part of this wonderful place.

>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> okay, good evening, welcome to the march 15, 2023 of the san francisco board of appeals. our presiding officer is joined by commissioner lopez, lemberg, john trasviña and jr eppler and we have legal to provide assistance and i'm the board executive directored. we are joined by the city department presenting before the board this evening, tina tam and department of building inspection. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. we ask that you turn off all phones and electronic devices during the proceedings.

permit holders and department respondents are given 7 minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these cases must conclude their comments within three minutes period. people not part of the case will be given a minute. you will be given a warning before your time is up. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or hearing schedules, please email board staff at board of appeals at sfgovtv.org. sf govtv is broadcast live and we will hear public comment on each item on the agenda and we are also providing closed captioning on this hearing. please note that it will be rebroadcast fridays

at 4:00 p.m. channel 26. a link is on our home website. now public comment can be providing in three ways. one in person, two via zoom. https://us02web.zoom.us/j/ 81316413625 access by telephone: call: 1-669-900-6833 webinar id: 813 1641 3625 >> again, sf govtv is broadcasting the stream with the number. listen for the public comment portion of the item to be called and dial star 9 which is equivalent of raising your hand. you will be brought into the room. a legal assistant will provide

you a 30 seconds warning when your time is up. it is very important that people calling in reduce their volume on their tv and computers otherwise there is interference with the meeting. if anybody needs special disability accommodations, please check with the board legal assistant. the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinion. please note that we will take public comment first from those members of the public physically present in the hearing room. now we will swear in or affirm all those here to testify. any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their right under the sunshine ordinance. if you wish to provide to the board your testimony, raise your hand and say i do.

testimony you may give in this matter now pending before this commission, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? okay, thank you. is if you are a participant and not speaking, please put your zoom speaker on mute. >> commissioners, we have one housekeeping item. items 6 a through 6 d, would like these appeals continued to april 12, 2023. we would need a motion and vote on that. >> do we have a motion? >> i move to continue item 6 a to 6 d. >> is there any public comment on this motion to continue these items, please raise your hand? >> i don't see any public comment. on that motion. >> [roll call] those items carry 5-0 and will be moved to april

12. (1) public comment at this time, members of the public may address the board on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board except agenda items. with respect to agenda would anyone like to speak. >> public speaker: you may recall that there were two appeals and work had been done without permit at the site and one of the neighboring properties might have been undermined. at the hearing, you and dbi came to the aid of the neighbors and granted the permit holder and given access to prevent further work at the site and also the permit shall have a soils engineer confirm a soil test and prepare a report of the findings of the test, and this report shall be

applied and the outcome of that meeting was a requirement that the neighbors reach a written agreement on a path forward before any work would go forward, two, a new permit would be required to remove the dirt that covered the unpermitted work, and three, new or substantially revised work before additional work at the site. dbi put that all in writing. i drafted an agreement on these lines on january 12th. i received no edits or comments from dbi nor the attorney as of today. but despite there being a requirement of the neighboring place, the neighbor saw work at the site. turns out without notice to me or any neighbors and without requirement of agreement in place, they chose to remove the dirt. by the time the neighbors discovered this, the work had been completed. i spent the next several weeks

trying to get dbi explain to me why did this happen? why did they wave the required agreement, and why did they give the agreed upon access to do the work and request would this happen without any outreach to the affected neighbors. as the letter that i have submitted as part of public comment explained in much more detail, i never got answers to this question. it gets worse. while this board required this engineer to perform a soil compaction test add they said it wasn't required and dbi said okay. i realize that there is nothing you can do at this point. the work was covered up with dbi permission. was the foundation at risk in we don't know. there has been no compaction test and no test results to analyze. what i do know is that the done a grave

disservice by this process. my request is that you read my letter and see if there is anything you believe that this board can do about this situation. thank you very much. >> >> i submitted a letter and would like it to be part of the record >> your letter will be accepted and we will have a conversation related to the next steps. >> thank you. >> public speaker: good evening, my name is brad sullivan. i'm speaking regarding the same matter that you just heard. i appeared virtually at the hearing december 14th and made a statement on behalf of one of the neighbors, mr. maher and we are on the other side of the

house. i listened to the comments of this board after the hearing and the board in my perception seemed outraged on what happened to mr. mar and issued an order in concurrence with that outrage. i spoke to mr. maher as this episode has gone along and have been close with their family for the last few months and been astounded at what has continued to take place at the house that is violating this board's order. i want you to know that i come before you as a private citizen but spent my entire career with the attorney general. i have never seen they act the way that dbi is acting like here and i don't know what their motivation is, but i know what is happening here to the maher family is egregious and what dbi is doing is beyond the scale. i can't

believe they have acted this way. i want to say one last thing. i appreciated the comment that was made that the board would consider this matter and there would be a discussion with the executive director because what is being done right now completely undermined the authority of this board. this board issued an order. if there is no recourse for this family, if this board cannot do something to enforce its order, then what is the authority of this board and why do we have this process. so just so you know, as a disinterested third party although i am friends with our neighbors, i can tell you that what has gone on here is just a complete shambles of what this board asked to be done in this matter. and if there is anything you can do to correct this matter, it would be greatly appreciated. this family, the

mahers have gone through so much. thank you very much for your time. >> okay, thank you. is there anyone else here for general public comment, please raise your hand? okay, we will move on to item no. 2. commissioner comments and questions. >> okay, move on. we'll move on to item no. 3. (3) adoption of minutes discussion and possible adoption of the march 1, 2023 minutes. >> i move to adopt the minutes as presented. >> is there any public comment on the motion to adopt the minutes? seeing none, on that motion, [roll call] >> that motion carries 5-0 and the minutes are adopted. we are now moving onto item no. 4.

(4) appeal no. 23-006 gabe zeldin and caroline simonds, appellant(s) vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 264 diamond street. appealing the issuanceon january 20, 2023, to betsy bayha and heidi gewertz, of a site permit (reconstruct garage level storage area at rear of building; infill 49 square feet at ground level; infill 142 square feet at existing first level mud room; renovate and expand existing kitchen and relocate 1/2 bath on first level; reconstruct existing second level office with 32 square feet added; construct new rear deck and stairs at first floor and decks over infill space at second floor). permit no. 2021/11/16/2462. we'll hear from the appellant first. welcome. you have six minutes. >> thank you. can i have the slides, please. >> thank you, good evening. my

name is dave zelle man, and together with our daughter, we live on this property here. here you see on the left side the current status of the property on the right is the proposal that's our house to the left of it. we have three concerns, light, air and visual access to the mid-block open space. all we are asking for is a five foot setback on the rear side of the property. that's it. we are not trying to stop it. >> i paused the time. >> go ahead. >> thank you. we are not trying to stop it. just a small permit.

there are three windows on our property affected by this. that's the southern half of our property. these are the front lines from each side of those windows looking out. as you can see the obstruction will be substantial in terms of the access of the mid-block open space as well as light. we didn't just make-up these concerns. they come directly from the guidelines. i want to highlight a few. the first concern is light and expressed provide that back on the upper floors of the building. that's what we are asking for, that's not what was done. the next one you shared light wells. the right side, that's our property. you will see there is a five foot carve out there. that's what we are asking for on the outside, a little reciprocity. they have not done that. finally the mid-block open

space. the guidelines are very clear that the visual open space can be a significant community amenity and they tell you what to do. notch the building at the rear or use the side setback. that's exactly what we are asking for here. it's not just us who came to this conclusion, the planning department did as well. they recommended to the commission a three foot size setback noting the guidelines clearly illustrate the responses similar to this situation. it wasn't just them. everybody in the planning department who touched this file came to the same conclusion. two techs, one director, all agree. the response is full of half truths and misstatements. i would like to address those now not because they are bad people but the way they address their merits. they

say the viewer is unable to maintain his view. that's a half truth, there is a bathroom window but there are five other windows, two hall and one bedroom and kitchen. it's not just their yard, it's the entire open space. i want to talk about view for a second because they made this comment about the process that a view was not protected. this is the email from the planning department to them pointing out that privacy is not protect but the connection to the mid-open block is. that is exactly what the residential design guidelines says. the visual open space can be a significant community amenity. that's what we are talking about here. they made

another misconception about the 12 foot area that is by 50 percent. let me tell you why that is misleading. here is the main status of the floor of the building and the right is the proposal. what you see is everything between 3 an and 2 is brand new usable space. 304 square feet. it's not 12 x 10. they say it's a livable impact from the livable space setback. that's because they have not tried to accommodate this request. we have attached exhibit 10 several examples from other properties in the neighborhood with shockingly similar floor plans all of which incorporate setbacks at the rear like what we are asking for. it's not that hard if you try. but the sponsors don't want to. they could if they wanted to and i know that because that's what they have done at the ground

floor. on the left is the property after they have submitted on the notice and after the commission hearing. they updated it with a hardwood flooring and setback. there is a four foot alleyway to the right of the area. that shows two things, no. 1, if you are required to have a condition like that, you can very easily design around it. there is plenty of room and exactly what they did. second, there is no electrical, mechanical or structural impediment to doing the same thing on the second floor because we are asking for the setback directly above this area. they also mislead about the history of our discussions. i think this is about me, he has acted in bad faith repeatedly of this matter and not informing us

of his concerns. that is not a half truth. that is a false. here we emailed him and we suggested a setback and said however we are willing to keep an open mind and consider any other proposals. how did they respond? two days letter and stated "there is no discussion needed at this time". that's it. i also want to correct an exhibit that they attached which suggest the planning commission vote was unanimous. i know this is a de novo review but this was 5-2 and commissioner recognized that the project is very similar where we ultimately support a setback. she said she would have gone with the planning department's recommendation and granted the setback. indeed she is right. attached to exhibit 9 are several examples of recent

explanations from the planning department that accept that. a final comment i would like to submit, i see some of them that submitted the letters, none of them are impacted by this project. their testimony should be given very little weight. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner has a question for you. >> thank you. i want to mention something about the alleged procedures if you can go over that. >> sure, i understand this is a de novo review but i would like to talk about that. there are a couple procedures that happened. first of all, mr. winslow who oversaw the dr was not there. he was not able to give a staff report. no staff stood up to

give a report. instead, another member of the planning department, ms. watti was in attendance and declined to give a staff report and waited to give a chance to argue and just before the commissioners took it under submission, then she gave a speech about how she felt about the matter. this prevented us from having the opportunity to respond to her comments, many of which i disagreed with. she never communicated to us about the project and she never visited the project. all of the information is coming from the other side and a lot of it was inaccurate. >> thank you. >> thank you. we have a question from commissioner trasviña. >> john trasviña: thank you for your testimony thus far and alluded to it and in your paper you say the respondent refused

to consider. there is a difference between refusing to consider and refusing to agree. what's your basis from saying they refused to consider it? >> you saw what i showed. we said we gave them a setback and happy to consider anything else and they said no further discussion needed at this time. we had a mediation with mr. winslow, a call, they refused to offer any proposal or discussion. i can't tell you what their mental state was about it whether they have thought about it or not. but they haven't seriously considered to try to find a solution. they went on notice from that day until today, there has not been one single change that has been put on the table. >> then the short time between

april 8th and april 10th. >> there were no other discussions. they sat on it before they came back. >> you i understand there is an ordinance request from the planning department about how the decision passed? >> was that your request? >> yeah, i would be happy to address that. >> i just wanted to know whether it was yours. did you get anything? >> i reviewed most of the documents. most importantly there was not a single document about the single for this to go out to notice. i showed you everyone who was involved from the planning department who reviewed the project all stood by the setback, and then it went out for notice. frankly that's because there was a secret deal that was cut and so i asked for documents about that. and i said

broad request including one for all communications between anyone at the department concerning the project. there are others as well and in response, i got not a single document about the decision to allow this to go to the three 11 notice. >> is it fair to say that you got one aspect of the document and some level of specificity but on the other part of the department you got nothing? >> if i understand correctly, yes, i did get documents. i got documents from the planner, mr. sauchi, the principal planner, mr. winslow, but none that allowed this to go to a 311 notice. i did get an email from

mr. sauche in exhibit 2 where he summarized the communications. if you wouldn't mind putting up slide 41, please. this is the planner, mr. sauche summarized what happened. there were communications, we know. everyone maintained the setback was appropriate and on may 20, at some point the project got run up the chain and liz was looped from the communication with the applicant. those are the discussions we don't have. all the rest of the planning staff was cut out of the conversation. there is not a single communication with ms. watti and members of the plan staff and sponsors or with us concerning that decision. >> thank you. one final question, i just wanted to understand your position

regarding the residential building guidelines. your position is that the plan as currently envisioned doesn't comply rather than your desire to have the five foot setback is an alternate way to comply. this is not just your preference, you are saying that the existing plan is out of compliance? >> correct. i am saying the existing plan is out of compliance. we suggest a five foot setback to bring it into compliance based on all the language that i quoted. >> thank you. >> thank you. you can be seated. we will now hear from the permit

holders. welcome, you have seven minutes. public speaker: good evening, members of the commission. thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. my name is is betsy bayha. and i live with my wife, and we are with our attorney and two of our neighbors who are here tonight to speak in support of our project. we have image one. our home was built in 1914, and the smallest house on our block. we have currently a fragment on the back of our house and square

off these two sections here depicted in orange on the left and the right. this proposal will create a more functional kitchen layout with a small family room adjacent to it. it improves our access to our rear yard open space and most importantly enhances privacy for us and our neighbors to the north. the largest ground on the right is on the north side of our property and measures 10 x 12 feet and above our existing garage roof. this is a part of our project that the appellant objects to and his demand that we reduce the square feet on the back of our property line and that's the 50% that he is referring to. this boils down to one question. should we be required to make substantial revisions to our project that would undermine its intent and purpose and mind you, our

project is very small, so our neighbor can maintain a view of our backyard. this has been his on going objection to the project even though the play view is not allowed on the planning code and furthermore, he enjoys his view of an expansive backyard and from his windows in the family room shown here. let me make this a little clearer by showing thank you floor plan of the main level of his house and some of the windows in question. nh 3 here shows you his floor plan. our windows are back there and this little half bath window is right here on this side. you can see the five foot light well that has his kitchen window right there. so there are a lot of windows that are right adjacent to a space where he has quite a wide expansive and sweeping view

of the mid-block open space already. so we don't understand why we have to cut back our project to give him yet more view when he already has so much. he claims that our project is going to block six of his windows, this is not correct. three of the windows on the top most floor will not be affected. we originally had a design with a par pit on it, but as a compromise we agreed to remove that para pit. those three windows are not going to be blocked at all. -- we also at the window at the basement level playroom is not affected by our project because it is located beneath the appellant's house. there is already no direct light there and light is already reduced by the overhang of the house but by a large deck pinned to that. what the appellant is

denying, this would affect us and not him. this image here on the top shows what we would like to do now. it provides a room that was planning approved this and the planning commission at discretionary review reaffirmed this plan. let's take a look at -- i want to show the utility area and the green and the blue is the path of travel through this space. let's look at what a five foot setback would do to this. you can see that a five foot setback would completely wipe out the living space that we had hoped to achieve. it also creates an awkward configuration and path

of travel to the house. we were also considering a three foot setback with planning. i want to show you what that looks like. even a three foot setback, you can see substantially reduces the usability of this space and requires our family room seating to be in the path of travel to the rear doors. finally i want to show you an image of what we are looking at inside our house. this shows you the path of travel to what would be our new family room space and how it would be affected by that five foot setback and basically shows you how that setback would impede on our space and travel to the path way to the house and would create an awkward situation. the planning commission approved our project and the planning commission declined to take discretionary review and reaffirmed our plan.

elizabeth watti noted three key points, one that the setback is only five foot and we are the smallest house and does not extend further into the rear yard even though we could have built a substantially larger project in depth and in height. two, the inordinate height to any setback on our proposed project due to its small size. a setback of any size would undermine the purpose of our remodel and would create an unreasonably small living space adjacent to the kitchen. three, the fact that the residential design guidelines provide for flexibility regarding how they are applied, ms. watti noticed that the context of the project overall must be taken into consideration. the context of our project built over existing

construction as infill with no expansion into the rear yard. it does not make sense to require a setback. we've lived in this neighborhood for almost two decades. we have raised our son here. we wanted to complete this project while he was still -- please, uphold our plan as proposed and do not support this. >> thank you. you will have more time in rebuttal. there are no questions now, thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. >> >> good evening, president swig, vice-president, members of the board. i'm the deputy zoning administrator. this is a three story single family in the rh 3 zoning district, constructed in

the early 1910, the property is a potential historic resource. they submitted a submitted to construct a small portion in the rear for an addition. the appellant is the neighbor to the north and 258 diamond street. the appellant is concerned that the proposed condition will cause light and air impacts be and obstruct his view to the mid-block open space. the appellant is requesting a five foot setback on the north property line. as you heard the department did receive a discretionary review request for the project. the dr request was filed by the appellant and the issues raised in the dr application are the same as the issues raised in the permit appeal. light air and view impacts. at the november 10, 2022, dr hearing, the planning commission

heard from the project sponsor and the planning department. while the department had initially recommended providing a three foot size setback as a second floor, the department did express at the hearing how a three foot setback may also not be needed. this change in the department's recommendation to have a site setback or not is largely based on the department's reexamination of the project and the broader context. to illustrate to this board, i would like to share some graphics. overhead, please. here is the map of the subject block. the property is shown in yellow, 264 diamond and the appellant's property is directly to the north. as you can see from this map, the subject property at 264 diamond is relatively small. it's a very small building footprint compared to this other building

on the block. many of buildings have a larger footprint some twice as long as the subject property. the mid-block open space is considered not to be well-defined. in comparison, i'm going to put up another example of a block where you do have a well-defined mid-block open space. it's both defined because all the buildings have the same footprint and the same rear yard. why is this distinction so important? in cases where there is a consistent partner of development, any new addition to buildings at the rear that encroaches into the mid-block open space, so those additions

we ask for five foot setback. however, in the case of 264 diamond street, where there is a mix of development partner, small footprints and large footprints, there is a greater flexibility for buildings with a small footprint to expand to the rear and not impact in mid-block open space. here is the zoomed in view of the subject property. again, the property is in yellow and in this context, you see both small footprints and large footprints in the immediate context. the proposed addition is shown in the hatched area. and will add approximately 279 square feet to the net square footage of the property. this graphic also shows in red the required 45% rear yard. this is how much

the building can technically expand and still meet the planning code. while the appellant may feel differently about this, we do feel that not building with the allowable maximum is worth noting. the graphic that the neighbor sided from the guidelines show a very large addition at the rear. as well as an addition that's the first portrude in the mid-block open space. you can see this is a mid-block open space that is well-defined because all the buildings are the same, same size, same footprint, same size yard. so with these, setbacks are required and ways to minimize those impacts to the neighbors. given that 264 diamond street will not extend beyond the wall nor will it portrude in the

mid-block open space, this is not applicable to 264 diamond street. 264 diamond street is not on a block with a well-defined with a block open space. there are many buildings in the immediate and broader context that have a larger footprint. in rereviewing the project, a site setback with a modest addition with an already small footprint in a mixed neighborhood is therefore not needed. the department believes the proposed project meets the planning code and in fact is no where near maximum build-out and the project is compatible with the neighborhood character and consistent with the guidelines and agreed to

approve the project with no site setback. with that, the department asks that you deny the appeal and approve the permit as it was issued properly. that concludes my report. >> thank you. >> we have questions from commissioner swig. >> richard swig: could you go back to that dotted line to show where the project could have gone. just eyeballing this. if the project sponsor would have presented an expansion that would arguably eyeballing it almost double the size of the

existing house. that would still be a project that would be considered as compliant. correct? is that your point? >> let me just make sure i'm clear. yes, you can technically expand to the red line per the planning code. this is the required rear yard setback, 45% of the depth of the lot. however we have the residential guidelines. we talk about mid-block open space and we need to protect that as much as you can. >> the point being that this project could have been a heck of a lot larger. >> it would comply with the planning code. perhaps we would work on scoping the building if you were to extend to that amount where it's so much into the middle of the block, we would probably want to have those setbacks and those reductions. >> and then if they propose a much larger building, then the

setbacks would be a mandate. >> that's correct. >> there might be some step ups, setbacks, something that would let it ease into the mid-block open space. >> that's correct. similar to what's shown in the design guidelines of the graphic. >> the bottom line is that this building could have been, this expansion could have been a heck of a lot larger, and still been approved by planning. >> it would still meet the planning code. >> right. so, that's no. 1. no. 2, the ambiguity of view versus and there is an ambiguity. you have light and air. there is view, and then there is the visibility to the

mid-block open space. the light and air is for me an ambiguity because it depends on how you read it and i'm not a professional on that area so i don't know how to read it still, but the view aspect, can you characterize the difference between view and access and visibility of the mid-block open space. so when somebody, let's say somebody in pacific hides or presidio heights has a view over the gold gate bridge and has an expansion like this and says, oh, my view is gone. we know that that is tough luck, right? and so that's not ambiguous, that's real clear.

but when it comes to the vision of the mid-block open space, what's the subtlety there between view and vision to the mid-block open space and the protective nature of the restrictions on that? >> yes, thank you for that question. i think the best way to answer that is showing what is the mid-block open space. if you were talking about view access or view to the mid-block open space and what is that open space and we saw examples of two blocks that have the mid-size open space where they are larger and long and short and one that is very well defined almost like a perfect rectangle because all the buildings are the same depth with the same yard. in this

case, we are talking about it being very irregular, he has defined the mid-block open space and this area in the center and that oval shape. i tepid to -- tend to agree that mid-block is the open space. if someone wanted to see access, the appellant, to the area inside the red over circle, you still can. so that's how we kind of see and review and assess for impacts to that mid-block open space is a step back from the macro perspective and look more broadly into the entire sort of context to the block itself. >> okay, so if there was, so although this expansion, the

argument is although this expansion will arguably obscure some vision of the mid-block open space, the important part of the mid-block open space is really to the other side and to the -- would that be the north? that would be to the wider part of the mid-block open space. >> right. direct. >> then the whole argument about out of care, although it wasn't brought up and nobody phrased this, but i always like to think of variances out of character within the neighborhood and in this case, that argument which is that this mid-block open space is bumpy and inconsistent. really to say this might be out of character with the rest of the block on the neighborhood. that dog don't hunt at all.

>> not if you are looking at this block. >> yeah. so just to wrap it upper, you would say that, you are saying that because of the relatively minor expansion fell one of the two shortest houses on the block, it doesn't come close to what it could be. if it were expanded more dynamically, then of course there would have been a request for setbacks and some different level of stacking in consideration of the protecting the mid-block and open space. it's really the size here and the scope that proved the planning department's view, is that correct? >> that's correct.

>> i want to reference specifically the images that the appellant showed with the red hatched lines where their view to the mid-block open space would be blocked. from that point of view, at least it did seem to me at least that based on those images the difference between before and after with the view of the mid-block open space would actually be fairly significant. is there something i'm missing? is there a reason that planning is missing that. >> i will bring this up again. we can use this as a talking point. the photos that were taken of the neighbors property, the subject property directly and didn't pan sort of to the

right where that is their own rear yard. so i feel like that's a little bit sort of misleading without being negative about it. if you look at this image where there is a photo taken, you see the yard. the yard is in the back and everyone has that same sort of access, view access to the yard if you go in that direction. if you of course turn toward 90 degrees and looking at your neighbors house, you will see the neighbors house and not the yard. maybe i'm not there in terms of being convinced but that is not convincing me to the disruption of the view to the open space. >> okay, we heard there has been

consideration of better setback of possibly less than five feet. i'm not that familiar, is there a one foot setback? i don't know, what are the options available here? >> i think the department did at the beginning when we reviewed the project and at the time we were looking at the project through these micro lenses to this house and the other house next door which is the other small house on the block and we didn't have the entire view of the block and they suggested two different setbacks, a three foot setback which was documented in the brief and a five foot setback. with a five foot setback, they were allowing the addition to go further out. so

that would be more usable space for the project and they did propose those. and the department made other design recommendations. they mentioned to the project team, the removal of the para pit on the second floor and the removal of the window as well on the subject property. those two design recommendations were met and therefore we felt comfortable with moving the project forward with the 311 process. >> thank you. i will ask the appellant this in rebuttal as well, but is it in your opinion that this minor setback would address the

concern and move the project forward? >> i think if it's a foot or two, it's not very useful. i'm not sure how that would help since we don't feel there is an impact to begin with. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you, i have a question from commissioner trasviña and then vice-chair lopez. >> john trasviña: thank you. i guess you focused on the reexamination in a broader context and that could mean anything. if you could pull up the last color photograph that you showed. i want to ask you about that, the photo on the bottom of

the left-hand corner. it would appear that the appellants are arguing that their view or access to light and air on the left will be blocked and it's already blocked on the right. so there is sort of a tunnel as a result of the proposed addition, there would be pretty much a tunnel access to the mid-block. >> just a point of clarification. are you asking about this picture? >> that one. >> this picture? >> yes. >> and your question is? >> i thought your testimony was that the photographs lacked an overall view of the situation, but i see that on the left it would be light and air blocked

and on the right it's already blocked. >> right. the top two, certainly i didn't feel like the camera angle provided a full sort of picture of what you can see on the property. >> isn't that how it shows it? >> for this one, i still see the mid-block open space and the new project and their own sort of building on the property. it's the window that's in set away from -- i have it right here. it's more than likely this window up here. this is higher than the two story portion. >> then you are saying that whatever the impact on the window, the upper bedroom window, the other windows have

better access to light and air. >> i think they all have access to light and air. nothing is blocking their windows. >> the photo shows to me that the before is without the red hatch, there is much more than after with the red hatch. >> the red hatch is on the subject property. >> correct. >> it's not on the appellant's property. >> right, but it's the impact of the addition, correct? >> >> the impact would be seen off the neighbors yard. if you took this off, it would be seen on the neighbors property.

>> right, from that window, it seems to me to be a substantial reduction and seems to me you are saying that the other windows is not as bad or we don't know because the photographs don't depict it well. >> there is some reduction yes, because the building is small to begin with. >> right. and my other question related to your diagram, the satellite view of the entire block. isn't the appellant's home also very very small and of all of the block members, isn't the appellant's, don't the

appellants have the biggest loss here? they seem to be the house that is the most susceptible to losing access to the mid-block open space. >> no, you have other houses in the back and three other houses that are also very short. >> they are short, but the house to the north of 258 blocks 258's access to light and air. so that and increase to 264 has a tremendous impact. >> that's one way to look at that. from our perspective, we didn't feel that because the block is defined with a mixed

partner with a short block and we didn't feel that one short neighbor should penalize another short neighbor especially when this is defined as the center of the block and there is that potential for anybody including the appellants to expand in the future if they want to and not impact the mid-block open space. >> okay, you have described the department's position and described it well tonight. the appellants have more than alluded to some kind of irregularity, a political manipulation, and an allegation without a foundation is just as bad as a house without a foundation. so i would like to know what the department's view of this apparent change is in

the position of the department or the experts because if it's business as usual, it's one thing. if it's inaccurate, that's another thing, and i think all the parties should be entitled to know more of what actually went on. >> absolutely. i did go back and watch the tape and the recording of the hearing. david winslow is the staff architect and normally represents the department at the hearing, not always but he usually does. he provided his recommendation. his recommendation was based upon looking at these two properties, the subject and the dr requester or the appellant's property. at the hearing, the president of the planning commission, ms. rachel tanner asked the director of planning, for her input and

assessment. she answered and provided a clear and concise explanation of why she felt there are multiple possible perspectives on looking at this project. these are design guidelines, they are not objective standards. when you look at these two properties absent the entire block and the other perspective is looking the entire block and for some that expand in a modest way to an already small house, whether it's a 3-5 feet setback is not necessary. the commissioners reviewed that perspective and decided on their own. it was up to the commission to decide and they decided the way they did. there really wasn't a right or wrong. we are just here to provide you with an explanation and rational for those perspectives at this point.

>> okay, i guess i was thinking more of what is described in the department's change of the position rather than the commission's hearing that rendered a decision. if you can't explain that or describe it. >> that's what happened at the hearing from what i can tell from viewing recording. >> thank you. >> thank you. vice-president lopez? >> jose lopez: i would like for you to describe the rgg wasn't consistent. can you elaborate if a member was alleging it was violating the code. can you describe that? >> sure, the code tells you what you can do on your property and

how big you can expand, and you have to comply with the planning code in terms of the height, setback, etc. if you don't comply, you have to seek a variance, and if you don't get the variance, you have to comply. the code says that in addition to complying with the planning code according to development standards, you should always comply with design guidelines and should be consistent with the neighborhood character and includes studying the mid-block open space and the pattern of the block. there are whole chapters about sites, setbacks and guidelines. there is no number of setbacks within the guidelines. we have in the years that we have been doing this for hundreds and hundreds of projects established a practice when you have a big addition to a block that is

consistently built in a certain sort of pattern and you are the first to portrude out and it's going to be multiple stories, then we want those setbacks to kind of shape that addition down so the impacts will be lessened to your neighbors. those are the guidelines. we review them and if someone still objects to them and don't agree with you and your conclusion that it's consistent with the guidelines, they can file a dr which happened in this case. the dr is presented to the commission, the department makes the recommendation. the dr requester makes their position and the commission decides. >> thank you for that explanation. to follow up a little further on one aspect of what you just said and linking it to a part of your presentation that i found

compelling, the slide of like a well-defined mid-block open space and a regular mid-block open space. is that distinction or the subsequent actions or considerations to be considered when you have defined a mid-block open space. is that recorded or does that come how you described from the building department? >> great question. yes and no. the graphics that are included in the guidelines in reference to the mid-open space, do show visual examples of what impacts could possibly be when you add to the back of the building.

from looking even though it's not explicit, when you look at the diagram of the building in this example are exactly the same. you can't just apply 264 diamond street to this example because that's not how 264 diamond street looks like. so i think in the years that we've been doing this, we have to sort of extrapolate what this means and kind of look at the intent behind the guidelines and say this is what the guideline wants to do and protect at the end of the day whatever mid-block open space you actually come up with and define for this particular block which may not be perfectly rectangular as some that we may see in the city. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner has a question.

>> thank you, in discussion in reference to mid-block open space. why do we have guidelines for the mid-block open space, is it for the mid-block open space itself or for light and air. >> for all of those things, light, air, mid-block open space. some are shallow. like on vernal. we want to assess for what kind of yards they are for those blocks versus say on the west side of the town where the lots are deeper, 120 feet deep. the yards are much deeper and the opportunity to expand is greater because you always have that tight mid-block open space in the center that you are not to go near as a result. >> so every mid-block open space may be different, but really what it seems to me what you are looking at is the impact of construction on the people that are impacted by the construction. whether the shape of the mid-block open space is

perfectly regular or irregular isn't the question of whether or not someone's access to light and air impacted by the construction going on next door, and not this building, caddy corner on the block. >> i think it would be both. we are looking from a zoom in level and back away a little bit to the larger context as well. >> does the department weigh more heavily on one more than the other? >> no, we try to find a balance. that's the art of what we do sometimes. it's not always perfect, it's not always right, but we do our best in sort of trying to be consistent and trying to go ahead and look at every case on a case by case basis according to the guidelines. >> what are the features for the discretionary review, are they

set. we are bound by the body as we have a set order on what happens at a discretionary review. >> very similar to what happens here. the dr requester makes the request about why the project shouldn't be approved based on guidelines and whatever concerns they may have to the planning commission. both parties have the opportunity to weigh in. the department has the opportunity to weigh in and come up with an analysis and report and ultimately the result is with the planning commission. >> the department takes place when? >> along with the presenters of the dr requester and the project sponsor. >> is there a set order for that? >> i don't think so. usually it's dr requester goes first and

then the owner responds. there is usually a dialogue that goes on between the commission and the various parties including staff. >> okay. in the analysis by the department by mr. winslow, the recommendation was to take the dr and approve with modifications? >> that's correct. >> and mr. winslow wasn't there to present that nor was he there to answer questions by the commission as to his recommendation, correct? >> that is correct. >> and the planning department representative presented the opposite view in her presentation or answering of the commission on that matter? >> right, i would say a different view, yes. >> okay, so a different view. >> so, are discretionary review analysis noticed as part of the packet for the hearing?

>> it's part of the agenda, yes. >> okay. and in this case, the department for all intents and purposes provided the analysis for review. >> the president asked for an assessment or input from the director. the director has many years of experience from working these types of projects and manages the entire division of planning and wanted to hear from ms. watti. >> so her analysis was despite the process that we go through to produce this analysis and the steps they have gone through up to the point of the hearing, that the department to date had

gotten it? >> she acknowledged that there was a difference in opinion and the internal dialogue between the recommendation and offered another perspective to the commission. at during the hearing. >> the perspective of the staff was not available to present to the commission? >> no, he had a conflict that day. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. please be seated. we will now hear from the department of building inspection. nothing? okay. we will now go to public comment. if you can lineup next to the wall if there is a number of people. after you are done speaking, please take a speaker card and give it to alec. thank you. please go up. public speaker: hello, president swig, vice-president

lopez, commissioners, thank you for your service to the city. i was at the hearing and it was a deliberative open discussion they had. although gabe thinks public comment and i heard ms. watte spent an enormous time on this case. what i'm going to address is i have lived for 30 years on that block and i have watched them flourish, i have watched them raise a family, a child, henry. i have been in just about every home within the mid-block area that you have seen through neighbors and knowing people for 30 years, and their access and room is quite small. and what they are asking for basically will only hold a sofa. and

without having to move the sofa or impede access to the backyard. i want to let you know that my partner and i stopped by gabe's house and went there after they left their garage open and went to see to be more informed and as a public commenter today. i saw with a heidi and betsy are asking is what gabe has which is the same access and to the rear and the same light and air coming to the rear of the house. if you tilt the photograph, it will look more dramatic in one way. when i heard gabe's position and saw what he enjoys, it's exactly

what heidi and betsy want. it's the same mirror of the architecture. the homes are the same. i do not appreciate that mr. fowler has brought up political influence by a city attorney or someone who works for the city. heidi is bound by a strict code of ethics and when he finds he does not get his way in dr, it's poor citizenship, and heidi is one of the most ethical competent public service neighbors human beings that people can ask to know and to cast dispurges causes to call his character into question.

>> thank you. please fill out a speaker card. >> next speaker, please. public speaker: hello, i am one of those neighbors that you count. i heard it, maybe you didn't, but he said that about me twice. i'm going to say i'm not without some expertise. i have a degree in landscape architecture and worked as a landscape designer for 40 years. if i were the landscape designer, i would shut up because he could be dealing with a massive build-out which should be a smart move for heidi and betsy if they want to sell that home. they made a huge mistake. they asked for what they needed.

they should have asked for way more and traded down and ended where they wanted to. they were naive, i guess. they asked for what they needed. a modest little addition to the back of their house so their family and friends, they are very social, they are great people, could have a decent place to hangout. they have waited 20 years for this. i thought i would die before i saw this thing got built and now i wonder if i will. so in my view, they are really good people. they have worked really hard on this. this sort of acrimony on the block is sort of typical. i lost sleep over it. you know, i'm not a disinterested party. the head of my bed is going to be five feet from an actual construction site to this whole process. you know, banging at 7:30 a.m. five feet

from my head and i'm okay with that. they are a good family and they are being modest and i know the construction will end and the block will go back to being good. so this is a very deliberative body and i know i have spoken very emotionally. this is how i address this problem. i'm not an attorney. what i would like to say is with that red hatch photograph, that's the view from the sink. you would have to lean over the sink and press the camera into the glass to capture that look. 30 inches back from the counter standing doing the dishes, you won't miss a thing. really you won't be missing a thing because you will just see me in the backyard pulling weeds with my shirt off. i would like a little

privacy. so i don't have much more to add except that i really believe that this process is being abused, and i don't think it's even the end. >> thank you. it's time. >> please fill out a speaker card, sir. >> next speaker, please. public speaker: good evening, members of the commission. i have been a friend of gabe and his wife for 15 years. i don't live on the block but i take seriously the comments that gabe and his wife would be affected in a way that no others will be. i heard the comments have taken a turn and i understand the -- emotions are running high. i

don't think there is a need to be anyway abusive. gabe and carrie are not opposed to the work on their block. there has been construction behind them for years. that's part of living in san francisco. we all understand that. i think they have articulated specifically and about the impacts on their property. finally they were referenced to being neighborly. i have no doubt that they are acting in good faith for everyone on their block. i think taking the neighbors consideration into account and ensuring at the comply with applicable guidelines and engaging in the process in good faith. to the extent, in that determination, it is obvious

that gabe and carrie have demonstrated that. >> thank you. we have now a speaker in zoom. go ahead. public speaker: i withdraw my comment. >> you don't have any comment? >> correct. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? please raise your hand? >> okay, we will move to rebuttal. we will hear from the appellant. mr. zelledon, you have three minutes.

>> thank you. what you heard from the planning department was entirely new. yet again, this conversation about a change in recommendation, a reexamination, all new. no notice to us, no conversation with us. that's all brand new. is an attempt to justify what happened at the planning commission hearing the last minute ago change that we discussed. those comments are not grounded in the residential design guidelines. there are no documents and i have the sunshine request ordinance.

there are no documents that came back about a reexamination or change in recommendation. but i want to talk quickly about what happened. the first thing that happened is there were comments from the planning department to put a setback in. then there were additional meetings, another review with the staff architect, same recommendation. following that, a policy light meeting with senior management concerning this and that's a month later. even after that, the director of current planning commission agreed that this was appropriate. this wasn't a slash thought. there was a lot of discussion from the responses.

there was a discussion about the mid-open block. the slides that you saw, the drawings are not the drawings in the residential design guidelines. the residential design guidelines show a strong base mid-block open space pattern and they are not an open square. in fact it looks exactly like our block. that's exactly what it is. a strong mid-block open pattern. we talk a lot about these. the planning department's response to mid-block open space, you can basically look back into your own yard. you don't need a residential design guideline for that. i'm not going to obstruct my view to the yard. the open space is exactly about looking

at other yards. we moved from north beach, there was no mid-block in north beach. that was really important to us and there will be a substantial impact to all the windows. there is a correct comment that there is blockage on the right side and it's not a panoramic view and it's the only way we can look out. there is a comment in response to president swig that it could be larger. just because you could have designed a bigger project, doesn't mean you have to follow the design guidelines now and the answer was it would still meet the planning code and staff said nothing about this design guideline. >> thank you. we have a question from commissioner lemberg? >> alex lemberg: you alluded to this earlier but i have a very practical question. having heard from planning, the five foot setback would be a 50 percent

reduction and there is no doubt about it. my question to you is what amount would be acceptable to you if we were to grant the appeal? >> thank you. we respectfully disagree. the new room is 304 square feet as we talked about the first time, not a 10 x 12. but in response to your question, the planning department recommended a three foot setback. if we were fighting over 3 and 5 feet, we wouldn't be here. we wouldn't appealed if they offered a three foot setback, we would have accepted that. >> thank you. >> please be seated. we will now hear from the permit holders.

>> several things, nobody has mentioned tonight that that is the standard for review for a dr. that was before the planning commission. did this situation present exceptional circumstances such to take a dr and deny the project or modify the project. they found it didn't. why? the same reason that you have every neighbor who has weighed in on this project. these are neighbors from the block, not across the city. they support this project. the answer is context, is all about context. the residential guidelines are just that, they are guidelines.

now the argument about mid-block open space. it doesn't say that everyone has access to mid-block open space. here you see the floor plan. this window still has the view of mid-block open space, this affected window still has the view of mid-block open space, most importantly, the view of the house has this pattern of open space. you don't take a discretionary review and modify something like this and this certainly doesn't meet extraordinarily circumstances. i understand it's de novo review and this is a discretion of the planning commission. every week, the planning commission every week deals with discretionary review and they work with design

guidelines to projects like this and huge projects. here they looked at it and listened to ms. watti. i wish we can hear her. she didn't say this was a clear cut decision, this was a closed decision about context. did they get it right? of course they got it right. this is a modest addition. betsy and heidi did not do what many people do which coming with a great big project knowing they are going to have to cut it back. they came with a modest project and they reduced the shadow impact and removed windows to reduce any privacy concerns. mr. zeldin said there were no settlement discussions, he forgot about his discussion with me and where i could not get any

response from him about whether one foot setback would be okay with him and he said no, that is not going to solve my problem. please consider these standards and deny this appeal. >> a question from mr. trasviña. >> john trasviña: thank you. i still find this mysterious. when did you enter this story? are you representing the client at the planning commission? >> i handled the rebuttal at the planning commission, yes. >> the appellants have said they didn't get the benefit of any input or any discussion with the planning department when the planning department seemed to have gone from mr. winslow's position to the -- position. i'm

wondering if you had any discussion with the department? >> i discussed this project with mr. winslow on two different occasions before it came to the commission. mr. winslow was very conflicted. first he told he he was not going to recommend taking discretionary review and the second discussion, he said, it's a close call, and i'm going to recommend there be a site setback. and ms. watti explained and they had extensive discussions internally and there was a long discussion and they showed there was no shadow impacts. the snippets you saw there are just that. snippets taken out of context. there was a long discussion as to specifically what ms. watti was going to say at the planning

commission hearing, i didn't have any advanced discussion with her. no. >> thank you. >> thank you. you can be seated. we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you, planning department. the department recognize any change big or small can result in change to some neighbors. with regard to 264 diamond street, the department does not believe it will cause significant impact to the neighbors. the addition is modest in size and will not extend beyond the rear yard. the project is small pattern. at the end of the day, we don't believe it is going to impact this space and the changes from the

discretionary review from the department, it does happen and happens a lot because oftentimes we go back, reassess, discuss and update based on our discussion with the applicants and the neighbors. that's my presentation, thank you very much. >> thank you, we have a question from commissioner eppler. >> jr eppler: i have a question about the documents and to make sure we get the right documents that we are looking at and like the open space that may not be what we want to see. >> sure. >> and we have, so i'm sorry. do you want to see the document, commissioner eppler? >> yeah. no, in the future. >> okay. >> i have a question.

sorry to the audience for my device going off. can you put up the view of the block that has that nice circular open space. >> so, how old is this house, 1914? >> i believe early 1910. >> so, if we went back to 1920,

what do you think this block would look like? >> i'm not entirely sure. i would have to check the date of construction for these buildings, but around town, it's probably around 1910s or 20s. >> one of the advantages, one of the things i might suggest since we are in suggestion mode these days is that if possible, when there are discussions about evolution of a block, that we get a historical view of the block, please. because things change, and if you look at this block, there is some consistency directly across

the block with the three small houses that look exactly the same. i'm going to speculate which is really dangerous, that there might be consistency at the other end of the block and i can't see the addresses or the numbers, but it's where there is tight face, the red tight face, the 3/4 on the way. those houses might be smaller. the point is, do you see on a regular basis on evolution in the city of san francisco with expansion with new constructio? do blocks change? >> yes, of course. >> and the goal of planning, is

the goal of planning sustain the core values of mid-block open space? and in the context of the design guidelines? >> yes, that's definitely one of the many sort of design topics within the design guidelines. >> right. so if and in this case as already determined that this expansion could be 50% larger and from a design standpoint, there might certainly be setbacks and stagings to offset the impact of something that might be 50% larger. so in general, would you agree or would you speculate that this block has gone through many changes over the last 125 years? >> i would think that yes, i think this building right here

looks like a newer building because it's bigger and fits the unit count for the district so it could be a newer building. some of the larger are newerish to the date that the property was constructed. >> is it reasonable and customary that any block in san francisco will change that context and look over 120 year period? >> sure, absolutely. >> yeah, and again, is it really the goal of planning to ensure that the core values of the mid-block open space are maintained and that the rear yard, the goal here is to really protect the rear yard and the context of the design

guidelines? >> that's correct, that's one of the things that we certainly look at. >> right. and in this case, do you find anything that is, what i'm wrestling here is i understand. if i was the appellant, i would probably be cranky too because i'm going to lose something i had before, but we live in the city. and is this not what happens in the city when somebody has a small house and they want to build an expansion and they have a rear yard, and the law says that they can go 50% into the rear yard as long as they are maintaining a certain context? the law says they can go into the rear yard. and/or else we wouldn't have change. so it's reasonable and customary for someone to go into their rear yards. these project

sponsors chose not to go into the rear yard as far as they could, correct? >> yes, we certainly see that all the time. >> correct. and the argument and they are maintaining the mid-block open space according to what planning's goals are. so my issue is kind of what's the problem other than unfortunately and i am sympathetic to the appellant, but this is a city. what's the problem? other than i'm going to lose something i had before? there is nothing wrong with the law. they are not breaking the law. where is the? where are we? are we in a gray area or black and white area that is causing the difficulty in making this decision and was that planning's problem? >> from a personal perspective,

i don't think this is a gray area and i have been doing this for many years and that was my initial response from where i was a year ago. but i understand there is other people working on the project and they have come up with a different conclusion. forward with that conclusion that might have led to some frustrations and some concerns, and i understand that. i am very sympathetic and i understand there will be a change and any change to a building or project will result for a neighbor. but we just don't feel that the changes would be so impactful where it needs to be modified or setback given the size of the home and sort of starting point and the amount that's being added and asked for in comparison to what the code would otherwise allow.

>> how many times in this commission or in the planning commission have you seen metaphorically horses change in midstream? >> i have seen it. >> was there any warning given to the appellant, any warrant given to the project sponsor? >> it's a public debate where discussion happens. >> i just wanted to point that out. but in my discussion and i have only shared for a few months, but horses can change in the middle of the stream. >> it happens here and there is no monkey business. >> as i listened to president swig, i envisioned we were in

the wild west. how long have had this revision? >> since the 80s. >> i'm probably older. the 80s doesn't seem that long ago. i guess what i'm wondering is the reason we have guidelines, the reason why we respect the mid-open space is to restrict change, and to because otherwise we would need guidelines otherwise people would do whatever they want to do. >> within the planning code. >> this is why we have the planning code as well. just as i was trying to understand your last exchange with president swig about the changing of the position of the department on any particular matter. are you saying it's

customary that you can have the back and forth between the permit holder and the department and the person taking the review, and that the department would have a position and then it would change once it gets into a hearing and either before us or the planning commission. are you saying that's typical? >> no, that's not what i said. what i said is it has happened. it happens quite often where the department sort of the recommendation may change while the planner has the project in their hand. you have to remember, the planner would sometimes have the project in their hands for a long time, sometimes months, years, we have seen 13 years, two weeks ago, at 245 marina. it depends on the project and the design. sometimes the project changes, we respond. we have a different

recommendation. so in that regard, that is sort of set of comments and response could change, and does often change. >> right, and in this particular matter, as i recall, one of the documents shown by the appellant and the planner and the other level and maybe a third level all in agreement, and then there was the planning light group which at least suggested there that they were all in agreement, but ms. worthy, i don't know the name of the person. >> ms. watte. >> is she the level up manager? >> she's the manager of the entire division. she sits on the policy light meeting. >> so despite the indication of the planning right committee took one view, she ultimately took a different view?

>> yes, that's what i believe happened at the hearing. some review, recording of the hearing, it appears she did present another perspective for the commission to consider. they didn't have to take her consideration or assessment, they can just follow the staff report as presented and submitted but they liked what she said about how this is a small building on a mixed block and the addition is modest in size and the setback seems to be something that was necessary based upon the specification. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> yeah, i understand that the

vote was somewhat went at planning and has been characterized as a close call by some members of planning and by some of the figures tonight but in my mind it's not that close of a call. i think that the envelope is well within what the code requires, and i am compelled by the point that the rdg's are more subjective, and it's not a crime for them to be informed by the department history and experience and the relevant context of any given block. so, you know, with that in mind, i don't understand the

rdg to guarantee any individual property owners view from every last window on the property. so with those points in mind, i am inclined to deny the appeal. >> any comments? >> yes, i want to give and i tend to give very different to the department. i have a great trust over the last few months to ms. tam and mr. green and in their accurateness and when i hear from the appellant and when i first asked about this situation, and i asked them about the issue of completely a lack of paper record of this

change. i don't think consider it just an alternative, i consider it 180 degree view change by the department. it troubles me and troubles me greatly and the more i hear with my last exchange with ms. pam, always leads me to believe that the department changed its position without any real documentation and brought change at the end of a long process. so that concerns me. i also am not convinced that simply because there may be irregularities at the other end of a very large block across the way and down the other end that that's something that the appellants have to take into account.

the appellant's view, we are talking about access to light and air, not for the entirety of that mid-block range, but with the appellant. and i think the appellants make a strong case that there should be modifications given. also it pains me to see the pain that the both sides as well as the neighbors have had to go through, but i also see that april 8th is a friday, april 10th was a sunday. apparently there was no communication between the neighbors. people living right next door to each other. common property line. i think that the acrimony and the concern and the angst in this case is replicated in other cases that have come before us, but i do think that there should have been greater

communication between the parties so the cases don't come to us. there are people all over town saying, board of appeals should get out of this business, and yet, what i see is a, now i see a bureaucracy that is mysterious in its position. i really haven't come to terms as to what occurred, how the department changed its view. so given that, i am not too prepared to uphold the decision to grant the permit holder's request. >> commissioner lemberg? >> alex lemberg: i genuinely concur with commissioner

trasviña. i think his claims are very strong. i couldn't help thinking about this case in reference to my home as i live two blocks away from the current project before us. and thinking about my neighbors on both sides and what this would be like under the circumstances and i would be upset if this were happening to me as well in the way that it's gone down here and i would be upset with the results of the planning commission. it does sound like there were some unexplained factors to it. particularly with what mr. trasviña said regarding the mid-course change without any documents to support it and without any paper trail at all. my understanding of both

planning and dbi, this doesn't involve dbi but there is usually a paper trail and i'm not seeing that. i also heard the appellant say that if the neighbors had negotiated a bit more, they would not have filed an appeal in the first place which is where this should have been but is not. i'm generally leaning more toward granting the appeal, but i also look forward to hearing what other commissioners have to say. >> thank you. i really appreciate the public comment because what we have here is between neighbors acrimony and both are going to have to live together after the fact and we

are not going to be able to impose that upon you but we are hoping to find a way to do that. i think that everyone has a component of being in the right in this circumstance. this is a modest project that does impinge on the light and air of the neighbor. the homeowners in the neighborhood established a relationship in the neighborhood and it's a mix for acrimony and i hope we'll be able to get around it. i will -- endeavor to not shoot the messenger at this meeting but i have concerns about what happened at the planning meeting which is the results of creating this acrimony in the neighborhood. i think the word that we are looking for here

among mr. trasviña and -- that it's sandbagging and what they were told and now it's something else at the hearing which they were going to be heard. and that probably helps spur them to have another bite of that fear and all the rancor that came from that. so procedurely, i have a procedural concern and there is a procedural pediment there. it's not us to change the department procedures, but to get them more streamlined and regularized so these questions don't pop-up because i will say unfortunately that was said from a prior commission that has had

a lot of well publicized issues. sometimes this department has had issues in the past and the only to get past those by having clear public trust when it comes to procedures and decisions that are held before the public and the commission. now, that said, the fact of the matter is that the planning commission has the ability to not abide by what the recommendation is, and from my own eyes while i see an impact on light and air, i see the reasonable argument that if you take the totality of light and air, it's a small impact. i think the planning commission has full discretion to either have gone with a five foot, three foot or no setback and they chose to go with no setback. and i doubt that a rehearing of this would change that in anyway. i am not as a commissioner willing at this point and on this record to impose a setback myself because that should be the job of the

planning commission and the planning department. so while i am very sympathetic to all the parties concern and very unhappy with the department as a whole for how this was handled, i'm not sure that gets us very far in terms of granting the appeal. >> so going in your line but it will take a different tact but end up at the same place. first and foremost, in reviewing this case, i looked at first i looked at what i have seen over many years sitting on this commission that i'm very sensitive to mid-block open space. a couple months ago we had a case on it was bay, and there is

this new wonderful california law with this new jurisdiction and we had an 18 foot tower in the middle of mid-block open space that we had to pass. so i say that point that i was really cranky because of the obscureness of the mid-block open space and i'm for open space. at the same time, i know there is an issue also with setbacks, and that when somebody wants to expand a house and there is no law about expanding the house, they have to paying attention to how much open space is left, and their plot of land and whether that is within the context of what the guidelines

are, what the law is, and which is why i focused heavily today asking questions about that dotted line that was on one of the exhibits. this expansion doesn't even come slightly close to what's the potential is. and let me tell you, i mean we have seen some mcmansions come in front of us where they went to where the project sponsor went right to what that dotted line might have represented and there was crankyness as you can imagine from all the neighbors and we approved the project because that's what the law says, you can do that. now, we made a few adjustments with a couple setbacks. but that is an extreme

case. this is not extreme and doesn't even come close to what extreme would be. so i agree, when there was public comment that the project sponsor was too nice and they didn't ask for too much, and therefore didn't put themselves in this issue when they got back and they really self negotiated with themselves and put themselves in a position of disadvantage quite frankly. i agree with that. and i'm glad they did and they were ethical and kind about that to their neighbors. they only took what they needed. most people don't do that. come to our hearings a few times, you will see. so, i really didn't have any problem with the project from that standpoint. i too looked at the, it should be one foot, two foot, three foot, five foot setback, i was thinking three

foot setback but what's the point of the expansion? what would happen is sure, we would create a 3 foot setback, but there would be a just redesign of the building and they would come and add five foot to the back of it and the neighbor would get a five foot longer building, a five foot setback and the space would still be added so what's the point? i think the project is modest, i think it's reasonable. i know that it fits into the open space guidelines. i know that the next door neighbor is really upset because there is something there that wasn't there before, and i would be upset as well, but that's living in the city, and your next door neighbor's being pretty nice and not taking it to the extreme. so i feel there is nothing wrong with the project

except there is going to be one upset neighbor to one who is complying with the law and i don't think there should be anything considered with this appeal. with regard to the planning department and how they presented and the context they would, i agree with the comments that communication was lousy or could have been better, sorry, i don't want to say lousy but could have been better, more detailed, more paper trailed. i'm not disagreeing with you on that. it would be helpful in the future, my point earlier, ms. pam, when you have things like mid-block open space discussions, it would be great to bring the map of 1920 and your predecessor, i'm not denigrating you, but comparing you to your predecessor that was extraordinary and so are you but

he would bring maps from the 1920 and show us what a mid-block open space looked like in 1920 and show in fact that the mid-block open space was not as big as it was in 1920, but there was a respect to the guidelines, that created the legal guidelines in the city of san francisco and made the point that you ended up with, but again, it would have been, might be better in the future if you bring more bells and whistles to point out that yes, the mid-block open space has shrunk, but so has the city gotten more congested and there might have been 200,000 people here and now there is 800,000. that's what happens. so bring more of that. i make a motion to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued and

fits into the guidelines of mid-block open space and design guidelines. >> >> vice-president lopez? you no longer want to make a comment? >> okay, we have a motion from president swig to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued and in compliance with -- i didn't quite hear you -- the residential guidelines. >> the protection of mid-block open space. >> thank you. >> on that motion, [roll call] >> okay, that motion carries 3-2, the appeal is denied. thank you. we will now, president swig, are you ready to move on? okay, if you can give them

toalec. >> >> okay, welcome back to the march 15, 2023 meeting of the board of appeals. excuse me, sir, we are starting the meeting. please be seated. we are now on item no. 5. >> for hearing today. (5) appeal no. 23-007 takeshi moro, appellant(s) vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 1468 van dyke avenue. appealing the issuance on january 23, 2023, to chau chung, of an alteration permit (comply with notice of violation no. 2022291235; legalize one-level rear deck at rear yard with one-hour fire wall; legalize metal gate at front; remove patio cover: gazebo-canopy; new bathroom and home office; remove ladder

to attic). permit no. 2022/07/12/8311. i want to confirm the permit holder's agent ms. tran requested an interpreter. i want to confirm the interpreter is present via zoom. can the interpreter confirm that she's called ms. tran. >> yes, i placed the call and it says she is not available. >> can you try again, please? >> okay.

>> instead of putting it on speaker, if you can put it to her ear because she's going to be translating what other people say to you. okay. we confirmed the interpreter is available. the appellant will go first and you will have seven minutes. with having an interpreter, she will get 14 minutes, seven minutes to present and seven minutes for the interpreter. welcome. we will hear from the appellant first. public speaker: overhead, please.

good evening, my name is neil and i'm representing the resident ms. takeshi moro, the neighbors and person is addressing this concern. the permit before you is granting de facto approval of the conversion of this single family home in the middle of a residential neighborhood into a full-time airbnb hotel. there are no

considerations taken of the community. further planning commission and inspection of the property show that the bedrooms in this property are no longer bedrooms, they are hotel rooms with room no. 1, room no. 3. room no. 2. this was a single family two bedroom, one bathroom home when the neighbor purchased this property two years ago and immediately began the illegal conversion of this property by doing unpermitted work, shoving a new main floor bedroom and new suite bathroom. it was only when an nov was issued with illegal work that they went to legalize the work and the new permit they said

they were remodeling two bathrooms when it was just a one bath, two bedroom home. then as soon as the department issued the permit, the work was done and then they proceededed with phase 2 of the illegal conversion of the hotel with a hotel bar that moves back to the neighboring property. you can see how it hangs over the backyard. it's just massive compared to the rest of the buildings. they also converted the uninhabitable attic into a two bedroom suite with large

windows, and now we ask the board to grant the appeal because now they are as they have been instructed to remove the illegal construction here. they want to shove in a new fourth hotel room in this space here. it is the only place that access the kitchen. so there will be no dining at this place. this permit should be requiring the removal of that improperlily permitted bedroom, they are asking for a fourth one. the current permit does not reflect the attic placed with the two

large windows from the attic so people can sleep in there and could surreptitiously used as a hotel suite and get a bed up into that space for the illegal use. this current permit would legalize the size of that deck overhanging the property, and legalizes a huge firewall essentially the size of this bed. the drawings prove that the neighbors remain deceptive to the submissions of the department and can't be trusted to behave legally in a single family home. the city needs to do better than to allow this blight on the neighborhood. the neighbors plead for help from this board and their struggle to stop the project

sponsors, the conversion of this property that should be a home instead of a hotel. >> thank you very much for your time. i feel that our family and neighbors are victim of fraud. as soon as they purchased this, they started work on the property immediately and did as much work as possible until this city stopped them. it's a very effective playbook. do as much unpermitted work and assume that as the original, once you found to have violated. so we would like, and they have repeated this tactic twice in the past 18 months. i also want to be on the record as saying that highlight an issue that

child intimidates neighbors and through harassment and asked to not report the unpermitted work. as soon as she knew i called 311, she started to block cars. and after i immediately filed this appeal. my wife, my parents, we fear that the harassment will continue and we are put in physical danger. i ask for your help, for me, my family and for our neighbors so

that this appeal is approved. thank you. >> thank you. we have a couple questions. president swig and commissioner john trasviña have questions. >> we know this is a mess and we know that this notice of violation has been filed and that makes it a confirmed mess. i want to make it clear and not in the form of a statement. what is your interpretation of what this permit is? is it

legalizing the deck? is it yes or no? >> it is an expansion of the deck. it requires a new firewall to be built up alongside the deck along the property line. >> right, okay. is it the legalization of the alligator is the legalization of the gate? -- >> i don't think there is a particular concern about the gate. >> i'm reading from the permit report. legalize one level rear deck at rear yard and firewall. so what you are saying, what i'm hearing in your testimony is that a deck was built without a permit, and they are trying to

make it right including the firewall that needs to go with it if it in fact is going to be made right. is that your interpretation of the permit? >> that's what the permit says. >> okay. >> the legalized metal gate in the front is part of the permit. >> yes, we don't object to the gate. >> remove the patio covered gazebo, that is what you showed us, correct? >> correct. >> the canopy new bathroom and home office. in the context of your testimony, what is the canopy? what is the new bathroom and home office? >> the new home office is a new hotel room. >> that's the one -- >> no, the attic has to be

converted back to storage space use. >> wait. i'm asking, forget about all the other stuff. i will get there in a second. >> okay. >> the home office is that new what you refer to as bedroom, but in their view is a home office, correct? >> if you go to -- if we can get the overhead. this is the space. that's the kitchen. >> yup. >> that's the space where our chairs were and the sofa and tv. >> that's where the home office is going to be. okay, and that is the extent of this permit as we read it here, correct? >> it's a fourth -- >> as we read it here. >> and a third bathroom, yes. >> all right. what we are not hearing tonight is any discussion on the

windows. i know, i heard your testimony and i have this documentation. we are not hearing about the alleged illegal additions in the roof. that's not part of this permit? >> legally it is. >> i want to set the ground rules here. >> it is part of the permit. >> how are the windows part of the permit? >> not the windows, the attic space. you said the attic space. >> why is this not part of the permit? >> because they have to remove the stairs to go into the attic and they have to return the drop down ladder. >> i told you it was a mess. >> yeah, but what also happened there to make it habitable was they put in these big windows. so the point of the latter is to

return it to storage space, not habitable space. to make it habitable, you should also remove the big windows. >> we may have some and i know planning is listening intently to my questions and so does dbi because in cases like these where i got to overlook, for example that the comment that it's an airbnb hotel. i have my own thoughts and they may comply with yours or disagree with yours, it doesn't matter. but we have to stay focused on what is the permit and this may not be a catch all opportunity, and that's why i'm looking and asking you these questions about

what we have written here, and i read to you verbatim what is in the permit versus the scope of discussion tonight, and so, what i'm going to do and that's why i'm asking these questions, is going to ask planning the same question so we can get clarification about what we are discussing tonight without digression. do you understand our goal here is to keep it tight on exactly what we are talking about? >> just like i presented you. >> it may not be able to hit on every morsel of problematic issue in the building. >> certainly, president. >> we'll have further discussion on this, but we have to keep it

narrow and we can't try to rebuild the whole building. it's not within the scope of the permit for discussion. >> okay. >> commissioner? >> i don't know, i want to respond to what you said mr. trasviña because it's the issue to correct this. if we were to grant the appeal, it would be just back to open notice violation with no permit issued at all. so i don't think that the things that are not specifically named in the permit are outside the scope of what we are allowed to consider tonight.

>> you can ask the city attorney. >> you can have a position. i think it's best to hear from the attorney and dbi before we make a decision about anything. >> correct. >> my question is for mr. morrow and what has been your experience with the complaints and what you have gone through this? >> i empathize that it's an extremely difficult situation because unless you are putting hundreds of hours in surveillance into this

operation, you wouldn't be able to keep up. my wife and i work hard to make ends meet. we don't want to surveil or neighbors. so i understand why city planning and dbi issued the permit, but i also think as i said that they were, it was fraud. they are victims of the fraud as well because when one does all this work unpermitted and pretends that it was there before. who is to check unless you do all of this investigative work there is no way to tell whether that window was there or not. i called out a time to do it, my neighbors carved out a time to do it. but really we are not vigilantes here. so what i'm asking is that please, planning, cross-reference the 2021

september photographs and the plans from when chow purchased the home, and then cross-reference it to see what exactly are the illegal le unpermitted work because that's at the heart of it. when you look at the plan, where it says original, it's false. things are incorporated in there that was not there when she purchased the property. so how on earth can you issue a permit based on lies because once you have the permit, she can go back and say, well, dbi signed off on it and that was there before and that happened twice. it's a very very effective way of skirting the law. i must add that she might have taken advantage of the fact that it's in bayview. let's face

it, it's a working class neighborhood and a historically underserved community, and i think that those types of residents not having the bandwidth to do the investigative work was taken advantage of, and it just so happens that i'm a university professor and educated and i can carve out some time to do this, but it's really impossible for city planning and dbi to do all of this. all we are asking is that please go back to the original cross-reference it. i'm sorry it's a longer answer. >> i have another question as well. your brief was very thorough and i appreciate that. i wanted to ask, from what i

read, it seems that the airbnb usage stopped last august, is that correct? >> i believe so. neighbors had to call multiple times to stop it because i don't know. i think it's the short-term rental office, and i'm sure that's for a different discussion, but i believe that it had stopped at one point. there were other tenants, i don't know. again, we don't try to check off when tenants come and hotel guests come, but so now it's being, with that deck, they have that deck about a year now. >> what has happened at the property since last august sense it's now march and that period of time since then from your observations?

>> my understanding is there is no one living there. there is no recology service. i think it's used primarily as a storage unit and some kind of work space. i understand it's like an investment property. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> you can be seated. we will now hear from ms. tran. if you want to come up here. she was representing chou chung. that's what i was told she would be representing chou chung. i'm sorry, are you mr. chung? >> i'm the applicant. can i speak? >> yes, absolutely. are you going to be speaking english? >> yes, i am. >> okay, you have seven minutes to address the board. >> good evening, commissioners. i know you guys had a long

night. so, my name is b wong, the project architect. i worked on the approved permit 202207188311. it's an appeal by property owner 1470 van dyke. takeshi moro. first of all, i'm speaking on behalf of the owner and feel really sorry about this case. they are new immigrants and don't know much about the law. so they did a lot of work without a permit. i know it's a mess. i am here to come to fix it for them to pull the permit today, i mean a couple months

ago to fix all this mess. and the deck, the existing deck was not permitted. but for this permit, we are going to make it legal. the deck is only about five feet above from the finished grade, and also the existing deck is close to the property line, less than three feet. we are going to put up a firewall. the firewall is about seven foot 10 to 9 foot 4 at the highest point. so you can compare and look at it as a fence is about seven or eight feet. so it's not really that high. and the fence and the firewall

and the deck both doesn't require a section 311. it's exempt from the planning code for bulletin full. we are going to fix up the deck. we will move the gazebo. the gazebo is going to be gone. the deck will be reduced to comply with all the planning codes and the building codes. so it will be a really nice space for the residents. i think the firewall, it's a firewall also as a barrier. i'm going to talk about the attic. the attic has been used

as a bedroom and they pulled the permit and i have it in my hand. i can pass along after my presentation. and the attic is going to restore back to its original use. it's not going to be as a bedroom, and it's not even going to be a storage. the ladder is going to be removed and the attic hatch is going to be removed and will be restored. the only way to access the attic is by the job ladder. regarding the interior remodel, this is based on the property owner. they want to live their life when how to divide the space when there is another safety concern. the new home

office and the new bedroom allow to comply with the building code. the last thing i want to bring up is the front gate that is in the viewable area. it's going to reduce to 10 feet high per the planning code and will be transparent and considering the safety of the area, i think a security gate is a really necessary item to protect people. one last thing i want to say is they feel sorry. he has done all this work to the property without permit and brings all this trouble to the neighbors. he learned his lesson, and i think he's filing these permits to take care of all of these

violations. i hope that you can give him another chance to take care of this property. and get along with the neighbors. that's all i can do. thank you very much. >> we have a couple questions. >> to clarify, you were not offering architectual -- guidance to the owner until when? >> i thinktea around december. >> about four months? >> yeah. >> so you are new to the property. you weren't responsible for the deck addition? >> no, no. >> you weren't responsible for any of the additions or the changes to the original property? >> no. >> okay. >> have you seen the series of

plans that have been submitted to the city? >> i learned along the way as i'm doing my work and i realize this number of permits has been filed and also a number of violations. since i'm on board, i cannot go back. >> and have you seen a set of plans which were the original plans, have you seen the set of plans that showed exactly what the house really looked like when the owner bought the house?

>> no. basically i have the original plans by the architect. but i had seen the deck was up and the gazebo and the bathrooms and the attic space. so i see those and i recommend them not to do anything to the attic. that it had to be converted back and the ceiling height and everything. other than that, i think what they have done, like the deck, it can be legalized, the room, the bathroom, is just a personal choice. i don't know about the airbnb. i don't know the issue of the building. i don't want to get involved in that either. >> okay. so basically you are the clean up? >> yeah. i hope to clean up. >> everybody states that you are the clean up guy? >> yeah, i total the owner that

you cannot do this again. this is a job for everybody, the neighbors, the commissioners, it's a mess. >> thank you. >> i was going to ask the same question. i just wanted to confirm, you are the licensed architect on this project? >> yes, i am. >> okay, thank you. >> can you please fill out a speaker card because we don't have your name in writing. thank you. >> okay. president swig, are you done, your name is still up. >> okay, we will now hear from the planning department. >> good evening, tina tam from the planning department. this is

in the zoning direct and the property is a potential historic resource. the permit is to comply with the dbi for the violation and planning he'ded the complaint for work completed without a permit. this is for work done at the front, the rear, as well as inside the property and the attic space. the corrected permit seeks to legalize the deck at the rear by removing the gazebo on top and removing the deck by two feet and adding a firewall along the west side of the property line. the permit also seeks to legalize the metal gate at the front of the property by reducing the height to no more than 10 feet and making it 75% open. in addition the permit also seeks to remove the access to stairs to the attic by replacing it with a drop down ladder and

removing all the living spaces in the attic. the owner originally converted it to a bedroom and bathroom. and added a full bathroom and accessing bedroom. the appellant is the neighbor to the west. mr. takeshi moro is concerned about the property and the windows. mr. morrow, believes if the windows are approved, they will continue to use this as it's constructed. even though that restricted the attic for storage only. it does not meet the building code and

does not have enough head height and therefore we are requesting the removal of the stairs. while the property was used in the past as recently as may and june of 2022 for short-term rental, the owner has not secured the required certificatation or permit to offer it's as rental property. the original application was denied may 31, 2022 and the listing was removed from airbnb's platform. the certification was denied because the owner does not live on the property. one must live on the property for most of the time or for all of the time depending upon how many days you want to rent out your property in order to qualify. the owner does not live at 1468 van dyke and live

at another residence. there was a new window installed in the attic. unfortunately that window that was installed did not comply with the design or materials on the project approved in the permit. the 2021 permit called for a new aluminum clad window and vinyl window and the owner will have to apply for a new permit. there was a 2021 permit, the owner will have to apply for a second permit for the window illegally installed in the attic. while there has been a number of planning violations issued on the code, the 2022 permit which is under appeal does intend to

address these issues and correct them and appears to have been issued properly. there are no limitation for the planning code for having windows in the attic, even if the attic is not habitable. there is no limitations under the planning code for having multiple bedrooms and bathrooms. the plans show it is in the lot and no subject case is required and a firewall and potential impact to noise and privacy to the deck would be reduced. with that, the planning department asks that you uphold the permit and crazy address the firewall and these

windows. i believe you have the graphic. this is the rear deck built without a permit. you see the gazebo will be removed and this deck will be shortened by two feet because right now that deck does encroach into the 30% required rear yard. this is the window. i believe this is a window part of 2021 permit. that's not the window design that we approved. in the front, there is an illegal gate that was installed too high, and we are not allowing a solid gate of this height to be at this location. the conversion is happening under this pitch roof and that's the window that doesn't appear to have a permit on file. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president swig and then commissioner lemberg.

>> richard swig: this is the original work and illegal work and pray for forgiveness later? we have seen it before. >> yeah, the work has been done. >> yeah, the work has been done and it's not legal and you go back to this board and you pray for forgiveness and mercy. is it fair to characterize somewhat in that fashion? >> you have to ask the permit holder. we have a notice of violation, we have a notice of complaint filed from both departments citing the illegal construction work as one way to correct that and to address that and to an abate that, new permits need to be filed even if you were to remove it, sorry, i don't want the deck anymore and i'm going to remove it. you still need the permit and sounds like you want to keep the deck.

>> let me run my laundry list. it's not about that the deck -- scratch that. if originally the owner of the property wanted a deck, what would have been permissible? something which was three feet shorter than it ended up, and what would have been permissible? >> with regard to the deck, it would be pretty much this deck but two feet shorter. it's going from 17 to 15, and you couldn't have this steeple on the stop. if you were to do it correctly, you would say i want this deck of this size, this tall with a firewall. >> if the process would have run

correctly, and a permit would have been, application for a permit for just this would have been filed, and with this same design, you would have come back and said two feet shorter, firewall, it's okay. and then if that were to have been appealed, you would have come in here and said it is compliant even though the next door neighbor doesn't like it, right? >> that's correct. >> so this appeal would make that deck legal to where it would have been could have been built if the proper procedure would have been filed? >> that's correct. >> okay. >> the gate is easy. get a new gate. lower it to the no higher than ten feet and make it semi you can make it a little bit

opaque, but not fully opaque. >> that's right. i think right now it measures 13 feet. it's too tall. >> if they would have done the application properly in the first place, ten foot gate, not opaque and we are fine and dandy. >> correct. i believe the applicant wants to modify this gate. they are not going to remove it but bring it down. >> what i'm saying if they would have done it properly, there still would have been a gate and not ten foot tall and this permit corrects that situation? >> correct. >> now we move to the new bedroom and bath. per your testimony, i think you said you can put as many bedrooms and baths that you want in the house. if you want to have 50 square foot bedrooms and

10 square foot baths, you can do that and have 20 of them, we don't care, because you can do that. but so in this case, the new bedroom and bath is legal, is compliant, as long as what? >> as long as you don't rent it out for short-term rental for a certain number of nights if you don't live there. >> right, but in this case, if they would have filed a proper permit, for a bedroom and bath, they would have gotten an approval whether or not you think it's stupid or not. >> pretty much, it's odd to not have a kitchen and just bedrooms and bath. you need to have a

dining room. >> we have someone last week that is in the dining room and calls it's his bedroom. so that's okay. the siding of the bedroom is the attic which is part of this permit, is that already a condition of the permit or not? >> partly if you take away the windows and talk about strict use of the attic. we are telling the applicant you cannot occupy and use the attic space for living or sleeping. you can store stuff up there, but you can't be up there. it doesn't have the required head height for someone to be occupying that space. >> in the approval of this

permit or however we deal with it, if we were to approve this permit, do we condition it, do we nsr it? what do we do with it to assure that this attic will be converted back to what you just described? >> that's a question for mr. matt green perhaps. they are removing the access to the attic and only limiting the access through a ladder, maybe making it difficult for someone to use that stage for other than storage, but it's hard to enforce how someone uses their space in a house. >> that's why i'm asking the question. >> if someone is advertising and says i'm going to live here now and she's doing an airbnb and i'm going to rent out my attic and we have proof of that through our auditing process, we

can inform airbnb and revoke that permit or certificate because you can't have somebody legally in that space. >> that's not your job. that's the rental department's job. we could condition this permit with the condition and understanding or a mandate that the attic can only be used for storage purposes. >> i think that permit says that already. >> okay, we'll ask mr. green on that. >> commissioner lemberg? i'm so sorry. >> sorry, i'm just moving down the list here. sorry. you paused. my apology.

>> dealing with the window, which was permitted in the first place is being required to be reinstalled with the wood casing etc as it was originally permitted, or do we have to deal with that? >> that is separate. this permit, the 2022 permit that's before you today doesn't talk about those windows in the attic. what we learned through our joint site inspection and permit review process is where did you get that window and how come it doesn't match the plans and bring it to attention. >> so what do we do with the windows or do we follow my early advice, my earlier discussion which is let's deal with the permit at hand. do we acknowledge these windows, or are you going to come back with

an n ov that knows these windows are illegal and must be replaced accordingly. >> we are going to follow up with dbi on the windows. dbi has other additional code issues that they may want to bring to your attention as well. >> right, do we have to deal with these windows tonight? are they appropriate? >> we have a plan to follow up with the process. >> okay. final question, guys. one of the contentions that were originally offered to planning were not the real original plan but not the true representation of what was in the house. have you verified or does planning have a way to verify the simple thing that was offered by the appellant just go

to red fen, and look at the house. you know what i'm talking about. does it matter one way or the other and does it matter what the original plans for the house were or in not because in fact you said they can put 20 bedrooms in there and because they wanted to but as long as they are not expanding the footprint of the house, that's kind of, it doesn't matter. but what's right for the benefit of ourselves and for the benefit of the appellant, what's right and what's wrong in this picture? >> sure. it absolutely matters. >> okay. >> we have information and documentation about the original

layout. it is two bedroom one bathhouse. and through a series of permits in 2021 and 2022, have slowly converted spaces within this sort of existing building into additional bedrooms. >> so you have traced the history of this house, aware of the original configuration, there have been permits that were legal permits that allowed them to build the additional bedrooms and bathrooms that exist now, and that deviate from the original plan? >> that's correct. >> we don't have to deal with that tonight? >> i don't think so. >> the use is a completely different story. that's the department of short-term rentals and you let them worry about it, but the physical planning, those bedrooms are there and illegal

and permitted and the rest is okay but the attic use. >> that's correct. >> thank you very much. >> that's all i have. commissioner lemberg. >> alex lemberg: a few little questions. have any of them have been made properly, would they have required neighborhood notification? >> no. the deck because it's less than ten feet in height and assuming it's within a buildable area. i recognize there is a 30% required rear yard. it's approved over the counter. >> all of the interiors.

>> this is inside the building. >> okay, the gate, it does appear the gate next to it is exactly the same height. what's going on there, do you know? >> i don't know, we didn't investigate that gate and haven't gotten a complaint and kind of funny in that way. we respond and enforce based upon complaints and we have gotten complaints from the neighbors, we would have looked into it. i'm not going to speculate whether that's legal or not. i don't know. >> that is just visually striking to me. >> i had another question. something alluded to at the

beginning of this question was this is the do everything without permits and the classic do everything without permits and then ask for forgiveness later which seems like exactly what's happened here. i'm struck by looking at the notice of violation that it's not even an option to require the property owner to remove the illegally done work. is that correct? is that planning department policy? >> pretty much. we are not punitive. some people simply don't know. didn't realize the permits were required or the contractor decided to do some work without the owner's knowledge. but we have an entire team with eight planners and we have a lot of cases and it happens a lot. it's something that we often do and we penalize

if people do not come to correct their permit and even if they come months later. there is different options but it's not the department to say, you did this without asking first for permission, otherwise you would have gotten it approved. they can come and apply for it if they want to and comply with the code. >> i'm looking for the right words here. what is the rational for any new property owner for not to do what this property owner did. literally everything

they did was done without a permit and outside the scope of a permit. what's the accountability here? for any property owner to not just do exactly what this property owner has done and ask for permission later? >> i know dbi and mr. matt green maybe elaborate, i know there is a penalty for the work. planning department doesn't have that per say unless you advance to the point where you are not responding and you continue to ignore our notices and efforts to work with you. we can start a $250 penalty everyday when you are out of compliance. this is for someone that has completely gone dark and not responding to us. there are cases where people are not responding to us. >> even if people are responding, it feels so wrong to me, and i worked in housing in the bayview for four years. i

know what goes on in the bayview. i have seen everything under the sun with this. there is no penalty here? almost certain this is going to go right back to being what it was. >> there is some planners that will charge the owner for preparing the visitation and site visit and we collect and recover that costs, but in terms of administrative penalties, that's where working with somebody who is not responding or it's an egregious violation where we've had to bring in the city attorney to do some sort of more legal sort of enforcement action. there isn't a penalty right off the bat for illegal work, not from planning. >> what's the caveat that would have power vested in us to do

things. i'm going to ask mr. green the same question. what is this other than unpermitting the work done on this property. is there an argument that i'm missing here that legalizing this is somehow a better outcome than not? >> we review permit codes based on what they are asking for and what's being proposed even before hand they are done before getting the permit. it doesn't change how we make our decision. >> thank you. >> commissioner swig, do you have anything further? >> i'm trying to. is it appropriate for know ask it in

the form of a question rather than the statement because i already know the answer or i'm going fishing for the answer that i would like to give you from history, but just to commissioner lemberg give you some comfort. have you not seen because you were not the person in your seat, has it not been the board of appeals periodically asked for a reversal on things that have been built because of the same conditions that commissioner lemberg referred to and building

a giant window in a room that has been asked to be removed or a section of the building asked to be removed because it was built illegally and just wrong. have you not seen that? just to let commissioner lemberg that it ain't all flowers? >> absolutely and you do have that discretion. that's super in all cases including this one. >> commissioner swig? >> richard swig: i want to follow up. we legalize even immigration without sending people back home. in the

context, what types of activity do you regularly legalize after it's already happened. there is procedural errors when they didn't file anything and matters that they feel are disqualified because of what they are. how often do you go down the road of legalizing something as long as they make it in the process correct? >> all the time. the majority of the time. >> so why would taking the minority view and requiring everything to be restored be appropriate? >> it could be. if that's how you land tonight. it would be a

message you send to the public. but in terms of our planning review, process and procedures, we don't have that sort of established protocol to deny because someone did work before hand. we always work with the applicant and give them an opportunity to fix to correct to abate the violation. we give them information, provide them with guidance. we try not to penalize. i know you have a different perspective on that, but we really do try to be as helpful as possible from the procedural and administrative process, and hope that they listen and respond as quickly as possible to clean up the records for the property. >> and does hiring a clean up architect play in favor of the

property owner to show that good faith of getting this resolved in >> i don't necessarily think so. for the three permits that were filed under the current ownership, there have been three separate individuals preparing those plans and permits. >> not the current person who testified today? >> the person testified today helped with the last permit, the two previous ones were done by two different individuals. >> thank you. >> president swig? thank you. we will now hear from the department of building inspection.

>> >> good evening, president swig, commissioners. matt green. planning department. dbi received a complaint for this issue of violation for doing work without a permit with the new gazebo and deck at the rear yard and i would add this is a second recent notice of violation. dbi issued a notice of violation in october of 2021 for interior renovation. this notice of violation was for work done without a permit by two separate building permits in december of 2021 and completed in march of 2022. the permit before you tonight is to address the current violation to address more illegal work in the enter interior. the most significant interior work is removing the

non-compliant stairs accessing the attic. i visited the site yesterday with the planning department. the work is code compliant, the new use of the attic will be we moved and yet another permit, the side window in the attic does not meet the building requirements. the side of the window requires it to be a temperate glass and it is a safety hazard. the windows in the front bedroom do not meet at the egress requirements. they were installed by the previous owner but the current ones were installed by the current owner. i did this by google earth and at the time it was not there and

it's there now. i would like to clarify one thing about the attic as the plans clearly say not for storage. it's not for habitable space. it's not for storage. the stairs need to be removed and they are too narrow and too steep. there is no way any builder in the state would approve that. they are going to be removed. it is not for storage and not for habitable space. it's just access for maintenance issues. i would say that the permit today is code compliant, but i would say we do need to address the windows and we are ready to issue another notice of violation to have those windows removed. in my opinion, the at elk is being used for maintenance access only and no

need for those windows. >> i'm available for questions. >> if i'm driving on the freeway between 4:00 and 7:00, and instead of you get ngt -- getting in the left lane and you get a citation, and pulled over, i get a $275 ticket because i broke the law. you just gave us a litany of real problems of breaking the laws in this house. i think subject to mr. trasviña's comments and mr. lemberg's comments, what's the accountability and what's to stop every citizen from someone

who wants to do something in their house and get the permit later. what is the accountability to this homeowner for breaking the law? i paid $270, i have never broken the law. i pay the $270 because i'm riding in the multiperson lane on the freeway. what's the penalty for deciding that you are going to do something that's illegal and you try to get away with it but you get caught? >> well, we did issue a notice of violation requiring them to get permit for the legal work and there is a penalty attached to the second notice of violation. once they got a notice of violation and still ignored us, we could have gone

down to the code enforcement process and which is a lien on the title. if that lien is placed, the property owner is subject to various fees and fines from the department. the lien won't be lifted until the work is corrected from the building permit and to have the permit penalties attached to it. if we issue an order of abatement, we meet with our litigation committee regularly and determine whether this is egregious enough to refer to the litigation committee. the city attorney would sue. after 180 days of issuing the order of abatement, they are still not in compliance, we can refer this case to the franchise tax board and they are in compliance and you can't write off any expenses to this property. meaning if you

are doing any taxes for the property, those are steps we can take. we haven't taken it on this one but they did take penalties on the permit. >> at the very least, there have been penalties on this. there are controls in place to make people think twice about doing this illegally. ultimately you can put a lien on which is on title to make that building really hard to sell and that destroys their investment possibilities for that building. so there are repercussions to dissuade the public from doing these things illegally. >> that's correct, and we would notify the banks and the insurance companies. >> right, and that would make it

illegal and good for the commissioners to know. while we are turning this into a seminar. are the fees discretionary or fixed by law? >> they are fixed by code. for work done without a permit is nine times the permit issuancey and work done without the code is two times the issuance. >> for this work, by the attic and there has been a history of abuse and is there another layer of protection beside from your stairs and outside ladder. >> it seems to me they didn't

paying attention to the requirements, so it would not hurt. >> there is a good 50/50 chance that there is a possibility that they are going to break the law again and you have to rely on a good neighbor, a good citizen to request an nov, right? >> well, i don't want to say they are going to break the law in the future, but their past experience has done that. >> i just want to know whether you want us to put an nsr on that. >> the nasr to not use the attic. >> that wouldn't hurt, right? >> i don't see where it would hurt. the plan is drawn to not be a habitable space and not to be used as storage. >> you are going to file a separate violation for separate

permit to remove those windows, and would be a pretty dark space to do anything period. >> it will be a violation to remove. the windows in front can't be removed. they will want to be windows to be a bedroom. the problem with the bedroom is the opening is not big enough to get out. >> thanks. >> commissioner lemberg? >> alex lemberg: first i want to dig a little bit about penalties. i know most of those penalties will not be met until the future, but for most of the liens and notices of abatement are not even potentially possible, right? that would only be if they don't comply with things in the future. >> that is correct. that is not referred to a director's hearing yet because they are attempting to comply. >> with that said, i want to dig a little bit deeper and let's

talk numbers. you said nine acts, all of these things. i have no basis for what those numbers mean. what actual monetary value is approximately are actually being assessed as a result of these violations? >> i will look at the notice of violations real quick. >> sure. >> they are surprisingly less, probably $900 and $300 for the second permit. >> so we are talking about less than $1500 for the permits basically. >> that's correct. >> in your opinion, would that dissuade anyone from doing this?

>> the value of the permit is actually small, this in my opinion, isn't very punitive, the penalties for this project, and for bigger buildings, it would be a lot more. this is per code discretion. >> okay. i'm going through, legalize rear deck with firewall, legalize metal gate in front, i understand that part. this is where i lose it. remove the patio covered gazebo, and new bathroom and home office. can you help me parse this. i assume the conovered with a # --

was to cover but apparently it's a material. >> i saw that. reviewing the plan, it's to remove the covered gazebo. >> because there is no punctuation between the gazebo and bathroom and office which are interior to the building, is the assumption that this is also saying to remove the bathroom and remove the home office as well? >> no. that is the data entry issue. i would read that remove covered gazebo, canopy, and the new bathroom. if you look at the plan, they are adding a new bathroom. >> a new bathroom legally.

>> building a new bathroom. >> why would that be a new permit if it's correcting a notice of violation. >> it's correcting a notice of violation and doing additional work. >> is that normal practice? >> yeah, it's normal. >> to have an issue of notice of violation and required to fix the work and then they are allowed to ask for additional new things in the same permit. that seems so wrong to me. [ laughter ] okay. so the office is also new then? >> correct. >> that's the dining room conversion. and the ladder.

>> it the stairs. >> very bad stairs. kind of a ladder. >> left certain with that and i will have to move on. >> it says right here. >> i have the approved plans. >> that would help. >> if you look at the agenda, i have corrected language from mr. green and i put it on the agenda. >> i thought i noticed that, but i wasn't sure. >> legalize and remove gazebo and patio cover. >> is it interchangeable.

>> my only plan is to need to remove that gazebo from the back. i didn't fill out the permit application. i think there is a -- all right. can you walk me through this yellow highlight? >> the yellow is the new bathroom, this is the new office. >> what is where that bathroom is currently? >> there is a closet underneath that attic. >> the dining room is to add a wall to close that off.

>> that's this wall right here. >> the office is so big that it means an enclosed room. >> it can't be a natural bedroom because there is no light in -- natural light in there and this is only 13 inches wide. the inspector would have to verify whether that's done properly. >> it doesn't sound possible to build a 12 inch window. >> it's very difficult, so once the wall is open up, to see how they are doing it and they will have to do a revision to redo that window. >> why would dbi approve that.

it's pretty impossible. >> i didn't say it was impossible. i'm saying it would be difficult and would like to see how they would do it. >> what is this? >> this is the drop down ladder where the attic is going to be. >> i thought that was on the other side. >> here is the stairs they are going to be removing and there is currently a closet in the stairs that they are going to convert to the bathroom. to access the attic will be a drop down ladder. you will see that. >> that's like in most homes. >> correct. it's very common. >> are those all for this that it's talking about? >> yes, this permit. and this is

going to be 42 inches above the deck board because that's minimum height for a guardrail. >> 42 inches for the guardrail. is there a reason this deck needs to be raised above grade? i have never, i don't know, the pictures look unusual to me that there is this crawlspace. >> it's the crawlspace to walk out onto the kitchen to the deck. >> okay, the first floor, okay. >> these stairs are non-compliant and they have to be rebuilt per code. >> what are those stairs? >> this is leading to the deck and the rear yard. >> what is that before? >> the beck was built illegally.

>> there were stairs from the door behind the kitchen and a landing and straight flight of stairs down. >> all right. let me see if i have anything else. last question, convince me that the best solution is anything other than demanding that they remove all the unpermitted work? >> well, i would say that it is as designed now as the architect spoke earlier that this will be code compliant. i'm not trying to defend them. they did it

without permits. they should not have done that. the neighbors filed a complaint and we issued a notice of violation. i completely see your argument. >> thank you. that's all i have got. >> okay, we are moving onto public comment. is anyone here to provide public comment in the room? you can't provide public comment because you are affiliated with the permit holder. thank you. >> you will have three minutes in rebuttal. >> yes, welcome. public speaker: hi, good evening. i can look at all of you and see that you are all tired and frustrated. i have been living across the street at 1463 van dyke for over 35 years. the house she purchased, ms. it a james bought that for her daughter 45 years ago. she's sick now. there is no way that

the neighborhood, that i have been living in all my life should have passed all that and now you want to come back and put a band aid on it. that's not going to work. that gentleman alex worked in the bayview and has been in the bayview for 48 years. they come to the neighborhood, do what they want to do, no one checks on them. they bang nails at 7 at night. they put that gate on in a weekend. i live across the street from that house. they put that whole gate. the house next door, she bought that gate from ms. sunday. she had a little small gate. they took that gate from her for free. that's why

you see those two high gates. she put that gate for free. i'm not going to hold you guys up. you said three minutes, and i have said enough. i know i have. thank you for listening. >> thank you. is there anyone else in the room who wants to provide public comment? okay. i see two hands raised on zoom. so kay maxwell, please go ahead. public speaker: hi, my name is kathleen maxwell, a former colleague of professor moro's at santa clara university. my comment is that this has really taken a toll on the moro family having to deal with an irresponsible neighbor like this. it takes an emotional and a physical toll, and i have witnessed this in the last two years. i want to note that. but

i also want to propose a solution. i don't understand why professor moro's family should have to tolerate a firewall that at times will be nine feet four inches tall, that is not an insignificant barrier. i think that given the circumstances of this case, that you should consider punitive action in which you have the deck rebuilt at ground level. there can be a graduated deck where coming from the kitchen, that can come from the kitchen and at ground level. i don't understand your not considering this. chou is getting away with figuratively speaking murder here. it's really unfair to the neighborhood and denigrates the

property that takeshi and his family have made. >> public speaker: i will also be brief. i'm also a neighbor to van dyke and have witnessed the work that has been going on throughout. i know there are certain things that are off the table here but there are things in the plan and we heard from the testimony that the architect did not review previous stuff. i can look on page 8.20 and look at the bathroom that they are proposing doesn't even meet the california building code as far as space in between. urinal, that doesn't even exist on the property and we have things that

won't even meet code. in addition, we have the history of what this property has become. it's become a hostile in the middle of our neighborhood where we have seen guest come in and out at the cheapest possible price. this is an on going thing that isn't going to be resolved by having another bedroom added at what we call an office. i understand that you can build as many bedrooms and bathrooms but we have code that should be held, people should be held responsible and abiding by those codes. we just had this long going profess where as long as no one is looking it's just being done. the permit filed were only in response to the notice of violation and that was a continued thing. work was done

and reported and then they grandfather the work that was already done without a permit and the next permit happened to grandfather more work in and we are going to keep grandfathering more work than the guide to addressing the violation. violation should have been a point of stopping the work in the first point and letting them move forward because now we have filed some documentation towards it. this does have a significant effect to all the neighbors. we have all seen it and gone through it and continues to be this on going thing and now we are rubber stamping it. thank you very much for your time. . the gate that was mentioned earlier, it was built by the contractor to support the gate. that's the only reason it exists. thank you very much for your time.

. thank you. we will now hear from the caller with phone number 1676. public speaker: yes, hi, i'm the neighbor and the one that you are talking about. like my neighbor ken said, she did put that fence up because i told her i wouldn't put that fence on mine. mine is just fine. she is the one that put the fence up and i told her i wasn't paying a penny. she wanted to put the fence in. the guy couldn't get in and he had to come through my yard because the gate wouldn't open. if i wouldn't let him do that, he wouldn't get in the house next door. and you guys let these people come in the neighborhood and you guys don't let them do nothing. you let

them do anything they want and you slap them on their wrist. you let these homeowners do everything corporates do and break these big rules. when is it ever going to stop? that's what i would like to know. thank you. >> okay, thank you. ms. paulina, was identified as part of the permit holder's part, but there may have been a misunderstanding. ms. lou, can you explain who you are? >> hi, i'm here as support of the respondent as a bystander. this is all news to me as well. >> are you a neighbor? >> i do not live in san francisco, but i am here to

share my thoughts as much as possible. >> please go ahead. >> good evening, members of the board. >> hold on one moment. >> are you related to chou chung? even if she is, she is allowed to provide public comment. only if they live in the same household? >> no, i'm not related to chou chung. >> okay, please go ahead. >> okay, thank you. good evening, members of the board, i have never spoken in this capacity so, i appreciate your patience as i stutter through my thoughts a little bit. i understand the review has been all about the permits, but this all stems from the appeal and that's what i want to address. if privacy is the issue here, there are other ways to resolve this. an airbnb host can enforce quiet hours and quiet

courtesy from the neighbors and privacy panel has been installed and panel has been added to relieve their concerns and it's not a fire hazard without identifying a material. also says the deck allows renters to loom over the appellant boundaries. i personally live in a home with a much higher ground than two homes south of our lot with a balcony level too. we never receive complaints and ability curtously. this can be done at an administrative level. as you noted, it seems they were not concerned about privacy. decor no deck, privacy issues can always be a problem. i would like to say it's beneficial to the city of san francisco and travelers who might live near an

airbnb and this brings tourist and money to the city and as a frequent airbnb user myself, it helps to offset costs and choices to allow someone enjoy the experience of the culture in the area. airbnb is based on the rating of the performer of the renter and could be used as further cooperation from the airbnb neighbor. there is no basis to become shall and the assumptions made are invalid. time money and effort have already been spent to correct the violations, fines, fees, and penalties have been addressed. i don't know the rules and doesn't sound like the board knows the rules either. if i were in her shoes, i would do the same thing. it's not an ask for forgiveness situation. i

guarantee you countless homes don't follow the law. it's just a matter of whether any neighbors complain. ultimately, past mistakes happened and using argument is charging the owner with double jeopardy. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? raise your hand. is someone else here for public comment. >> we have on zoom. robert, you already spoke. the person with this phone number already spoke. we are going to move to rebuttal. we are going to hear from the appellant first. >> yesterday, i believe the dbi planners came. the night before,

i heard a lot of noise. and i believe again they tricked dbi. this bathroom was probably hidden from view because according to the testimony from dbi, he said this was a closet. well it's actually a bathroom already here. i want you to note for the record that again fraudulent activity took place. now, regarding the deck. i want to note something here. the deck has resulted in hotel guests smoking marijuana and cigarettes into our garden and they act like a hotel bar. chou has no idea. she doesn't live there. when my four yield, seven year old daughters is what the smell is suddenly, what do i say?

it's secondhand smoking marijuana and cigarettes. so what i ask respectfully is there be a five feet setback and the deck be lower. so those are the two points i want to make. >> i would just lastly state, this board has the power to put strong conditions. this is an example when the board should take those powers to hand, apply them as strainously as possible and if now is anytime a good

time. thank you. >> i heard you say five foot setback deck lower to grade. you are the neighbor affected most by this. the immediate neighbor particularly next to the existing deck? >> right. >> i will just ask you point blank, what other conditions would improve your situation here? >> if we don't have a deck period like it was before, that would be optimal. in terms of the interior of the house, i acknowledge the rights of the owner that they can do practically whatever they want as long as the code is compliant, but as my neighbors have indicated, we have suspicion because again, when the inspectors come in, they cover up in a way that is really

problematic. i don't think we can prevent an airbnb, but there is a stipulation that it must be a residence, right? i think if you can, as my lawyer said, if you put in the strongest word to protect us, we would be most grateful. we do really feel like victims and we have been suffering for almost two years. the deck has been there for a year now. so, that's all i can ask is for you to put the strongest possible conditions to this permit. thank you for ask that. >> if i can add to his answer, he explained to me before he would like the windows gone because he feels safer than the attic won't turn into habitable space again. he's also concerned

that the more bedrooms that get put in there beyond what were permitted already whether those permits are valid because they didn't really say why they were put in, it would limit the opportunity to use space for airbnb and so we lower the number of people coming randomly into the neighborhood right in the home. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, we will now hear from the permit holder. ms. tran, did you want to address the board? why don't you come up. if you are addressing the board in cantonese, we can have the interpreter get off the phone with you and appear via zoom. monica, do you want to hang up the phone and we can translate via zoom? >> okay, i will. thank you. >> because she is speaking cantonese, she will get six

minutes. you can speak for three minutes and monica will interpret. [speaking cantonese] >> >> interpreter: i'm sorry. i can't hear her very well. >> i'm very regret full. very very sorry as listening to someone's opinion. i definitely totally did not know there were

issues with these permits. i absolutely will not do that. i learned a very big and painful lesson. >> [speaking cantonese] >> >> interpreter: we want to correct things, rectify things, we are not going to do anything that is unlawful. right now with all the complaints i got, from my neighbor who actually got a lot of neighbors together, their purpose is about airbnb, and all this hatred. we have never --

been there at all. it is all about airbnb. >> [speaking cantonese] >> >> >> interpreter: i also want to point out that this neighbor of mine he acts like if he is our landlord or has some property rights or something. everything he tells his lawyer as if he has some stakes in the property. >> [speaking cantonese] >> >> interpreter: at the same

time, there is a lot of lies. what he accused is not accurate. for example the garbage in the back and this african american, there was some gunshot noises. i swear there was. >> [speaking cantonese] >> interpreter: everything he has been getting involved everything about this property, even he won't allow cars to park in front of his house. everything he has to get involved. also there is another

point. >> >> >> interpreter: the other neighbors tell me that he likes to sue. for example, he sued the city. the city spent a lot of money to fix the road in our neighborhood and it was a good job, but then he claimed that it damaged his car that way he got some compensation. he likes to sue. [speaking cantonese]

>> interpreter: also regarding the deck, the blue cover on it, he was the person who asked me to buy it. it's not over a day or two that i built this deck, it's over a few weeks. he walked over and told me i like this. why did he tell me to put the blue cover. >> >> interpreter: he turned his back against us. he was the one who agreed to be building the deck. the interpreter has identified the blue cover. he was the one, it's very expensive the cover that i bought. i spent

money and time and he turned his back against us. >> >> interpreter: those two pieces, he actually helped them into my house for me. he agreed. at the same time we did not have this before. i bought this house in september, and then i gave him preference to his daughter, september until december, three months. >> time is up. let the

interpreter finish that and we have questions from mr. lemberg. >> when i first moved it was october and it was halloween and then thanksgiving. >> she's finishing up your interpretation from before. you are over time. monica, can you finish it up. >> yeah, i wanted to say we didn't have arguments before. >> mr. lemberg has a question. if you can interpret that for her. >> alex lemberg: first question, are you the property owner? it's not clear to me. >> i represent the owner. >> so you are not ms. chong?

>> no. >> so you recently repeat edly who are you referring to? >> because the owner authorized me to take care of this house. everything i took care of. that's why i said we. >> okay, but for example on the airbnb listing, ms. chong was listed as the host of the airbnb, is that correct? >> >> interpreter: yes, she's the owner and she authorized me because she doesn't know any english. >> okay. i don't know if i have

any other questions. thank you. >> can i add one point? >> no. thank you. you can be seated. >> thank you. >> okay, we will now move on to the planning department. >> thank you. nice interpretation. >> thank you. >> monica, can you please call back ms. tran. thanks for the reminder. before we begin. okay, great, thank you. you can go ahead. >> tina tran, for the planning

department. this is a difficult one. we are all for helping and educating the public, property owners about our process. however, given the amount of illegal work done, the inaccuracy of the permit and plans and the repeat violation carried on by the property owner, the current property owner, the department would support the board in revising in permit and plans and would support an nsr limit property and adequate use to maintain purposes only, we would support removing the two windows at the attic and support lowering the deck grade 30 inches from grade, and would support not allowing the removal of the dining room and converting it to an office. this is a departure from what we

would have normally have done in an enforcement case but we feel that is warranted given the information we heard tonight at the hearing, and happy to answer any questions. >> did you get that laundry list? >> i did not. >> would you please repeat that for the record again so if we want to use your good advice, we can put it as part of our motion? >> sure. >> repeat it, please. >> yeah, no. one recording an nfr that limits the use of the attic for maintenance and no storage. >> maintenance, can you explain that? that's for maintenance to

access. >> for maintenance purposes only. it's not habitable and not for storage. >> that's correct. >> we would support removing the two windows at the attic level to discourage the use of the attic altogether. we would support lowering the deck to grade or no more than 30 inches from grade to no higher than 30 inches. so no deck would be triggered or required. >> what happens to the firewall at that point? >> i don't believe you need one but you can check with mr. green. >> mr. green, would you comment on that. >> would it need to be setback more? >> not if it's lower grade. >> and we do not support

removing of the dining room. not allowing the dining to be removed from the office. >> so removing the deck, that would mean removing the requirement of the firewall. if it was lower to grade or no higher than 30 inches. >> okay. i'm not done yet. i don't know whether this is yours or this is mr. green but we'll throw it out anyway. so it seems as noticed by commissioner lemberg that we have a gate and we quickly dealt with it or i quickly dealt with it by saying, okay, all you have to do is make it semi transparent lower to ten feet, but then we have the extra added attraction, now new information

that in fact the project sponsor went and created an opportunity for the next door neighbor to put in a gate and without his or her knowledge that what they were doing. it was kind of i will put in a free gate for you. what do we do with that gate? >> we can't do anything with that. it's not part of this permit. >> i understand. would that be something that mr. green is going to review as part of the on going review of the dbi for the project, or how does that all fit in? i know it's not part of the permit and i lectured myself at the beginning to keep focused on the permit but i can't resist the fact that a gate which was mentioned as part of the lowering it and making it semi transparent now is a gate that extends illegally

onto an unsuspecting neighbor that said, sure, build me a gate, i don't care. mr. green, maybe you want to deal with that. >> i will answer on behalf of the planning department and may not resolve it, but our enforcement team functions on a complaint basis. so if there is no complaint, then we don't pursue, research or enforce. should someone file a complaint, we will look into it and we will work with the owner to figure out a solution. maybe if they keep part of the gate, lower that gate, but i can't answer who would be responsible for modifying that gate. >> so it would take a member of the neighborhood to call you to say, we have feelings about that gate. we think it's illegal and maybe you should look into it at which point you would review it

and issue a notice of violation and resolution with the -- >> sure, but in the grand scheme of thing, the gate is not a priority case for us. it's not like housing or conversion. >> but in fact it is an illegal gate that is part of the permit. >> the wooden gate is not part of the permit? >> the neighbors gate is not part of the permit. you are right. okay. >> thank you. >> we did have questions from commissioner lemberg and commissioner trasviña. >> alex lemberg: mr. moro did not ask for this and i want to ask and this may be more appropriate for -- as we are

talking about the attic, and the problem has been the unregulated airbnb use. could we put that in there that restricts the property from being used as an airbnb generally? >> i think the answer is no because this is a permit with work-related to the building. the short-term rental is a separate review altogether under a separate admin code for the city. but we do communicate with them frequently, and we can certainly update them on this hearing, and the information that we've heard so that they can be informed and they can make that decision accordingly if there was a new application in the future for a short-term rental. the owner did apply

earlier this year and she withdrew her application. and we will look into this to be more informed. >> i don't think placing the restriction to the airbnb is something this board would have the authority to do based on the matter before us. >> that's why i wanted to ask. thank you. >> commissioner trasviña? >> john trasviña: thank you. i'm glad we are showing some restraint and not being accused of appealing on as egregious and the harm that has already been stated. i would like to know, the basis for your recommendation regarding the attic. after somebody removes the windows, what's the basis for prohibiting storage in a

window less part of the property that's otherwise an attic? >> well, we are basically reinforcing what the applicant is asking for on their permit which is the attic space will not be used for habitation or storage. we want to make sure that for the recording on the property so there is no confusion. >> are they asking for no storage or asking for no habitation? >> both no habitation and storage. >> great. the other question is what is the difference on the living room versus the office? >> you mean the dining room? >> sorry, dining room. you are recommending further restrictions on that. is it a matter of redesign or construction? >> no, it's just sort of, i'm going to put up the floor plan

and maybe that will help to walk everyone through with my thinking. there is a limited sort of common space for this house already. you have one bedroom, you have another bedroom, another bedroom, and a bathroom, so given the amount of space that's left for the common area which is the kitchen and living room, taking this dining room and converting it to an office, suspicious, i suppose. >> i guess i'm wondering if the conversion, what does that entail? >> putting up a wall here to delineate the space from the hallway to the area and putting up a wall in the kitchen in this room that they would like to see as an office which could be rented as an extra room in the future which may not be a good

idea. >> so the request to put in an office is to put up walls to create an office rather than leaving it the way it is. >> correct. >> the recommendation is to not allow to put up two walls. >> that's correct. >> thank you. >> commissioner eppler? >> jr eppler: that would involve not to put that one window in a 13 inch space. >> it could be to adding that window because this room would not get any natural light and putting in the wall in the living room and hallway, you

would get the light. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> good evening, again, matthew green. just to clarify for the attic, it cannot be used for habitable space because it's not enough space. the plan says not for storage. if he had written these plans to be used for storage, our engineers might ask for calculations that the accessing structure could support dead load there. he didn't go down that path, he just said not for storage. to response for complaints about the fence, we respond the same

as the neighbors file it. you may have other questions. >> richard swig: someone said it in the briefly that there is actually a plumbing source by the deck. i want to confirm that there was no plumbing permit team for that either if there is in fact plumbing out on the deck. >> i apologize. there is a sink at the rear deck recently plumed. >> i didn't check. >> there was no rear plumbing permit for the sink. is that plumbing also done illegally.

>> it sounds like you are lowering the deck. if you lower that, the plumbing would have to be moved to support the sink if it stayed. >> that would be under the deck. >> did you inspect under the deck? did you know what it looks like? >> yes, i was there yesterday. it's not up to code. >> how could it be legalized anyway? >> it's going to have to be built to code and as inspected, in public comment, that we rubber stamped it and it's not true. that has to be brought up to code. the firewall, there will be a new foundation for

that, and new framing and sheet rock on either side and offend. >> to confirm, if we require the five foot setback, would a firewall be necessary at that point? >> no, if it's within three feet of single family. >> okay. >> i would say if you are going in that direction to lower the deck, i would request that you have the designer come up with a new set of plans rather than just, because you are going to have to rebuild the stairs and it's more complicated than just seeing it. >> with respect to lowering the deck, if we are lowering the deck without the five foot or three foot setback, just based on lowering it alone, is the

firewall required at that point? >> no. if it's less than 30 inches, the building permit isn't required. >> got it. okay. thank you. >> if we are considering doing, we are now talking about removing windows. this is the recommendation of the planning department. remove windows. remove the office two walls, probably the little 12 inch window in a 13 inch space, probably a good idea to remove that. we are talking about redesigning the deck, taking it down 30 inches, doing the setback that reduces the need for a firewall. is this something that we should seek a continuance on tonight so that we can request a new set of plans, or is there something by

our recognizance of all these items as we go down a laundry list that you can handle internally. what would be your preference that we are doing potentially all of these adjustments? >> i would absolutely hope that you ask for a continuance in advance of all of these changes. >> great. that's an important piece of discussion for the next chapter. okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, thank you. >> so, commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> let me take a shot at wrestling. i think we just had a great piece of advice that we should continue this. however, as part of the continuance, i think that we have to have some direction given to, we have to

provide some direction. so with your permission, what i would like to do is go down the laundry list as i have heard it. get your comments as i go down the laundry list so we can make sure as we are making the motion to continue and listing the purpose for that continuance, and what we expect when we return to continue our conversation that we have it all done. does that work for everybody? i'm just trying to not have us be here until 11:30 tonight. i will just go down the laundry list and you will tell me that we left something out and julie will take notes and read it back to us when we finally are forming our thoughts around the continuance. >> we don't need any reason for the continuance. >> not for continuance but it is

advisable that we give very clear directions because we have to have a revised plan and we don't come back in two weeks to say we forget it. >> it might require them to come back with more plans which is why dbi wants a continuance. >> one thing i would like to suggest and ask the city attorney should there be any neighborhood questions about how to deal with the department of short-term housing which has jurisdiction over airbnb, if they have any complaints. if the city attorney could make herself available to provide information

related to how to advise that department that they would like to make a complaint or like to know the rules around curtailing activities at that home because we can't do it here. >> what i would suggest is at the next hearing if there is information, there is someone within the city attorney's office to advise at that department. >> i'm not going to ask you to do it tonight but to make yourself available or provide the information to those folks so they know who to call, not to give an opinion because i know you don't have the expertise. >> it would be appropriate for me to direct them to the right person on how to deal with that. >> since we now know that we are probably going to a continuance, can you go do some homework on

that and be prepared to advise on that? >> yeah. >> since short-term rentals is part of the planning department. i thought they were a whole separate department. you learn something everyday. >> tina tran, yes, the short-term rentals is part of the planning department, they were formerly planners at the planning department. now that they are working with short-term rentals, we are able to share information and that's how i go to this information about their denial and submittal. they are very easy to work with and i can certainly relay information when you are deciding about your preference and see what they can do. i don't know their review

criterias. i don't know whether they -- >> all i'm asking is that you make yourself available to anybody in the neighborhood who wants to ask a question as to who may i talk to if i have a complaint, concern or otherwise about this address. that's all. >> yes, i can certainly do that. i believe mr. moro has reached out to short-term rental. we have copies and email exchanges. i can get in touch with the person who is managing this case. >> should we have the interpreter in the room? no. that's fine. >> first we have the deck to

reduce the level of the deck to a 30 inch deck, maximum. and there has been discussion amongst commissioners about a level of setback which would reduce, remove the need for a firewall. so we have a 30 inch deck. any issues related to a maximum of 30 inch deck from the commissioners? >> what are the commissioners thoughts about a setback, please? >> commissioner lemberg? >> alex lemberg: i think the five foot setback would be reasonable and that would negative for the firewall for this reason. and add what mr. green said that the plumbing be

removed from the deck area as well as a new plan be drawn for the deck if they intend to keep the deck. >> julie, as we are going through these, would you keep a list so this will be the direction to the architect and resubmission plans. >> okay, i want to clarify that dbi also said a firewall was not needed if the deck was lowered to grade or no more than 30 inches. adding a setback is an additional, i don't know if you did that to remove the firewall because it's not necessary if it's put down the grade. >> i personally think the setback is good if it were lowered to grade. i think both would be good.

>> any input from commissioners? >> i didn't hear a clear direction on the plumbing issue. it sounds like mr. green needed to do research on that. it sounds like when we are asking for new plans presumably, the plumbing point would have to be addressed in those plans. >> well, mr. green also said that if we lower the deck, the plumbing would have to be removed anyway. >> so maybe it's not necessary to say as part of the order. >> okay. >> that is why to stay silent because we haven't confirmed. maybe there is a preexisting permit that is not before us. >> i was just mentioning that

the sink was sitting on the deck and if you are removing the deck, you would be removing it. >> any other information on the deck? okay, the attic, that there be an nsr that clarifies that it is a permit. >> that wouldn't be part of the revised plan. at this point we are continuing it to revise the plan. you can issue the nsr later. >> the attic is to be revised and the plans continue to be marked for only maintenance purposes only, and also that, and might segue into the windows that any attic be removed to the original condition.

>> i think that's everything that there was. >> remove the two windows at the attic. the plans already shows the removal of the illegal stairs. we don't need to change that. >> right. >> we go to the plan which is for an office. the recommendation of planning is to remove that portion of the application by tearing down, removing the two walls that would create the office condition, and as a recommendation based on common sense, not that the 12 inch window and the 13 inch space be revisited, how is that? >> i think that's a little off president because i don't think

those walls exist currently. that was what mr. green said was being added. there is no walls to tear down. >> not to tear down but no longer will those walls exist in the plan. >> not allowing the dining room to be converted into a home office. >> yes. and that will be in the plans and also the suggestion to remove the 12 inch window in the 13 inch space. >> i think that hits all the recommendations for revised plans. so the motion would be a continuance. >> let's check in with the architect to see how long it would take him. for the architect, do you understand what the board, they want some changes. >> this won't be a discussion. this is going to be a mandate.

>> i agree with all the items but the deck, where do we go from here? where is the law? >> i build a thousand decks a year. if you have someone to lower it to 30 inch. where is the law here? >> the discretion is the discretion of this body which we have powers and discretion to give direction as you know. >> i'm emotional. i'm sorry. >> i understand and under other circumstances where the proper procedures would have been followed, the permit procedure has been followed and the owner of the building didn't proceed with arbitrarily building a deck with a gazebo with a top on top

that would maybe be a different discussion but this is the discussion at the moment and the findings of this direction of this body. >> thank you. >> when will that be a revised plan? >> i don't know. i may not be working on it. >> okay, then they are going to talk to ms. tran. maybe if they are not cooperating, it sounds like they might not have a plan. >> ms. tran, can you come up here, please. >> so the board is requiring that the plans be changed, the windows be removed and the attic and the deck be lowered to 30 inches and the dining room not permitted to be an office.

>> [speaking cantonese] >> before they make a final decision, they want the architect to revise the plans to show these changes. the architect we just spoke to, he said he didn't know if he would be doing the work. >> [speaking cantonese] >> >> interpreter:

>> i don't know how either because we followed the law for the permit and the application. it seems like the law is protecting the neighbors. so now everything is reversed. i don't know how me and the architect are going to complete. >> you built the deck without the permit so you didn't follow the law.

>> >> interpreter: we realized we made a mistake and we tried to rectify it. couldn't we get the ability to rectify it. we try to build it according to ordinance. right now the neighbor is not giving us the chance with the neighbors. >> your effort to streamline this is running awry here. >> i don't think so. the opportunity the rectify this has been given by the direction of the board of appeals. that is the option to rectify it. >> [speaking cantonese]

>> >> interpreter: yes, i heard that in order to rectify is to lower the deck and also the setback of five feet. do you know how much that would cost? a lot of people are building it that way. why do we have to pay so much and for all of this. >> the activity that has been done at the house has been done illegally. the action that has been done has been done illegally and without permit. that's no. 1. no. 2, to rectify and reverse the illegal activity at the house, the board of appeals has made this ruling which is the list that has been presented to the property owner at this

moment. that is it. >> [speaking cantonese] >> interpreter: the time involved to do this rectification, i don't know that my architect would have time. the reason there are different architects is they didn't have time to follow through with those projects. >> then let's put this to this continuance to a call of the chair, and the rules around call

of the chair is that this needs to be revisited in how many days? >> [speaking cantonese] >> interpreter: we don't have # -- >> we don't have a set number of days in the rules. the issue is there is illegal work on the property and by having this sit longer. >> okay, then i'm going to either ask the city attorney for her opinion and do it arbitrary and look at 60 days from now approximately. a hearing date that is 60 days when we don't have a full calendar and that is the date that we arbitrarily set

as the review date. 60 days is reasonable for the amount of work that needs to be done on this. we are not building a new building, we are taking out windows, taking down a couple walls, revising a deck. this is not a lot. so 60 days is a reasonable amount of time for the property owner to engage an architect to make this changes. so why don't we schedule it at that time. that's fair, it's reasonable and does not present a -- >> okay, how about may 17? >> sounds fine with me. >> [speaking cantonese]

>> point of information, can we just have the interpreter get back on the phone. it feels like a continuous back and forth and doesn't feel appropriate. >> she went back and forth when she was interpreting for the other parties. >> okay. if you don't want to hear the interpreter, that's fine. >> okay, i will go back to the phone. >> thank you. >> >> so you can stay up here. hopefully there won't be interference. >> so may 17, the appellant is available. we are asking the property owner to be available on that date, and would you please explain to the property owner if, what will happen on

the 17th and what our expectations are, and if she doesn't present plans, what the repercussions might be. >> okay, so if the board wants the revised plans with those changes, if the plans are not ready, the board has other options. they can even require the removal of the entire deck, they can do a lot of different things. but they want the property corrected, and they don't want it to just drag -- on. it's in your best interest because you are not making any money and you want to correct the illegal circumstances. i strongly urge you to submit the revised plans that the board

wants and if the board is happy with them and the planning department and dbi is happy with the plans, then those plans will be adopted and you can move forward with the work and hopefully use the property for yourself or renting or whatever. i think it's in your best enter to get the property being used. >> president swig, i have to object to this. this is not being interpreted and probably the most important part of the discussion. >> the interpreter is on the phone with her. >> she's not holding the phone up. monica, are you interpreting? >> i understand. >> okay. i agree with the 60 days. i will try to find someone to rectify the property, the

plans within 60 days. >> okay, wonderful. thank you. >> we need a motion. >> the one item that i'm sorry, i forgot, what are we doing with the gate? >> we want to keep that in there because it's correcting it. >> the gate is included. >> it's part of their existing plan and something that needs to be changed. >> great, can you repeat the motion for the continuance including the details related to the needs of a revised plan. >> this is your motion to continue it? >> yes. sure. unless anybody else wants to make it. fine. >> we have a motion from president swig to continue this -- >> just one second. commissioner lopez, did you have a question? >> i do. i'm confused about what we gain by continuing this.

>> it's to get a set of plans for accommodation. >> i always get this structure confused. we get to the same point. they still have to submit fresh plans in order to build. so i'm not sure what we gain with a continuance. >> mr. green, would you like to address that? >> yes. if the permit is revoked today, they have to submit plans to legalize it. they can come up with a plans for the same size deck, we would be in the same plans or plans to reduce the size of the deck. >> i think your question is sometimes what we do is impose a

condition and it's over with the board and they come with a revised plan and they will change and it's done. >> there is so many conditions being placed on here. i would like to see a full set of plans. usually they have plans and we present them to you and we adopt them. there is different ways that they can design the stairs and the deck. it's to wait to see what the architect comes up with just so we don't miss any of your conditions. >> my next question would be a point of information for mr. rosenberg. it doesn't feel like we need another full rehearing, correct? >> it will probably be three minutes, well, it will be a confirmation that the plans exist. three minutes is an accommodation to the appellant

that he has seen that the plans have been submitted to the appellant and the appellant has seen the plans and recognizes that there are new plans, that the permit holder formally confirms that they have submitted the plans and comfortable with the plans submitted and the affirmation and nothing from planning and affirmation from dbi that they have the plans and the recommendation and permit goes forward or not. that's very swift, and of course public comment. >> yeah, i will support. it sounds like you have support on the board for a continuance. i have seen us do it before where we just say, here is your decision, and here are the conditions. i think we are pretty clear on what we want to do up here. so i guess i will

reiterate my hesitation about the need for a continuance. >> i think you can consider this a request and an accommodation to dbi because they feel that there is a level of difficulty here that they would like further controls by our board, and we would generally grant that accommodation to them as a support mechanism. >> okay. >> president swig, i support your approach and support your specifics and this doesn't have to be part of the motion, but i would encourage and dbi staff to utilize their bilingual staff on this as you stated it's difficult and complicated and communication in part. it's

complicated enough. you have a lot of good staff and if you have someone bilingual there it would be great to have something successful come back to us within 60 days. >> thank you very much for that recommendation. >> we have a motion from president swig to continue this item to may 17 so that the permit holder has an opportunity to revise the plans so that one, the two windows at the attic level are removed, two, the deck is lowered to grade or made no higher than 30 inches which removes the requirement for a firewall, and then three, the revised plans should not allow the dining room to be converted into a home office, and the 12 inch window at that location should be removed as well as the walls. >> there was a five foot setback

as well. >> thank you for that reminder, and lowering the deck to grade no higher than 30 inches, and a five foot setback from the appellant's property line. >> one further amendment, the removal of the windows to original condition. >> the removal of the windows? >> the windows up in the attic to an original condition. >> i thought we were removing them period. >> we are removing them period to the original condition. >> to the original condition of the house. >> removal of the two windows of the attic level to the original condition of the house. this motion was made on the basis that the basis of illegal work without a permit was completed and this rectifies

or -- >> rectifies the illegal work and addresses some of the work of the appellant. >> that's fine. >> [roll call] >> so that motion carries 5-0. >> that concludes the hearing. >> thank you for your patience, commissioners. thank you very much for your time. everybody. >> [ end of realtime captioning ] >> >>

>> i don't think you need to be an expert to look around and see the increasing frequency of fires throughout california. they are continuing at an ever-increasing rate every summer, and as we all know, the drought continues and huge shortages of water right now. i don't think you have to be an expert to see the impact. when people create greenhouse gases, we are doing so by different activities like burning fossil fuels and letting off carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and we also do this with food waste. when we waste solid food and leave it in the landfill, it puts methane gas into the atmosphere and that accelerates the rate at which we are warming our planet and makes all the effects of climate change worse. the good news is there are a lot of things that you can be doing, particularly composting and the added benefit is when the compost is actually applied to

the soil, it has the ability to reverse climate change by pulling carbon out of the atmosphere and into the soil and the t radios. and there is huge amount of science that is breaking right now around that. >> in the early 90s, san francisco hired some engineers to analyze the material san francisco was sending to landfill. they did a waste characterization study, and that showed that most of the material san francisco was sending to landfill could be composted. it was things like food scraps, coffee grounds and egg shells and sticks and leaves from gardening. together re-ecology in san francisco started this curbside composting program and we were the first city in the country to collect food scraps separately from other trash and turn them into compost. it turns out it was one of the

best things we ever did. it kept 2.5 million tons of material out of the landfill, produced a beautiful nutrient rich compost that has gone on to hundreds of farms, orchards and vineyards. so in that way you can manage your food scraps and produce far less methane. that is part of the solution. that gives people hope that we're doing something to slow down climate change. >> i have been into organic farming my whole life. when we started planting trees, it was natural to have compost from re-ecology. compost is how i work and the soil biology or the microbes feed the plant and our job as regenerative farmers is to feed the microbes with compost and they will feed the plant. it is very much like in business where you say take care of your employees and your employees will take carolinas of your

customers. the same thing. take care of the soil microbes and soil life and that will feed and take care of the plants. >> they love compost because it is a nutrient rich soil amendment. it is food for the soil. that is photosynthesis. pulling carbon from the atmosphere. pushing it back into the soil where it belongs. and the roots exude carbon into the soil. you are helping turn a farm into a carbon sink. it is an international model. delegations from 135 countries have come to study this program. and it actually helped inspire a new law in california, senate bill 1383. which requires cities in california to reduce the amount of compostable materials they send to landfills by 75% by 2025. and san francisco helped inspire this and this is a nation-leading policy. >> because we have such an immature relationship with

nature and the natural cycles and the carbon cycles, government does have to step in and protect the commons, which is soil, ocean, foryes, sir, and so forth. -- forest, and so fors. we know that our largest corporations are a significant percentage of carbon emission, and that the corporate community has significant role to play in reducing carbon emissions. unfortunately, we have no idea and no requirement that they disclose anything about the carbon footprint, the core operation and sp360 stands for the basic notion that large corporations should be transparent about the carbon footprint. it makes all the sense in the world and very common sense but is controversial. any time you are proposing a policy that is going to make real change and that will change behavior because we know that when corporations have to disclose and be transparent and have that kind of

accountability, there is going to be opposition. >> we have to provide technical assistance to comply with the state legislation sb1383 which requires them to have a food donation program. we keep the edible food local. and we are not composting it because we don't want to compost edible food. we want that food to get eaten within san francisco and feed folks in need. it is very unique in san francisco we have such a broad and expansive education program for the city. but also that we have partners in government and nonprofit that are dedicated to this work. at san francisco unified school district, we have a sustainability office and educators throughout the science department that are building it into the curriculum. making it easy for teachers to teach about this. we work together to build a pipeline for students so that when they are really young in

pre-k, they are just learning about the awe and wonder and beauty of nature and they are connecting to animals and things they would naturally find love and affinity towards. as they get older, concepts that keep them engaged like society and people and economics. >> california is experiencing many years of drought. dry periods. that is really hard on farms and is really challenging. compost helps farms get through these difficult times. how is that? compost is a natural sponge that attracts and retains water. and so when we put compost around the roots of plants, it holds any moisture there from rainfall or irrigation. it helps farms make that corner and that helps them grow for food. you can grow 30% more food in times of drought in you farm naturally with compost. farms and cities in california are very hip now to this fact that creating compost, providing

compost to farms helps communities survive and get through those dry periods. >> here is the thing. soil health, climate health, human health, one conversation. if we grow our food differently, we can capture all that excess carbon in the atmosphere and store it in unlimited quantities in the soil, that will create nutrient dense foods that will take care of most of our civilized diseases. so it's one conversation. people have to understand that they are nature. they can't separate. we started prowling the high plains in the 1870s and by the 1930s, 60 year, we turned it into a dust bowl. that is what ignorance looks like when you don't pay attention to nature. nature bats last. so people have to wake up. wake up. compost. >> it is really easy to get frustrated because we have this

belief that you have to be completely sustainable 24/7 in all aspects of your life. it is not about being perfect. it is about making a change here, a change there in your life. maybe saying, you know what? i don't have to drive to that particular place today. today i am going to take the bus or i'm going to walk. it is about having us is stainable in mind. that is -- it is about having sustainability in mind. that is how we move the dial. you don't have to be perfect all the time. >> san francisco has been and will continue to be one of the greener cities because there are communities who care about protecting a special ecosystem and habitat. thinking about the history of the ohlone and the native and indigenous people who are stewards of this land from that history to now with the ambitious climate action plan we just passed and the goals we have, i think we have a dedicated group of people who see the importance of this place. and who put effort into building

an infrastructure that actually makes it possible. >> we have a long history starting with the gold rush and the anti-war activism and that is also part of the environmental movement in the 60s and 70s. and of course, earth day in 1970 which is huge. and i feel very privileged to work for the city because we are on such a forefront of environmental issues, and we get calls from all over the world really to get information. how do cities create waste programs like they do in san francisco. we are looking into the few which you are and we want innovation. we want solutions.

>> planning commission regular hearing for thursday march 16th 2023. to enable public participation sf gov. tv is streaming this meeting live. each speaker will be allowed up to 3 minutes and when you have 30 seconds remaining, you'll hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. we will take public comment from persons in city hall first and then open up the remote access line. for those persons participating via web ex, please raise your hand. for those calling in to submit their