good evening and welcome to the september 7, hybrid meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. rick swig am presiding joined by vice president lopez remote low. and commissioner john trasvina. we expect commissioner lemberg shortly. also present is upon brad russy provide any needed legal advice at the controls of the board legal system and i'm julie rosenberg the executive director. we'll be joined from city

departments project tina tam deputy zoning administrator with planning and matthew green with department of building inspection. board meeting guide livens turn off all phones so they will not disturb. no eating or drinking in the hearing room. the rules of presentation are follows, appellates and department respondedants begin 7 minutes to present and 3 for rebuttal. people affiliated have comments during these periods. others have 3 machines to address and no rebuttal. our legal assistant will give a warning 30 seconds. 3 votes are required to grant an appeal or modify. if have you questions about rehearing the rules and schedule e mail the staff at board of appeals. publick setsz are of importance

to the board. sfgovtv broadcasting and stream thanksgiving live and we will have the ability to receive upon comment for each item on the agendaful sfgovtv is providing closed captioning for the meeting to watch on tv go to cable channel 78. tell be rebroadcast on friday's at 4 p.m. a link to the live stream is on the home page of the website. public comment can be provide in the 3 ways in person, zoom or our website and click on zoom or by phone. call 669-900-6833 enter id access code: 898 3139 6903 ## and again sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming the number and access on the bottom of the screen if you are watching the stroll. to block your number dial star scent then the phone number. listen for the public comment portion and dial star 9 equal to

raising hand so we know you want to speak you will be brought in when it your turn. you miff to dial star 6 to unmute yourself. you will have 3 machine in our legal assist an will provide you with a verbal warning before time is up there is a delay with live and what broadcast on tv and the internet. it is important that people call nothingrous or turn off volume on tv's or computers. if participates or attendees on wareroom need assistance make a request in the chat function to the legal assistant or send an e mail. now the chas function cannot be used for public comment or pregnancy. we will take comment first from those in the hearing room. now we will swear in our, firm all those who intend to testify. any member may speak without oath pursuant to the rights

under the sunshine ordinance if you testify tonight and wish to have the board give your testimony weight. raise your hand and say, a do after affirmed. do you swear or aushg firm the testimony you give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> okay. thank you. if you are participate and not speak put your zoom speaker on mute. so item 1. general public comment an upon tube for anyone withhold like to speak on the jurisdiction but not on the night's calendar. is there anyone here for general public comment. please, raise your hand. i see a member. seth miller. go ahead. seth miller. you are here for general public comment?

are you here to speak on an item not on the agenda j. no. >> we will call you latered now we are on general public comment. thank you. is there anyone here for general public comment we move on item 2 commissioner comments and questions. >> yep. i just like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the departure of our legal council brad russy. he is the backbones of this organization. providing our guidance to keep us on rack and on the rails. so we don't -- abuse our privilege. we are aulgsz a group that likes to keep it legal and we preach that and brad helps us helped us

to stay organized and stay informed and make sure that we are providing the best opinions for the public. and i'd like to thank him for his service and wish him the best on the continuation of his career with the city. hoe is in the leaving the city. we are losing him. thank you very much, brad we appreciate it. >> thank you. commissioner trasvina. >> thank you. like to join president swig in also expressing my appreciations for you, brad. and your work, our work is shorter -- than with president swig. i was impressed with the timeliness, quality and the responsiveness of your legal presentations to us. and i seek perhaps biassed i'm

an alumnist. to mr. herrera now your current city attorney. we, as a city are well served and your service is no exception. i know you will go on to continue to serve members of commissions making sure that we continue to comply with the law in your next position. want to express gratitude and wish you well in your next steps. why we hear from vice president lopez. >> yea, thanks. want to echo those sentiments and express appreciation. brad, your advise has been very much on point. it is not easy you know sometimes to have to give advice on the fly. as issues and facts and points

of law are raised role time in the hearings. as a fellow attorney i have been very empathetic with this position and you carried it out well. and -- i really hope that the folk in your next assignment appreciate how fortunate they are to have your service and advice. and we will miss you. and hope we stay in touch >> thank you very much >> thank you >> commissioner lemberg. welcome and we are on commissioner comments and questions. your fellow commissioners have been talking and acknowledging brad russy's contribution to the board. >> thank you, julie. i of course want to echo i'm a newarkdition to the board and yet i had a few questions for you and i very much appreciate your presence here having attorneys in city attorneys

office who are devoteed ethics and the order of the law is extremely important. and i'm grateful for your service to this body and to the city generally and you will certainly be missed. thank you. why thank you. >> is there -- i'm sorry we have someone else who wants to speak. this mic is not working. i'll say, thank you, commissioners i enjoyed this assignment 6 years i had the opportunity to work with many commissioner and with 2 excellent executive directors of the board. it an assignment i enjoyed as much or more than others and i will miss coming here on wednesday nights and working with you all and thank you for your kinds words, i appreciate it. >> is there public comment. raise your hand.

>> okay. i don't see hands raised. we will move on to item 3 the adoption of the minutes commissioners before you for discussion are minutes august 24, 2022 meeting. and i want to let you know commissioner lemberg reached out about a correction to pronoun in item 3. on page 2. the draft minutes state commissioner echoed commentses of fellow commissioners and should read. echoed the words of their fellow commissioners that's his request to the amendment. >> any other amendments or comments. >> commissioners anybody want to make a motion. i like to move to approve the minutes of august 24 meeting as corrected by commissioner lemberg. >> thank you. on commissioner trasvina's motion. vice president lopez. >> aye >> commissioner lemberg >> yea >> president swig. >> yea that carries 4-zero and

minutes are adopted. om to item 4a and 4b. these are appeal 22-057 and 58. linda zider versus belling inspection and ron summers versus building inspection appealing the issuance to vassiliki peritos the 2 story r-3 structure for 1 ad u per california code section 65852.2. no work to front a-2 on lot permit number 2022/0207/7451. we will hear from ms. zider's

attorney first. welcome. over head is working, the screen is not on. it is appearing on the commissioner screen. >> yes. >> i call maintenance to -- will it work. maintenance is on the way. >> do you want to pause and wait. >> i can get started it was a set the tone thing. if tell come on shortly. >> we don't know we don't want to impact you were presentation we can wait. >> they are coming now? also several the mics don't sound like they are on. yours are not on. >> i don't think this one is on. i hear you. >> everybody's is on except alex and he did not turn hisson.

that was my fault. and i we can see your image for the record. the public can't. >> public can't. >> cannot can they see this on zoom? sfgovtv said the you across are coming up if you want to take a break that is up to you. or continue. we are fine with the break if you want to wait. tell being a couple minutes than i are coming now. >> take 5. >> okay. we will take 5 minutes thanks for patience. >> okay. >> okay. welcome back. the september 7, upon 2022 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals on items 4a and b. we are going to hear from the

attorney for the appellate for appeal number 22-057. you have 7 minutes. >> thank you very much. >> good evening president swig and members of the board. steve williams on behalf of linda zider. lives adjacent to the property and to the west and here tonight. lived there for more than 40 years the big picture for the case. during the past 1 and a half years the sponsor does not live at the site. filed 5 different permit applications for construction work. that rears building in the minimum rear yard. november 20 between they filed a permit for ateration of subject cottage not to take it down and rebuild arc catched the summary of this permit to the brief as common one in john of 21 they filed number 2 to demo and rebuild a reariard green house

temperature is mostly glass structure now reconstructed as a solid new building extension. exhibit five is the brief and summary of that. after the permit to alter and rehab the cottage was approved the sponsor switched gores in february of this year in 2022, and filed a first permit 3 to demolish the cottage and permit 4 to build a now ad u in the rear yard. and permit 5 was filed in march of this year 2022, to construct a deck in the rear yard on the third floor. appeal of had permit application is coming before this board in 3 weeks. the sum row of that is attached to exhibit 6. for all of these 5 per mitts the planned construction in this year yard there has been

wherevero public out reach no sit downs with neighbors. no head's up to a neighbor over a fence when asked mrs. zider told it would be used for storage only while the permits were pending the subject cottage is in the rear yard and this is the crucial issue for the board this is unauthorized unit defined by planning. that is a fact. and there is in dub about this fact. planning code section 317b13 defines unauthorized units a room or rooms built without permits used as a separate living or sleeping space inspect from residential units on the same property. >> and inspect means, the space has inspect access. does not require entering the

other units on the property or no open or visual connection to another unit on the property for that unit again that is satisfied here. nervous confirm the cottage has been occupied. the sponsors have confirmed by declaration the cottage least used as a sleeping space and that bring its within the defy nifgz unauthorized unit. the units are considered a resource to be protected. if you serve on the board in part to protect affordable housing now is your chance. general plan and planning code of section 317a made clear the units part of the housing stock other greatest source of rental andk seszable residential units and a public hearing for cu authorization is required prior to the approval of any permit that might remove existing housing this subject permit would. the department was not told this this unauthorized unit had

previously been used as annual inspect living or sleeping space. >> planning was told this is a garden shed. so -- let's look at the form used by planning to make the determination of whether or not unauthorized unit is there. this is the udu unauthorized unit check list part of the research planning does to determine if an unauthorized unit is present. you see from the form the first question is what i explained to the board. does this meeting space meet the physical independence describe in the planning code 317b13. yes. the department agreed with my analysis under this section for 317 for independent access. question 2. has space used a separate living space. this is where planning provided misinformation. the question is whether the

cottage used as a separate or sleeping space. independent from initial units on the same property. that's a quote from the statute. the furthermore is marked, no. true answer is, yes the niches and sponsor confirmed the cottage is used as a separate santa fes. planning asked the right questions and provide incorrect information. a completely different analysis would have and should have occurred if accurate information had been provide. this is the analysis that must be done now. question is the existing unauthorized unit viable for rehab legalization through the dbi process and the planning process? these processes have long been in place now to legalize units. and they have been in place

since 2014 at dbi and 2016 at planning. this project must be reviewed to see if that is a viable option. grant the appeal and save this informly affordable housing. and use your common sense judge for yourself look at the exterior photos of the garden shed. it looks residential. as the neighbors testified. and as the sponsors have confirmed has residential doors and windows and look at the interior photos provided by the project sponsor. a finished surfaces. they have dry wall. sinks. you know it is a living space and the confirmation from the experiences now this has been used as the neighbors said it has over the years for sleeping, living, separate from all the other unitos this lot confirm

its is unauthorized unit within the meaning of section 317. thank you very much. and i'm available to answer questions you might have. >> thank you, we have a question from president swig. >> councillor i agree that this is going to come down whether it it is inspect unit or not. um -- or a unist which does not um -- i will ask our city attorney questions related this. if this is a unit that has been used for residencey i want to qualify that then it seems that you are correct. or you might be correct. i don't know i'm think burglar it. what you used inspect unit.

what is your definition of inspect unit? i'm interested i will ask the same of the city attorney and then i will ask the same of planning what is your definition of inspect inspect inspect unit that block has been checked you have by planning section 317b13 it means access that does in the require entering through another residential unit on the property and no open or visual connection to another unit on the property, it is in the attached to the other units not department on the other units. >> what i stumbled upon and i agree with your observation in nose terms, it was truly an

independent unit it was rented separately and a different tenant than other part of the remining part of the building. and with that, i'd like to shift my question to mr. russy and that to help mow with the definition of independent unit and whether an independent unit is manage that has a history being rented separately or may have been used as a residential unit to an existing address. and therefore is less independent or does it merit? >> commissioner, i would gnu like to defer answering until we hear from planning and dbi i know well is an issue raised in the appellate's brief whether this cottage is even the square footage is sufficient to constitute a separate unit below

that is required for a minimum unit 123 square feet it might be good to hear from the departments on their view whether or not they view third degree as a dwelling unit. >> great. i still look forward to your legal view but had is good advice i let the burden placed on planning. >> okay. we have a question from commissioner trasvina. >> thank you, and thank you mr. williams for your presentation. since i have been here i have seen a lot of the cases that come before us. as issues of communication. sometimes between the city and the permit hold and sometimes the city and neighbors and sometimes permit hold and neighbors it is apparent from the materials that have been provided there is in the much communication going on in the neighborhood.

and you use stated there was no public out reach. i wanted to know what for this proceeding, how much -- what public out reach is required? and under what authorization is this requirement put in place? well, for i believe that there was a preapplication meeting required for the deck permit. and it is a common sense thing if you build a new 2 story build nothing the rear yard of your house you should mention it to your neighbors. that did not happen. neighbors were shocked. mrs. zider was at her vacation home in tahoe. and if you looked was sent to the board the neighborhood was shocks and surprised by this

appearance of you know reconstruction of the rear yard. building and the proposed ad u. >> i i read the materials but what i have not heard or what is not crystal clear is what the legal requirement is for public out reach and if there is i legal requirement, how much? >> manslaughter i can't answer that as far as the ad u i can for the elevated deck permit y. we are not talking about elevated deck permit sir. >> we are not talking about that. i can't answer farz the ad u i assume the planning department recommends public and neighborhood out reach. i'm assuming that. if they don't they should. >> okay second, you expressed your view that this has been used as a sleeping space and sight the declaration from the

property owner permit holder. is there under 317b, is there a threshold or can if someone sleeps there over night and get tired and go for an afternoon and sleep in the shed does this make it a sleeping space or is there a threshold. does not seem like the declaration you are citing seems oceanal use by a family member. does that is that all that is needed? to qualify as a sleeping space. >> you know that issue is in the fleshed out. i looked for interceptions in the planning code that is in the fleshed out. but you know certainly there has been more than a family member sleeping in the garden shed that -- you know and then we are going by their declaration the neighbors say people have lived there and the owners are saying no people slept there occasionally we had relatives

sleep there and others sleep when they were job hunting that is in the declaration. if you look at the statute the statute says separate living or sleeping space. and looking at the photos that's what this is. >> okay. and finally our deputy city attorney eluded to the issue of the space. for rental housing. do you have a view of as to whether this shed is large enough to be considered part of the stock of rent control housing? the test is in the whether or not it meets the code now it is whether or not used unauthorized unit regardless of its code legality. the programs near place to legalize it. that's when they did with their

first permit. there is a lower thresh hole at 150 square feet. i locked at dpshgs bi for legal iegz the units it says 120 square feet which this meet. but that is not the test. the test is not is this up to code, legalized unit the code is the code says has it ever been used for sleeping independent, separate from the other units? >> thank you. question from commissioner lemberg. why thank you. my question is simple and that is does the appellate or any of the other neighbors have evidence to contradict that is in the permit holders sworn

declaration the shed has not been used as a sleeping space for 10 years or more in the past. is there evidence to refute that assertion. has there been anyone living there in the past. >> i don't know i'm assuming the neighbors sent letters talking about that and hopefully you will hear from them tonight you have testimony tonight making clear you know when it was occupied and how often. >> the reason i'm will asking is you know you brought up the neighborhood not sxifkz unfortunately the law does not support this. what do i think well should have to be? sure, but that's not what is in front of us and not the requirement under the law. and the other part is -- that you argued is preservation of

affordable housing but. there is no you know if no one is live nothing this unit it is not afford annual housing and in fact the project being proposed is a new ad u which would be affordable how doing a permitted unit. so, i definitely want to encourage any neighbors speak nothing public comment tonight to provide evidence that they may have of people actually living in this back unit within the last 10 years. and the more recent the better. but you know i certainly read the briefs and i will ask similar questions of the permit holder. i would like to hear evidence of this if well is such evidence. >> and the neighbors i think will make public comment tonight in that regard. and i would point out that -- this is more of what is their currently rehabbed will be more affordable than anything new.

and we are not talking about affordable housing look at my exhibits. 3500 to 4700 a piece. and so the ad u will go in that range. yes. so -- the smaller unit in the back would be rented for less than a main unit in the main building? right. guessing here. >> may be, may be not. >> okay. >> thank you. weave will hear from ron summer appeal 22-058. welcome you have 7 minutes. >> thank you, jewel and he i appreciate being on tonight on zoom. mr. summer we don't seeow royour video is off. >> okay.

i don't know if that was intentional. >> thank you. i submitted a brief earlier but i was late by a matter of 4 or 5 hours. what i'm about to say is already in writing and i will be delight federal could be circulated so my main point is that i'm very much about the precedent that will be set here. if there permit moves forward in the current set up. allow me to explain. right now if we are able to see 1335 bay street the development of a 2 story ad u. my worry is that every neighbor in that block will if not now in the future be wondering why don't i do the same thing. i know we allment to support affordable housing. but the domino affect of how that could destroy the very

activities and [inaudible] that planning and zoning professionals the last 100 years trying to protect andup hold will be disappearing. when you think of the main reasons for this rear yard, that rear courtyard area bounded by bay street and octavia and francisco and goth street the planning and zoning professionals from 100 years back had an idea when they were trying to create. multifamily housing that would provide lots of living space and also the opportunity in the year yard area in the large courtyard bounded by the 4 streets, to have quality of life open space and quiet enjoyment. and at this property in 1335 bay street is allowed come out

expanding the footprint of the garden shed, rising from one store tow 2. that sets a very concerning precedent. and that would money that other neighbors over time may be not immediately, but down 2-5 years issue 10 years when we are gone they will all wonder why don't i put an ad u in my backyard like that. i could use that extra income to august am my social security, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera . i just want to make a point that i think we should be cautious on the first ad u in this very special block example what i'm suggesting is why can't it be one story like the garden shed had been. why can't it be a footprint similar to the garden shed may be slight low larger but not has large as being propoedz. why can't it be a kitchet and studio whether that have been a

full 1 bedroom lost apartment with a full kitchen if we go with the max approach of the first ad u to this [inaudible]ing in the neighborhood. not only will change that block the perpetuity bull a precedent that will spark similar developments throughout the city. my thought is, first ad u in this block that is keep it to one store and he a studio and kitchenette. keep the footprint mall and not go to the max approach which is what i see before us. the professionals and the planners that were involved in protecting that block and designing that block 12 year building the corn 12 unit building on each the middle of the streets. with marina [inaudible] all the way around, they had an idea when they were trying to accomplish and what you all have

been protecting the last 100 years. my thought is let's go easy and make surgeon we doernt set a precedent with consequences with a domino affect of ad u's springing up not just in this courtyard but all the properties in the marina neighborhood. thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> i don't see questions. we will hear from scott the attorney for the permit holder. >> welcome, you have 14 minutes since you are responding to 2 appeals >> thank you very much. good afternoon or almost evening. board members. i'm on behalf of the permit holder. what mr. summers advocated for. 5 or 10 years ago that was be an argument we have about building

an ad u in a rear yard design criteria and should this go through discretionary review. the legislator taken that away. the legislator made a decision. you may agree or disagree with the decision but the decision is if an ad u meets criteria, this does, it is no long are subject to discretionary review or variances or cu authorization. and upon this there is no debate here on that point. this complies with the state requirements for the ad u. does not exceed them and therefore there is no authority for the city to second guess what the legislator has said.

mr. williams said there were 5 permits 3 have manage to do with the ad u. there were 2 one was to not demo but reconstruct the adu after working with planning for a long time planning said, the work you are doing here really requires a demolition and construction permit. so, planning request we pulled the first permit and the second which is in front of you. public out reach. as commissioner lemberg pointed out it is in the required. somebody called mow a couple months ago i would say why don't you do public out reach but it is in the required. this is essentially the equal of over the counter permit this does not require public out reach. now this issue about a dwelling

unit. i'm sorry the issue about unauthorized unit left out that word. dwelling. udu unauthorized dwelling unit. what is a dwelling unit? it is defined in the planning code by reference to the building codes the building code says, a dwelling unit at least 150 square feet. president swig i disagree that if this 123 square foot somebody slept out there that could make it a dwelling u nits. at my house i built a fortfor my kids. i think if i think about it it is probably 90 square feet and my kids have slept in this fort. that does not make it a dwelling unit. this shed is wham it is. it is a storage shed and there is no evidence to the contrary

it has been used as a sort of insome generating property and not inhabited for the last 10 years. under the law it is in the a dwelling unit. what if it was a dwelling unit? then what they argue is this should have gone to the cu process. should have been an application for the removal of a dwelling u night and reconstruction of new unit. look at state law. state law says a permit application for access real dwelling unit considered and approved without with regard to a local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits. even if the dwelling unit under no stretch of the imagination it was. we still are not in a place the board has jurisdiction to deny this permit. it is a permit that complies

with state law and in every -- in this board's jurisdiction is therefore limited. and i do want to point out that -- as i tried to in the brief if we were 5 years ago and there was not the state legislation. this is a pretty sensitively designed adu. it is a small footprint. a simple loft apartment. 16 feet in height with 8 feet ceilings and it has obsecured glass to protect the privacy of neighbors they say tell can have the a shadow we presented the only evidence about shadow impact is there is none. there is a slice of shodo in the rear yard of a neighboring building. adjacent to this adu is a 4

story apartment building that already casts shadow. if we were in the dr world this , is a sensitively designed unit that should be approved. i think everything is laid out in the brief it is issue of law. and i'm happy to answer questions. why and the architect is on zoom. and the permit holder is with most if you have questions >> ordinary care thank you. president swig has a question >> thank you. i understand the law and our city attorney does a great job this week sejdz us a sum row and reminding us of what the law is and you representatived it very well, thank you. what i'm looking and you heard me ask. was it independent unit and we will talk to planning and i will ask that question again. just as a clarification.

there were representations in the brief and photos in the brief that lead one to arc leave that this unit was used for housing. under oath, has anybody ever paid rent to use this house ever? >> i don't know. >> i think that is an important piece or may be it is not and we will get that opinion from planning and opinion from the city attorney. because i think it will boil down to unless -- it is a legal call. you are right. i'm not arguing but if it was used as unauthorized dwelling unit and rent was paid for that unauthorized dwelling unit it may, i don't know if it will, i will ask the city attorney and plan being for their opinions

i'm not qualified. then, we have may have could have set of circumstances. and that's i didn't want to know was rent ever paid for the use of this unit as a dwelling unit? if you can find out from your clined and have rebuttal i would love to get the answer. i'm anticipating i have espn this there may be comment that people think that i want to know if rent was ever paid y. understood, president swig but -- right now it is not a habitable dwelling unit if we leave it as well there will not be a dwelling unit. >> i'm not going to argue with

you or challenge you because i'm looking for the opinion planning as to what is independent unit whether this qualified at a point as a dwelling unit and look from the same opinion from our city attorney they know better than i do i have no position to argue with you. thank you very much. >> thank you we have a question from commissioner trasvina. >> thank you per your presentation. the other side of the coin of the questions that president swig was asking, you are turning -- dmr unit in a dwelling unit. >> absolutely. that's the point. and tell be larger than what the neighbors see on the property. >> yes. it will be the footprint will

not be significantly larger but it will be taller >> how much of the it is -- mr. summers talking about the attractive nature of the area where he calls it as model block or special block. i don't know the marina that well. i don't know why this block is more special whether that is relevant, i don't know. people are used to the way has been for a century. how much of the rear yard on this property remains after the change? there is still a subsubstantial roar yardive could troo i to give you a percentage? but there is a substantial year

yard even with the adu. >> without resort to the drawings could somebody give mow a ballpark of that rear yard amount is? >> available and can he answer that question? i don't see him present. let me look if he is. i will move him to a panelist position. he is in the move being over can you speak. you need to unmute yourself.

you are still muted. commissioner trasvina exhibit 1 in the brief are the plans. if you look at sheet a1.0, that shows you the existing site plan and the proposed site plan. i'm on -- what a privilege can

we check the podium mic it is not working as well. is this better? >> yea, that is better. >> a little closer. i can try put this on the over head if you like i'm onnot an architect i'm not looks like there is 16 feet 3 inches from the rear of the building to the entrance to the adu and in addition there are 4 foot setbackos each side of the adu. and the rear yard is 25 feet wide. i wish i was better to give you a square footage. that is helpful but it sounds like the the proposed ad u will take up a substantial amount of the rear yard. >> it is going to take up as

far as the footprint slightly may be 40% more than the existing shed. you got the deck. the deck is there, correct in the deck is there is an existing condition. >> right. then you got 16 feet 3 inches from the deck to where you enter the adu. the adu is not flush against the fence like the shed is state law requires a 4 foot setback on each side. am i helping? >> yes. the architect is present but some reason he can't unmute himself i sent him a message i'm not sure what the issue is. should we call him

>> perhaps without going in this, if i could when planning is here perhaps they can help me get in my minds -- whether or not there is a rear yard to speak of. after this is built. >> okay. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. we will hear from the planning department. welcome, department zoning administrator tam you have 14 minutes. >> thank you. good evening president swig, vice president lopez and the board. i'm tina tam department zoning administrator. 1335 bay street contains 2 buildings in the rm1 zoning district and the 48x height and bulk the structure at the front is 3 stories tall and contains 4

units. the detached structure at the year is a story tall and measures 123 square feet in size. according to the site survey the detached structure is on the southeast corner of the property. containing just one room. and a 3 quarter bath. this structure entirely on the rear and east side property lines the structure at the front construct in the 1924 it is unclear when the structure at the rear was constructed. based upon the historic photographs the structure appears to exist as far as 1938. the permit before you is to demo the existing detaches structure at the roar and construct a new detaches access redwelling unit in the same general location on the lot. the new detaches adu file the

criteria set forth under the state adu program. the plan submitted the new adu will be 17 feet in width. 18 feet in depth and 16 feet in height. measuring 443 square feet the new ad u contain a combo live and dining room with full kitchen and a bathroom on the ground floor and a bedroom on the second floor. the appellates are linda zider and ron symptom and reside on the duplex west of the subject property and according to the appellates the concerns are the new adu will cause one, light and privacy impact to their property. 2, violate the previous conditions on the property that limits any expansion in the requires rear yard. and 3, demolishing existing fordable dwelling unit trigger a c u authorization from the

planning commission. >> while the planning department acknowledges there are some impacts to the neighbors as a result of the new adu, the department believes the impacts to light and privacy is minimal to neighbors complies with the following that the state adu program. one, size. the new adu will be 443 square feet and not exceed 850 square feet the limit for a studio and one bedroom adu. 2, setback. the new adu setback 4 feet from the side and rear property lines. and 3, height. the new ad u will be 16 feet tall measure friday existing grade. as out lined in the state au durkes program the review for new adu is ministerial it meets the criteria of the state adu program no neighborhood

notification, no variance, no discretionary review, and no conditional use is required. the department has 60 dis to review the permit and not subject to the california environmental quality act. ceqa. it is also important to know well is no subjective design review for state adu unless it pertains to a property on the california renalingster of historical resources and this property is in the. in terms of the appellate's argument it violates the prior conscience the property limiting the further expansion in the requires rear yard the permit will note there is suburban condition. however this continue was recorded for 1335 bay street part of 2 variances grant in the 1994 and 97 and the structure as the front of the property. and does in the reflect the exist analysis of state law adopt in the 2020 along for

detached adu in the rear yard without a variance n. cases like this, the city attorney had to weigh in and confirm this state law prohibits the department for requiring new >> reporter:s to modify or remove a conditions of approval. state law governing states, no local ordinance, policy or regulation the basis for the. delay or denial of a building permit or use permitted under the subdivision. section 65852.2. the appellate stated that in the appeal that another similar or nearly identical project at 239 shalt 92inga street triggered a variance and the department should require 1335 bay street to seek and justify a rear yard variance as well. to clarify 1335 bay and 239

shalt 92inga may be similar in this they are both adu projects however they are not the same or i dent cal the scope of work for 23 chattanooga consists of building multistory deck and stairs at the rear of an existing building in addition to adding an adu at the basement level. you heard the adu at 1335 bay street is detached and will not alter the building at the front. you heard from the appellate representative there is an appeal for a permit for work for the building at the front and this hearing is schedule in the 2 weeks for september 28. because they are separate permits we are keeping the issues between the structures front and rear, separate. lastly the appellate believes the existing structure at the rear was used as a unit.

based upon the size and the age more than 80 years old, the appellate believe this is is a rent control or naturally affordable unit that need to bes maintain exclude if the unit is to be demoed the a cu is required. as i mentioned earlier in my presentation we don't know when the structure was constructed. it appears in our historic arial photographs in 1938 but not in our historic sand born maps, building permit referred and not listed as a unit per the tax assessors records the assigned planner did confirm and did in the find the structure at the rear useda a rental unit. it is extremely small. 123 feet in size. contain one room and 3 quarter bath and there is not a kitchen or cooking facilities.

feign the appellate were correct and the structure at the rear was used as a separate dwelling unit by a family member or friend a coworker? it does not mean it is legal. according to the z arc interception of the planning code if it is in the legal eighty-one remove without a cu long as there is a replacement for it. in this case the structure at the rear will be replaced by a legal dwelling unit equipped with a full kitchen to meet the state and dbi definition of a dwelling unit. the planning department believes the new adu is modest in size according to the plan and new setback 30 feet from the appellate's property. most of the windows will be facing the back of the structure at the front. there are mall number of windows

on the west and east elevations and most are on the grounds floor and minimizing potential for any impacts to privacy. and in conclusion the permit complied with the state adu program. modest in size and is designed in i manner that has minimal impacts to neighbors. the department askedure deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was reviewd and issued properly by the city. >> thank you. woeful have several questions first from commissioner trasvina. i always learn from your presentations. what i learned is this we have very little role here on this matter. and ceqa does not apply. no c u requirement. no design review. noing deceptionary review.

and no requirement for really much consultation or information with the neighbors. on this. under the rules that govern this kind of development. at the same time, fiunderstand correct low the fro pose the adu is 3 and a half times the size of the current shed that is there. and -- getting back to my interest in the what were impact is well to the rear yard and is there a rear yard left. i do acknowledge that the entire lot size is 34-38 and this will be now taking up 443. i don't know the size of the front building. but you mentioned about if i understands correct low you say that the 1993 or 97 variance

presented encroachment by the front building on to the rear yard. but the but -- there is no issue as to encoach am of the small shed on the rear yard. is that correct >> that's correct. the new adu meets the criteria in terms of the setback, height and size. and therefore can be in the required reariard it can being bigger. >> if it was rap expansion of the front would not be allowed? >> um -- i would have to check on that. i think it is okay.

i knowledge it is okay as long as it meets the criteria. >> okay my understanding of it was based on hayou had said earlier about the variance back in the 90's. that there was would be a prohibition on the front unit. but not this unit. >> and that if it came dprt front bodiesing it would not be allowed but those requirements are not place on the back building. >> i would node to check with the state adu program to see what provisions there are if they are not detached like the one proposed now and attached what does that money in terms of the setback. >> thank you. >> thank you. president swig. >> you are not giving me an answer on this. but in because -- because you can't. you told me.

but i looked at the documents had the variance was issued my interception was it was an nsr, you can't build anymore in the rear yard. clear and simple did not say front building or back building said no more when you tell me -- i don't know. that does not help. i don't think i don't think i don't i'm very uncomfortable with these answers. we need to rely on planning to be clear, and understanding or we can't make a decision and -- you understand my point of view. there was an nsr and said no encroachment in the backyard it did not say back building or front building that screws it up for me. does it for you orir you willing to say i don't know and impact

the neighborhood? >> thank you. that's a good question >> of course it is. >> i bet. >> i really care it is might have neighborhoods i live in the marina. i live in the marina and trasvina it is a special neighborhood. it is made by open space except when you live on my block it is odd shaped but you know that is a fair statement. the open space mid block open space is important to the marina but that is not impacting my or biassing my point of view. just answering your question. what is hard for me we have to make a decision on behalf of the neighborhood and the block. and to say i don't know, is -- difficult when i see that was there an nsr should we postpone

the decision tonight and give you a chance top finds out whether that nsr was for the site or not. let me clarify may be i didn't state it correct low. i thought the question was what happened if the adu was attached to the building at the front the program terse be under the state adu program? i wanted check to make sure i will tellut right information before i answer that question. however, the question that you have in terms of yes, there was an nsr on the property. what does in mean for any future expansion including work or expansion in the required roar yard. i'm saying that is a good question i did ask to the project planner and her manager and her response was that this was completely vetted bite za and the city attorney. and that in the case where well is state law provisions and

local state law trumps local law in terms of needing a new entitlement like a variance when it come to the state adu program as long as the proposal meets the program in height, sides and setback, there is not restrictions like there would be. >> what good is an nsr? we had nsr's part of our activities here. it said this is it, babe. it is permanent you can't do it. you really want to build that exception, okay, if you want to build it we are putting an nsr on it that means it is the end of the story. all right. that is to me -- let me make sure i correct you on that. we do release and rescind nsr often in this case where well is state law that is more current i

don't want to use supercede but it is basically superceding local ordinance. we let the state law provisions go through. >> nsr does not matter all betting are off because of the state changes the law. >> okay. >> second question. my understanding and of course i sat here for 6 or 7 years how good is that, when a building expands that expands the footprint that a local that -- neighborhood well is requirements of hat naeshs know you are expanding the footprint. why in this case with this adu expanding the footprint just like any other house might be expanding that is okay. how come there is in local notification required when the footprint is expanded.

whoot the donees. the state issue you can do what you want. state is the local government this is what you have to follow. we are not here to debate whether we agree. i can't do that. come to our -- phone conversations. you know. complies and there could be new amendments coming up soon, but if it complies whatever is adopted or required to follow it. >> so. let's in review, the nsr out the window. right? >> for that condition on the nsr there may be other conditions i don't know about. the nsr on that condition is outet window or it is being put to the side because of the state law provisions. >> thrown out the window in my

book. does not matter. the fact that the building envelope is being expanded is out the window again overruled by state law? okay. the fact that may have been occupied in 19 upon 41 for sick months by a guy in the navy who was looking if are a job and paid 2 dollars a day for it -- that does not count either. because that does not count either. in fact, state the issue related state law will prevent this appeal from being accepted. that's where we are down to, right? >> right. to clarify one word remove an authorized dwelling unit and not replace it with a new legal unit in this case the state adu yes, you need to go through a process with planning. >> i mean, i gotta act like i'm

the appellate. and i gotta act like i'm the sponsor in one that's my act tonight. you know because we have to look at both sides i'm being antagonistic to you i want to make sure the appellate is seeing all the questions are asked on her behalf and on the contrary, where the project sponsor is shown to be protected bite new state statute its is the way it is. we comes across it all the time. thanks for the education. >> thank you. commissioner lemberg has a question. i was going to let brad go first. >> in response to the questions commissioner swig, this state law like the others we dealt with reasonable like sb35 efforts to create more housing where they viewed local restrictions as barriers to the creation of the housing laws

like this requirements and i think mr. tam said earlier with respect to the nsr the state law reepted the application of this condition to this project. and with respect to the notice requirement well is a provision of this law that says where the permits need to be approved there is a shot clock had the city has time to review it. i don't think the city has been complying with that but the reason we don't have neighborhood notice they were delayed the process more. there is exceptions in section 311 this say there is is no neighborhoods notice for these types of projects. >> i understand the and accept your point of view which is why i'm trying to drag if out of everybody. because if you are living in the neighborhoods and seen something exist for 100 years my house was built in 1926. the same district. then it is important that the

neighbors understand why these changeers being enabled. and that's why i'm a little aggressive tonight to drag all this information out neighbors got to understands what they have been subjected to by state legislation whether they or i like it or not. thank you, i appreciate it and as always we will miss you. >> earlier. >> commissioner lemberg. >> thank you i have a question for you ms. tam i want to tax on to what president swig was saying that is this is a really good example of why state laws regarding local the ability of local governments to implement or control their own zoning policy are really big deal and why people paid big attention to

this because it can cause you know issues like we see today. my question is mr. williams had showed a questionnaire or manage and the question was -- regarding whether it was a separate living space and he showed it was checked, no. and he the appellate lead to the checked, yes. if it had been checked yes would it made any difference in the planning department's analysis or decision? >> thank you. i understands he believes a dwelling unit and we say we don't have evidence or -- support but if it was and used for more than 30 days, which is

considered not short term. it would not change -- how planning reviewed this department. it motes the state adu program and replacing the unit with a legal unit. why so for sake of example, if that unit were occupied by a long-term tenant would it not make a difference. >> no. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner trasvina. >> i want to be very brief and thank you for your answers earlier. and i wanted to clarify that president swig's question was my question. my interest was encroachment to the rear yard did not matter by the back building or the front building and that was my point was that we are having encroach am here and seems like tell be a right if one place and not the

other. and that also is an anomaly caused by state law, also but i wanted to get a better understanding of that. you begin mow the answer. thank you. >> thank you. president swig anything further? okay. thank you we will hear from the department of building inspection. >> good evening president swig and violent lopez and commissioners. i'm matthew green representing the department of building inspection tonight. the dbi issues are simple permit application 20 twoop 02077451 e rekt a new 2 story adu file in the february 7 of 22. along with permit application demo the existing structure at the rear. after prove by planning the application was routed to dbi on february 25 and approved june first of 22.

after review by did thes the application issueod july 22 of 22. a review for your etification of recordses including housing inspection records going back did not reveal evidence of the roar structure used as a dwelling unit. definitions you might find the san francisco building code states the minimumicize of the new efficiency is 220 square feet. the san francisco housing code has space and occupancy standards for existing buildings including every dwelling unit one room not less than 120 square feet. used for cooking and living not less than 144 square feet. each bedroom not less than 70 square feet i don't believe the existing structure meets that. and you were asking the definition of dwelling unit san francisco housing code defines a

bodiesing contains living facilities sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation for not more than one family. if they meet that and the upon standards i read we considered a dwelling unit. dbi believe this is permit was reviewd and approved properly and recommends you deny the appeal and up hole the permit. i'm availablble for questions y may have. >> any questions. okay. thank you. >> we move on to public comment. i see a few hands on zoom. we will hear from seth miller first. mr. president miller go ahead. >> hi. thank you to the commission. for giving me a chance for public comment. first i have been a resident for 10 years i start in the september of 2012. and i say that00 autogarden space is really one of the most beautiful garden spaces and i it

is brought me great joy and talking with neighbors they appreciate the garden and the one in the backyard. it is irrelevant a beautifulful feature of the residential units here. especially on this block. well is was no notice. i [inaudible] to any of the neighbors not to me. as far as i know all other adu's done in existing footprints of buildings sdmemgz tuesday be a transgender deal to lose the backyard to have encroachment i believe that spirit has extended the garage and building in the backyard hoe is chipping away at the yard and the discussion i heard tonight there has been a movement within san francisco to preserve the gardens in the backs of bodiesings for the public use and family use the families there the lifestyles

and kids and all of that. building a 16 foot structure would impair extending the footprint impair the backyards that exist is set a press den encourage others to do the same. you will not get it become that would be a loss. these neighborhoodses -- that's all i have to say. i hope you consider the long-term vow and not wish for term or rightedser benefits of my neighbor but the long-term vision hat neighborhoods are ment to be and family use and the quiet and peace and the greenery. >> okay. thank you. we will hear from call user number one well is no a phone number. unmute yourself you may need to press star 6. you call in the press star 6. okay.

go ahead. do you hear me. >> yes, i can. go ahead. >> yes. >> i can hear you. >> okay. i'm going to turn my volume down. thank you i'm kyle wood i'm a residents of the marina. i am one yard over from this location. on goth street. our backyard t-bone in this one. we have seen a lot of stuff going on back there probably for about 14 years now. and we are a second floor unit and i garden we can see across the entire backyard. pictures don't cheat. but very unique design to this probably 6 square block area of the marineasm i believe the commissioners described the mid block open space.

very unique to this block you see it from google. open space is unique to the area. some of the other people on the phone will know when i say is this there was a beautiful pine tree many years ago that inhabited bite parities from telegraph hill. [inaudible]. will i'm very, very concerned about what i'm hearing has been gog at 1335. this minot be the right forum but i will say that having lived here for 14 years there has been stuff going on at that property. that has been causing occurrence and now i'm very concerned we will have limitations on planning and the adu law and

sometimes your ability to take object itch factors in consideration. i will say adding a 16 foot structure in the middle of this open space really put its beyond the subjective to objectively unreasonable. i don't believe this was an promote discretionary were ask in any way. my biggest concern is the idea that may have been brought up by the city shot clock. if this thing was not reviewed quick enough or something happened we received no notice i look in my files i have the construction permit. then there is manage this went wrong. if the city or somebody fell down and did in the review this fast enough so we got word as neighbors this is going out. you are hoping the citizen responsible for the failure of government.

there are comments about state law and all that stuff. i want to make it known this is something we did not know this was a u naek area adding a structure 300% more. >> that is your time. >> creates problems. >> thank you. >> we will hear from cylinder mitchell. go ahead. >> i'm sydney i live on goth street [inaudible]. i have been living here for about 6 years and i have been living in the mirna for 15 years. as kyle mentioned and neighbors told me, this came as a shock and surprise to us when we found out that the 2 story structure permitted and bllt in the middle of our yards. you have the [inaudible] there was no requirement for permitting and there is issues

state level and local zoning issue and is understands you may have limited jurisdiction or discretion how you do get this . this fails to pass the common sense test. that someone can build in the middle of our shared open space 2 story structure about fences and encroach nothing open space and greenery i look at when i look in the backyard. and potentially creating privacy issues. there was no attempt am bite ordinance of 30 flif bay to reach out or have discussions. . there is a history of getting variances by the property and unpermitted construction permits were issued. i'm not an expert in zoning and things like that it seems to me

that nought systems is delivering using loopholes and detriment of everybody in the neighborhood and hope somebody will step and up say this does in the make sense and needs to be stopped. >> thank you we will hear from jay mansfield. go ahead. >> hello. thank you very much to everyone a wornful presentation to watch with arguments on either side. i am not a resident of the area and go on record as stating that but spent time over many years at the address in the zieders. i must say that i have seen her children play in the yard and grandchildren play in the yard. i have witnessed the open space plan and enjoyd that and refuge there during the covid times and

times when we have been restricted movements. and i just can't help but agree with everyone and surprised there are not more neighbors on line i raised my hand i think perhaps they don't know what is going on. and i could envision as i stood there this past week that if every home used the green space that was planned by the city planners, to be green space and remain green space if everybody built on this property a similar unit in the first place congestion would be terrible. what would you do in an emergency and do know san francisco has emergencies occasionally. how the people get in and out safely. and -- i just see that people want to build higher fences and the press cent it is setting is arc appalling to me i'm

agreement if this is what was intended but the 2 story a big objection. i think for everyone this lives around there andmented go on record not having any interest invested real estate properties there just as a concerned citizen. thank you. is there further public. raise your hand? i don't see further public comment. we move on to rebuttal. or is there someone here. >> please. come forward. um -- president swig and commissioners i'm jeannie eliot i'm a relative of linda zider. and i spent 40 years visiting the home that we are speaking

of. and the picture i'd like to paint when you look out the back you see all yard. it is all open space. and as you keep that picture in your upon mind, i'd like to add to the picture and say i'm a san francisco resident. and in our neighborhood near engleside we have an agreement that the neighbors came up with years ago that nears what happened in all neighborhoods to maintain open space. and the open spaces aesthetic it is gorgeous to look out. in all of our neighborhoods. the second sthing environment tale is good. because the birds and -- all animals come through. may be we don't want the raccoons and skunks but this is important for the health of the community. and as we let this go, i think

well is a problem. there is a problem with inviting people to stay in the city and support the city. here we are generations of people living here. and you hear people don't want to be in the city because there are many restrictions when we go to build or go to modernize our home well are restriction after restriction and have examples of things sliding under suddenly happening without due diligence and consideration for all the impact. the impact is important. not just personal low for our families but for our climate. and for the way we want to live in the city. i hope that we can step out of saying it is a state law. because cities come up with ways to protect themselves and may be the excision can think about

that how many we protect our city and have beautiful yards. >> thank you y. is there further public comment. raise your hand. we'll move to rebuttal hear from mr. williams. >> you have 3 minutes. >> thank you. steve williams. there has been a lot of issues brought pickup first of all i will touch on the rear yard issue and impacts on the front building. first there are changes made in the front building. i don't know if planning is -- paying attention to those. but egress path has been constructed this . is from the approved plans. shows actual construction in the front bodiesing in order to provide e egress. you see the rear yard it is

virtually zero. this is a deck in between the 2 buildingsings a fringe of green. other neighboring yards all -- supply a fully compliant code sensitive year yard of 45%. something this has come in my head listen to the discussion is state law can't publicly be allowed to take down affordable house to promote a policy of developing affordable housing that makes no sense. that's what you heard from planning not make a difference that if this was occupied, that's ridiculous. and as i said before what is constructed there as with new construction in the city tell cause more to rent it or buy it than what exists. variances are not a local ordinance. variances are a product of state law. and so -- created by enabling

legislation from the government code. and to say the new legislation over rides previous state legislation. i don't see that written in the adu legislation that variances are to be disregarded and set, side or msr's set arc side. because variances are currently a product of state law. it does not comply with state law to provide misinformation and misinformation was provided with this application. they did not tell the planning department people have slept there in the past. they did in the say some of our relatives slept about and people we know looking for jobs slept upon there and stayed there. they did in the say that they say nobody ever slept there it was a garden shed now -- once they are caught they come

forward saying they slept there a little bit. so -- adu can't be granted on misinformation. and there was nothing from planning saying that they said corfet rehab. demo this we can't approve temperature look at the note in exhibit a in the summary of the first permit it was approved and red to go. >> that is time. thank you. >> should be granted. >> thank you. we will hear from mr. summers. you have 3 minutes. the points that were made about possible of what will happen next. if this is dloered 2 clears other neighbors where they will

pop up and not just our neighborhood but the entire city will be populated with 2 store adu units that pass state precedent over all other rules, regulations, zoning. in fact, we than this is not compliant with the city zoning. this is in the compliant with city zoning. what i'm hearing from planning is that does not matter. state law matters. state law over rides city. am we are now hourless to the state. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. we will hear, you have 6 minutes. president swig you asked mr.

[inaudible] [inaudible] not a paid reason will to the folks that stay thered in the past. so -- it was -- i'm sorry this the audience you can't hear? okay. can't hear. >> is that better? i'm not sure we hear it. >> what should i do? . how about fitalk louder >> okay. i said not been rented for monnet past. and it as we stated not inhabited for 10 or 12 years and the variances remember, they are from 25 years ago. but people are making really good argument busy mid block open space i get it i'm a land use attorney and represented

neighbors trying to preserve mid block open space. world changed. will and state law for better or worse i could share my person opinions with you but local control over local zoning and planning regulations in concern case. and whether that is good or bad, projects sponsors have the right to rely on the law and propose a project go through planning and building told, yes this complies and you can do that. this is not a developer this is member when raised their family in this building for decades. and it is trying to add an affordable dwelling unit in the backyard if they wanted max profit they could have added an 800 square foot unit and nothing anybody would 'll could have done that's what state law authorizes.

they are doing something small and sensitive and providing a housing unit where none exists. upon the adu issue about what if it was in the building or added to the existing apartment building. yes. it could the same reasons the state law says expanded in the rear yard. dimensioned upon different state law has different requirements for detached structures that state law would trump temperature and upon mr. trs vina you said you were within in the city attorney's office so was i 88 to 98 and worked with members of board of supervisors on legislation that i had to tell them you kent do this buzz it is preempted. i worked with supervisor halle and shelly about gun control

regulation when we could do gun control and there were restrictions of what local jurisdictions could do because state law preetched it when it came to prevent ships from bedrooma into the port of sudden front i said you can't dom it federal law does not allow temperature that the situation we are here in. i continuing is probably unprecedent in the the-ofical cal state decided to get involved in local land use control busy it has. we are creating a housing unit compliant weapon state law not an outrageous it is smaller than what law permits and for all those reasons we urge you to deny the appeal andup hold the permit. >> thank you. we will hear from planning

department. ms. tam you have 6 minutes. >> thank you. tipa tam for planning i will putum a couple of slides the first one heads to do with a question commissioner trasvina and has to do with the difference between an adu attached versus detached. okay. here we g. can you zoom in. can you help her, please? thank you. in looking at the difference between the attached to the left and detached to the right, in terms of size, both the same. 850 mechanic for studio and one bedroom. and thousand square feet is 2

bedroom. the height again, 16 feet the same between the attached and detached and in terments of the setback, go ahead and read that the adu is located within the existing living your or existing accessory or adu replaces existing structure and in the same location and construct the in the same dimension the structure can be occur. but if it does in the comply in this case for 1335, setback of 4 feet required. and that 4 feet required for detachd and attached. so your question about if i add to the back of the building at the front with the requirements the same. >> yes. >> with the conscience of approval from the previous variance and ns, changed that.

no. the next slide is -- a site plan. of the of existing condition at the bottom. and the proposed condition at the top. you have the subject property. and the existing detached structure the back that is 123 square de feo in size. and you have the proposed 443 square feet 2 story detached adu. in terms of the setback between the new structure and the existing it is about 16 feet or so. and the distance between the new adu and the appellate's property -- 30 feet or so.

happy to answer questions. >> okay i don't see questions. thank you. we will hear from dbi. like to address the per mir authorizes w admit front build thanksgiving is in the true it says the work authorized is the, du the exit pass and grounds floor of the ad sxushgs any other work will river a separate permit the >> reporter: is if you enter through a garage or required exit will go through a garage it has to have been 10 foot wide space and the garage has to be fully sprinklered. this plan shows the striping 10 foot wide and existing sprinklers that proves not to be the case it would river to get a

sprinkler permit. i'm available for questions. i don't see questions. commissioners this merit is submitted. >> okay. commissioners. i want to call on commissioner lopez hoe is too quiet tonight and we are make him work he gets paid the big bucks. commissioner lopez would you like to get us started. i think it is one of these we had a couple before. why our hands are tied. due to the issues preemption issues that have been energid by a number of speakers throughout the evening, i think. you know what i would say is that until if and when there is a change in the law that would allow you know local land use it

ordinances to inject additional process what is outcome we will have with the adu matters. and you know the fact is that the way that the law works currently, there is not public notice. required of public conversation. and what i would add is this i appreciate the speakers from the neighborhood who came and expressed their views. and addeen though if you put you know folks on a spectrum you know in terms of having process with no construction and no process with a lot of construction, to be honest i'm probably more on the light

process ends of that spectrum. but i think that you know if you are going to do something like this, the right thing to do is talk to neighbors. and to look them in the eye and explain you know what you are doing. and just because. at the current moment the state ludoes not require that communication i think that is the right thing to do. you know being approximate a neighbor low residence didn't here in our city. and i think the fact that we had so much comment and expressions of concern you know speaks to that lack of communication i hope that will not be a recurring pattern with this type of actiftd. just given the preemption issues that think from my perspective,

i would be supportive of denying the appeal. >> okay. commissioner trasvina. >> thank you, president swig. i'm have to say i am was not prepared to be uncomfortable as i have anyone nothing against any of people who come before us. i respect and love the marina i'm not familiar as other parts of town. i suspect that not the mirn marina but the people value their neighbors and lands or sunny side or bernal heights we all do. and this process what makes me feel uncomfortable is as

president swig and the members of the planning dbi made clear this body does not have the city local government has much less power and authority. e over these decisions and we are that's, to echo vice president lopez, all the more reason there may be not a requirement for neighbor notice or public comment but the reason why there should be. the people here obviously who speak mr. mill and eliot spoke about the value of they see in the mid block open space and people natural loam want to

protect their heritage of communities and the further of our communities and find ourselves in this situation where this board and members of local government are hard pressed to do either. so -- i hear the recitations of the authority that we lack. not much the authority we have. i'm my point about the encroach am on the yard was expressed by president swig. that -- it seems that while encroachment from the front building would have some restrictions and could not be done encroachment from the back belling by removing or down and putting up 3 and a half times the size that seems to be all right these days. we have a lot to confront on this matter. i said i'm uncomfortable not bite appeal or the presentations but the reality that state law

places under. reluctantly i agree with vice president lopez. about the appropriate course decision. for this board. >> thank you. i think ultimate low we are a legal body and i don't think this is a difficult legal decision. to make. because we are given so little latitude as far as bh we are able top do in this situation and that reason i will vote to deny the appeals. however i do have a pull mit pit and intends to use it. i have one fact and one opinion to state. the fact is the legislation that authorized these adu's was urthd and sponsored by san francisco based member phil ting use that information as you will andir

have my opinion which is while i do not know anything about the permit holders other projects going on at the property. we will hear in a few weeks. our hands are tied tonight i do -- i am not used to being able to speak to parties directly i'm an attorney i get on here. i hope you heard the pleas of your neighbors for more communication. informed design choice and maintaining neighborhood character. and i firm low believe you can do all of those things and make meaningful improve ams to your property. that's all i have to say. thank you. >> thank you. >> just wrap up with a comment and then ask commissioner lopez coming up with a motion. we have gone school tonight.

big time. and remember what we experience side a precedent. and we will -- i will look in my crystal broken crystal ball again tonight and make a prediction that we will see this press den trigger other preps dents which will result in other appeals that will prufterate us. and make us uncomfortable, commissioner trasvina about our feelings with regard to protection of neighborhoods and other aspects. but i think we are experiencing [inaudible]. we have learned tonight and gone to school tonight on the fact that -- public notice is not required due to the state law and. i agree with my fellow commissioners that if we when we hear other appeals -- or -- if anybody is anticipating doing

the same project, right, wrong or indifferent that they do their best to community to their neighbors. it is just good manners, folks you gotta live next to each other and show respect. the what we learned tonights is nsr sometimes does not merit. and because state law once again has said, okay. tough luck. you new day now sheriff no law. so that was very interesting for me. and that -- regardless of the fact this was -- may or may not inspect illegal unit or not. does not matter. because of the state law stuff. and interesting ejsz tonight. good new system sounds like there will be another unit of high quality residential in the mirna and san francisco. that's the good news.

so with that -- i would support also motion to deny the appeal which i participate will be coming from commissioner lopez at this moment. >> commissioner lopez? >> yea. i move to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. >> we have 2 appeals denying both. >> denying both appeals. on the bases they were both properly issued. on vice president lopez's motion commissioner trasvina. >> aye >> commissioner lemberg. aye >> president swig >> that carries 4-0 and there is no right to request a rehearing the decisions will be sent out tomorrow. >> thank you. >> thank you for coming tonight. >> this concludes the hearing. clear clear

>> everything we do in the tenderloin, we urban outfit. here, this gives us an opportunity to collaborate with other agencies and we become familiar with how other agencies operate and allow us to be more flexible and get better at what we depo in the line of work in this task. >> sometimes you go down and it's hard to get up. so we see ourselves as providing an opportunity for the unhoused to get up. and so i really believe that when they come here and they've said it, this right here is absolutely needed. you can't ask for nothing better. >> the tenderloin is the stuff that ain't on the list of remedies, liked the spiritual connection to recovery and why would i? why would i recover? what have i got to live for? things like that.

and sharing the stories. like i was homeless and just the team. and some people need that extra connection on why they can change their life or how they could. >> we have a lot of guests that will come in and say i would like -- you know, i need help with shelter, food, and primary care doctor. and so here, that's three rooms down the hall. so if you book them, they get all of their needs taken care of in one go. this is an opportunity for us here in the tenderloin to come together, try out these ideas to see if we can put -- get -- connect people to services in a

>> good afternoon and welcome, i'm sorry. good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission hearing for wednesday september 7 am sfgovtv is broadcasting and hearing live and will receive public comment. an opportunity