the owner agreed-you see the tandem parking you see the private door to the garage for the appellate new parking spaces. the owner is also agreed to request sfmta to designate a red or white zone on the front curb in front of the building at completion of construction with the understanding that this is fully at the discretion of sfmta. this is shown in further detail on page 9 of the presentation. there you go. this is where the owner is more then happy to work with mta to put in a red or white zone such that appellate can park his car there for loading and unloading. we all understand mta has their own rules and not part of the building approval process. so, thus far appellate rejected this proposal and seeking readdress from the board of appeals. summary of my understanding of his claims and owner rebuttal are shown on pages 2,

3, 4, 5. i will leave these pages for reading pleasure. will you do a quick scroll through pages 2, 3, 4 and 5? this is where i lay out the appellate basic claim. next page. next page. last page. thank you. the essence of the appeal is 3 fold. he claims the owner does not center have the right to build 3adu because the (inaudible) performed by the prior owner and it fsh performed. it is in there you can see it. my understandic ing of san francisco adu ordinance it isn't restricted in a manner. once the buildsing has a seismic ret row fit any owner may construct as many adu as the ordinance allows. i (inaudible) one owner design a seismic ret row fit after the permit

received and prior to the start of construction the owner sold the building. the subsequent owner constructed the seismic ret row fit and designed and build adu using in-house staff. these two adu eliminated 6 parking spaces. the second of three fold is the appellate claim the owner does not have the right to alter the parking to change the nature of a tenant parking space. my understanding is that the owner isn't restricted how parking spaces are located or designated. i redesigned parking as part of constructing adu at 1251, 8 avenue (inaudible) and 969 (inaudible) parking gets restructured. i summarized the codes on page 10 of the presentation. will you please show page 10? this is a list of the codes saying the restrictions and requirements for parking in san

francisco. the thirds thrust of the appellate complaint is that or appeal is that the owner must design parking space to the appellate specification or comp sate the appellate accordingly. this might or might be true it isn't subject to the building or planning code as the purview of the bord of appeals. this is a matter for the rent stabilization board. appellateprinted to the san francisco planning commission in des correctionary veview a. print were the san francisco city attorney, the san francisco building director, the san francisco building assistant director, there dbi district supervisor in charge of the building, memberoffs s of planning staff that works with the appellate and for members of the planning commission. none supported the complaint. the planning commission voted 4-0 against the appellate the planning commission directed the appellate to rent stabilization board. the appellate chosen to plead a identify complaint to board of appeals.

made numerous claims regarding the meengs and method of construction with regards to the remodel of unit 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 plus mechanical room and (inaudible) then on pages 11, 12 and 13 i show the current condition or as of may 31 so will you go there? these are screen shots. you can look at them. it is well organized well maintain clean construction site. we have gone through all the hazmat abatement and control. this shows what the units look like being remodeled. all modern, all new appliance, new space a(inaudible) in line with the historic part of the building. next page. this

shows the cleanliness. the photographs were taken may 31 and shows how the halls are cleaned. there are numerous complaints about how dirty the site is. the building is inspected by the health department, the planning department, planning building department on numerous occasions. police have been called out there. i'm sorry we dealt with every complaint as arisen. i respectfully request the members of the board reject the claim and vote in favor of dbi and pda. >> okay. thank you. we will hear from the planning department. >> i have a question. >> okay. president swig. >> not directed to the project sponsor nor the appellate, but i need help from the sit city attorney yet again. can you guide us on a little traffic here? when it comes to the issue of tenant

services and our view of how any permit is-the direction of any permit, where do we separate the discussion between a tenant service is as required by a lease and the impact of a permit on a potential tenant service? >> brad russi deputy city attorney. the question of housing services is one that is within the jurisdiction of the rent board generally. not saying it isn't something you can consider in connection with theo valuation whether the permit is is a good permit or bad permit. you can consider the effect the permit has on the tenants, so whether the landlord is severing housing services is a question for the rent board.

>> there is one case that was here before commissioner lopez appeared and was here during our tenure commissioner lazarus and my tenure i believe on presidio on sutter street and i can't remember how it all turned out, but i remember that there was a discussion that-i will be arbitrary, that a laundry room was done away with and that was a tenant service and that was-that had implication for our discussion on a permit because it was cut and dry. if there was a laundry room there before there has to be a laundry there after. where is that-give us guidance as we hear from planning and then dbi so we can

get a-we can clarify where services should impact our view and where services are really the rent board's discussion. >> right. i think the guidance i can provide you here is i dont know if we have enough facts. it isn't entirely clear what the permit is doing and whether the tenant was provided alternate parking during the construction. i dont know whether that is true or not and what the size of the garage he had previously and the size he will have after the project is done. those are things i would probably want more information about that maybe help you evaluate whether the permit is good or not. i also would question the planning department and how they look at these issues when they evaluate a permit. >> that is perfect. that is exactly the direction i was looking for and

hopefully mr. teeg is about to speak to address that suggestion in his presentation. thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear from the planning department. >> thank you. good evening. corey teeg zoning administrator representing the planning department. the permit you have before you tonight is for the property and building at 1555 oak street and currently contains 12 dwelling units and ground floor garage. the lot is zoned rm4 which permits one dwelling unit for 600 square feet of lot area so the maximum density for the site is 10 dwelling units. they are built out with 2 more units then otherwise permitted. various permits have been filed by the current owner to renovate the building the subject permit tonight is to convert

the ground floor to three units. 2 face the rear and 1 face the street. a garage stall would remain in configuration that allow two tandem parking spaces. under the city local adu program which this permit is taking advantage of, a lot is zoned for residential use and contain s more then units with unlimited number of adu subject to all planning code requirements. the issue raised regarding seismic ret row fitting isn't relevant to the planning code as only replated to buildings that contain 4 or fewer units. the permit was reviewed byen plaing department and zoning administrator wavers were granted for density open space and exposure which are all very typical for adu permits and the permit was determined to meet all the requirements of the planning code. before the planning department approved the permit request for

discretionary review for the subject permit was filed by the appellate tonight in january of 2021 and planning commission heard the case in march of 2021. some commissioners did empathize with the appellate situation, and did have concerns about some of the statements made about loss of tenant services and potential buy outs, the commission ultimately found there were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and votedue unanimously to not take discretionary review. the permit holder stated various dbi official s and staff were in attendance of the hearing. the hearing was conducted remotely and cannot verify the staff were in attendance but that isn't typical to such hearings so can't speak to that specifically. i want to point out a discrepancy from the hearing the appellate

raised tonight. public comment was provided during the dr hearing stating the property owner had conducted a certain amont of work on the property without securing appropriate permits. commissioner tanner specifically asked planning department staff if there were complaints or enforcement cases or violations for the property and they responded there were not. while it was true there were no complaints filed the planning department no open enforcement cases or notice of violation there were previous open enforcement cases on file with department of building inspection however the information wasn't provided to the planning commission during that hearing and it is not clear if commissioner tanner was asking for planning and dbi or if the planner understood the question to be only asking for planning enforcement, but regardless the information the planning commission received is there is no enforcement action on the property even though there was through dbi and i'll let my colleague provide more information about the

enforcement cases for this property t. is important to note that the ordinance limited the planning department ability to remove adu defined boo itheerant ordinance adopted and took effect 8 months after the permit was approved by planning so there may be appeals you heard this year for permits where this requirement applies and there were limitations on the department ability to approve permits if housing services were being removed, but this permit in question tonight pre-idated the controls. the permit was issued may 12 this year and it is the position of the planning department the permit was not issued in error in regards to the planning code and the issue before the board tonight are related to discretionary review authority over the specific situation in context of the permit. while the department and commission are

both sympathetic to the appellate issue the department respectfully request the board deny the appeal and uphold the permit approval and i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you, we have a question from president swig. >> so, dove-tailing on the city attorney's comments and rather then using the-if i could make the parking issue analogous to that example that i previously provided, if we were talking about a laundry area and let's say a laundry area had arbitrarily a hundred square feet previously and where people could do laundry and then the laundry was reduced to 80 square feet where

people could do their laundry and folks said well we had hundred square feet, but with 80 square feet you can still do your laundry, does size matter when you are looking at from a planning standpoint whether was abuse or not? in this case, this seems to be the issue and i'm sure i will hear about this in rebuttal that the previous size of a parking spot was larger that the location of the parking spot was different and therefore the relocation and the adjustment in size is the breach seemingly and substance of this appeal. does size matter, does location matter or is it strictly an adequate substitute of a location to provide the services?

>> thank you for the question. i will do my best to answer that. i think the crux of your question and the answer is going to be out of the rent ordinance which that would require rent board staff. the reason i say that is a because what we are talking are housing services defined in the rent ordinance and the rent ordinance has criteria how (inaudible) can be removed and how 10 rnts are comp sated and how that all works. when the adu program first adopted for a number of years very specifically it was targeting some of the areas, laundry rooms, garages, other spaces in the ground floor buildings to convert to adu and that was happening and landlords may have compensateed for

the housing services (inaudible) it was in response to tenants concerns that if the compensation wasn't adequate to address the loss of the services sometimes. for example if you had a parking space associated with your unit and you got compensateed knocking $50 a month off the lease that want sufficient to address the loss of the parking space if you were someone who really needed the parking space and you can use a that analysis for any housing service. that is one reason why the legislation was passed was to acknowledge that yes under the rent ordinance landlords have the right to remove certain housing services as long as there is the appropriate compensation and process, but if they are doing it for the purpose of a adding adu there is much stronger limitations on that. with all that,

really the root of what your question is how we define a housing service and what is considered the removal. to your analogy going from hundred square feet to 80 square feet removal or is it something under the rent ordinance that would trigger compensation in such a manner that would then limit how a adu could be added. i dont have the expertise and rent ordinance to answer that specifically and i don't know to what extent that issue was adjudicated for the rent ordinance for this specific property even though it wasn't issue relevant to the planning code at the time. i hope that helps to answer your question the best i can. >> i think it does, because i think what you are saying and please clarify this, from your

point of view your jurisdiction which is the planning code, everything that was done in this building was up to code and compliant. whether that compliance had anything to do with the tenant rights, that is kind of not your job. is that what i'm reading into your statement and really therefore from this body who comments and adjudicates related to pure planning regulation and standsards that is also not necessarily our purview either. would that be a fair statement? >> it is. i would elaborate a bit just to say that the planning code planning department does not regulate landlord tenant relation. that

is what the rent board does, however actions that occur under the purview of the rent ordinance do have impacts on the planning code. the planning code reference the rent ordinance and actions and does impact what we can and can't do for certain permits. in this case it was a situation where at the time this permit was going forward that specific activity did not have a planning code implication for this permit. it may today if it was the same permit was here today because we did have that legislation that took effect approximately 8 months later it might be a different story but at that time with that specific permit any issues related to the loss of housing services would not have effected the planning department review oof the permit from a code perspective, but as council mentioned, this wnt to the discretionary review hearing and the planning commission and the board tonight has discretion to consider other factors that they may

consider to be exceptional and extraordinary beyond just the planning code requirements themselves. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the department of building inspection. >> good evening president swig, vice president lazarus and commissioner lopez. matthew green representing department of building inspection tonight. building permit application 2020-00265525 to add 3 dwelling units and update building structural elements routed to dbi april 12, 2021. the architectural and structural drawings reviewed by separate plan checkers. architectural review completed february 22, 2022 structal review completed march 15, 2022. after review by the other required city agencies such as fire

department dpw and puc the permit issued may 12, 2022. there is extensive permit history at the project the up grade completed march 2016 and cfc issued at the imto. there are 12 active permits for the address including renovation of 8 of the existing dwelling units. this work is ongoing and received and passed inspection to the state. there are 28 inspections in the last 2 years. there are also several complaints. dbi issued violation of beyond the scope of permit. required buildsing permits have been obtained. this work included the work at the garage previously mentioned, there was work at the rear yard and unit 11 started before the building permit was issued. also three filed permits for the structure units for 3, 6 and 7. the applications are going

through the normal review process. to get back to the adu permit before you tonight, the building code is silent on the minimum size of a parking spot in a private garage which the appellate brief mentions is a concern. i'm sympathetic the buildsing code does not offer a solution in the matter. the appellate brief also stated the current active building permits at 25 additional bedrooms to the building. my readic of the permit put the number of bedrooms at 11 over 8 separate dwelling units. the adu permit would add another 7 bedrooms. dbi bleevls the permit was reviewed approved and issued properly and believe it should be upheld but we will support any decision the board may make tonight. i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you. we have a question from president swig. >> yes. commissioner lazarus always advice stay

focused on the permit at hand, so i need your help. you wnt a little too fast for me. you mentioned there were 12 overall permits i believe. 8 had to do directly with apartments. >> correct. >> that leaves 4. i lost you on the 4. can you go, 1, 2, 3, 4? >> sure, i can tell you exactly what they are for. >> okay. >> there was a building permit to clear the notice of violation issued in september 2020, that was the-they need to submit a test report for demolishing the ceiling in the garage and they submitted that clearance report showing no trace asbestos remaining. >> that is number one. >> that is number one. there is another building

for work at the rear yard. says ground sand along the property line to be excavated. demolish remaining wall to enlarge patio. >> that has nothing to do with the adu. >> that is had rear yard. >> there is another one. replacement water heater with new existing 12 apartments replace existing baseboard heater in units 3, 4, (inaudible) replace piping with new (inaudible) for apartments 1, 2, 11 and 12 for new baseboard heater during future remodel. >> that is seamingly more attached to the 8 apartments up stairs then the adu.

i smell contention coming in rebuttal because we heard the in the initial presentation that the demolition to do the replacement of the hot water heater never touched the hot water heater but did a massive job in demoing the garage for the adu. >> when they demoed in the garage they had a plumbing permit to replace the boilding. they didn't have a building permit. just a trade permit. it didn't allow demolition. >> number 3 you talked about that was more upstairs stuff? okay. now we have number 4. >> number 4. where is number 4? >> is that the adu permit? >> no that isn't issued yet. >> okay. >> i may have spoke. there is another permit completed that is at the garage

install 5/8 wall board to provide garage ceiling exterior wall. that was issued or completed january 2021. >> how does that apply to the adu or not at all? not at all. >> that was the 4. i misspoke saying it was a active permit. the permit is completed. >> great. the demolition piece which is-there was proactive demolition that seamingly went beyond the scope of a permit that want issued that resulted in notice of violation, how does that-where is the juxtaposition between that and a potential adu permit? >> well, the work isn't the same area, it is there garage level, so--you could argue they were preparing for the

adu permit. without a doubt they jumped the gun. (inaudible) >> and when they got the notice of violation as it is not unusual when somebody jumps the gun and we find out about jump the gun maybe once a week, right? >> more then that. >> maybe twice a week sometimes. and it is a serious issue. i don't want to make light of it, you dont jump the gun folks, get a permit. how does this effect what we are discussing tonight which is the adu permit or is it a separate issue? >> i believe it is separate issue. >> okay. so, in this narrow scope, which is the adu permit, give me the good and bad news about this. is there any-is there-you're supporting the issuance of the permit. is there any gray area what so

ever? >> i believe the permit approved and issued properly. in previous cases you approved alterations and they got a special condition permit. always a gray area. i don't think the permit holder is put forth any proposed changes to adopt tonight but i recommend- >> so, what we are considering tonight is what you saw originally? >> correct. >> and what you approved as seeing originally and there is no surprises. as often we see another set of plans appeared so what was presented originally is what we are discussing tonight? >> that is correct. >> and the--one more question, which is the issue of tenant

services. what is dbi-where does tenant services and a dbi view of a permit run into each other, or is it just we pay attention to the plans and if the plans are in compliance we will approve the permit and tenant services that is somebody else's to discuss? where do you run into that and how do you mitigate that situation? >> at the plan check level i dont believe tenant service come into play. we look at building code. dbi also has a housing inspection service that respond to tenant complaints about maintenance issues, but that is not what we are talking about tonight. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. >> anybody else? >> commissioner lopez has a question.

>> on the statement that was made during the appellate's presentation about the delaying -laying of the foundation and rebar, related to the adu which i understand the statement is this was done essentially going against the existing nov that was in place at the time, can you comment on that in any facts you have about that? >> a building inspector was out there today looking at it. if we are talking about the same (inaudible) i did meet with the appellate last week and he showed the same pictures. there are details of the plans for what is called a slab on slab. (inaudible) sticking out. the details are not clear that a slab should go on that exit path. i believe the

district building inspector will issue a correction notice on that matter. normally a walkway would not require a building permit but this is part of a exit path so it does require a building permit. >> and then there's this issue about or question about whether these nov should have been presented to the planning commission during this hearing. this is also for my own edification, but role does dbi play in one of these vr hearings? do you have a representative to present that information or how does that- >> we do not. dbi does not normally attended dr hearings. it was mentioned director and assistant director is there. they do not recall that and do not normally attend the dr hearings in any way. >> got it. do

you-does dbi ever receive kind of you know, points of information or you know, requests that may be relevant to dr hearing from specific-related to specific hearing items or pretty separate? >> we get request for information all the time and we present it (inaudible) requesting procedures whether for a dr hearing or something else. we will give the information. >> but it wasn't-that want done in this case? >> i don't believe so. >> got it. that's it for me. >> one more. thanks for giving me the question. what we have hear here is there-this is about a garage space and whether that's the is a service issue, but it is also has

something to do with approval of dbi and planning department. going back to my analogy and works for the parking spot but i will take it. the laundry room that was a hundred square feet that becomes 80 square feet, you can still do laundry may be smaller but still provide the service. when there is a relocation of a parking spot and the parking spot is still legally compliant, but it is not what it was before, where does that fit and where does that come up? this seems to be the root of what we are discussing. how do you deal with that? >> i would say for parking spaces this is frustrating throughout the years.

like i said, a parking space isn't defined in the building code. the size of a parking space isn't defined. my personal opinion, the parking spot seems a little small, but like i said, it does meet the- >> and so if the parking spot is a little small, but it is still legally compliant i work in a building where i curse the parking lot every day because although it is legally complaint, man those spaces are awful narrow, and i understand when something can be small but yet where i work the planning department approved it and the proper approval were there even though it sucks. technical