>> okay, good evening and welcome to the february 1, 2023 of the san francisco board of appeals. president bored swig is joined by jose lopez, commissioner and commissioner jr epler. also present is deputy city attorney who will provide the board with any legal advise. at the control is and i'm julie, the board's executive director. we'll also be joined bit representatives that will be presenting before the board this evening. tina representing the praning department. matthew chief inspect or and chris buck, you are bon forester representing ff ff urban works.

the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board asked that you turn off all phones so they do not disturb proceedings. no eating or drinking in the meeting room. members who are not affiliated to the public, have up to 3 minutes. time may be limited 2 minutes if the agenda is long or if there are a lot of speakers. >> now public access and participation are of paramount to the board. sf gov. tv is broadcasting live. and we'll have an opportunity

to have public hearing. we are also offering close captioning, a link to the live stream is fountd at the home page of our website. now public comment can be provided in 3 ways, 1 in-person, 2 via zoom, click on the hearing link or three by telephone. call 1996-900-2063. again sf gov. tv is broadcasting and instructions at the bottom of the screen. to block your phone number when calling in, press star star and then your phone number. press star-9 which is equivalent of raising your hand so we know you want to speak. you may have to dial star-6 to

unmute yourself. you'll have 2 or 3 minutes depending on the length of the agenda and volume of speakers. we will provide you with a warning 30 seconds before your time is up. it's very important that people calling reduce or turn down their volume on the computers otherwise there is interference on the meeting. if anybody needs disability accommodation, you can check on the legal system or send an mail to the board of appeals. now the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. woel take public first for those present' present in the hearing room. now we will swear in our firm. please note that anybody may be sworn in taking notes. if you plan to testify any of tonight's proceedings, raise

your right hand and say i do after you've been sworn in or affirm. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> okay, thank you. commissioners, we do have one housekeeping item. the party for hh have requested that these appeals be continued to february 22nd, so we would need a motion on that and we also need to take public comment. >> do i hear a motion. >> okay, we have a motion from president swig to continue this item to february 22, is there any public comment? please raise your hand or approach the podium. i don't see any public comment on this motion to continue this matter, at the request of the

parties, vice president lopez. >> aye. >> travina. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye *. >> that motion carries, 5-0 and those matters are continued to february 22. so we will now move on to number 1, this is a special item for fiscal year 23-24 and 24-25 this is an opportunity to provide the board input pursuant to section 3.3b1 in advance of the consideration of the fiscal year 24 and 25 budget. is there any board of the public that would luke to provide feedback approach the podium or. i don't see anyone here, so we'll move on to item 2. this is public comment.

is there anyone here for general public comment? please raise your hand? >> we have one. please approach. welcome. >> good evening, i'm lance occurrance i'm a resident of district 3. at the january 18, board of appeals meeting, i heard buff quote an inaccurate statistic that 50% of ficus trees are on the vening of failing. i believe this is closer to 10%. theser why, in 2017, the city paid for a survey of all sf trees with a project called all sf trees at the cost of $500,000.

dozens of arborist were in the city, regarding the species and condition. the results were compiled into a database. the worse was priority removal. the trees that had the most removal ratings were acatia and london and plain. 5th was ficus, 7773 trees, of which 653 or 8.4 percent were rated removed. the survey was done six years ago so it's likely the fica removal is still at 10% still far from 50% removal. you scientific methods to determine.

i'm not an or bohrist but i'm happy to provide database so they can provide their own survey. >> thank you, there any further public comment? please approach the podium or raise your hand. i don't see any. we're going to move ob to item number 3. commissioners? >> commissioners any comments? other than the sad loss of the 49ers, hearing none. will thes move on. i believe we need to turn on the screen.

>> we are now moving on to item number 4, discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of january 18, 2023 meeting and note commissioner lindbergh noted, contact me and note thed under item 3, the words power ball should be power wall for the tesla charging station that was in reference my ignorance about tesla. are there any other amendments or changes? >> i'll move to adopt the minutes. >> on that, >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> prlt. >> aye. >> that motion carries, 5-0 and the minutes are adopted. so we are now moving on to item number 5, this is appeal number

222 buena vista llc versus san francisco public works. appealing the issuance on november 14, 2022 of a public works order. the tree is in fair condition and not in threat of safety. [reading order number 207311] and i understand that the parties have come to agreement but they would like to address the board. welcome, this is mr. danny turner, the attorney for the appellant. >> good evening, he apologize for not appearing before you but he's in another meeting.

the homeowner would like to give a few words before i give a presentation, i believe he's here on zoom. >> welcome. >> hi i'm jobi, i own the property at 737 buena vista avenue west. i brought the property in 2015 and i done a major renovation here, respecting the historic features of the house. as part of the renovation, we're doing a we are excited to have found a path forward that my counsel will now discuss. >> we're forward to have across the street of buena vift. it's been drawn out due to some challenges but now the

construction are complete and no more. we're seeking approval to put the cherry on top so to say. we are happy to bet you know that after a lengthy discussion, we have crafted a mitigation for removal and replacement. to that end, a draft proposed order prepared in collaboration has been submitted for your viewing and consideration and i have hard copies available if you would like to review those. one of the subject trees is 15 inches in diameter and prone to condition. the removal of replacement of this tree is not viewed as development related. the other trees is in 18 inches in diameter. 6, 48 box trees will be planted to replace with approximately 19.9 biobass.

5 trees will be planted in front of the property which is only 0 feet wide and only requires four street trees. the neighbors at part welcome this replacement and a letter of support was committed with our brief. we're excite beside this project because it will place it in the sidewalks. damage iting and creating a trip ha sader. another hard has tagged the sidewalk for repair and/or replacement. nobody likes to receive a notice from the city but the timing could not be better. these papers will beautify the realm and support service water

management. the mitigation plans the city standards for removing and improve pedestrian safety will beautify across our prominent park. we're due to grant the appeal. that concludes the presentation and i have the project manager for any questions. >> thank you, and we're showing the things agreed to. does buff want it address the board. >> good evening, chris buff with san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. i'll cover some basic background and then i like to show photos of the subject trees to help provide a visual. so the application was initially denied by staff, our staff assessment where trees were fared in a good condition, tree number 1. tree number 2 is fair to poor. but we noticed that there is a permit from several years ago

that was not followed up on, we're aware of that. that was the subject to conversation to public works hearing when they appealed our our denial and in the extensive brief that they have provide they have gone into defwailz reasons of delay. some may see it as a failing you're to have existing conditions. once we receive that brief, explaining they're waiting for the final step of finishing what they're doing on the site and, that is that is why there is this two-part process. we did require separate additional permanent application, a set of set of circumstances. that said even when we were denying the trees after the result and our director said, you're describing one of these

trees as poor and i'm denying this why? we calmly, said there were some issues. the message is, we're not there yet. having received the appeal brief from the applicant, we reviewed that closely and we're in a situation where one of the trees is essentially poor, one tree is good. the tree that good has an 18-inch diameter, the proposal is to plant 64-inch trees. also in the last years an electrical vault showed up so we're assessing for the loss of the planting site in the frontage. they're also installing vines that will grow in the facade and permeable pavers towards the road and permeable pavers.

so at this point in time, we're open to that. i think if we continue denying this application, the questions you would have all have it seems that these are one of those ones where they can achieve reasonable replacement would that not be fair for the city to accept. that's where we're at in this time. we're satisfied with why they will not follow through and why commitments were not adhered to. i'm going to show a few slides now. so this is tree number 2, this

is the tree we described as different settings as fair to poor. i would call it poor, struggling, vigor, it should be really dark green lust rious canopy. the next tree, tree number 1 this is the tree that we believe is fair condition are a trunk measurement. there is no compelling tree. but this is the same tree, the commitment to plant 4, 48-inch plant size trees, adjacent to the property along with the downhill property. to meet the the technical and

spirit of our code. with that said, we're asking commissioners to agree to overturn public works denial on the condition that the removal is on condition of total replacement. and the payment in due fee, due to the loss of site from the electrical vault. with that, i would like to wrap up my comments, thank you. >> thank you, i'm glad that you came to a resolution, i'm impressed that the homeowner is proactive and being in the willing to plant more trees which is not example of behavior that we see. one of the things that you

trained us, boxes versus trees because they are harder to maintain. can you, i'm, i'm thrilled that there is 48-inch box situation. however in the face of what you normally breech. who is your going to maintain them? what is your comfort level with trees where you have o pined that they have less survival smaller installations? >> thank you. president swig. so without a doubt, the larger, the plant that you transplant the longer it takes to establish. so when it's not, when removal and replacement is occurring due to public safety concerns, we start with a 24-inch box. so in that regard, the goal here is trying to capture the

trunk diameter, with the tree being removed. survive ability, it's t just takes a number of years for that tree to hang out and establish a root system and produce new foliage mass. so yes in examples of discretionary and not safety concern, when an applicant is looking to remove a tree, we look at removing larger box sizes, to recover what we're losing. we potentially eliminate or reduce the number of cases that come before you, but more

important is we're sending a message that we want to are tain the healthy trees if there is no compelling reason to remove it. with that, i'm also pretty sure that there would be irrigation installed, if not irrigation then hand watering for the first three years. so regarding long term maint enance, we need the owner to maintain the tree and then sf tree will assume responsibility including a tree planted downhill. so we have our existing maintenance program that will maintain the trees once they've been established. >> as part of that agreement, is that throw-year window to water is that clear? >> correct, it will always be in our conditions of that permit. and with a larger box size, i

would say without running through the owner, it's 3 to 5 years, they're invested in seeing the trees get established. if they don't believe it's due to the size, we will tack on a couple of years. but we're confident in their desewer to see these trees established. >> thank you. thank you. >> okay, thank you. is there any public comment on this item? please approach the podium. >> i just want to make myself available i'm the arborist. >> thank you, we're on public comment now. >> speaker: i said the massive brief submitted by ruben and rose. it's interesting, it had all the history.

it took a while. am i to understand that now, there is a new agreement in place that we have not seen? i read that thing on the screen now. would it be possible to put this off for until the public has had ample time to renew the plan of this property? and also we planted a box tree for lawrence which went into reshock and it's still there.

i ask that this matter be set aside so the public can review before the board takes it up for a vote. thank you. >> thank you, is there anyone in-person that would like to provide public comment. okay, mr. nolte, please go ahead, attending via zoom. >> speaker: good evening, commissioners. yes, i would also agree that this should be continued because i didn't see in the written statement that was quickly put onscreen, and also since you're not being shown on sfgovtv, the it didn't say anytime late to this agreement. and i would since the property owner admitted that they've had the property since 2014 and the street trees currently in front of the properties that are

empty, so it does show that there is a lack of concern or dealing with the vandalism something happened to those trees that is currently in front of this property. so i would question, the you know, the permanent another agreement having an agreement but also seeing the history of the current property owner how he dealt with those trees on the property and not being able to maintain them and assuming that the new trees will be feasible and maintain and actually be secured and/or replaced if they're damaged. i don't hear all the things that need to be said in the plan just to go forward and probably prudent also for these trees to be protected. even though they're from a park

that these people would need protection for. i know the parties, we do have somebody, michael nolte, please go ahead. >> yes, first i wanted to know if the commission members has received the, the information from josh regarding this notice? this agenda item? and second, i would also also like to see this appeal go forward. and appreciate the comments of the previous speaker, thank you. >> thank you, is there any further public comment? okay, so we're moving on to rebuttal.

i know the parties have come to agreement, three minutes. okay, matter submitted. >> i'll start with commissioner lopez if you have anything to say. >> i have a comment, i'm pleased with for them to reach an agreement. i think that's really really important. i noted that in the materials, there was no brief from the city department. i don't know if that's because they were working things out or for any other reason. i also want to commend the property owner for the report for young report for april of 2022 and it was the most resent

one, it was precise, i would say it was a good report. and it delt with greater precisions than some of the terminology than what i saw in the public work order. so if this was still in dispute, i would have sited with the property owner and also noted that the property owner asserted and i don't think it's any change that the neighbors, supported the property owner's plan. so if the city is supporting the plan and coming up with a new plan and becomes responsive, i will move to approve the requests of disposition. >> one potential issue, buff raise is a condition that was not part of the order? they want the property owner to maintain and water the trees for three years. i didn't see that as part of the agreement, i'm not sure if you want to included that or if

we want to ask property owners to agree to that? >> i would ask that he amend his motion to include that requirement please. >> okay, should we, property own is on board with that? i mean. >> yeah, that's good. >> okay, thank you. so we. >> then, i will >> there is a second i will amend, i will president president swig's recommended addition. >> okay, so we have a motion from commissioner transvinia to grant the appeal and issue the order that it be revised that it adopt the conditions agreed to by the paertsds including the requirement that the property owner maintain the replacement trees for three years. >> is the in lofu included?

>> yes, it's included. >> got it. >> so on that motion vice president lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner lindbergh. >> aye. >> upler. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries 5-0 and for the record, do the parents waive the right to rehearing? if so, we can get the motion tomorrow. >> the public works waives the right to rehearing. >> okay, we will get that out tomorrow. we'll now move on to item number 6. william wild and liona, subject property 244 hartford street. revision to application of a third floor remodel. minor layout change and correct

existing joyce direction. this is permit 2022-11166647 and we will hear from the appellants first. welcome, you have six minutes. >> hello i'm bill wilde, my wife and i are owners of two-condo building below the applicant. we lived in san francisco in many years, this is the first home that we have been able to purchase and we live there with our two children and work mostly from home. we have tried to work with our neighbor however she has gone on to demolish 30,000. we have thousands to of legal

fees while the applicant stated that they made amendments to the changes, these were not voluntary' changes. the latest revision which we saw only on friday, still proposes to have strengthening according to mr. stranbergh, together my wife and i survived the deadly 2005 in indonesia and through the devastate of 1999, we welcome our neighbor. we just implore the board to have it done safely. >> good afternoon, i'm the

appellant. demolition in the upper floor of a condominium. it was revised because they were not calculations that were submitted. and get the cal could youlations submitted and this is the revision because of that action. since, the revisions have been in place, the engineers become involved and he's available on zoom to explain in more detail that he found some defects in the calculations and, and we had to submit this this appeal, in the permit holders response to the appeal, she submitted some further permits further plans that showed the fact

that, actually addressed the concerns of our engineer. our engineer noted that there were some 1985 plans that had done some strengthening to some shared walls. this had not been acted for before the board today, and there it's appropriate, so since that time, the two engineers have been discussing this can trying to come up to see if they can come up with calculations. and until the engineers do come to some agreement, it's appropriate that the board put this off. tt a life safety issue and it's extremely important and there is some disagreement on what the correct thing is. thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm going to send it over to david stranbergh who should be on zoom. >> before you go. >> they're still on their presentation, maybe they should finish it, please.

go ahead. >> okay, can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> okay, and do you want me to present drawings or just? >> whatever you want to do, you have 3:35. >> okay. so i've been reviewing the various versions of the proposed scope to the remodel for the upper unit 246 hartford and there is walls, a significant amount of walls being removed and new walls put in place. but right now, the biggest the problem is part of the existing wall. when i say existing sheer wall that's based on a permit.

and we're asking that they be act from the overturning forces from the sheer walls that it's accounted for and reviewed by the building department. so the that, that currently at this point has not taken place but we have been in contact with we just had a meeting today with karen lee ang and the engineer that is doing the work now on 246 hartford and, seems like we have a common understanding of the work that needs to get done. but we need time to see that work done and reviewed adequately. >> okay, thank you. you have two minutes left. did you want to add anything elts? --else? sure, i can maybe share a screen if you like? >> sure.

>> and show you specifically the--these are the drawings. these drawings are produced by mercury engineering. these are the walls that are flanking this light well space adjacent to the kitchen. and then, there was an approval here to put in a window. this is an existing sheer wall where they put in a window. the new plans are no longer, once alan got involved, they decided that's not a good idea because it would be hard to compensate for that. and so, allen has do not a good job to try to compensate on what is being lost. in this line, they're adding a sheer wall and removing a

window. but the, wore just wanting to see some accountability for what happens to the overturning in the earthquake. so there is uplift and downward forces from the sheer wall, that can't have an impact on the unit below. this wall in particular, right here. if you can see hold down for us is accounted for in the current. >> you've got 30 seconds. >> in the current drawings, this is the drawings, it says produce, it calls down a whole strap but it does not say where it goes and what it's going to connect to, we're going to have that explained and articulated to the building department and

have them review that. >> okay, thank you. we did have a question from commissioner and then president swig do you still have a question? >> thank you, i have a question for mr. catral and referencing, it seems to me that you're asking us for more time, are you asking us not to hear this tonight? are you asking us to get involved in the discussions you're having? i'm not sure what it is that we have before us? i think based on to the fact that the plans have been approved are in fact, unsafe and affective, the permits, the appeal needs to be granted and if necessary, they will issue a special conditions permit if you're inclined to deny or put this off, that would be

appropriate as well so the engineers can come to some consensus about what the issue is. >> which one has moved to settlement? win or lose baseball tonight, possibly through further discussion with, mutual council and mutual engineers to reach settlement and never say goodbye, is that true. >> ryan patterson for the appellant, the issues that sheer walls are being removed without being properly accounted for, the engineers are trying to work that out but they're not properly shown in the plans and we want that to be shown proper low. they can either revoke and file a new permit or we can continue

this and bring it back in a proper form and we should be all done, as long as it's safe. >> or you can settle and write us a note and say that you're done. >> sure, if the engineers agree, that's the goal. >> thank you. >> commissioner lindberg has a question. >> sorry i just thought about this, would you not be stuck with the previous permit that this permit was issued to alter? >> that's a good question. dvi has determined that the previous permit was issued without the previous calculations. so that still needs to be addressed. and that would be up to dvi to require a new permit but i think the simplest thing is to go back and fix the plans and then, we'll come back and have proper plans at that point. >> thank you.

>> thank you, we will now hear from the permit holder. >> thank you, commissioners i'm counsel for margaret, the owner of 244. i guess as you've deduced, this has come down to some serious discussions, our engineer spoke to a checker today. we feel they're close to an agreement. in fact, our engineers characterization of the discussion is he and dvi had come to an agreement, mr. stranbergh may not have agreed but wanted more information.

we've, we worked very hard to provoid the information and the changes that the neighbors have requested for months now. it's been a very long process. my client has an open construction site in her unit. she has been living like this since the summer. wore open to a short continuance. we can agree that that would be helpful. but we would ask that this be continued for one week and we'll be able to come back here. frankly, i'm concerned that they may not agree. we are absolutely going to do what dbi tells us we need to do to make this a cocomplying permit and project. she lives there, so we would ask that this be continued for

one week. they will continue to talk, we will come with a solution that they're okay with, but i just want to set that, the stage that way to understand you know, where people are in this discussion and where we may end up next week. we're going to do our best. we would be coming back to you next week with a proposal that dbi is ready to approve, i can assure you of that. our engineer is here, could she be anything, we're happy to but, that's all i have for the moment. thank you. >> thank you, we have a question from commissioner lindbergh. >> not as much as a question as a comment. i just heard you say that if that you would come back with a week with a proposal that dbi is going to sign off on. but i want to say that it will be something that the appellant

is willing to sign off on, that is what we would adopt if all the parties come to an agreement. but if it's just with dbi, we would not consider that a stipulated agreement. >> i understand, i'm saying we may be still be dis beauted, it may be us and them saying that this is sufficient and they may not agree. >> okay. >> i may have to follow-up and rebuttal but that's it for now. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. nothing from the planning? okay, we will hear from dbi. >> good evening, president swig and vice president, matthew green representing the building of construction tonight. the permit is a revision to remodel the third floor unit, this building is a three-storey building that was previously

converted to condos. there were some for the original permit. this was naend today correct the oversight. they have responded to dbi's request throughout this process. after this permit was approved, the appellant discovered work that had been done decades before that brought new issues to life. they have addressed these issues with new drawings, they have been an extensive contact with the permit engineer and the appellant engineer, they were meeting just before i came over here. ms. yilang is satisfied that they meet requirement. i was about to recommend that we, that you uphold the permit with a special conditions on the condition that they have to obtain a special permit with the new drawings. but if they're willing to ask a

for a continuance with full agreement between the two engineers i'm happy to support that. just like that, would i like to spend a good amount of time that included, the appellant, myself and permit holder and deputy director, engineers and building inspect or and building inspect or supervisor. and wore all recommend, i was going to say that we all recommend adopting this special conditions permit but they want to get a continuance, we can understand that. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> so we should be comfortable that you guys are close. what would give us better closure is if both parties agree, given that we both heard

tonight that, one-week extension would be harmful to either party, either way, see if they can come to an agreement. >> our engineer who has been on the site and very familiar with the project, but if they want to make a few more changes, that is great. two of them are happy with product so far. if all three can agree, that would be great. >> and you'll have something, if we do postpone, you'll have something for next week so we can all see it together? >> correct. >> okay. >> thank you. >> commissioner travina has a question. i agree with the way that the disposition is seeming to go. when i see major agreement that's literally live under the same roof, i get concerned. the issue of a ceiling joyce being depicted as east, west,

north south, is that still an issue? does dbi still agree with one side? >> yes, there was an issue with the joint, that's why we performed the site, we're satisfied to move forward. >> so that's no longer an issue for anybody? >> no, sorry. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> we will now take public comment is there anybody here for public comment on this item, please raise your hand. i don't see anybody. so we will move on to rebuttal. mr. catral, you have three minutes. >> thank you, i'm glad to hear that they're trying to work things out here. but i think that one week is really optimistic. i think that we need to consult with our engineer and see how long it's going to take him. i would like to see if february

22, would be available and i'm going to check with mr. strandbergh to see if that's available for him as well. i would also like to point out, although mr. green indicated there was some excessive diligence, you know, regardless of what that was, it's still, was prior to the discovery of a 1985 permit that's the reason why we're here now. some of these things have not been looked at and that's all i have for now, thank you. >> okay, thank you, we'll now hear from the permit holder. >> we don't agree to that. we would agree to one week or if that's not acceptable to the appellants then we would ask that this commission, board of

appeals, approve this special conditions permit tonight. it's ready for approval, i think you guys confirmed that. that's our position. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, dbi, anything further. sorry, commissioner upler has a question. >> just, one question. since you had already gone through the process. document make sure that they were revised or rehabilitating or reconstructed, how were the plans missed as part of that process? i think that's one of the big motivating factors for the current disagreement?

>> good evening, i'm alan structural engineer for the permit. we look over the project last summer from the original engineer. when we started a project, we did document search for permits online. sxl that was noted as a deck living room kitchen remodel, so nothing on there told us it was a seismic work involved. so, we missed that one ourselves because it was not called out as a seismic book. >> okay, thank you. >> it's a little more in response to that, it was also, part of the problem was that the two units were converted to condos. and that permit was under their

address which we would not have realized so we were searching for permits under our address, it didn't show up. >> thank you, we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> thank you, i would like to confirm what he said the 85 permit did come to light after the visit. but carry engineer was at the site visit and has been looking at the 1985 plans and still confident of this new, these new drawings. and i would also like to confirm once, after buildings are converted, it does get the future a little confusing. i come across that myself finding records. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> we have a question from commissioner lindbergh.

>> is ms. liang president? >> she is not. >> if we continue this, it would be helpful to have her present to see what dbi's position on this. >> i'll ask you, but i've been dbi's official position. >> i understand, because there are three engineers involved here and we're only hearing from two of them and the third one is the one i would give the most weight to, so i think having her testify would be helpful. >> i did ask her to attend and she has just other obligations, i will ask her to come to the next meeting. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners? comments?

well, since we're always popping up, i would what i heard was, a compromise, compromise position to extend a recommendation of extend the hearing, i heard compromise with one week. i, i think that the presents a hard ship to extend to february 22. it's a fair compromise, especially since we heard that dbi is already accepted the plans and would be ready to go tonight. so one week is reasonable, fair compromise and so i would suggest that we differ a decision until next week. and limit some of the presentation time correct? >> pardon? >> if we move this, if we move this for the purpose of seeing the plans next week, we don't have to go through 77.

>> no each party would have three minutes to address the rebuttal. >> that's why i'm asking, you're always much clearer on the subject than i am. and hopefully, the two parties will come to an agreement and reward in that they've done so. is that your motion? >> we have a motion to continue this matter to february 8, so that the permanent holder can, have revised plans that are acceptable to dbi and the appellant, is that right? okay, so on that motion, vice president lopez. >> aye. >> aye. >> lindbergh. >> aye. >> upler. >> aye. >> okay, motion carries 5-0 and we'll see you next week. and we will put you at the beginning of the agenda. thank you. okay, we are now moving on to item number 7, this is appeal

number 22093, derek, sorry if i miss pronounced that. subject property, 379-399 chestnut street. comply with notice of violation number 2021, 75327, replace wood frame on existing roof with existing bur roofing. and we will hear from the appellant first. >> i would like to thank the board of appeals for giving me time to voice my concerns about this permanent and negative affect this has on myself and neighbors. i have a number of photos that may make it easier to explain the situation, i think we all have instant image of what we think about a roof being and

this is not really the case. this is in a situation where they're proposing this deck be built on the top of the building, it's a landing that glorifies fire escape that is flush against my building and windows. so if i can, i want to share my screen and then i can continue to talk. >> sure, we can pause your time while you share. >> time is paused. okay, thank you see that? >> yes. >> good so. this is the third time that somebody has

attempted to build a deck for a number of violations some which had no permits or we cannot given any notification on a previous occasion. roof flooded my roof with black smoke. the first image is from one of my windows looking down this deck. this was this is the second time from april of 2021 and you can see the proximity and in the process of building they also put wooden frames around two wooden ducks. the current zoning laws as far as they've been explained to me say the roof top deck has to be 3 to 5 feet from the edge of the building, 3 to 5 feet from other dwellings and none of

that is possible in this location. especially when the permit calls for 200 square foot deck. the permit also states that this is a rebuild of an existing deck but there is been no deck there for the 20 years that i lived in my apartment. and also stating, that the deck was originally built in 1938. and essentially what they're proposing is unnecessary luxury addition to non complying structure with noth but hawkes that seem to be grandfathered in, seems to be the basis of this 1938 claim. and grandfathering something from 5 years ago, is also confusing to me. years ago, doctors recommended cigarettes and we thought asbestos was the best for fire. so if this is a safeway to

construct the deck, i hope that would take presence over what amount to see a loophole. also this deck, you can see the arrow points to my windows both location height of my window so they're right there and right below that arrow is where the light well is on one side and then on the other side, you have a fire escape which would be blocked by the building of the deck there. oops. there is a wide view and i have been in contact with my landlady and in the process of rebuilding the deck for a third time, they began nailing wood into the side of our building which she is not pleased about. this is a wider view and again shows that this landing is below the level of most of the

other buildings. and so, it has no view at all, andtially looks into other people's windows. so you know, there is obviously some issues there in terms of privacy. and this is a wider view of what you would call a court yard, everybody would be looking directly into the windows of the neighbors. this is a street view and what this shows is because of the slope of chestnut street, the building on the left and the building in question are both three-storey buildings, but because of that, sfairly steep slope, their building comes about two and a half floors compared to mine. so again, you know, this deck goes basically splits the windows on the west side of my apartment.

i work from home, as do my downstairs neighbors. because of the cost of living and rent being as high as it is, i had to give up my office and now with the pandemic, it's been necessarily to work from home and having a deck just outside of my office would impact the ability to make a living fm this is google earth view and this shows, where my apartment is and when this was taken during a period where they were just throwing random garbage on to that area, they were rebuilding a wooden staircase and some of those materials got placed out there and left out there for a while. you know, my other concern about this is we have no

guarantee that the apartment with direct access to that deck would not be turned into an airbnb or some other aren't al, and that's a concern with some having parties without any regard of neighbors that they will never see again. this is not communal area that has been used by tenants. this is a landing that they're hoping to you know, shoe horn deck on for some future occupants that, don't live there at this point. and again, these are not hypothetical problems, with the experience of when they target that area, having my entire apartment filled with black smoke. >> 30 seconds. >> a grill or something like

that, the smoke is going in the apartment. i ask that the city revoke and prevent further attempts to build a deck in that location. thank you very much. >> thank you, we will now hear from the permit holder. welcome, you have 7 minutes. >> speaker: my name is meadowans and i'm the designer of the deck, the owner mr. chu, who is 91 was not able to make it here today so he authorized to speak in his behalf. this project has gone a long and pro tracted process, began in 2019 when the old deck that was up there was torn off and a new roof built up roofing system was put on. and then, mistakes were made,

the property owner employed a crew to rebuild a deck without a permit, in which the department of building inspection came and red tagged it. this was just prior to covid which, caused a delay and and then finally, it was in the, april 2021, that movictor an associate of mr. chu contacted me to try to get this project back on track. i visited dbi and told them our situation, i wanted a red tag that i want today know if we can continue building with. i visited the planning desk first and they did a search of

the aerial photographs. dating back to 38 and there was clear evidence that it was used as a deck to 2004 and even in the earliest one, which is 19 38, it's blurry but you can see that there is a hike or railings at that point. and it could have been used for drawing laundry or what have you as common in the area flt because of a red tag, he was not able to approve it on that day. so it went upstairs. we went through a full planning review including a 10-day comment period. which no other neighbors at all, objected. planning improved the project, we took it through dbi soon

after and the project was approved for building permit. we began building once again and the appealed happened and now we're here. for my part, i took a look at what was there and we just basically, redesigned a deck that was in kind until when i was there with obvious improvements with a deck frame so it could hold cocompliant railings, stairway and various details that bring to the fire code. from there, it's kind of a he said, she said situation. we have photographic evidence

from aerials and photographs that the deck has been there which i have hard copies here, i was not sure what the process is. we also have, we collected a few snapshots from neighbors that have been there and going back to the 70s, people hanging out and being on the deck. >> you can show them on the overhead if you want, can you pause the time, you just face it towards you as if you were looking at it. >> this? >> yes. >> yes, this is all from google early, i'm sorry these are from the planning department, publicly available records from san francisco planning department, this is 2014 shot

which shows at that point, they had put some artificial turf and umbrellas and tables there. this is ten years earlier, not a very good picture but it still shows the artificial turf and almost like a some sort of shade structure there. so it was not used at that point in 2004. and the next shot there is this one, from 19 38 and this is the deck here. and you can see that it's rather high. the shadow line and the walls around the roof indicate that it was potentially a useable space. this is enough information along with these pictures. this is from the 1980, i believe.

>> if puck face it, sorry. >> thank you. and you can see the love low railing that they had there was aluminum. this is the owner's son i believe who was talking on the deck this is a picture just prior to the demo, we got these shots done of the deck. and these railing pieces and wood are actually what was in the photograph that derek showed that showed hand om garbage, it was pile of debris from removal.

and there is another shot of the stairway to the deck. we've also, did manage to get a handful of letters from tenants making a statement that there should be a deck there. for as long as they lived there. this is teresa waldeny, deck has been there since 1989. and also, made a statement and he had been there since 1994, i'm sorry. and the owner although he didn't provide a statement, would testify if necessary. >> that's time, thank you. >> you'll have time in rebuttal. thank you.

>> okay, thanks. >> we'll now hear from the planning department. sorry, commissioner lindbergh has a question, thank you. my apologies. >> thank you, i do look forward to hear what planning has to say about this. having to look at the permit, i know we're not hearing the nov but the permit was to renovate. first of all the permit itself says this is a ooh filt platform not a roof deck. but i'm seeing all of this, neighbor testimony saying that this has been a deck. it does not seem to be a deck at all. can you address that? >> i know that when we originally submitted for permit, we called it the utility platform.

somehow when the permit got approved two years later, it became a utility platform but that happened, when the general contractor brought it through, i'm not sure how that got renamed. >> okay, and then secondly, just to confirm, i think you kind of alluded to this but i just want to confirm, at first the owner removed the existing deck without use of permits? back in 2019, i think you said. >> that's correct. >> and then began reconstruction of that platform also without a permit? >> that's correct. >> i just wanted to make sure that i have my facts straight, thank you. >> we have a question from commissioner upler. >> yes, how is that area accessed and what units have

access to that area? in the building? >> there is a, a u shape somewhat u shape central court that goes to ground level that has a stairway that goes from the street access to that stairway that accesses all the access. it's open to the entire, all the resident of that unit. >> >> thank you. >> thank you, we'll now hear from the planning department. >> good evening, members of the president, president, i'm tina planning can zoning administration.

379-399 chestnut street. it contains a three-story basement apartment building with about 11 dwelling units. instructed in 19 06, it's historic. the permit is to comply with notice of violation and sited on the permit to say to replace a wood frame utility platform which we all understand to be a as the roof deck for the project. the appellant is the neighbor, who is residing at 377 chestnut street which is adjacent apartment building to the east. the appellant concerns is that the deck will cause noise due to his proximity in addition,

the appellant believes the roof top violates the planning code and setback 3 to 5 feet away. on the projector, i'm going to put an aerial photograph and this shows the subject property, and it's l-shape configuration and this is the location of the roof deck. this is the appellants property and the light well that we're going to be talking about. zooming in. >> this is the l-shape that is in blue, this is the deck, sort

of framing that in the midst. of instruction for the deck. this is adjacent property to the east and abuts in its relationship to the wood deck. i'm going to put another aerial photograph, this is looking to the east, here is the subject property, here's the deck and here's the light well. of the appellants property, it's located in the required rear yard, a portion is considered non complying. as you heard from the applicant, there is always been a deck at the location, it was only temporarily removed when the roof underneath the deck was replaced in 2019. what is unclear as to when the

deck was first constructed, we do have evidence that showing the deck as far back as 2002 and here's an aerial photograph. of the subject property, here's the deck. can you zoom in, alex, it's a bit grain' but you can see and you've seen the other photographs that the applicant put up, that you do see, this part of the building with some sort of extra turf, high railing decorating, some sort of outdoor furniture and right here is the opening for the access points to the units of the building. and i don't believe we have received any complaints about the deck or the or when the

deck was illegally constructed so we have no reason to believe that the deck is not legal. now while non compliance structures are by definition in lots not developable, we do often times see roof decks constructed to provide space for outdoor activity. in fact p section 188 permits a deck on top of provided no higher than what is required by the building code. in addition, the planning code states a ten-day notice is required when there is a new roof deck. while this is not new roof deck, in the location and configuration, the department does acknowledge that roof decks in general may cause some

impact, noise, for instance to neighboring properties. and in this case, in the furthest permit, we have sent out the ten-day notice to the neighbors, even though, one is not required. upon receiving the ten-day notice, the appellant did reach out to the planner and the project planner through phone calls and emails did explain to the appellants that the proposed project does meet the requirement and that a 3-or 5 set pack is not required. no dr was filed and issued later in november 23, 2022. for the reason i stated, thei ask that the board uphold the appeal and go on.

the board does have an option to modify the deck if you so choose, for example, you can ask that the railing be pulled back to match the rail well that would be a reasonable compromise and one that the department would support. that may be some concerns that they raised in regards to privacy and noise. we would be open to further discussion with that. happy to answer any questions. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you, we have president from president swig and commissioner lemberg. >> so before my commissioners became commissioners, there was a whole review of deck protocols, what can be done, what can't be done, blah blah

blah, is that true? did we not, am i, am i making believe that i'm a commissioner in sacramento. but was there a whole review, because there was a lot of deck, activity that some of the rules associated with building decks on city roofs that was clarified? or adjusted? or am i just? >> i'm not aware of that, sorry. >> i'm thinking of a case that we had in the marina and the deck was placed on a roof and and scott, it's coming back to me. the hard drive is slow, scott was in your position. and he gave us a tutorial of new rules related to deck revisions. there were, yes, there were rules related to you cannot go

to the edge of the roof, you have to have a setback, you have certain amount of railing, you cannot do this and you cannot do that and this is part of a new declaration. so am i, am i remembering that correctly? or? >> perhaps, i was not there, so i cannot say, i remember that, i remember strapped guide blienz for roof decks. i don't know if they were adopted but they were guidelines, in the marina, correct. >> i was not in the fantasy's trip. thank you. so there is ambiguity to whether or not there are new draft rules or adopted according to yourself by the way your presentation was far better than the two parties, i

actually saw, how this was this, slice of life is presented. if they decided to build a deck there, what would you say to that? >> that's an excellent question f this is awe new deck and not one that's been around 20 plus year. we would review for its compliance for the design guidelines. this project moving forward gets and according to your testimony, gets a big pass on any issues because it is been

there and it's grandfathered or grandmothered in? and so, >> yeah, we have so much evidence in our records to say it's always been there, it's exact location and we have never heard anything about that in terms of its impact and what not. >> right the precedence has been set and history of activity and no neighborhood outcry, blah blah blah, so it's passed mustard over 60 or 70 or 90 years, so it's okay. >> exactly, that's why the staff who reviewed this, and processed this, signed off on it.

would you consider the deck would be just as efficient if we took the step to modify it? to make the foot print and not include the light well? >> it's hard for me, i never proposed this before the appellant but we can discuss this now. i think it would help, it was a brand new deck before us today. >> and in rebuttal, i think that's a fair question or maybe the appellant if he's listening can share his thoughts. i'll differ to mr. trasvina. >> thank you, you mentioned the ten-day letter that was not required but carried out anyway. can you describe what out reach to the adjourning property owner and my input the property has?

>> the appellant was the only person we heard from. >> so i based on all the photographic evidence, i don't doubt that this outdoor space has been there for a long time. what i'm struggling is whether this space should be allowed to be habitable for human use. can you speak a little bit as to what, and i think this fwoez into a little bit of what the distinction between a utility and a roof deck is, to me, just

as a layman kind of sounds like it should not be used as a roof deck by actual people, it's just there to serve some utility related purpose. but i also, i hear the appellants argument that this is, you know, being presented as a roof deck and that it will like low be used by neighbors and i hear his privacy concerns given the very very tight quarters between these two properties, can you explain the difference. >> i can try. i cannot answer why it was labeled as a utility platform that's the applicant. but the plans that were submitted with the permit, shows a roof deck and that's what the planning department reviewed the project to be a roof deck. >> okay.

as to what the deck did not preexist, didn't exist previously, how our planning act now. how is planning accounted for the illegal unperm pitted removal of the deck in 2019 and then subsequent rebuilding after that? does that not account for anything? i think they specify that the roof was going to be replaced or remain or removed, but it was sided as the roof or the portion of the building where the roof is underneath the deck. one can ask, how do you replace

the roof without removing the deck? >> i mean, i assume the answer is you obtain the permit to remove the deck. >> yes. correct, that particular permit to repair or replace the roof never came to planning so we never had an opportunity to ask that question. >> i see, okay. okay, having seen a number of buildings like this, it rubs me the wrong way that this is to be used as a human roof deck just based on the visual, am i off base here? >> this is a pretty dense part of the city, it's at the corner of chestnut and stockton and based upon old aerial, this was

built in 9--1906 and there were buildings at the block at that time. it's not uncommon to have buildings built sometimes 100% of the property with very little open space. and we do often times see folks finding little niches to have some amount of open space for their tenants. i'm going to put up this site plan really quickly, it might, i have another better photograph, let me mind that for you. you mentioned, the tightness of the development pattern, here is latest sambehr map and this is the sambehr map in 19 14, this is part of the block. sorry.

it's exactly the same, there is no change to the corner of corner and stockton as you can see, there are so many building packed into the lot, the building next door has no open space, except for this little tiny stair deck system. the property next door has a building to the front and back. the appellants property has a building in front and back. so open space is spare. >> okay, thank you. >> okay, thank you, we'll now hear from department building inspection. >> good evening, representing

the department of building inspection. i guess, the issue is here whether this deck existed before, i do have the reroofing permit where they specifically say back roof under the deck, if you would like to see that. how do i do that? >> just say overhead and alec can zoom out for you. turn it so it's facing you. >> the when they pulled the permit, they clearly say that there was a deck there, just better, reroofing is pretty approved as a matter of course, it's just redoing the roof. and so the question is, how do you reroof an area under a deck without removing the deck?

so if the property owners had dismantled and reconstructed, we would not be here today, it would be the end of the issue. they didn't do that for some reason, back in april of 2021, about a year and a half after this permit was issued, that's when they put the deck back. that's when we got a smraint, our inspect or went out and realized there was not a building permit, replacing the deck examine wrote us a notice of violation. if i go back, this permit issued in august of 2019, it was good for 3 19 days so it was expired by the time the notice of violation was written. and the permit is to comply notice of violation, replacing wood frame on the existing roof with existing roof.

so if this was a brand new roof, there would be requirement for one-hour walls at the property lines since this is an existing deck, our plan interpretation that this is an existing deck. that is the argument they took it down and did not rebuild it for a year and a half, is it an existing deck. our art decker made an determination that it is an existing deck so they're rebuilding it in kind, we is standard approval process for other decks when they're being rebuilt. i don't have much more to that. i will add that it does require fire department inspection and building inspection so if there is any question about the safety, that will be inspected by both departments. i'm available for my questions you may have. >> president swig. >>, speaking about that in

rebuilding, it has to be built to current specifications with a proper railing around it and all that stuff. in the photos this we saw there was one photo that, i'll call it a privacy wall because it, pretty much was taller an average human being and obscured the deck. what would be the new treatment? and i'm responding also to our my question is in line with the commentary with the appellant, my god, we'll be looking into other people's windows and not just myspace but others who will suffer from privacy. what is legal? is that 6-foot i'm guessing, privacy wall going to go in? or is it going to be a pony

wall of some kind? and is that pony wall opaque or clear? is it made of. all of that stuff? these are key issues, you know in conjunction with my fellow commissioners who say it's good with human beings and in line with the appellant and, privacy. what is that wall going to look like. >> it's 42 inch high with picket. >> a pickets fence which is 42 inches high. >> i would not call it picket, 4 inch gaps between them, maximum 4 inches.

>> and your thoughts as ms. ham with restricting the deck to not include the light well? what are your thoughts on that? with legal presence would be driven by? >> no, i have no objections to altering the permit to eliminate that area. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will now move on to public comment, is there anyone here for public comment, raise your hand? no public comment, we'll move on to rebuttal, you have three minutes. >> i'm confused, this seems like a lot of tortured logic involved here. i moved into my apartment in early 20004, so from 2004 until 2019, there was not a deck out there. so i understand that at some point something put astro turf

and lawn chairs and hung out there, now if that caused problem, if somebody filed a complaint, would you have a copy of that? i would be surprised? and so the idea that because that one point used this space which again is not a roof deck, i don't understand how that language can be used. it's a utility platform. it's basically a way to get from their back wooden staircase to the back to escape. what i don't understand is this is a huge building, it goes all the way to the corner of stockton, they have rule roof. if you built a deck, you would have an object instructed view of the golden bridge, it would block my view of golden view

bridge which would make me unhappy but not impede the ability to make a living. even in normal tone of voice it sounds like they're in my apartment. you know, and the reason they didn't have to tear down a deck is because there was no deck to tear down. i was the one who made a complaint and filed a complaint in 2019, because one day they're just out there, you know, with handful of workers not wearing any respirators or masks, with putting hot tar, i had a cat and had hundreds of in vet bills because cat developed breathing problems. there is a clear pattern of not

following the rules and laws in terms of that space. so it was not a situation where oh we look down the deck just to redo the roof. they reit the roof. >> you have 30 seconds. >> i cannot imagine if you had 8 people out there, that you would not have problems. and if you talk about a picket fence, somebody can fall over the side of that, assuming that period like people go out there and drink. so beyond the light well, there is a number of safety issues and having a three and a half picket fence does not increase privacy for myself and people out there. >> thank you. >> thank you, president swig has a question for you. >> just a follow-up on, ms. ham suggested it would make you feel better if if they just the

platform design to include the light well does that mean anything? or is it the macro sense that there should not be a deck there? >> well, my preference would be not to have a deck there, but if blocking the blackwell, i'm the third flow, so there is an apartment below and bottom floor and people who also work from home. that sound travels. when you look at the plans and realize just how, you know, these are like puzzle pieces, everybody is on top of each other. and one of the things that keeps the peace is that people are respectful of that. and the minute you introduced something like a deck, you're sort of, breaking that agreement. i think there is an understanding, oh what is a deck and there is 1 apartment that have access to that. >> thank you very much, i appreciate it. >> thank you, we'll now hear from the permit holder.

>> thank you again. this time i'm going to speak about the roof deck itself, the reason the owner is motivated to continue having this. is because it is, it is the only outdoor space that these 13 units enjoy. there is a small, to mention a very small alley way at the bottom but this is just an old dense and crowded area and that roof deck has been and if it would be removed, would be a detriment to the owners or the tenants that live there and have come to enjoy it and made it part of their life. and i was standing, derek's

comments, the deck has always been there and he moved in with a deck and photograph proofs that there were deck chairs. there is never been any noise complaints, no other neighbors in the area have appealed or appealed during the planning process. it's been part of fabric and parcel of that place. we're just replacing the deck as is. we'll be more than willing to work around the light well, but i think his windows are high enough that nobody is looking straight into them. and the light well does have lower windows but they're obscured. it october 2018 that the planning department did work with dbi in trying to create a roof deck policy, i don't believe any of those, a few of

those got amended but mostly it became a recommendation each roof deck would go under review and there was serious of recommendations. this deck is only 10-foot wide. so a setback on the 10-foot side would be render the deck virtually useless. but we would be willing to work with the light well in some way that would appease them. one of the recommendations is that the railing can only be as high as -- ~>> 30 seconds. >> maximum allowed which is 42 inches. once again that's a recommendation we would be do solid railing, hire solid railings that match more of what used to be there. but we would be very distressed if we were, the owner would be very distressed if we could not

continue to enjoy this property and the way the paying tenants expect. >> thank you. >> to enjoy in the future. >> question from president swig. >> short question, heard 42-inch picket fence, saw photos all the way back to 1958 that indicated a fire, that includes a fire escape look like a ladder. i didn't see, i didn't look on the plans to see the accommodation for where that fire escape is going to be and how fire safe ty is going to be protected. >> we have a fire gate and the fire department approved that. >> okay. >> okay, thank you. we'll now hear from the planning department.

>> thank you, tina from the planning department. as i stated earlier, a roof deck is allowed on top of a non complying as long as the railing is open and no more than height perm nisable which is 42 inches tall. while this is not a new deck, we did somewhat treat it like a new deck and sent out the ten-day notice, so we went beyond and above from a process. and i'll put up a partial floor plan. this shows the deck, the light well and a possible design solution which is to go ahead and pull back the railing of the deck perhaps 3 feet from

the common property line. we do want the exterior railing to be open to comply with the planning code but we would be open to this part of the railing, to provide more privacy to the appellants property. you mentioned the escape, this is the fire escape and this is the little door to access the fire escape. >> okay, thank you. any questions from the planning department? okay, thank you. we will now hear from dbi. >> good evening, again, i just need to clarify that the 42 inches is a minimum of a

guardrail not maximum, it's code compliance because it has to be 42 inches. you expressed the xwernz the fire safety, the fire department has approved the plans and they will do a site visit before the project is completed. i'm available for my questions. >> so the minimum is 42 inches, they could take it to 60 inches. >> they're replacing in kind so it's 42 inches, according to the designer, that's what was there before. >> a portion showed us that it was higher than the gentleman there. >> i don't know what is historical because there is been many historicals in this project as we all saw. >> but the higher it goes, the planning department would want to get involved with that. >> all right, so 42 inches is a recommended level, 42 inches is

probably what planning would accept and approve and anything after that it becomes a further discussion, which obliterates our discussion today. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioners this matter is submitted? >> mr. lopez, i'll give you the opportunity to start the ball. >> thank you. i think so it's appropriate for the deck to continue as planned. i am, i am drawn to the light well adjustment proposed by planning.

i think that's reasonable but my initial reaction is that it would be appropriate to towelly replace the existing deck. >> i agree with commissioner lopez. >> mr. lemberg. >> i differ in this one. i would be inclined to have the totality, i think that the removal in 2019 is not irrelevant here. >> the permanent that they preexisted for all of these years and yet it was removed and not accessible the entirety

of the pandemic which is when they would want that outdoor space as we remember and those of us who live in apartments and condos remember. i also think that the appellant concerns are very legitimate concerns, while we can't, you know, make a finding based solely on privacy concerns or anything like that t i think the fact that this deck was removed in 2019, is sufficient to say this that is a new deck and gave the ten-day notice that they said maybe they were not required to but they did because it was appropriate to do under the circumstances. and you know, i do agree with

planning that if, you know, if the reroofing permit had been done proper low in 2019 we would not be here today. i agree with that sentiment, but i don't agree that this is irrelevant to this happening now in 2022. so much time has passed and again the appellant concerns are legitimate. a lighting for amendment for the light well, i would be grant appeal and not permit this outdoor deck. and i do also agree that this deck would be in the roof rather in the weird area that would be of greater value.

i talked long enough, i'll pass to commissioner eppler. >> i have a lot of sympathy there, that question but never found the right opportunity, it's a kin to you because this was a very awed deck, despite the lack of outdoor space. so you know, the thought of this much years later, rebuilding as is, it's a stretch in my head. there would need to be access for the fire escape. so what we have, is an architecture that creates a very very attractive nuisance to the people that live in

those 11 units. to go out there and use that space, if we do nothing it's not designed and provides less than safe situation and for the appellant of less than ideal situation because there is no mitigation to any of the issues that have been raised. i tend to look at the suggestion that has the setback and the higher wells and the most equitable way to parse this very difficult situation that we've been presented today. >> thank you. i would agree with commissioner epplers, i'm sympathetic that it's a lousy deck. but i also have to pay attention, learn to pay

attention to planning and their commentary on precedence. and what is what is the law? or what has been interrupted as the law. i think stands, the legal precedence stands but i would go with commissioner eppler and support the drawing by ms. ham with the carve out for the light wall and the higher wall on the side.

so i'll let mr. eppler make the pitch here. >> well then, i'll rely on his advise on how to make this. but my understanding is that we basically, we grant the appeals with -- ~>> issue the permit on the issue require that the railing be pulled back from light well 3 feet back from the property line. that's what planning suggested. number 2, solid at the light well and i'm not sure what that means, solid, like one solid wall? like private or what do you mean? >> thank you. yes, solid where there is not open railing continues. >> not open at all, like solid wood. >> uh-huh. >> the height on that? >> yeah, i have a suggestion on that height. >> on that portion? >> for privacy?

>> six feet. >> 6 feet, 72 inches. >> how many inches? >> 72. >> wouldn't that block all the light going to the appellant's apartment? >> fair point. >> the railing is pulled back, it's not on the property line. >> sure, but if the setback is only 3 feet and the wall is six feet, that sounds like less light rather than more. >> how far back is the light well from the property line? >> i'm going to pull the plans, i don't have it measured but i can go ahead can eyeball it. >> okay. >> you can pull it back further than three feet that kind of fishates the back a little bit examine give him for light.

>> can we also use privacy material, >> like opaque glass? >> yes. >> i'm fwg to put this back overhead. the light well is not denoted but using the same scale that says four feet here which is the approximately the same with this, maybe less. the width is about four feet or so maybe 2 to 3 feet in width.

>> three feet would be the minimum in terms of the setback line that i would suggest. if that's something like the board feels is important or helpful to the appellant we would be open to somebody taller, since it's not on the edge. >> is she saying that it's the minimum amount, you can go. >> can we go then four feet. >> four feet. >> from and in terms the height of the railing would be 42 inches and then, what kind what is the material? solid railing?

with opaque material? >> translucent material. >> okay, did you want to check in with the appellant to see if this addresses the concerns. you are willing to go higher but you didn't want to block his light. do you have any feedback. >> if it was setback four feet and the higher, if you went six feet it would not block the lights. i would rather have a solid wall and so maybe block a little bit of the noise. >> okay, they're proposing translucent material so that the light can go through. but you'll still have privacy. >> that would be uglier than

what is already there but that's a design issue. >> would you prefer wood? now is the time. >> wood would make sense. >> if you put a translucent plastic. >> okay, that's why we were checking with you. i'm going to repeat the motion, we have a motion from commissioner eppler to issue the permit that the railing be pulled back from the light well, four feet from the property line and that the railing at the light well is made of solid wood material and 60 inches high and this motion is made on the motion. >> some of the privacy concerns of the appellant. >> yes. >> okay, on that motion, vice president lopez. >> aye. >> aye.

>> commissioner lemberg. >> nay. >> president swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries, 4-1 and that concludes the hearing. thank you. >> we'll see you next week. >> and so for the permit holder, you'll have to revise plans and get a written permit after it has been issued. we can talk about it tomorrow. thank you.

>> still a lot of people wonder since the trees have a lot of issues, why did we plant them in the first place? >> trees are widely planted in san francisco. with good reason. they are workhorses when it comes to urban forestry. we have begun to see our ficustrees are too big and dangerous in san francisco. we have a lot of tree failures with this species in particular.

this is a perfect example of the challenges with the structure of the ficustrees. you can see four very large stems that are all coming from the same main truck. you can see the two branches attached to one another at a really sharp angle. in between you can't it is a lot of strong wood. they are attached so sharply together. this is a much weaker union of a branch than if you had a wide angel. this is what it looks like after the fi c.u. resolution s limb l. >> we see decline. you can see the patches where there aren't any leaves at all. that is a sign the tree is in decline. the other big challenge is the

root system of the tree are aggressive and can impact nearby utilities, and we can fix the sidewalk around the tree in many cases. we don't want to cuts the roots too severely because we can destabilize the tree. >> in a city like san francisco our walks are not that wide. we have had to clear the branches away from the properties. most of the canopy is on the street side and that is heavyweight on those branches out over the street. that can be a factor in tree limb failures. a lot of people wonder since these trees have a lot of issues. why did we plant them in the first place? they provided the city with benefits for decades. they are big and provide storage for carbon which is important to fight climate change and they

provide shade and really i think many people think they are a beautiful asset. >> when we identify trees like this for removal and people protest our decision, we really understand where they are coming from. i got into this job because i love trees. it just breaks my heart to cut down trees, particularly if they are healthy and the issue is a structural flaw. i have also seen first hand what happens when we have failures. we have had a couple of injuries due to tree failures. that is something we can't live with either. it is a challenging situation. we hate to lose mature trees, we hate to lose mature trees,

>> i am iris long. we are a family business that started in san francisco chinatown by my parents who started the business in the mid 1980s. today we follow the same footsteps of my parents. we source the teas by the harvest season and style of crafting and the specific variety. we specialize in premium tea. today i still visit many of the farms we work with multigenerational farms that produce premium teas with its own natural flavors. it is very much like grapes for wine. what we do is more specialized, but it is more natural. growing up in san francisco i used to come and help my parents after school whether in middle school or high school and

throughout college. i went to san francisco state university. i did stay home and i helped my parents work throughout the summers to learn what it is that makes our community so special. after graduating i worked for an investment bank in hong kong for a few years before returning when my dad said he was retiring. he passed away a few years ago. after taking over the business we made this a little more accessible for visitors as well as residents of san francisco to visit. many of our teas were traditionally labeled only in chinese for the older generation. today of our tea drinkkers are quite young. it is easy to look on the

website to view all of our products and fun to come in and look at the different varieties. they are able to explore what we source, premium teas from the providence and the delicious flavors. san francisco is a beautiful city to me as well as many of the residents and businesses here in chinatown. it is great for tourists to visit apsee how our community thrived through the years. this retail location is open daily. we have minimal hours because of our small team during covid. we do welcome visitors to come in and browse through our products. also, visit us online. we have minimal hours. it is nice to set up viewings of these products here.

you're watching san francisco rising with chris manners. special guest is david chu. hi i'm chris manners and you're watching san francisco rising the show that's about restarting rebuilding and re imagining our city. i guess today is david chiu, the city attorney for the city and county of san francisco , and he's here today to talk to us about the opioid crisis, reproductive rights and the non citizen voting program. mr chu, welcome to the show. thanks for having me on happy to talk about whatever you want me to talk about, so can we start by explaining the difference between the city attorney's office and the district

attorney's office? i think it could be slightly confused. that is a very common fusion with members of the public so um, if you get arrested in san francisco by the san francisco police department, all criminal matters are dealt with by the san francisco district attorney . we handle all civil matters on behalf of the city and county of san francisco. what that means is a number of things. we provide advice and counsel to all actors within city government from our mayor. every member of the board of supervisors to the 100 plus departments, commissions boards that represent the city and county of san francisco. we also defend the city against thousands of lawsuits. so if you slip and fall in front of city hall if there's a bus accident if there is an incident involving the san francisco police department, we defend those matters. we also bring lawsuits on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, where most famous for litigating

and obtaining the constitutional right to marry for lgbtq couples have sued gun manufacturers, payday lenders, oil companies, you name it, who are undercutting the rights of san franciscans and the city and county of san francisco. so now moving on to the opioid crisis. i understand you've had some success in court, um, dealing with manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies. could you elaborate a little bit on that for us, so the opioid industry and by that i refer to the legal industry that prescribes pain pills. um over years. uh, deceived americans and resulted in literally thousands upon thousands of deaths and tragedies that we see on our streets every day when it comes to the addictions that folks are experiencing. many of the addictions really stemmed from what happened over a decade plus period where the prescription pain industry marketed

prescription pills in ways that were false. we were one of thousands of jurisdictions around america that brought a lawsuit against the opioid industry. but we've had a particular set of successes that others have not. ah we initially brought a lawsuit a few years ago against every part of the opioid supply chain, and that included manufacturers, distributors and retailers, including pharmacies over the course of four plus years. a number of these corporate defendants settled with us. we've as of this moment brought in over $120 million of cash and services. to the city to help address the root causes of what we're talking about. but a few months ago, we had a really historic verdict against the pharmacy, walgreens and their role walgreens was responsible for literally over 100 million pills, flooding the streets of san francisco over a period of years where they flouted federal

law that require them to track where they're pills were going to. they had a what? what we refer to as a phil phil phil. pharmacy culture where folks would bring in their prescriptions, and the pharmacist would just fill them without checking why someone was coming in multiple times without checking why certain doctors were seen a 100 fold increase in the number of opioid prescriptions that they were prescribing. so we had a historic judgment against walgreens recently, but it's been a very intense lawsuit. and we know that will never bring back the lives that we have lost to opioid addictions. but it's critical for us that we get the resources that we need. maybe one other thing i'll mention because it's often confusion. a large percentage of folks who are addicted to street level drugs say heroin or fentanyl started their addictions. with painkillers, opioid medications that were prescribed through

doctors provided through pharmacies and so literally the suffering that we're seeing on our streets was caused by the opioid industry over many, many years and has created the significant crisis that we are dealing with right now. right right now moving on. i understand after the recent supreme court ruling, striking down robust as wade that you've put together an organization that's designed to help mm. provide free services to people who are both. seeking abortions and providing them can you tell us about the organization? sure so, um, before the dobbs decision came down, but after we learned about the leak from the supreme court about the draft that suggested the decision would be as bad as it has turned out to be, um, i reached out to leadership from the bar association of san francisco because we knew that if that decision came down there would be tens of thousands of patients around the country as well as providers whose legal situation would be in jeopardy. women doctors, nurses who could be

subjected to lawsuits who could be arrested who could be prosecuted, particularly in red states? 26 states where rights are being rolled back or in the process or have already been rolled back because of the dobbs decision. so we put out a call to lawyers all over the bay and frankly, all over the country, and as of this moment there have been over 70 law firms that have answered our call to be part of the legal alliance for reproductive rights who have committed to reviewing cases and providing pro bono assistance to patients and providers who are at legal risk. we also are looking at potential cases that these lawyers can bring against various states. in these areas that are looking to deprive women and patients and providers of their of their rights. um it is a very dark time in america, and i'm really proud that that barrier attorneys, the legal community care have stepped up to answer the call. it's very

important that's great. so now the non citizen voting program that was passed by voters just for school boards has faced them court challenges recently, but it was in place for the most recent election that we've had. how do you see that situation panning out? in fact, it's been in place for now. five school board elections. um so a little bit of background in our san francisco schools over one out of three kids. has a parent who is a non citizen who doesn't have a say in the election of the policy makers that dictate the future of our san francisco public schools, and so over a number of years, there has been a movement to allow immigrant parents to vote in school board elections. few things i'll mention about that is our country has a very long history when it comes to allowing immigrants to vote. from 17 76 for 100 and 50 years until after world war. one immigrants were allowed to vote in most states in our country on the theory

that we want to assimilate immigrants in american democratic values and institutions, and it wasn't until an anti immigrant backlash in world war one that that sort of ended. but in recent years, um cities across america have allowed this to happen. in fact, at this moment, believe there are over a dozen cities that have voted to allow non citizens to vote in a number of context. now, this is particularly important in our schools just given how challenge our schools are, and given that we know that when we engage more parents in her school system, regardless of their citizenship it helps to lift up our schools for all parents. and so in 2016 the voters of san francisco past about measure that allowed this to happen. unfortunately earlier this year, there were conservative organizations that came to san francisco to bring a lawsuit to try to overturn this , and i should also mention it is obviously the perspective of our office and our city that this is constitutional. nothing

in the constitution prohibits non citizens from voting. and in fact, there's an explicit provision in the constitution that allows chartered cities like san francisco when it comes to school board elections to be able to dictate the time and manner of those elections. and so, uh, we are involved in litigation on this issue. there was an initial ruling that was not good for us that essentially said at the trial court level. we shouldn't allow this. um we appealed it up to the appellate level. the appellate court made an initial decision to allow this past november election to proceed as it has for the last previous four elections. we're going to be in front of that court soon. stay tuned. we'll see what happens. it was good to hear that the city was able to reach a settlement with the center for medicare and medicaid services are meant laguna honda could still operate. how did you manage to reach that agreement? it was not an easy conversation . just a little bit of background. so laguna honda has

been an incredibly important institution in san francisco for 150 years, taking care of our most vulnerable patients are frail, very elderly patients, many of whom are at end of life. and a few years ago, there were some issues in that hospital. some violations of rules that we very much want to make sure don't get violated. there were folks that weren't using proper ppe, who are bringing cigarette lighters into the facility, who might have brought some contraband into the facilities. we have zero tolerance for that and have made that very clear. we self reported some of these violations to the federal authorities. and unfortunately from our perspective, they took the very disproportionate step of ordering the closure. the permanent closure of lugano, honda. problematic on a number of reasons. first and foremost, there are just no skilled nursing facility beds not just in california but around the country. after their order came down. we literally were putting 1000 calls a day to skilled

nursing facilities around california and around the country and could find nowhere to move the 700 patients that we had had in the gonna honda but just as disturbingly as we were forced to start moving some of these patients, a number of them died. there's a concept in medicine known as transfer trauma. when you move someone who is that frail and unfortunately, folks folks died and we were at a point where we were five weeks away from the deadline for the federal government. that they had provided to us to close the facility. so uh and we have been trying for months to get the federal government to reconsider their action, so i was compelled to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the city and county of san francisco and very pleased and appreciate that we were able to come to a settlement whereby transfers will be delayed at least until next year. we're going to have at least a year of funding. to keep the facility open, and hopefully we can get back up on our feet and ensure

that no future violations occur because this is an institution that has to stay open for the good of these patients. quite right, quite right. so finally, congratulations on winning an important public power service dispute with pg and e. um why is it important that the city's rights as a local power provider maintained well, so san francisco has been a local power provider for decades. we are fortunate to have access through our hedge hetchy hydroelectric system to provide electricity to a number of providers, particularly public recipients of that. and unfortunately, pg any has used its monopoly when it comes to private electricity to try to stop that, and to block that, and from our perspective, they violated federal law in adding literally tens of millions of dollars of expenses to san francisco and institutions that we're trying to ensure um, public power infrastructure. put years of delays on our ability to do

this, and so we had to bring a number of appeals in the federal commission. ah we were successful in those appeals, and there was a decision recently that basically held the pg and e could not use its monopoly to unfairly delay or add tens of millions of dollars of cost. to the city and county of san francisco, as we are trying to move forward with our vision of public power. clearly pgd has not been able to serve not just san francisco but northern california. well we all know that with the wildfires with its bankruptcies, with all the issues that they've had, we think there is a different model to move forward on and we are grateful to the court. and providing a ruling that allows us to move forward. well thank you so much for coming on the show. i really appreciate the time you've given us here today. i appreciate and thanks for your thanks for your questions. thank you. well that's it. for this episode, we'll be back with another one shortly for sf gov t v. i'm chris manners. thanks for

>> [gavel] >> welcome to the february 1st, budget and finance committee. as you have noted, probably that we're now starting at 10:00 a.m. i'm supervisor connie chan as chair of the budget committee. i'm joined by our vice-chair, supervisor mernd oe -- our clerk is brett. thank you. i would like to thank sfg tv, colleen that mendosa for broadcasting this meeting. mr. clerk, do you have