>> >> good evening and welcome to the july 27, 2022, hybrid meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. >> president rick swig will be the presiding officer tonight joined by chang and lopez lazarus, acting chief building inspector with the department of

building inspection.

except when the presiding officer finds good cause to order the presentations otherwise, the order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: (a) the appellant shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to present relevant testimony and evidence. then the permit holder, representatives of the department, board, commission or person from whose order the appeal is taken, and/or other parties, shall be allowed seven minutes for presentation of relevant testimony and evidence. three minutes for rebuttal shall be provided to all parties in this same order; (b) the board may request a departmental response at its own discretion. for rehearing requests and jurisdiction requests, each party shall be allowed three minutes to present testimony and evidence, with no rebuttal. other persons desiring to speak before the board on an appeal may speak once for up to three minutes, unless the presiding officer further limits time uniformly zoom, please email or call the board office: boardofappeals@sfgov.org or (628) 652-1150. to obtain a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services to participate in the meeting,

please contact the board office at least 48 hours before the meeting at boardofappeals@sfgov.org or (628) 652-1150. >> now the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or form opinions. public comment will be taken from those present in the hearing room. now we will swear

all of those intending to testify. if you intend to testify at any of the procedures and plan to give the board your evidentiary weight, say i do. >> do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> thank you. if you are not speaking please put your zoom speaker on # mute. >> we have one item. >> 1 will be withdrawn and not be heard tonight. >> we are now moving to general public comment. >> (1) public comment at this time, members of the public may address the board on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board except agenda items. with respect to agenda please raise your hand? seeing

no hands raised, we will move to item 2. >> we welcome our new commissioner john travisnia. we are very pleased to have him on our panel. thank you for joining us. >> thank you, president swig for those 15 comments and i want to say how impressed i am with all of those who have been involved with my arrival here including the mayor and president

>> including the board of supervisors and i have been very impressed with everyone i have seen thus far. i have seen many issues in public law and policy. i do know the people who are here in the audience, the people who are watching, those who have before the commission and before the board, is very important to them and i respect their importance whether it's their livelihood or their home or their neighborhood. i hope i can fulfill the shoes of ms. lazarus. >> i look forward to working with you. >> any commissioner comments?

>> i welcome you. >> i guess i was remiss to say good-bye to ms. lapis lazuli # -- lazarus >> she is a great example of great public service. i don't know how many commissions she has served on and under mayor

she was working since then and she has been giving so much to the city and we thank her for that. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, we will move to item about. >> adoption of the minutes. discussion and possible adoption of the july 20, 2022 minutes. >> would anyone like to approve them? >> move to approve. >> is there any public comment on commissioner chang's motion to approve the minutes. please raise your hand. i don't see any public comment. >> on that motion, [roll call] >> that motion carries 3-0 and the minutes are adopted. >> we are going to item no. 4. >> (4) appeal no. 22-047 linda matsumura, appellant(s) vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 515 3rd avenue.

appealing the issuance on june 10, 2022, to justin li, of an alteration permit(new deck 10 feet by 14 feet at rear, less than 10 feet in height; all work performed at rear yard). permit no. 2022/06/08/5905. we will hear from the appellant first and i understand she's on the phone. >> she's caller no. 3. >> okay, ms. matsumura, you need to unmute yourself. please go ahead. you have seven minutes. >> public speaker: good evening, my name is linda matsumura, i live at 515 third avenue.

i came home to find this notification of structural addition in the mail and the deck was completed before the appeal period had ended. the attached condition for repair was file miles away in a different neighborhood. i have not received the application to determine if the code was matched. i filed for an appeal. however there was no opportunity to address concerns before construction. neighbors privacy and security were not taken into consideration. there is a direct line of sight across and over entry of my property. people on my deck will be able to see me in my home without warning at eye level. the deck is less than 58 inches.

i do not feel safe with no barrier. houses were built similarly and do not have decks as this one and would not fit in the character of the neighborhood and results in the invasion of privacy. as a retiree, i enjoy my time in my backyard and outside garden especially during covid. this has affected my quality of life with people looking over at me at my garden would greatly intrude on my safety and security. on june 28th, i received a message from the designer and june 30th we spoke and he said the property owner offered to build a 10 feet high deck and my response was that the property owner would be required to build

and with a deck, i would consider his offer and 10 feet is too high and six feet is the best that the owner can do and this does not provide privacy from the deck. july 8th, i want privacy, i put up a 10 foot fence. i have not received a proper response from the property owner. regarding usage of the deck for many years, there has been frequent turnovers from tenants despite the building being rh 2 family. there is a number of individual tenants that are not seeking the stability and those are imposing on my property. they are able to watch over me

while negatively impacting my quality of life. the photos that i have submitted have been seen now with assistant. the proximity of the large deck from my porch from my backward from ground level demonstrating the intrusiveness that i would endure. if this deck was built to code, i'm requesting that the board grant my appeal by requiring the property owner to build a fence between the two properties and privacy screen on the deck facing my porch from the deck floor to the height of six feet to protect my privacy and security while i am inside or outside of my home and all construction must be to code. thank you.

>> >> thank you. are you finished? >> yes. >> we will now hold from the permit holder. mr. lee, you have seven minutes. >> yes, i believe i sent some slides this evening. >> yes, we'll get the slides ready. >> >> we have the slides up. >> good evening commissioner, i'm at 515 third avenue. the deck proposed to the city's planning department meets the code of less than 10 feet of height under the five feet front back over the counter. this is the current photo measuring five feet away from the neighbor our property line. the appellant

property is a 32 inch setback and with my five feet setback makes the total setback of seven feet 10 inches. because of the five feet setback, there should be enough privacy for both of our neighbors. this is the actual rear of the deck with ten feet in height and only one bedroom has access to the deck so it would not be whatever the appellant has concerns about privacy and security. only one person is living in that one bedroom and only one person has access to the deck. that is about 70 feet by 14 feet in width and the stairs come down to the deck due to egress issues.

the neighbor mentioned about the characteristic of this house and the neighbor has a two story deck and expands more out into the backyard for many many years. that is the aerial view of the whole neighborhood. the appellant has no deck in the back. the rest is the deck size and as you can see from the third avenue, there is an existing porch and it has a two story deck. both the current deck posted for the city plan include the setback and side setback. so, i have tried to reach out to the appellant numerous of times and we only got to text a couple times and only one short phone call. having the neighbor to pay

for the six feet fence is a really huge step for us because if the appellant is very scared for privacy and everything, i told her that she can build a 10 foot fence on her side with no question. in the future, if she wants to enjoy the sunshine in the yard, the current owner 100% support her. thank you commissioners, if you have any questions, let me know. >> president swig has a question. >> yes, one of the requirements of the board of appeals is there is a submission of the appellant and the permit holder. you did not submit a brief as i noticed. is there a reason that you did not submit a brief? >> because the neighbor, the

owner does not speak much english to begin with and i was called suddenly yesterday to represent the owner. the owner's english is not his first language and that's why i'm representing him tonight. a brief, i can write a brief for you tonight this evening to share my story, but the presentation i presented will exactly match the brief. >> okay, i'm sorry that your owner does not have the english language, but the rules are the rules and unfortunately i have to bring that to your attention. second and to notice the reason that we have a requirement for a brief is that we can properly prepare to support your needs as well as the needs of the appellants. so when there is not a brief, it places us on this panel at a significant disadvantage and places you at a

disadvantage because we are not prepared which is why we ask for a brief. this may or may not work to your client's advantage, but it is a disability and we don't for ourselves and quite frankly it's not appreciated. i have a question. did this deck get built without a permit? the appellant claims that she came home from a break and suddenly there is a brand new deck in the backyard. was this deck built without a permit. and you have a permit as an afterthought. what is the chronology of the building of this deck, please? >> first and foremost, my apology to all the commissioners as the owner was last minute and we did not provide a brief, as i

mentioned a brief can be provided upon this hearing. to address your comment, the permit was approved first and then the next couple days built it. the deck can be built in 3-4 days. there was a span of two weeks, i saw the permit june 8, two weeks later that i got an appeal. the neighbor filed an appeal two weeks later. we did not build a deck until we had approval from the city planning approval department. >> thank you. >> okay, thank you. >> we will now hear from the planning department.

>> good evening, members of the board. tina tang. building department. >> the property is a potential historical resource. the construction is to construct a one story at the end of the stairs of the property. four feet wide ten feet deep and five feet and 15 feet from the south side property line. the appellant is the neighbor to the north and her concern is about privacy. in regard to new decks in general, there is going to be some loss of privacy to neighboring property and that's expected. based on the design of the proposed desk, the department believes it is compatible with the neighborhood character and also consistent with other decks in the

immediate vicinity as well as those approved over the counter in the city. they are taller, two stories in height, one taller than the proposed story deck. the new deck is located entirely with the area of law and less than ten feet in height and setback from both sides of the property line. no neighborhood, no vacation is required. the project complies with the planning code and consistent with the residential design guidelines and the department respectfully ask that the board deny the appeal and uphold the issuance of the permit. >> thank you. do you have a question? >> can you help me with the chronology. we have seen decks before and

it's typical and you are right that there are decks in the neighborhood. this isn't the first venture into this area. and it probably and i'm taking your word for it and it does probably comply. tell me about the chronology of the appellant. the appellant goes away and comes back and there is a deck. but she has time according to the law to appeal the permit. should have the permit holder wait until the appeal period was over to construct the deck?

a deck was built before the neighborhood had a chance to appeal. give me some help on that and what we should do about this? >> sure, that's a really good question. based upon the information we have the permit was issued june 10, 2022, the permit can start construction. they do take the risk of appealing and they have to stop and wait for the outcome. i don't have the exact date of when the appellant filed her appeal. it sounds like it may have been the last day of the appeal period. i don't know when it was built between the time it was filed. i can let ms. green

speak to this more since it is in her jurisdiction. >> when there is a privacy issue, they are built up to code. neighbors aren't happy and they appeal. i have seen lot worse than what is presented today. what is the responsibility of the builder of the deck and this is for the appellant to know to build a privacy screen. we can ask because this commission has a right to ask to build a privacy screen. what is the legal responsibility of a permit holder for a deck just like this which is typical to build a privacy screen or build a fence or any of that? >> there isn't anything

technically required in the planning code for something like this in terms of preserving or preserving or protecting privacy from one neighbor. we technically ask that they resolve it on their own and we hope that there would be a design that they can come up between both parties. it seems like there was discussion about building something in between but seems that it did not go forward but there is nothing required from the planning department. >> this is viewed from a legal standpoint would be out of our

hands unless it is an egregious situation. they have to understand that they are going to be living next to each other and would be nice if they can be polite. >> it's out of the department's hand. >> and i will ask mr. travisnia. >> thank you, commissioner. it was described, the question is access to the deck and it was stated in mr. lee's representatives testimony that the only access was from one bedroom. are you aware of any access from the ground up to the deck?

>> >> i think the answer has to be given by the planning department, please. >> i am looking at the floor plan for the permit and it does show there is a door from the bedroom, at the back that connects to the deck. which also connects to the stairs to the yard. i would say there is more than the owner using the deck. >> that's correct. other occupants of this property could use the stairs to access this

deck. i don't know if there is an opportunity for me to get a correction. >> both parties will have a rebuttal following the testimony of the department. >> right, then he'll have the opportunity to clarify that. the second is if you can educate me on, is there any requirement to notify the neighbor prior to receiving the permit? >> because of the location of the deck and the height of the deck, there isn't any neighborhood requirements from the planning department, the planning code side. no. >> >> is there any requirement from anywhere in the city? >> that building department, matt can elaborate on that. >> i'm trying to get a sense if

ms. matsumura missed out on her opportunity to make a complaint, whether the owner of the deck failed to fulfill and any obligation to notify because you have here you have two neighbors, you have a situation where one neighbor says i went away and came back and found this deck. on the other hand, as our president notes, the owner did not file any kind of a brief with us, and then on the third hand, in case you have three hands, i'm interested to know and my question is, what type of access and materials there are from the department in languages other than english.

if the homeowner is non-english speaking or not proficient in reading english, what opportunities do they have in order for me to understand, how reasonable is it to say the individual to say my language ability couldn't enable me to do what was expected under the rules? >> the planning does have multiple languages in there and there is information about how to access somebody that may need a translator. for the purposes of this permit, this deck and stairs, no notification is required by the planning department. >> thank you. >> okay, thank you. >> president, did you have a question? okay, we'll hear from the department inspection. >> good evening, i'm matt, with

the building department inspection tonight. building is to add a new 10 foot by 14 foot exterior deck in the rear and it's below the unit and the deck is five feet from the side. the permit was approved june 10, 2022, and issued the same day. dbi states that this was built properly and ask that you deny this appeal. a fence less than six feet would not require a permit. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> >> i just want to give a clear

and broad hearing to both parties. we have the broad powers so to speak to require a privacy fence if we feel that it would be just. but we would be given this deck is a typical deck, something we have seen over and over again in the neighborhoods. it passes all the legal hurdles . do you see a solution to a privacy situation or is this something that we should really leave to two good neighbors to be good neighbors about? >> i think it should be left between the neighbors. the deck meets the code requirement, meets the minimum height seven feet over the

basement below and does not exceed the property line and doesn't require a firewall. it meets code. >> thank you. >> you are asking if it was built prior to the permit being issued? >> we don't have any complaint prior to the permit being issued. >> thank you for your help. >> thank you. >> we will now move on to public comment. >> please raise your hand if you would like to provide public comment. i see alexa -- please go ahead. public speaker: hello, i live near the home and the lot behind immediately to the west of the property with the deck, and i think it's a fine deck and i don't see why there is all this

stuff. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? i don't see any. we will move on to rebuttal. we will move to the appellant. mats >> ms. matsumura? >> i want to reiterate that i was not properly notified about the building of the deck. also there is a severe privacy issue and just because a permit can be issued and permitted, i don't know it should be necessarily built in this manner. people can see me in my house and i don't think that is a correct way to have something built where it's so invasive to your neighbor. other decks are

higher up and further away from the property and not directly across from ground level where someone can reach out and touch them. there are so many tenants living in that place and the turnover is high, and it's just really not tenable to have that many people living there. it's supposed to be a two family house. >> okay, thank you. are you finished? >> yes. >> i would like to know from the appellant, what would make you feel comfortable. understanding that this deck was built with a permit that seems in line with all the right

guidelines. we've seen this type of deck built throughout the city. it is nothing out of the unusual. but at the same time, i am very sensitive as we all are about privacy issues and the comfort of neighbors. what would be, knowing that this deck is, has been legally built, what would you suggest as a satisfactory solution other than tearing it down which is probably not going to happen. what would be satisfactory to give you more comfort please? >> at a minimum i would like a privacy barrier because i don't want them looking at me in my home. i can address the issue, i

suppose. when i'm in my garden, i don't think it's comfortable for me to be out and people looking over me. i have had issues with many of the tenants over the years and they have thrown things at me and i don't want to be in a situation where they can do that to me physically and verbally. >> now we'll hear from the homeowner, mr. chan. you have three minutes. >> yes. the appellant asked to be 3 feet from the setback and it's five feet. i don't think anyone can physically touch you because i don't think their arm's length is that long.

anyone that is right to access the deck, but the owner of the house is planning to just give access to that one bedroom only. even though the stairs come up to the deck because of the ingres issue to escape fair. that's the whole purpose of the stairs to come down. i really respect your privacy issue. that's why the owner mr. lee wanted to do the six feet fence on mr. lee's cost and expense. if you really wanted to go for a higher grade fence, you have to discuss it in privacy because there will be design and permit fees and the cost to build it as well too. i tried reaching out to you numerous times but it seems that we can't get a mutual agreement. but mr. lee is only willing to build a six feet fence.

if you are not happy with that fence, you can build your own fence on your property line. thank you very much. >> mr. swig, do you have another question? >> we may have further discussion but i want more feedback from you. if you ask to build a privacy screen on that side of the deck which is parallel to the appellant's property, not building a fence, a privacy screen, that would be a lattice or something that would be opaque enough to protect her privacy, how would you feel about that? >> >> the owner, mr. lee would love to build a privacy screen as

long as it is not required to do so. we can put there that the privacy screen will be there as long as it does not require planning approval. >> thank you very much. >> now from the planning department, anything further? department of building inspection? okay. >> can i ask a question of dbi, if in our discussion we find a constructive way of solving this issue and asking the homeowner to build a privacy screen on the deck which is on the side which is common to both the pell appoint and themselves, are we getting into problematic territory for you? >> do you know how high this privacy screen? >> what height of privacy screen would you suggest to offer the availability to provide some protection for the neighbor?

>> i think three feet governor the guardrail? >> that's great. >> with that, i can add on the inspection notice so it's not complete until it is added. >> okay, a lattice, privacy screen would be adequate detail for anything we might discuss? >> yes. >> that is if my fellow commissioners want to go there. i'm not advocating. i just want the information out there. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. this matter is submitted. >> anybody have any thoughts? >> >> thank you. i appreciate mr. chan on the

ability and willingness to pay for a six foot fence and what you have described and in your exchange with the dbi representative. i would support if you are going to make a motion or if that's the way this is going to be resolved. i would support having that be done by the property owner. >> the three foot privacy screen on the deck itself? correct? >> yes, that is what you have described. >> >> tina? >> my general feel on the matter is i agree with the department and something that should be handled amongst property owners. i regret that it has to come to the board. i think it makes any small deck -- or permit that is

ministerial to be approved more complicated. given that the property owner is willing to put the lattice up by the neighbor i'm willing to be in support of that. i wish it was resolved before coming to us. >> your point is well-taken and what happens from mr. travsvina's benefit. from what i talked about, the next deck that comes through here says you set the precedent by saying those guys should put up a privacy screen. good advice and may be well heeded and given the property owner has volunteered that, that would be a good idea. maybe we

should leave it between the two to work it out and the property owners since they have gone on the record to say that's okay with me. we might be able to leave it to them rather than setting the precedent of the privacy screen. i love that idea especially with a motion. >> i'm happy to do that. >> i move to deny the appeal on this issue and based on this issue and good faith that the owners will work out this matter. >> based on the homeowners will work out this issue and the neighbors should be able to work this out between them.

on that motion, commissioner travsvina? >> president swig? >> the motion carries on that appeal and the motion is denied. >> next item. >> (5) appeal no. 22-049 ivan hudak, appellant(s) vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 277 judson avenue. appealing the issuanceon june 23, 2022, to jia wei hua, of an alteration permit (add an accessory dwelling unit (adu) per ordinance #95-17; first floor adu, new bedrooms, bathroom, living room and kitchen; repair existing stairway less than 50% in kind; replace front windows with aluminum clad; wood window visible from street and vinyl window at rear side of building). permit no. 2015/0812/3993. >> we will hear from the appellant first.

>> welcome. you have seven minutes. >> 277 jud son avenue. the appeal is mainly to clarify what really is happening. a little history. 2015, the 277 jud son owners built a larger extension which we didn't agree with and we went through the discretion review, and here we are now. where suddenly the permit was approved with the same, at least when i was looking at the city website, the same drawings. and i wasn't clear if extensions vertical and

horizontal extensions were still in place. so i talked to owners. first of all they told me that no, it's not. at the same time they told me that they still didn't file any drawings because i was asking to show me some drawings, what is really happening? i was told they didn't file anything yet, that everything was in the process. then when i showed them the paperwork, which is exhibit a or b, i forget which one it was with the paper that i received from the city. it says that the permit was issued under those names and they told me those people are not financially not involved in the property at all. so they were kind of surprised themselves, like who pulled the

permit then? whose name is it in and what is really happening here. i was shown the extension were not there anymore and doing what is happening on the envelope of the property, of the house. i told them that i have no issue with whatever they are doing inside, it's none of my business. so that's the first thing. i would like to clarify what is being done. second, in 2015, when this process started there was some cavalier talk from the first architect that they might excavate the garage area and

redo the foundation which again i need a little bit more information and there was nothing in the plan then and i was worried that something like that might be happening again. because when i did the remodel of our property, i did extensive foundation repair. there is water proofing, there is tubes under the slab, under the footing to take the water out. if somebody starts working on the other side, i would like to work with them so they don't do the damage to my foundation. the third issue about repairing the staircase. the existing staircase that is there is going from the upper door on the side of the house from the kitchen to non-existing door which there used to be a door into the garage. so the staircase is

simply non-functioning at this moment. i don't understand how it's going to be fixed. and if it's going to be fixed, at this moment there is a three foot setback from our fence or from a fence in between the properties, and again, with the little time that i had to peak at the drawings, it looks like the landing from the garage and turn back, there is not even a space for the whole thing. my understanding is that the landing should be three feet which is if that's going to happen, if you trim the staircase, the staircase needs to be three feet. so i don't understand how that is going to be done. so pretty much my appeal is to figure out what's going on. if there is an extension going on,

if any foundation work is being done, what's happening with the staircase, and if it's even code compliance in a sense. i'm a plumbing contractor and i don't know all of these codes but i have been enough around construction to know something is weird about that as well. lastly, whatever is under this permit, i'm trying to find out. i hope there are no changes in the future. that they will suddenly stop the construction and yeah, we are doing excavation. i want to make sure whatever is there is there and when i walk out of here and i will finally understand what they are doing. that said, i don't have any problems with whatever they are

doing within the property. so if it's just what i have heard that it's what they are doing, i have no problem. foundation, staircase, whatever is happening. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. sandy matt, the agent for the permit holder. are you here? >> >> welcome, you have seven minutes. >> good evening members of the board, my name is jack. i represent this family in this matter. we applied a permit for our addition since 2015. and for that 7 years, our property has

mostly been vacated. i currently reside in the property with my dog. although the condition is not dilapidated, it is far less from ideal. regarding about the addition, we have since tried to move on. we have not previously for seen this level of complaint from a neighbor and we have seen an additional dwelling unit an adu. to my best knowledge according to the building code, an adu does not require our neighbors permission or approval. regarding the excavation of the garage and repair of the staircase, i believe our architect would be more than happy to address the concerns. that's all i have. thank you. >> thank you.

the architect, please come up right now. do you want to pause the time, please. >> the time is paused. >> hello, my name is sandy, i'm a designer for this property, 277 judson avenue. >> i'm sorry. it's difficult to understand you. if you can speak loudly that would be great. thank you. >> i have a question. why is this permit get notification of structural addition because all i'm understanding this permit is never get to the notification and we don't need to ask for permission from the neighbors,

and i understand the neighbors ivan has so many questions about the excavation. we talked about with the owner maybe a couple days ago. he decided not to do excavation between the two property foundations. sorry the mic is not -- okay. so and the next question is, to answer ivan, our original plan is to replace or rebuild the entire staircase, but at the end, the owner decided not to move on because they were concerned about the neighbors. he may not approve for the wall

because when you build the entire staircase, it may require a wall between the neighbors property line. so that is why we don't want to go for the rebuilding of the rear staircase. and i also can solve this question with the building department. they said we can do 50% of the staircase if we can. so we are trying to minimize the work between the neighbors and our client. we want to solve this on the side. so i want to make this quick. seriously i don't know why this permit went to the neighbors. i

have never seen anything like this. the neighbor called me and he told me he received notification of this structure notice which i wasn't aware of it and he has been asking me so many questions. i said maybe we can solve this issue at the dbi and also pick up the plan, also i don't have the plan on my hand and he would like to see a plan. so this is why we kind of show up in court today. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. >> we will now hear from the planning department. >> planning department, single

story. constructed in 1924, it is a potential historic resource. the permit is to construct a new accessory dwelling unit on the ground floor, repair existing decks and stairs at the rear and replace windows at the front and back of the property. no expansion is proposed. the appellant is the neighbor to the east, the concern is about excavation associated with the extension and the enlargement of the building. as previously mentioned, there is no expansion of the building. in 2015, when it was originally filed, there was an expansion proposed. the appellant did file a dr and it was heard by the planning commission in 2018 and the planning commission voted 5-0 and requested this be reduced by

15 feet. this was approved by the planning department january 24, 2019 and the permit was never issued. in 2022, when the owner was interested in reducing the scope, the planning department worked with the homeowner on the permit application and revise the plan. and the dwelling unit on the first and second floor, each consist of one bedroom and one bath. this complies with the planning code and the state adu program. the department respectfully ask the board to deny the appeal and uphold the issuance of the permit. >> thank you. >> we have a question from president swig. >> yes, i feel awkward in this. i see your point. there is no expansion, correct? same building, same footprint. the

only difference is the adu is being constructed on the ground floor. nothing physically is being done to adjust the building envelope. i will ask a question about those stairs in a second. what's confusing me here is the permit holder and the testimony didn't seem to understand what they were doing. the designer said, at least i heard her say, i haven't seen plans. i had a hard time hearing her and saying i don't have plans and i don't see the work being done with this property here. my concern is, does the

permit holder know what they have? how do we know that the permit holder knows what they have and the owner of the building may or may not do something with the staircase, the issues with the firewall and these are all confusing things when we are being asked to decide about a permit, and we have plans in front of us that seem to be baked in and approved and all this. can you advise the permit holder about this in some fashion so we don't have any ambiguity about what we are talking about tonight? >> i'm just reading for everybody on the board what the permit says, what the plans indicate. >> i'm clear on the subject, i'm not sure the permit holder is clear on the subject. this is

really what my concern is after i heard her testimony. i don't have any questions really regarding, other than how do we get the permit holder based on tonight exactly what they are doing and there are plans and they have something permitted, correct. all it is is an adu within the building envelope and it doesn't present a problem for me and shouldn't present a problem based on the concerns of the appellant. that's where my head is at, thank you. >> ms. tang. >> i understood the permit holder and the designer a little bit different from you that there was confusion about this requiring notice but didn't require notification because

they were built within the existing walls. and where the question therein lies the previous permit from 2015 that included additions beyond this that went to planning commission under discretionary review, it looks like the property owner has entirely scaled that back but it's still under the 2015 permit, and i think therein lies the entire confusion. the appellant is still perhaps potentially i'm assuming confused by the previous permit. it's been revised under the previous permit number, but the plans have changed entirely so it fits within the building envelope. that was my take away. >> i'm sorry, john. i'm going to ask. the permit we are discussing, is it the 2015 permit? but the plans are 2022

plans? and anything that was in 2015 has been in the garbage can. the reason i ask is it's important for the owner to hear this and the appellant to hear this. if i were the appellant, i might be confused too. >> thank you, mr. president. it seems that there is multiple levels of lack of communication and miscommunication not to which is the sound system here. i think we are all having trouble hearing some of the speakers including our colleagues, i am and that doesn't help the situation. but the bigger communication, gap in communication appears to be between the two litigants. i

think the question i would have for you is can we get them on the same page as to what the permit allows to happen, and what their plan is? and irrespective of what their plan is, if they still have the authority to do the expansion, then there is an issue. but if they are planning to do the adu only and the appellant hears that, that may be a way of resolving that issue, and second is on the staircase. are they allowed to do the staircase but they don't plan to? and how does that give assurance to the appellant and on the third issue about the foundation. i admittedly am very very new at this, but i have a sense that if

we can facilitate discussions between the two parties we can at least get an understanding of what they are planning to do, what they can do, and they may be able to reach an agreement going forward. >> thank you. i do have a copy of the permit and i'm happy to share that with the appellant. based on the permit, there doesn't appear to be any excavation, certainly no expansion of the building. and i'm hoping that would somehow resolve the appellant's concern. in terms of the repair of the stairs as long as they are less than 50% of the repair job, that's permissible by the building department.

>> thank you. >> ms. chan, before you leave, for the public, can you share how the public can access the plans. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from dbi. >> good evening, commissioners, matthew green representing dbi. building permit application 20150283993 was originally filed as an addition with an adu and later in 2019 and was modified to include the horizontal addition and adu and the application was approved on may 24, 2022. the permit was issued june 2022.

i believe it was sent by staff because the recent application noted the addition. this was sent in error and i apologize for the confusion this may have caused. as for repair, the plan shows less than 50%. they can replace the structural elements that maybe rotted. they can't replace the stairs. if they start to replace more than 50% of it, then it becomes a new staircase and they have to be brought up to code. once they go past that 50% threshold it is considered brand new and they have to be brought up to code

>> it doesn't show any expansion and any excavation which would require a special permit and the building inspector on site would note that and that would be a violation if they start excavating beyond this permit. i believe the permit was issued and reviewed properly and request the appeal be denied. i'm available for questions you may have. >> with reference to the appellant, if they move forward and the appeal is denied, if at any point the appellant see's the stairs are going beyond that 50% threshold that they are free to file a notice of violation with you, or ask that a notice of violation be offered to the

owner of the building if he observes a breach of what you are talking about, correct? >> correct. anybody can file a complaint. the build inspector should also catch that. that the plans state less than 50% of the repair. >> thank you. >> okay, we are moving now to public comment. if anyone wishing to provide public comment, please raise your hand. i don't see public comment. we will move on to rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> i should have spent more time with my seven minutes to begin with. first i will start from the back staircase. that staircase that's there, there is no way that there is going to be 50% replacement. that whole thing is rotten and it's coming down and it needs to be replaced.

i don't know how they are going to turn it around and do the new landing and turn it back with the setbacks that are supposed to be followed. that's the staircase. again i can file that here because that whole thing is going down. it's rotted. you mentioned how one should go about finding the plans? i spent eight or ten days before i field an appeal because i really want to find out what's going on. i went to dbi and planning records. they didn't have anything there, i went to dbi, he couldn't find any plan. everything was so ambiguous that what is happening that he himself said just appeal and then you will find out what's going on. that's why pretty much last minute, i filed an appeal.

so again, i keep hearing that nothing is being extended, nothing is being built. i don't have a problem with what's happening with the inside of the house. if that's true, that's fine, but i need some proof. i need to see something. i don't want to be here again and i don't want to file other complaints that suddenly something is happening there in that matter. at the same time, with the same thing would happen with that excavation with the garage. again, in 2015 when we went to the discussion or review, this was the fight basically. i didn't know at any minute what is really happening, what they really want to do. architects changed. there are seven people on the title, i have no idea who

i'm talking to at any time, every single time it's somebody else who i'm dealing with and i tried to talk to them about what's going on. i tried to talk to the architect and she didn't really give me any answers. i asked about who filed the permit and the lady said she didn't file it that they were still working on the drawings. so i'm lost. i'm still confused. >> thank you, we have a question from president swig, sir. >> you can step back from the podium please. i'm trying to put you at ease. do you understand now that there are plans that have been filed and approved, and that those plans do not include an expansion of the building of any

kind? >> yeah, it's all hear say from the planning department. >> if you go to mr. green at the end of this hearing, you will be able to get your security with that set of plans. you also understand that if the stairs are in the condition that you say they are, that either the building inspector or with your help through the building department can request that the building department take a look at that and then require if there is more than 50% repair needed, that they would require that a further permit be issued to replace those stairs probably as is. and that's what we are hearing tonight. so i'm clear.

>> excavation, nothing is happening. >> there will be no excavation. you should be comfortable with that, correct? >> yes, i am. i want to be sure we are all on the same page. i feel your pain and mr. green will help you with some antiseptic to get you those plans so you will have a record of those. if something goes different, you now have someone to talk to at dbi. he's the handsome guy with the glasses on. >> cool. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. you have three minutes. >> >> hi. i would like to know if i van wants to keep this set of

plan in private. ivan can view the plan but he can not have the plan. is this something we can do on the side or does he have to keep the plan? because the approved plan you have to get it by the owner and signed signature then the dbi can release the set of plan to whoever applies, right? but at this point since ivan has a concern about the plans, we can set up a time for him to see but we need to keep the plan. is that okay? >> i was just going to defer to the department. i think this question should be answered by mr. green. >> i just have a question. you

did submit the plan for this appeal? >> we did. >> it's online right now. >> you can go to review it. but i don't know about the set of plan if you can print it out. >> the plans you submitted to this packet is publicly available. >> i didn't know that, sorry. then my question for the staircase. we like to rebuild the staircase if ivan can approve it. we just don't want to go do the notice again. when i was going to the planning department, they said if we rebuild the staircase, not to go do the notice, the 15 days notice again. so that's why we

try not to go do the notice and we call it as a repair, minimize the work for my client. so that's all i need to say. any questions? >> i want to be real clear. do you understand that the plans have been filed? >> yes. >> the plans that are on file are the plans that you have the approval to build without exception. you can't change them anymore. >> can we -- >> i'm being very clear. because i was unclear in your testimony and i want to be sure we are both clear. >> i am clear. >> so you have filed plans. those plans as they have been filed have been approved by the departments to move forward.

at this point, those are the plans and they can not be changed if we move forward tonight, okay? do you understand that? so no more changes. >> no more changes. >> do you understand that? >> i understand. >> with regard to the staircase and i will ask mr. green, with regard to the staircase, you heard if it requires more construction than just a repair, you have to file a separate permit for that and you will have to comply to the rules associated with that permit. i'm going to ask mr. green to confirm that if that staircase is replaced in kind, that it's the same permit, it's not an expansion. it doesn't move anywhere, then i don't believe that notification is necessary.

what is necessary is that a permit be filed, or that you apply that permit to replace the staircase if it requires more than 50%. are you clear on that? >> yes, very clear. >> i want to go on the record to make sure everybody is on the same page. >> mr. green? >> similarly i have a couple of questions. one is, you are in agreement that there is only the adu that's being addressed here. there's no expansion on the plan? >> on the permit, no. >> and second, is if you could, i don't know to the extent to which there has been communication with your neighbor on this over the past weeks or longer, but if you could designate. this is a request. i don't think we are require it.

if you can designate one person to be the person that he speaks to so he has a person in your side and you can confer how to best do it and have multiple people speak with him so he knows that if he needs information from you because we want to maximize the communications between you that would be going forward. >> i agree with you. there is 5-7 owners on this property and it's very confusing when you talk to several people at any time. but if he has questions, he can call me. i guess this whole problem is based on lack of communication. we hope that we can clear this issue on our side, and that's

all i have. thank you. >> do you have any questions? >> not with the permit holder but i wanted to clarify something with the building department. >> there is rebuttal right now. >> i will wait. >> thank you very much. >> i appreciate it. >> does the department of building have any further questions? department of building inspection? >> good evening, matthew green, dbi. just to be clear about the plans, anybody can go to the records management division at the department of inspection usc view the plans and if you want a copy of the plans, you have to

put in a request and you can ask the designer and if the designer says no, you can still view the plans at dbi. i can show the appellant the ability to view this evening but i can't give him a copy of it. as to the staircase, the repair needs to be at 50%. if it does go over 50%, the rebuild permit needs to be required. any thing over that would require a new permit process.

>> thank you. i just wanted to make that clear to the permit holder and to the appellant which is that you can make changes, just that it would require modifications to the permit, or a new permit which would need to get reviewed by dbi and then reapproved, is that correct. >> it would be a building revision permit, a brand new permit application. to go through the approval process and it would be appealable again. to the question about, i think the permit holder had the question about the stairs. it sounds like they are in really poor condition. if 100% of the stairs needed to be replaced, that would require a revision permit. does that require a notification again? >> i would have to talk to the planning department about that whether a notification would be required. it wouldn't be a new

extension. i did mention earlier that it would have to be brought up to code. there are allowances if it's impossible to get it in code and replace it in kind. you have to prove that it is possible by the constraints of the site to bring it up to code. >> thank you. >> can i trouble you to ask you the question about the stairs. >> >> thank you, the stairs are shown on the plans as repair are located on the west side of the property. and they are right on the property line. so it's going to be kind of a reconstruction of these stairs, and they need

to meet the current code, a firewall may be required and depending on the height of the firewall if it's more than 10 feet, yes, notification would be required. >> thank you. >> mr. swig? >> i don't know whether this is a comment but there is questions during this period. i have to put it in a form of a question. mr. green, would you please before we leave the room tonight, offer guidance to the permit holder with regard to the stairs, please. any issues related to probably getting a permit to rebuild those stairs. i see a car crash coming and i want to prevent it. if we can

make it easier for the permit holder not to go through any duress, would you please provide her with the information necessary to start that process? >> i will stay here after the conclusion of the hearing. >> would you find that advisable as i'm suggesting? >> yes, it would make it a lot easier and we don't have to write notices of violation and corrections in the future and would be easier for everybody. >> the appellant would be happier too. thank you. >> commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners, would anyone like to make a motion? >> commissioner chang, commissioner travsvina, do you have any other comment? go ahead.

>> if i understand correctly the appellant understand the scope of work and the permit has been properly issued so we can as a board deny the appeal on that basis. it sounds like it would be advisable to the permit holder to file a new permit for repairing the stairs if it comes down to that or just know that would be required. but on the issue that's before us, move to deny the appeal on the basis that it was properly issued. >> okay, we have a motion from commissioner chang to deny the appeal to uphold the permit on basis that it was properly issued. on that motion, commissioner travsvina, aye. >> president swig? >> aye.

>> that motion carries and the appeal is denied. we are onto item 7. >> (7) appeal no. 22-045 angela kim, appellant(s) vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 706 vermont street. appealing the issuance on june 9, 2022, to jen dolson, of a site permit (replace roof deck in disrepair and repair roof/skylights as needed; expand 3rd floor to cover more of roof deck and add three feet of height to 3rd floor; move staircase inside from back to front hall in house and remove wall in dining room). permit no. 2020/02/18/4616. >> we will hear from ms. kim first. >> hello, thank you for your time today. my name is angela kim and my husband and i live on vermont street. we have been here for years and we support

the building and design guidelines. we believe there are several errors that must be correct. first i want to address the false claims by the homeowners attorney. the permit did not meet the legal requirements of the planning commission. the plans are required to be submitted by a licensed architect and engineer. the homeowner stated it was a home with a basement and we actually rejected the plan and they say we are doing everything to block them and it's not true. they also hired an expediter and required all communication to go through their expediter all the time and in writing. the permit

holder never discussed anything with us directly and required this to go through their attorney and made it very challenging to try to work the issues that we had with our plans with them. our house is 2600 square feet. they claim that our house is massive, in fact it's actually smaller than their current house. their house is already at 2900 square feet. if you noticed in all the plans, that's what its listed as present square footage and they have a seven bedroom and seven bath homes. they claim that ours is larger. just because you make false statements doesn't make it true. i want to say regardless of what the attorney is bringing up, we

would like to bring up the permit holder's project. the first issue we have is with the permit. there is a difference between a roof deck and green roof. the planner, monica, she acknowledged she entered roof deck on the physical permit. april 8, 2022, she corrected the system's database but didn't correct the permit where she hand wrote it and stamped it and stated that permitting needed to know how to correct this. we want to avoid what kind of confusion. only a green roof was issued and never approval for a roof deck. having language that a roof deck was approved from the permit and from the database

and the other documents from the department of building and planning, makes it confusing for other people, future residents, future homeowners. all we are asking is that the department of building inspection or planning simply correct the permit. it's not unduly burdensome to do this. we don't have an issue with the actual permit except that it has wrong long of the work that is permitted. the second issue is we would like to remove the elements of the roof deck. the main issue is that this green roof is designed with a walkable walkable path and staircase. planning department insist that

if the permit holder or future residents use this green roof as -- illegal we can file a complaint. they put the burden on the neighbors which doesn't seem right. we would like to have this removed. it seems off to have the residents to do this when the planning department can remove the elements of the roof deck from the green room. we don't have a problem with the green roof but the problem is with the roof deck. if guard rails are going to remain on the green roof, then the green roof portion should be setback to align with the guardrail. the homeowners state that the guardrail is necessary

for the maintenance of the green roof. i don't even maintain my yard weekly. they are saying it's only on the south side, there is a setback and the east side there is a 15 or 15 foot setback. there is no safety hazard, but on the side of our property, they have decided to extend the green roof behind the guardrail and that is 5 feet at the discretionary review hearing and the green roof is beyond that. why do they have the green roof extending beyond the guardrail. we would like that pushed back so it aligns with the guardrail. the other issue is that the

planning department allowed the permit holder to proceed with notification without meeting the 14 day notice requirement. the plans and permits were issued erroneously because of that. the notices were issued january 12th and only 10 day notice given and we brought this up with the planning department and they only allowed the planning commission to proceed. the california courts and dbi counts the first day after the notice date. the planning department should not be allowing the process to continue without a legal notice requirement. >> time. >> thank you, that's time for rebuttal. >> sorry i went over.

>> >> we will now hear from the permit holder. >> thank you, steve williams. responding for the homeowner # -- they live with their new baby. her parents 11 in the upstairs unit. this appeal just like the application before the planning commission which was unanimously denied. this has no

merit. >> this is uphill of it from the design in the planning code. they made their building larger than almost anything in the street for a single family home and some of the multibuilding units on the street. what they have proposed is much smaller. you can see from the photos that the shadows are cast from the

south to the north onto the home. the idea that there is any negative impact, shadows cast and anything like that has been completely abandoned by the appellant at the case at the planning commission. what this case is really about is the attempt to preserve views from lot line windows and deck. if we go to the next slide, you can see this is the appellant's home. they have two very large decks directly on the property line, yet here they are at the board of appeals asking that any new construction by their

neighbors be setback. this area is going to be expanded below as a compromise they reduced the roof line to below the deck. they had no obligation to do so but that was one of the compromises that she made in this process and she negotiated directly with them. i put a list that remains in the project in front of page 3. let me show you the front. the large red squares are drawn along the lot line. these are built directly on the property line. we asked if they were legalized with the planning department that they were unwilling or unable to produce any agreements that would have

legalize those. the windows are protected. they built this stretch behind the property line. you can see this property that matches the rear. i also put an aerial view in the brief that i submitted. you can see it's a little questionable about the appeal as there is this looming factor of a very much larger building uphill and to the south directly on the property line with lot line decks and lot line windows. it's really proven to be a moving target throughout the entire process. they complained about privacy and shadows and now we have a host of new complaints and complaint about a preapplication meeting, yet, in the dr materials, they put they

had fully participated and attended the meeting and discussed the project with the sponsor and with the planning staff. they also complained that the estimate footing for the project is too low but we know that can be adjusted by dbi. not a reason to deny the permit. they also claim there is some sort of violation of the building code. they don't state which building code it violated or how it's violated. the green roof issue seems to be the culprit here that the plan will somehow morph this into an occupied roof instead of a green roof. what is going to be built is approved by planning and is in the description. it's a 648

square foot green roof. the issue of an occupied roof versus the green roof was addressed by the planning commission. can i have the overhead again. >> this is the department analysis and mostly complies with the residential guidelines and the planning code. they said that in the event that this becomes an occupied in caution of that, it would set it back.

they wanted to extend the green roof to the edge of the roof just for appearances sake. it's ugly to have an exposed roof and a green roof everywhere else. >> time. >> thank you. please deny the appeal. >> i didn't hear any substantive questions about the building from the appellants that it was other than the green roof. did you hear the same thing? >> yes, they are throwing anything to a wall to see if it might stick and none of it has. >> with regard to this appeal and the building itself and the

plans themselves, the only complaint that i'm hearing and you are giving your agreement on is the green roof and occupiable roof and planning with dbi. this is what we are talking about, are we not? >> this is in the plan. >> i just want a yes or no answer. >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. >> >> tina chan from the planning department.

constructed before 1900. this is a potential historic. this is a permit to construct a one story addition, approximately one story in height. and new stairs at the top of the story at the rear. the appellant is the neighbor at the south of the subject property. as you heard during the notification process, ms. kim did file a dr request that the addition along with the green roof will impact her light, air and privacy. dr heard this before the planning commission february 2021 and they took the discretionary review and approved the project on the condition that the guard rails for the green roof be setback five feet from the property line to the south.

the appellant's brief, ms. kim is requesting that this board remove the guard rails and the green roof altogether, or setback the green roof no less than five feet to align with the guard rails. i believe she also mentioned she wanted the portion of vertical addition of the rear to be setback three feet from the shared property line. in terms of the permit, ms. kim is also concerned that the planner who reviewed the permit have cited a new roof deck at the top of the new addition. upon the citation of the permit, the issuer of the permit does not believe that they made any changes to the roof deck to the top of the addition. the roof deck is the roof deck at the top

of the story of the property and not at the front of the story of the property. in reviewing the architectural plans those are the ones that were adopted. therefore the planning board recommendation that you denial the appeal and uphold the permit. thank you. # #. >> a couple weeks ago we had a

discussion about the roof deck and the guard rails and what is a roof deck and a whole conversation about a gaining access to mechanical equipment which was on the roof deck and i think in the long run, we approved what was there, but there was this great fear that some hocus-pocus was that they were going to use the roof deck as a party deck -- or causing some disruption. can you clarify what is a roof deck and what is not a roof deck. in this case, what is the green roof? what would allow, do you see, is it being allowed for access on a regular basis for use and what

you would expect a roof deck is for and sit out there in the sun to suntan yourself for the beautiful view or is this deck being allowed only for the purpose of a green roof. help us, please. >> i will try. thank you. that's a really good question and like the permit holder stated this was heavily debated at the planning commission. i can tell you that it is only labeled as a green roof. there is nothing that says that you can have guard rails or access or even occupy a green roof. from the planning department's perspective and perhaps maybe even the planning commission, we

genuinely looked at this project that could be a concern with the neighbors and addressed it with conditioning the green roof to have the guard rails pulled back from the property line. >> by doing that, that is a disincentive for use. that is the disincentive for use as a party roof deck -- or where people will hangout and do that on roof deck. >> i don't think so. it's for the use of this roof deck to be on the property line. >> i see. so in your view, what the planning commission did was recognize the issues of privacy, recognize the issue of potential disturbance from one neighbor to

another and to assist in alleviating as much disturbance as possible put in the guardrail so it is smaller and there would be less chance for disturbance between one neighbor and another, is that correct. >> not necessarily. the propose of pulling the guard rails back. >> the same thing, if they were to have kept it on the deck, that creates a large deck and possibly people hanging over the roof deck and annoying the neighbors and those guard rails were pulled back and in the opinion of the planning commission, that was adequate to protect the neighbors with the

plans as they have been submitted and approved, correct? >> that's correct. >> okay, cool. thanks. >> mr. travsvina? >> thank you, i just have a question that you stated it would create a five bedroom five bath home. am i missing something there? >> the addition is 650 square feet. >> i think she is referencing the entire property. the entire square footage of the building including the lower level. >> it's described as a two story home and now having 650 square

foot addition on top of the two units. so altogether it becomes a 5 bath property. >> it sounds right. i have to check on the number of bedrooms. with the two units being maintained. so sorry for dovetailing on you. we are both confused. the property will have all the bedrooms that they state however subdivide # -- divided by 2. >> i'm sorry i was not on the board when you had the previous discussion about the green roofs

and deck. i suspect you will have more in the future. that it's a divide that it is a green roof or a deck and seems to me that it could be both. this green roof is it reasonable to conclude that this green roof could be used as a deck and has been approved with that risk and so that everybody is clear. i want -- i hear from mr. williams that it's a green roof but it could be both. >> there is no indication that

it is occupied as a green roof. >> maybe i will wait for deliberation. i was going to say something about the green roof and deck distinction in case it is helpful but i don't know if it's an appropriate time. >> let's hear from dbi. >> >> good evening, commissioners, matthew green dbi. this was filed february 18, 2020, after approval by planning the site permit application was reviewed and approved on may 18, 2022. issued june 9, 2022. no construction can begin before the first construction is issued. the appellant stated the bedrooms in the third floor is

illegal. i believe she is saying she's concerned about exiting from the bedroom. however, it clarifies that emergency escape and rescue openings before the first floor are allowed to discharge in the rear yard if it's 25 foot deep and the rear yard is 28 foot deep and this was verified by the plan checker as well as the supervisors. the appellant believes the valuation was too low and using the schedule, this cost schedule is based on the addition of square footage with add on for specific items such as a new kitchen and new bathroom. we ran the numbers again and $117,000 is accurate. it shows a green roof and there is requirement

for green roof for residential renovation at this time. new construction would require for a solar system to remove and replace a solar system. the permit was issued properly and should be upheld. i'm available for any questions you should have. >> thank you. i don't believe we have any questions right now. >> we are going to move for public comment. if you have public comment, please raise your hand. i don't see any public comment. we will move on for rebuttal. ms. kim, you have three minutes. >> hello, i would like to clarify that the issue was not whether or not the green roof or we don't. no identification was

required. you have to have different notification and the plans and the requirement are different for a roof deck. the permit holder plans do not meet the requirements of the roof deck. what the planning department said was not correct. with regard to the permit, we are just asking for the physical permit to be stated correctly. it doesn't show the green roof. it shows the roof deck. again there is confusion because the attorney keeps referencing a third floor roof deck when it's actually a terrace. it's off their bedroom and goes from the stairs to the green roof. that's the roof deck that they are talking about, but it's actually a physical terrace. they completely take over the roof that they say terrace by adding

an addition to it. as for the property, it is used as a single family home although i have never seen her parents living there. with regard to the building at the egress issue, it's not the third bedroom but the bedroom between the first and second floor with know egress to any exterior access. but most importantly, we want a clarification about the green roof and roof deck. we want the green roof which we don't have an objection to, they can have the green roof, we just want the permit to be clear in saying that it is a green roof and not a roof deck. there is no roof deck on the plan. with the guardrail, the reason that it is necessary for safety. we would like the green roof moved back

to the south side. all other three sides of the guardrail on this green roof has a setback of the roof. except the south side. >> you have 30 seconds left. that's what we would really like clarified the correction on the physical permit. i spoke with monica, she did erroneously put down green roof on the physical permit, and corrected only the database system. the reason this is all confusing is because the permit holder filed for a permit back in 2020 for green roof. >> thank you, your time is up. >> no problem. we will now hear from the permit holder. mr. williams, attorney for the permit holder.

you have three minutes. >> thank you, steve williams again. again, you just hear a scatter shot approach. can i have the overhead again. this is a roof deck approved on the third floor. it's right there on the plans. i don't know why they keep saying it's not there. it is a two unit building. it's going to be 3600 square feet when it's offend which is about 1800 square foot per unit, much smaller than the 2700 square foot next door. but this green roof, this was directly addressed by the planning department. i will submit this so the board members can read it. this specifically states and analysis done by the planning commission. this is the last page of the dr analogies.

it says if and when used as an occupiable floor, it's may affect the privacy of the dr's home and therefore approve this with the property line. it was directly addressed. that's the issue and they set that back for them. as far as the fall protection, i went to the manual compiled nearly ten years ago by dbi and the planning commission department and quoted it extensive in the brief. if you look at pages 9 and 10, it says specifically working on the roof is dangerous due to risk of falling and can be mitigated with protection measures by

providing a railing. cal osha requires safety. i don't understand the objection to the safety measures which is a guardrail which is now setback in the instant that this is now becomes an occupied roof and the stairs on the north side of the appellant and the folks on the north side have no objection to the stairs going to the green roof. it would have no impact at all on the kim's. there was a green roof approved, there was also a roof deck approved. the confusion is in no one's mind but the appellant. the planner has clarified that the reference to a roof deck is the new con figured roof deck is

the third floor off the bedroom and green roof on the front. do not remove the elements of safety from this roof. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. >> >> thank you, i did contact monica and the architect at the planning department at the commission hearing for dr, they both informed me that they did treat the green roof as a feature that may be occupied and the department had no issues with the third deck at the top of the story should that have been proposed with the condition that the guard rails be pulled in from the side property line. i recognize it's labeled as a green roof and we are okay with that.

>> >> thank you. president swig? >> does it matter one way or the other on the final plans for the comfort of the appellant whether it is noted as green roof or roof deck? i think this is the level other than than go back to the green roof to the -- but does it matter one way or the other? are we making a mistake by not calling it a green roof. can this be considered a typographical error, and for the comfort of the appellant, can we have that designation as a roof

deck replaced with green roof without anything, any dominoes being affected? >> i can go ahead and relabel something on the plans. that's up to the applicant and their wishes. i believe i'm hearing whether we should label this as a roof deck. >> i'm very clear that a roof is occupiable and that it could be treated like a roof deck. there is no issue here. the issue is that the appellant seems to be upset that that space which is a green roof labeled as a green roof on the plan somehow is

being interpreted in the final plans in the planning department as a roof deck. can we do something about that within the planning department. or is the appellant incorrect and is it called a green roof in the plans in the planning department. >> the planning department took this issue in dr and voted 7-0 to allow for the green roof to be labeled as the green roof knowing and discussing it that yes, you can occupy a green roof. >> it seems there is upset from the appellant side that there is a typo somewhere that says it's a roof deck. personally i don't have a problem with that. i'm just trying to make an appellant comfortable with something that they think is wrong. i really

don't care one way or another, but i understand they are pretty much the same, but i'm just asking, that's all. >> thank you. >> does it matter? >> to planning? >> to anybody, except the appellant? >> i'm not sure. i'm just letting you know what we went through in the review process and how we basically interpret how that space could be used being there is no provision that could not occupy the green roof. >> right, let's put that aside for a second. if this is not clearly labeled a green roof, can the permit holder at some point take away the green roof and put a surface on it? >> yeah.

>> it doesn't matter one way or the other? >> they can have a roof deck on the top of the three story addition and the planning code would allow for it because it meets the code and the guideline. >> i'm just trying to an appease the public and trying to find every angle to make it fair for both parties. sometimes i get myself in trouble. >> mr. travsvina? >> thank you. i will try to frame it in a question. it seems to me that i differ from mr. swig and the assurance that ms. kim is looking for isn't the label but she doesn't want the area beyond the guardrail to be used and occupied.

is there any purpose for the guardrail to reduce the use or occupants of the area between the guardrail and the edge of the roof? does the guardrail serve that purpose? >> that may be a question for the applicant. we do sometimes pull back rails to keep the occupancy within the area defined by the guard rails. that is not to prevent someone from going over the guard railings if there is greenery on the other side. >> i think we can establish that it's going to be a fear that it's going to be a party deck --

or a roof deck and who put in the guardrails at that point >> that is approving by the planning department and the sign approach is very common for a lot of our decks agency the ones we saw tonight pulling back from the property line, pulling roof deck from the guard rails are very common in almost all of our projects. >> but it's your idea that in this case, it doesn't provide any assurance or protection that the area between the guardrail and the edge will be any less used just for having a guardrail there? >> that's correct. >> thank you. >> >> commissioner chang? >> thank you. another clarification question, procedurally is there any

difference from the planning department lens in process between a roof deck and a green roof? >> okay, i think that was the concern raised by the appellant and it seems like the intent of the guard rails pulled back five feet from the property line is to discourage the use between the property line and the guardrail that you can't necessarily prohibit it. it's just the intent behind that, is that right? >> pretty much. i mean most people don't go to the edge of the building without any sort of safety mechanism 30 feet up in the air. >> thank you so much. >>

thank you, we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> thank you. there is nothing to prevent someone without a guardrail. it provides the minimum safety standards and advises not to go over that. it guides people to not inadvertently want to go to the rail. >> is it hard to add the term green roof to the term permit. can monica go to the permit to

write it green deck to make it abundantly clear. >> it's easy to do. i'm just not sure that whether it's legal or not of the approved permit. >> that would constitute a change to the permit that would require four vote and would require addition of the language. >> thank you. >> commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners travsvina, any comment, questions, motion? >> i think the prerogative of being a new member to defer to my senior members here and what your suggestions are before i comment one way or the other.

>> commissioner chang? >> thank you president swig. i'm inclined to deny this appeal in that it was properly issued. >> i would agree. >> you know, we got, you saw me get hung up on semantics and fall right down into the swamp with a muddy face. it's been clarified that a green deck, a roof deck, pretty much all the same. if we wanted to take the extra step at your suggestion to have two words changed, that would require a whole other, another hearing. we are dealing with this in another hearing. i don't think it's necessar if i have your permission and i would

move forward in that spirit. >> [inaudible] >> can look for any possible

reason to prolong a process of what they don't like, but i do feel that in the kim's case that it's not semantics, it's just a basic understanding of # a feeling that there is a difference between a green roof and a roof deck and to help people understand early in the process that neither side has to go to a prolonged effort to get some of these questions resolved. >> we encourage everybody is encouraged to talk to each other so they don't even to have get here. today were two good examples of that. you are absolutely right. we encourage the public that they should be talking to each other as much as possible. sometimes there are circumstances that prevent that,

one party or another. sometimes they just never get there which is why they pay us the big bucks to hold these hearings. that's why for your benefit i'm saying this, that's why i bent over backwards to make sure we have super clarity from the building department and planning, so everybody, they may not walk out of here happy but they walk out of here knowing to the best of our ability knowing the facts that are on the table. i agree with you completely. in a perfect world everybody would talk to each other and we wouldn't have to convene but that's where we are headed. >> and the efforts to do that because even though we do not have a packed house here, there are people that watch the

proceedings and this is ultimately the way to educate the public as to what their rights and responsibilities are. >> you are absolutely correct. in the case of roof decks, we will hear more and in the case of decks in backyards, we will hear more because those are areas of concern between neighbors and also areas of concern within a neighborhood. so become familiar with these types of discussions for the future. thank you very much for your point of view. >> commissioner chang, would you like to move forward with that motion? >> sure. you have taken the floor today. >> no, in a couple weeks we

won't have that pleasure so we want to take advantage of this as much as possible. >> sure. i move to deny the appeal on the basis that it was properly issued. >> we have a motion on the appeal to deny based on the motion that it was properly issued. >> [roll call] >> thank you. that motion is denied. the appeal is denied. >> thank you. >> we are done. >> thank you.

>> there is a lot of unique characteristics about visitation valley. it is a unique part of the city. >> we are off in a corner of the city against the san francisco county line 101 on one side. vis station valley is still one of the last blue color

neighborhoods in san francisco. a lot of working class families out here. it is unusual. not a lot of apartment buildings. a lot of single family homes. >> great business corridor. so much traffic coming through here and stopping off to grab coffee or sandwich or pick up food before going home. >> a lot of customers are from the neighborhood. they are painters or mechanics. they are like blue color workers, a lot of them. >> the community is lovely. multi-racial and hopefully we can look out for each other. >> there is a variety of businesses on the block. you think of buffalo kitchen, chinese food, pork buns, sandwich. library, bank of america with a parking lot. the market where you can grab anything. amazing food choices, nail

salons. basically everything you need is here. >> a lot of these businesses up and down leland are family owned. people running them are family. when you come here and you have an uncle and nephew and go across the street and have the guy and his dad. lisa and her daughter in the dog parlor and pam. it is very cool. >> is small businesses make the neighborhood unique. >> new businesses coming. in mission blue, gourmet chocolate manufacturing. the corridor has changed and is continuing to change. we hope to see more businesses coming in the near future. >> this is what is needed. first, stay home.

unless it is absoluteliness scary. social distancing is the most important step right now to limit spread of virus. cancel all nonessential gather everythings. >> when the pandemic litly land avenue suffered like other corridors. a few nail salons couldn't operate. they shut down. restaurants that had to adapt to more of a take out model. they haven't totally brought back indoor seating. >> it is heartbreaking to see the businesses that have closed down and shut because of the pandemic. >> when the pandemic first hit it got really slow. we had to change our hours. we never had to close, which is a blessing. thank god. we stayed open the whole time. >> we were kind of nervous and anxious to see what was going to come next hoping we will not have to close down.

>> during covid we would go outside and look on both sides of the street. it looked like old western town. nobody on the street. no cars. >> it was a hard eight or nine months. when they opened up half the people couldn't afford a haircut. >> during that time we kept saying the coffee shop was the living room of the valley. people would come to make sure they were okay. >> we checked on each other and patronized each other. i would get a cup of coffee, shirt, they would get a haircut. >> this is a generous and kind community. people would be like i am getting the toffee for the guy behind me and some days it went on and on. it was amazing to watch. we saw a perfect picture of community. we are all in this together.

>> since we began to reopen one year later, we will emerge stronger. we will emerge better as a city because we are still here and we stand in solidarity with one another. >> when we opened up august 1st. i will not say it was all good. we are still struggling due to covid. it affected a lot of people. >> we are still in the pandemic right now. things are opening up a little bit. it is great to have space to come together. i did a three painting series of visitation valley and the businesses on leland. it felt good to drop off the paintings and hung them. >> my business is picking up. the city is opening up. we have mask requirements. i check temperatures. i ask for vaccination card and/or recent test. the older folks they want to

feel safe here. >> i feel like there is a sense of unity happening. >> what got us through the pandemic was our customers. their dogs needed groomed, we have to cut their nails so they don't over grow. >> this is only going to push us forward. i sense a spirit of community and just belief in one another. >> we are trying to see if we can help all small businesses around here. there is a cannabis club lounge next to the dog parlor to bring foot traffic. my business is not going to work if the business across the street is not getting help. >> in hit us hard. i see a bright future to get the storefronts full. >> once people come here i think they really like it. >> if you are from san francisco visit visitation valley to see

how this side of the city is the same but different. you're watching san francisco rising. today's special guest is monique gray. >> hi. i'm chris mannis and you're watching san francisco rising. the our guest today is marquise gray. he runs out of the office of the mayor in the city and county of san francisco. and he's with us today to talk