that simpson strong tie. your time is up mr. carton. thank you. okay, we'll now hear-i

believe mr. riddle, you have three minutes in rebuttal. >> thank you. members of the board i don't have a lot to-i have nothing to add. i would just reiterate the comments by mr. (inaudible) and inspector green. the work in place was done according to structural plans and specification. >> i think davidmic fearson wants to speak. >> i'm counsel for robert burnheart who pulled the permit and did construction. he is a license general contractor, license (inaudible) yield the balance of the time to albert (inaudible) our structural engineer to address any rebuttal he feels is necessary. >> mr. (inaudible) you have two minutes and 16

seconds. >> my original argument, we did research with the sandborn maps from went to the library and found out that the area in question, the porches were on the sandborn map in the 1950's. in fact the original structure was 1905 there was a one story structure in the porch area. somewhere in that was built up to the 3 stories. the original-look at the overhead- the original 3 posts were on a old concrete slab and that were-was not uniform, it was all over the place. subsequentially to that, with the new structure, the

concrete slab is-they poured a concrete slab some point in time in which was it created a uniform walking surface and also buried the bottoms of these columns. these posts were there holding up this structure since 1950's at least it is 1950's and it is so we are not modifying the foundation because they were able to hold the foundation for all that time up to now. >> okay, thank you. we have a question from president swig. >> sorry. i'm confused. the allegation is that you went and made inspection as you were licensed to do so and what you inspected was not what we saw today. the photos presented by the representative for the

appellate. that would be the footing which has been deteriorated and holding up nothing. what did you see and what did you not see? at what time did you make inspection and post the inspection changing condition that which is described by the appellate? >> so, i did the inspections when they were drilling the bolts and installing into the concrete. i inspects the holes as they were putting in the bolts and hipoxy. the picture we see here, i took that picture myself in the report and it was taken after everything was installed. >> and so what are we looking at when the appellate is presenting the post which is

not supported by a footing and what validity does that have to this condition in this case? >> when i went out to the site the post was-the condition with the slab and everything else was placed and poured so that was done some time between that original photo and when i wnth out there. >> so that condition doesn't exist anymore? >> it does not exist. >> that is replaced by the structure you showed us so that condition doesn't matter because it doesn't exist anymore and what exists is replaces-is it the replacement that supports the items above? >> correct. >> i got it. catching up. >> thank you. anything further from dbi?

>> i guess there is confusion what our building inspector was out there. robert power according to our records was out april 11 on complaint investigation and the next day the permit inspection scheduled by the contractor. if there is questions whether it is built according to approved plans happy to have senior building inspector inspect. if there is other issues with the building happy to investigate. i will give the business card to the appellate to investigate. there is issues about the simpson straps not being required on the plans. if that turns out to be so and plans-sometimes the plans say simpson or quivalents. i haven't seen the plans, but if it isn't according to plans for a item like this we say correction notice asking the engineer to give us a sketch approving the new

hardware. >> other then making us all feel better that we have been very cautious in making the right decision what harm is there sending mr. power out there? >> nothing. >> nothing . and in my vie it is already done and built and installed. the things that it is supposed to be supporting are supported so it wont fall down so no harm no foul if we postpone the decision tonight and have place safety as priority and be bullet proof having mr. power look again even though probably (inaudible) thinks it is a waste of time. is that-would that be--what is wrong with that picture? >> if you like i'll have mr. power go out with the supervisor. >> what is wrong with that picture other then mr. power and supervisor have to

spend time being extra safe. >> this is $7 thousand permit. >> i understand but safety first. >> thank you. commissioners this matter is submitted. >> it seems like it's either we trust everything is in place now and deny the appeal or we do one step more towards safety and do not come to a decision tonight and postpone the decision until another inspection is done so the appellate can feel more comfortable and we can all sleep at night knowing we have done everything. what is your thoughts? commissioner lazarus. >> i'll wait for others. thank you. >> thanks. mr. lopez, let's start with you. >> i can go either way. i think i feel just comfortable

denying the appeal based on what has been presented and the input from dbi. >> commissioner chang. >> i agree with commissioner lopez. i think that there doesenth seem to be evidence to suggest that this is unsafe and sounds there is another special inspection that needs to occur. is that a correct understanding inspector green? >> that's incorrect. both special inspections have been performed. they were performed by mr. (inaudible) >> based on that i think that the appropriate inspections have occurred but happy to support--ready to deny the appeal on the basis the permit was properly issued, but if there are strong feelings to do extra check happy to support that. >> we have a motion. commissioner lazarus

would you like to comment now that you heard everybody? >> yeah, i mean i think i'm inclined to deny the appeal. i am not certain what it will gain us and i have faith in dbi. they assured it was properly inspected, so my inclination now is to deny the appeal. >> we have a motion from commissioner chang so i think we got the motion and- >> okay. >> we have a motion from commissioner chang to deny the appeal and up hold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. on that motion- [roll call] motion carries 4-0 and appeal denied. we are moving to item number 9. this appeal 22-034 valerie kirk kay kornovich and

kristin bryan. 2154 leavenworth street. appealing the issuance on april 6, 2022, to will sevush, of an alteration permit (to comply with notice of violation no. 202287128; revise permit application no. 2021/0212/4580: rectify north lightwell stairway; reconstruction of existing main entry staircase). permit no. 2022/03/04/9222. and we will hear from the appellates first. welcome. >> i had sent [unable to hear speaker] >> if you can speak into the microphone. >> i sent a slide deck. i can bring up my computer. i don't know if that issue is resolved. >> let's see, alec, are you able to show it since it seems we are having problems with the laptop? >> there it is.

>> vise precedent lazarus can see it so we are up and running. >> good evening presidents swig, vice president lazarus and commissioners. i i want to start recognizing the owners of 2154 leavenworth have the right to remodel interior and builds roof deck. we are here (inaudible) remodel approve bide the city through a series of permits. both the permitting process and (inaudible) included mistakes from the outset. dbi acknowledged the initial permit should never have been approved. we believe the scope is work exceeds a small building with occupied units. the 3 other building owners are requesting the permit sent back to dbi anden plaing to

insure no neighborhood notification is necessary and building is structurally sound. to provide context i want to call out several key events leading up to today's hearing. the initial permit approved by dbi in september of 2021. the owners of 2154 leavenworth did fot share the plans but assured the attorney they were compliant with there hoa documents. january 2022 the construction crew began work to expand stairs in the lightwell. we were blind sided but swung into action. the inquiry rultded in dbi and planning taking a closer look at the project. a notice of correction and notice of violation were issued in february to address code violation and site work that exceeded the permit scope. next slide. at the jurisdictional review notice of correction and notice of

violation require a permit revision. which could be appealed. the board reinstated the right to appeal the initial permit but urged (inaudible) i included remarks by president swig and vice president lazarus on the topic. next slide. we took the board advice and opted to hold off appealing until permit revision was issued as we thought it was replace the initial permit. i think the board may have had a similar interpretation given comments. we later learned the initial permit and permit revision were dramatically different in scope. next slide. as you can see from the permit language, the permit revision limited to items requiring correction. had we known this we with would have appealed the initial permit that would have brought work to a halt while we negotiated rather then largely

allowing the remodel to move forward. next slide. this misunderstanding is significant because extensive structural work occurred sinsh the hearing. approximately half the building shared roof is removed but the drkts bi tracking system states "the deck is placed as flat as possible on existing roof". the existing roof is gone and we have concern s the deck may also be raised several feet higher then the current roof line. next slide. we ask how to trust the project is compliant with inroof work is not in sink areer with online description and confident the raised roof line doesenth require notification given the step dizant occur with the external stairs and lightwell. how can we certain less then 75 percent interior has been demode considering the notice of violation for unpermitted work and removal of

half unit ceiling and shared roof. i want to emphasize we are not merely neighbors bothered by remodel we are coowners of the building and many changes are common areas. the jurisdictional review hoa common areas are long a issue in the permitting process. having experience when hoa rules are by-passed ret row spective enforcement of rules pose burden for hoa particularly small ones like ours not professionally managed. we feel strongly the permit process should guard our interest as well. next slide. while we are concerned about the hoa ability to enforce the rules our greatest concerns are practical. very worried about the project structural impact on the 100 year old building. we noticed new cracks and observed the space between the building and twin

widened at the top. the neighbor texted this morning and wrote "daylight is visible now whether it never was before". a issue for both in the building if water gets between the buildings they will be damaged. additionally we are concerned about future upkeep cost to common areas. under the governing document hoa is responsible for repairing the-air yuz. we suffered damage in the units. we are told they plan to make fixes on completion of the project but have concerns about follow-through. there is significant quality of life impact as well. few of the residents work from home and extent of demolition and remodel made conditions intolerable. we believe if the owners of 2154 leavenworth abided by the rules and sought approval first such

extensive project would never have been authorized. next slide. we did commence negotiation shortly after the jurisdictional review and those discussions made progress. we hoped to push this appeal hearing date further out but the 2154 owners refused request. the ask tonight is snd the initial permit back to dbi and planning to insure the neighborhood notification occurs if needed and reassess the project structural impact given (inaudible) for your time and consideration. >> thank you. president swig did you have a question? okay. thank you. we will hear from the permit holder. mr. sevish. >> i'll be speaking first. >> did you want your video on or now? >> (inaudible)

>> sorry do you have two computers on at home? if you can turn one off or if you are watching the internet it will cause internet. >> will da. do. >> thank you. please go ahead you have 7 minutes. >> i'm getting my presentation up. just one second here. >> we can see it. er >> good evening. i am (inaudible) are the permit holders and we will be speaking later during our permitted time. i apologize for not being there in person. i am 9 months pregnant and concerned about covid exposure so i want to thank the commissioners and can board for the opportunity to attend remotely and the reason why we are not able to postpone this hearing given my

due date and arrival of our child, so just wanted to make that clear. we appreciate the matters mrs. kirk discussed but none of the issues raised has anything to do with the current permit at issue tonight. the appeal applies to the permit at issue alteration permit limited to perform the following two items of work: restoration of exterior staircase to original configuration and are reconstruction of existing interior entry staircase. as shown in the details of the slide in yellow which cover the work. each item 1 and 2 comply with notice of violation issued by the dbi on february 28. in addition, each of the items of work were requested and approved by hoa or fall outside the purview. therefore we ask the board of appeals to deny the request to suspend

the permit. the notice of violation require restoration of the exterior staircase to correct mistake in approving the proposed expansion of a portion of such staircase. we came before board of appeals march 2, 2022 where senior building inspector matthew green stated dbi made a mistake on plan check of the stairs and lightwell and this is brangd new plan checker who only stayed with dbi one year and left us. we noted there is a mistake and trying to correct. the (inaudible) corrective action required by notice to correct dbi mistake. requested and approved the exterior staircase reconstruct to original configuration. the

notice of violation also required the additional changes we want today make to interior staircase include in the permit. as such the permit at issue in the appeal includes these additional changes to such interior staircase. furthermore the staircase is exempt from common area under the documents and impuvments are not require hoa approval so there should be no issue with the corrective action. as scope of the appeal is limited to the two items of work, each of which is directly comply with notice of violation we request the board of appeals deny appellate request to (inaudible) the permit. appellate allegation are hoa matters and followed by the board of appeals review. as confirmed by mrs. roseen burg the board determines whether a permit is issued and not decide hoa matters however we feel it is important to

address these matters tonight as we are (inaudible) as noted by appellates we are working on changes to the ccnr to accept financial responsibility for repair and maintenance of alterations made (inaudible) working directly with the hoa on the issue. any structural impact we work would the structural engineer since the start thof project because maintaining safety and structural integrity of the building is upmost importance (inaudible) deeded to us under the hoa governing document and confirmed by the hoa on multiple occasions. roof trusses require to be installed to support the weight of the roof deck which is why a portion of the roof deck needed to be removed to make the instillation of structural support elements happen. we offered to set up a call between the hoa and structural engineer to address concerns or questions but the hoa never

took up on the offer. if they had serious structural concerns they hope they would have raised concerns with us we can work together to alleviate them. in regards to resident quality of life living in a buildsing construction is ongoing is difficult which is exacerbated by the pandemic now people are working from home. we made significant efforts to minimize the impact construction may have on residents but noise is inevable. according to dbi website building construction can occur 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. 7 days a week including the holidays. up to this point construction has not started before 8 a.m. not occurred on weekdays and typically ends by 430 :30 p.m. we notify the hoa of renovation plans a year and a half prior to construction starting to provide as much warning as possible and hope expectations for when

construction started. in regard to the damage to other units living in a shared space where construction is taking place damage to neighboring units is bound to occur. we take this seriously and address issues and (inaudible) we damage to our unit as a result of hoa member construction and understand accidental damage may occur. we are asking for the same courtesy and opportunity to continue to address issues and make repairs. we are currently working directly with the hoa resolving issues and would like to continue to work with the hoa on such matters outside the appeal process but like the opportunity to take the corrective action under the permit required to comply with notice of violation. my husband and i are available to answer any questions the commissioners may have and thank you for your time this evening. >> (inaudible) [echo] >> we can hear you, go

ahead. >> the other thing is just addressing some things mr. kirk said. (inaudible) [difficulty understanding speaker due to echo] >> thank you. your time is up. you will have more time in rebuttal. thank you. we'll now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. tina tam from the planning department. 2154 leavenworth is 3 story

over basement 4 unit building. as you heard from the appellate and project sponsor the board of appeals may 2, 2022 grant jurisdictional request for previous permit to construct new stairs in the lightwell because that permit was approved and issued in error. dbi issued notice of violation and corrective permit was filed as response. the permit before you have to comply with notice of violation to restore the stair well to original configuration for miner work to interior building. no neighborhood notification is required for this work. the appellates are the condo owners and tenants of the building. the concerns are about compliance with hoa rule s and requirements and based upon mrs. kirk testimony she is also concerned about the roof deck. the roof deck is not part of

the permit. complains with hoa rules and requirements are not the purview of the planning code and at this point we ask you to deny the appeal and uphold the permit. >> thank you. we will hear from the department of building inspection. >> good evening matthew green. in response to notice violation number 20210212458-might have the number wrong. you may recall from auralier hearing dbi did approve a build permit to allow a stair way expanded over lightwell. the notice of violation was issued by inspector (inaudible) rectify the mistake february 28, 2022. inspector clansy met with the representatives of the

design team at the beginning of the approval process and conform the design complied with notice of violation. the application filed march 4, 2022 and approved march 62022. this is intended to correct a code violation mr. kirk brought to the attention. there may be ongoing dispute with the hoa, dbi believe the application was approved properly and recommend denying the appeal. just for some background on the overall permit, the last inspection for that project was on may 31, 2022 by building inspector carl weaver for a partial inspection and passed inspection. mrs. kirk mentioned that there was possible building shifting and structural concerns. we would be happy to open complaint and investigate that issue. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you. i don't see questions so will move

to public comment. yes, commissioner lopez does have a question. >> i think we have in the-in the brief declaration from one of the neighbors with a number of construction issue. have those given rise to complaints your team has done? >> the last inspection was 31. the inspection past. i wasn't aware of other structural concerns but we are happy to investigate those. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. i don't so see public comment so we'll move to rebuttal and mrs. kirk you have three minutes. sorry, can you wait till you get to the microphone?

>> could you put up the slide where i have the commission statements about the initial appeal versus revision because i think this is very relevant to this matter? basically my understanding from-sorry. >> which slide did you want? >> it is-let me see. sorry. slide-it says jurisdictional review. 3-2-22. looks like slide 4. at the bottom you will see that both the commissioners made comments that i think are really relevant here because my understanding after that hearing was that i

should not appeal the initial permit because there was going to be a replacement or revision permit that would basically make the other one irrelevant. i found out after the fact that is not the case. what actually is the case is the revision permit only includes the scope of issues that are identified by planning and dbi as needing to be corrected, so the reason i brought this in is when i spoke with julia after i made the discoverry and suggested i should bring to your attention. unfortunately i thought you had the same impression that was permit would be a replacement for the old permit and it wasn't, so i gave up my opportunity to appeal because i felt like i was trying to be a good citizen and abide by the recommendation of the board. i wanted to bring that to your attention. additionally wanted to quickly

respond. i'm sympathetic to young families in the city. i raised the daughter in this building for first 5 years. we were living in 1 bedroom apartment so i get families need space. i do own two praurmts prarpts in san francisco because we outgrew the other one but after 25 years living in the city and multiple condo complexes i never approached anything this level of go alone behavior. when you buy a condominium you sign up for degree of communal living and embrace the art of compromise. without this things can quickly fall apart as we observed. this permitting process has been flawed from the outset and we have real legitimate concerns about the impact on the building a shared asset. the process favors individual owners and builders over hoa. (inaudible) so many

condominiums. when we wanted to obtain the remodeling plans we had to write a letter noterized before dbi would release them. a similar check were in place during the permitting process- >> (inaudible) >> we all would have avoided this mess. the project would not have started without the hoa approval and we would find common ground. now we are forced to do so after the fact when the stake are higher. we are asking you to consider these issues and allow us to resolve these matters with them hopefully peacefully by giving us more time in some form. thank you mpts >> thank you. just for the record my recollection is i told you if you have concerns about the revision permit you should raise them with the commissioners. that was my recollection from our conversation. thank you.

okay. we will now hear from the permit holders. >> you hear me? >> yes. >> the structural claim of shifting at this point is baseless. i want to bring that up and mrs. kirk's misunderstanding of the bake stair well jurisdiction request seems somewhat irrelevant given the fact i think matt green can speak to this (inaudible) every sheet, every department. dbi never said any permit should not have been submitted which is what mrs. kirk said. there was a specific issue due to oversight by the planning department which was resolved the jurisdiction request attempting to revolve and now the alteration permit and so by stopping this we can't make right that which was

done in error by dbi. we don't want to continuance. these issues held up our project. our ability to move in our only home for months and on the back stairs. returning the back stairs to (inaudible) the only option to fix the issue. that was approved by the hoa. interior stairs are not the purview of the hoa as outlineged in the documents which we showed in the brief and on page 6 of the presentation. we are hoping we can move forward and fix this and make the exterior stairs as is and move on with the project and hopefully at some point in the next who knows how long move back into our place. again, these are hoa issues that we are happy to work with and resolve with the hoa. thank you. >> thank you. are

you finished? >> yes. >> thank you. we'll hear from the planning department. anything further? okay. dbi. >> yes, matthew green department of buildsing inspection. want to clarify this is revision permit for certain small items of the project. it doesn't replace the entire already approved building permit. i did speak with mrs. kirk on the 15th and she did seem generally shocked this isn't a replacement permit. i don't know if that has bearing on the decision but think she believed a revision permit did replace the existing one. >> thank you. commissioners, this matter is noted. >> let me start if you dont mind, commissioners may i remind the subject at hand is the permit at hand which has to do with the stairs and the revision of the stairs

which was due to misqueue by dbi. any other items are not up for discussion. also, i would remind you that hoa disputes are not in our jurisdiction and i always remind and just digress for a second, remember you all have to live with each other, so i look forward to you making a constructive and happy solution to your situation but we can't fix that here and it is out of our jurisdiction. with that, commissioner lazarus dpoo you have any comment s? i go to you because we can't see you. >> thank you. i concur with everything you said and my inclination is deny the appeal on the basis the permit was properly issued. >> commissioner chang.

>> thank you. it is unfortunate that the appellate was shocked and seems there was a misunderstanding but it does seem the issue at hand which is the permit in question is properly issued and i do hope you are able to reach some sort of agreement with the hoa which would unfortunately occur outside these chambers. >> commissioner lopez, any comment? >> yeah. i am in line with the previous comments from my fellow commissioners and i would suggest to the appellate or any other member of the public that weighed in with any of these construction issues that may have arisen that is a open channel of communication with dbi and to the extent matters need

investigation or complaints that might be the appropriate forum for those type of concerns. >> thank you for pointing that out. commissioner lazarus, may we use your point of view as a motion please? >> yes, you may. >> motion is made. >> we did have a motion from vice president lazarus to deny the appeal and up hold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. on the motion- [roll call] >> that motion 4-0 and appeal denied. thank you. we are moving to item 10. appeal 22-035. james coe department of building inspection. 2591 25th avenue. appealing the issuance on april 18, 2022, to ding ding songrui, of a site permit (vertical third story addition with two bathrooms). permit no. 2017/07/10/1367. we'll hear from the appellate first. mr. james coe.

>> thank you, jim coe owned the property over 40 years. here to oppose the proposed third story addition at property at 2591 25th avenue directly east of me and always in the shadow of them. the plans in the present form will significantly affect my property. the addition on the west side of the property will reduce the amount of light that enters by garden and deck area as well as effect my view east out of my kitchen and bedroom windows. the 30 foot vertical surface will create a undesirable esthetic i do not wish to experience. my property will be most neg tskly effected and i'm west of the property. the houses arond my property are predominantly two stories. the third story this goes up 30 feet is not the norm.

there are three story structures on 25th and 26th avenue but the third story is usually setback so the neighbors are not looking or only looking at 20feet of structure. some property owners have decks on the second story and this prevents a 30 foot mono lift. i do not have objection provided it only go up 20 feet on the west side and setback or deck which is part of the proposed renovation that is presentsly on the east side of the property. if they were to move to the west side of the property and give about 15 feet of setbark setback then i wouldn't have a problem but i don't want to deal with 30 foot structure. i'm only 40 feet away from them is and going up another 12 feet is going to

significantly change my lighting. there is a presentation of what will happen on the property. kind of at the top now when i get up in the morning i see the sun at the top north part and about 6 a.m. and 8 a.m. it traverses and so with the new structure on top of the already 20 feet i will lose approximately 3 hours, 2 to 3 hours of sunlight each day if this property goes up in its fashion. i am asking that it be modified or denied. thank you. >> okay. thank you. we will now-we have a question from president swig. >> have you had dialogue with the project sponsor

with regard to you're request to for a setback and for more light and what has been the result of that conversation if you have had it? >> yes, i did meet on april 23, 2022 with the owner of the property and asked her to consider my alteration of the deck moving from the east side to the west side. she was not in agreement to it and i tried to explain to her that all she would be looking at would be the western facade of diane finestein school which isn't appealing view. if she move the deck to the west side she would have a ocean view, a view of moffit park and greenery between 26 and 27

avenue is and i tried to tell her that. most of the time it is too dam cold to enjoy a deck on the east side and if she was going to enjoy a deck at all it would be the west side where the western sunshine would make it appealing to use. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the permit holder. i believe mr. (inaudible) is here on behalf of the permit holder. welcome, you have 7 minutes. >> hi. actually i have my engineer and are will give talk time as well, but the only thing i want to say is that we have been-applied for the permit in 2017. we were waiting for 5 years. we are going back and forth and already reduced the third story as is because going back and forth with the city code, so even though i understand mr. coe coming from in the way, we

have been through hell trying to get approval for this permit and this is more delays more headaches so i want to pass on the talk time to my architect and he can explain more as to what mr. coe is saying. it is (inaudible) maybe there was a misunderstanding on his behalf, but if-he is on the call but if he can take the mic. >> please go ahead. >> thank you for having me. the main issue i like to go through them. the new third addition is about 27 to 30 feet away from the rear fence. we are-very far away from the property neighbor and the light issues will not be resolved if we just move 15 foot

from the rear setback or existing line of the wall. now, we have made sure we have added architectural elements to the back wall to make sure it is not just a flat wall. it doesn't-wouldn't make to sense have that and would have added windows and small deck to have a (inaudible) and about having predominant second story houses in that area is incorrect. just 2 houses away from the property we have a 3 story with the same characteristic and setbark and same 3 story building just 2 houses away from his property. we have dealt with a lot of time with historical, with zoning planning to make sure that we comply with the current city

codes and we believe we are not necessarily intruding in his space because we are far away from that site. >> thank you. you still have 4 minutes and 30 seconds. >> nothing i like to add. in terms of the view, the property has a school that is also 3 story right across our building and it runs through the entire block. it is not very uncommon for buildsings to be 3 story and believe that is why we have gone through months and years of review to make sure that we are in agreement with the codes and with what's allowable and what's able to be built. otherwise we wouldn't have proposed something of this magnitude. next door in the

next block there is a couple 3 story houses. just because the blocks are undeveloped to the maximum potential doesn't mean we cannot use the code compliant requirements, so that's all we have to really say about that. >> okay. thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. >> is there rebuttal? >> first we hear from the departments. rebuttal comes a little later. >> thank you. >> tina tam from the planning department. 2591 25th avenue. (inaudible) constructed in 1931 the property is potential historic resource. the permit is to construct a new third story vertical addition. the new addition is set back 15 feet from the front building wall and align with the existing building wall at the rear. the 15 foot

front setback is something the department encourages to maintain the predominant 2 story pattern on the block. the appellate is to the west. mr. coe is cernged about light and privacy impact to the side facing windows and rear yard. 3 notice were sent and no dr filed for the project during there notification period. the project complies with planning code and consistent with the design guideline. the project result in a taller building the footprint of the existing building will not change. the guidelifens make views from private properties are not protected. there is building to building setback or separation of more then 30 feetd the department does not finegd there is significant impact to the appellate's property. the project as proposed is typical of many vertical projects we see in the neighborhood and throughout the city. as such the

department recommends the board deny the appeal and uphold the issuance of the permit. >> thank you. we have a question from president swig. >> great. did they max out on this property? could they have made their structure larger or is this-was there any compromise to build just what they needed to build? >> there is room to max out more. >> yeah. so, that is important for the appellate to know that this could have been bigger, correct? >> sure. >> okay. thanks. >> thank you. we'll now hear from dbi. >> matthew green building inspection. i don't have much to say on this one. building permit application 201707101367 was first received by dbi plan checkers on august 18,

2020. wnt through the proper approval and aprusked for issuance march 7, 2022. the permit issued on april 18, 2022. believe the permit was reviewed and approved properly and recommend the board uphold this permit and i'm available for any questions. >> president swig, do you have a question? okay. we will move to public comment. anyone here for public comment? please raise your hand. i don't see public comment so move to rebuttal. mr. coe, you have 3 minutes. >> in the plans submitted to me in the mail over 3 years ago i see no attempt at all to do any architectural setback. i see one vertical wall going up 30 feet, so i don't know where that setback is going to be. the only setback i see is on the east side of the structure for the deck that they have looking towards the

east. i did submit a picture of a property that did go up 3 stories but they did set it back with a deck in the front and are as i told the architects if they were to do something similar on the west side all of my concerns would go away but to deal with 30 foot structure vertical with no architectural setback to me will be a impingement on my sunlight and my privacy and so that's my issue. >> thank you. are you done? >> i am. mr. coe you have a minute and 57 seconds. >> i think i said my piece. >> okay, thank you. we will hear from the permit holder. representative. >> yes. i can speak. so, yes in terms of the setback, if we

were to try to do any setbacks another 15 feet from the back we will be stuck with 10 feet of building which makes no sense, and again we are not trying to max out the space, just trying to help the owners get some of the space they can build and why we went through the proper channels, proper review to make sure we are able to do so. we did not say architectural setback, we said architectural components meaning not just a flat wall, there is different textures and shapes and we believe we cannot go any further back. that will compromise the space. we cannot work with 10 feet of building. we mine as well not do this work and as long as it is within the city guidelines and everything that is within the municipal code we believe that we should be able to build

within that area. >> okay. are you finished? >> yes. >> thank you. anything further from the planning department? how about dbi? thank you. commissioners this matter-you have a question? >> it doesn't matter. did you step up just for the benefit of the appellate? let me make sure that i got it right. you require the setback. there is a setback. it is setback from the front and you require that setback to protect views from the street so that it would be in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood and which is-so, you cant basically-that's why the setback is on the east as opposed to the west. i agree with the property owner the view would be better looking west, but in fact in

the preservation issue of the neighborhood it was your recommendation to take that setback on there front. there is therefore a setback and driven by planning not by the initiative of the owner, correct kblrks that is correct. we pretty much routinely ask for 15 foot setback, sometimes more. 15 feet is pretty much standard. >> my point was that there is a setback number one, that is one side versus the other driven by planning so it isn't the fault of or initiative taken by the property owner, it is basically direction of the planning department? >> right. >> so, there is clarity that the appellate knows why it is that way versus the other way. >> correct. >> thanks. >> thank you. commissioners this matter is submitted. >> commissioner lazarus do one

more time with you please. comments? >> i dont want to dominate this, but to cut to the chase, i would deny the appeal on the basis this permit was properly issued. >> thank you. commissioner chang. >> i concur with vice president lazarus. >> commissioner lopez. >> same here. >> okay. we have a motion. >> we have a motion from vice president lazerous to deny the appeal and up hold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. on that motion-- [roll call] >> motion carries 4-0 and appeal denied. thank you, this concludes the hearing. thank you. >> bye all. >> feel better.

>> this is a huge catalyst for change. >> it will be over 530,000 gross square feet plus two levels of basement. >> now the departments are across so many locations it is hard for them to work together and collaborate and hard for the customers to figure out the different locations and hours of operation. >> one of the main drivers is a one stopper mitt center for -- permit center. >> special events. we are a one stop shop for those three things. >> this has many different uses throughout if years. >> in 1940s it was coca-cola and the flagship as part of the construction project we are retaining the clock tower. the permit center is little working closely with the digital services team on how can we

modernize and move away from the paper we use right now to move to a more digital world. >> the digital services team was created in 2017. it is 2.5 years. our job is to make it possible to get things done with the city online. >> one of the reasons permitting is so difficult in this city and county is really about the scale. we have 58 different department in the city and 18 of them involve permitting. >> we are expecting the residents to understand how the departments are structured to navigate through the permitting processes. it is difficult and we have heard that from many people we interviewed. our goal is you don't have to know the department. you are dealing with the city. >> now if you are trying to get construction or special events permit you might go to 13 locations to get the permit. here we are taking 13 locations

into one floor of one location which is a huge improvement for the customer and staff trying to work together to make it easy to comply with the rules. >> there are more than 300 permitting processes in the city. there is a huge to do list that we are possessing digital. the first project is allowing people to apply online for the a.d.u. it is an accessory dwelling unit, away for people to add extra living space to their home, to convert a garage or add something to the back of the house. it is a very complicated permit. you have to speak to different departments to get it approved. we are trying to consolidate to one easy to due process. some of the next ones are windows and roofing. those are high volume permits. they are simple to issue. another one is restaurant

permitting. while the overall volume is lower it is long and complicated business process. people struggle to open restaurants because the permitting process is hard to navigate. >> the city is going to roll out a digital curing system one that is being tested. >> when people arrive they canshay what they are here to. it helps them workout which cue they neat to be in. if they rant to run anker rapid she can do that. we say you are next in line make sure you are back ready for your appointment. >> we want it all-in-one location across the many departments involved. it is clear where customers go to play. >> on june 5, 2019 the ceremony was held to celebrate the placement of the last beam on top of the structures. six months later construction is

complete. >> we will be moving next summer. >> the flu building -- the new building will be building. it was designed with light in mind. employees will appreciate these amenities. >> solar panels on the roof, electric vehicle chargers in the basement levels, benefiting from gray watery use and secured bicycle parking for 300 bicycles. when you are on the higher floors of the building you might catch the tip of the golden gate bridge on a clear day and good view of soma. >> it is so exciting for the team. it is a fiscal manifestation what we are trying to do. it is allowing the different departments to come together to issue permits to the residents. we hope people can digitally

come to one website for permits. we are trying to make it digital so when they come into the center they have a high-quality interaction with experts to guide then rather than filling in forms. they will have good conversations with our staff. >> i personally love the mega jobs. i think they're a lot of fun. i like being part of a build that is bigger than myself and outlast me and make a mark on a landscape or industry. ♪♪♪

we do a lot of the big sexy jobs, the stacked towers, transit center, a lot of the note worthy projects. i'm second generation construction. my dad was in it and for me it just felt right. i was about 16 when i first started drafting home plans for people and working my way through college. in college i became a project engineer on the job, replacing others who were there previously and took over for them. the transit center project is about a million square feet. the entire floor is for commuter buses to come in and drop off, there will be five and a half acre city park accessible to

everyone. it has an amputheater and water marsh that will filter it through to use it for landscaping. bay area council is big here in the area, and they have a gender equity group. i love going to the workshops. it's where i met jessica. >> we hit it off, we were both in the same field and the only two women in the same. >> through that friendship did we discover that our projects are interrelated. >> the projects provide the power from san jose to san francisco and end in the trans bay terminal where amanda was in charge of construction. >> without her project basically i have a fancy bus stop.

she has headed up the women's network and i do, too. we have exchanged a lot of ideas on how to get groups to work together. it's been a good partnership for us. >> women can play leadership role in this field. >> i tell him that the schedule is behind, his work is crappy. he starts dropping f-bombs and i say if you're going to talk to me like that, the meeting is over. so these are the challenges that we face over and over again. the reality, okay, but it is getting better i think. >> it has been great to bond with other women in the field. we lack diversity and so we have to support each other and change the culture a bit so more women see it as a great field that

they can succeed in. >> what drew me in, i could use more of my mind than my body to get the work done. >> it's important for women to network with each other, especially in construction. the percentage of women and men in construction is so different. it's hard to feel a part of something and you feel alone. >> it's fun to play a leadership role in an important project, this is important for the transportation of the entire peninsula. >> to have that person -- of women coming into construction, returning to construction from family leave and creating the network of women that can rely on each other. >> women are the main source of income in your household. show of hands. >> people are very charmed with the idea of the reverse role, that there's a dad at home instead of a mom. you won't have gender equity in

the office until it's at home. >> whatever you do, be the best you can be. don't say i can't do it, you can excel and do whatever you want. >> hello everyone. welcome to the bayview bistro. >> it is just time to bring the community together by deliciousness. i am excited to be here today because nothing brings the community together like food. having amazing food options for and by the people of this community is critical to the success, the long-term success and stability of the bayview-hunters point community.

>> i am nima romney. this is a mobile cafe. we do soul food with a latin twist. i wanted to open a truck to son nor the soul food, my african heritage as well as mylas as my latindescent. >> i have been at this for 15 years. i have been cooking all my life pretty much, you know. i like cooking ribs, chicken, links. my favorite is oysters on the

grill. >> i am the owner. it all started with banana pudding, the mother of them all. now what i do is take on traditional desserts and pair them with pudding so that is my ultimate goal of the business. >> our goal with the bayview bristow is to bring in businesses so they can really use this as a launching off point to grow as a single business. we want to use this as the opportunity to support business owners of color and those who have contributed a lot to the community and are looking for opportunities to grow their business. >> these are the things that the san francisco public utilities commission is doing. they are doing it because they feel they have a responsibility

to san franciscans and to people in this community. >> i had a grandmother who lived in bayview. she never moved, never wavered. it was a house of security answer entity where we went for holidays. i was a part of bayview most of my life. i can't remember not being a part of bayview. >> i have been here for several years. this space used to be unoccupied. it was used as a dump. to repurpose it for something like this with the bistro to give an opportunity for the local vendors and food people to come out and showcase their work. that is a great way to give back to the community. >> this is a great example of a public-private community partnership. they have been supporting this including the san francisco

public utilities commission and mayor's office of workforce department. >> working with the joint venture partners we got resources for the space, that the businesses were able to thrive because of all of the opportunities on the way to this community. >> bayview has changed. it is growing. a lot of things is different from when i was a kid. you have the t train. you have a lot of new business. i am looking forward to being a business owner in my neighborhood. >> i love my city. you know, i went to city college and fourth and mission in san francisco under the chefs ria, marlene and betsy. they are proud of me. i don't want to leave them out of the journey. everyone works hard. they are very supportive and

passionate about what they do, and they all have one goal in mind for the bayview to survive. >> all right. it is time to eat, people.