>> good evening, welcome to the july 12, 2023, board of appeals. >> vice-president jose lopez is absent this evening. at the control is the board legal system and i'm the executive director. we are also joined by the city department presented by the board this evening. the planning department. rebecca salgado, and # matthew green. no eating or drinking in the hearing room. the rules of presentation are as follows. . appellants and permit holders and respondents are given ten minutes to present their case and for rebuttal.

people affiliated with these parties must include a three minute period. >> we will give you a legal limit. if you have questions about requesting a hearing, please email board staff. ppq access and participation are # paramount to the board. sf govtv is also providing closed captioning. a link to the livestream is held on the website. >> public comment can be

provided in three ways. sf govtv is broadcasting and including the instructions. to block your number calling in, listen to the public comment portion for your item to be called and dial star nine which is the equivalent of raising your hand so we know you will want to speak. you may have to dial star 6 to unmute yourself. you will have three minutes and our legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. please note there is a delay and what is broadcasted on the tv. it's important that you lower the volume.

if you need special accommodations, you can email. please note that we will take public comment from those present in the hearing room. now we will swear those who are intending to testify. if you wish to give your testimony evidentiary weight, please raise your hand to be please raise your hand to be affirmed. this matter now pending before this commission, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? if you are not speaking, please pert put your speaker on mute. >> item 5, they would like to come to an agreement and adopt

the revised plans dated july 12th, provided that those plans are revised and incorporated the two revisions by the appellant. those revisions are, one, the party will need to be shown strattoing the property line. sheets 2811 and 12 need to be included as part of the revised plan. the parties have agreed and everyone is in support of this. we would need a motion. then i will ask for public comment. >> anybody want to make a motion or have any questions on this? >> dbi wants to speak. >> okay. >> good evening, president and commissioners. matthew green, department of building

inspection. i would like to remind you that there are four appeals, mechanical, electrical permit and the parties reagreed that we can state those permits under the condition of the suspended permit. that will take care of four appeals. >> you want us to adopt the plan with the permits are not effective until? >> there is four separate appeals here for the building, mechanical, plumbing, electrical. the plans submitted states the permit is conferring those with the board of appeals. this won't commence until the

main permit until it is reinstated by the planning department and there is a separate planning enforcement case going forward. >> okay, and that's not part of the permit isn't under, it hasn't been appealed, right? >> no, the permit that was appealed is a revision of the main permit. this is a very drawn out saga. >> the work won't commence until which permit is being reinstated. >> 0201, 0208273. >> dbi would be reinstated. >> correct, but at the planning department's request. >> okay. >> would you like to read the motion which hasn't been made yet which i anticipate will be made by somebody so that person knows how to state their motion,

please. >> okay. thank you. >> the proposed motion is to grant the appeals and issue the permits on the condition that they be revised to require the adoption of the revised plan dated july 12, 2023, provided they incorporate the two revisions by the appellant which i previously read, and with the proviso that the work won't commence until building permit no. 202102084273 is reinstated, and the basis will likely be that the parties agree to this and the departments agree based on the agreement of the parties and the department. >> okay. >> i have one question and

commissioner trasviña has his light on. >> i will defer to your question. president swig, eye a question. >> go ahead. mr. green will make his way to the podium. >> mr. green is key for me as well. the last time we had this before us we said we would continue this matter to july 12th to give the parties more time to confer and to submit and revised plans to address the concerns of the appellants and the departments. we haven't seen anything, but i want to make sure that it will assuage my concerns that we are not being asked to approve something we haven't seen if mr. green can tell us, one, that the department approves it and the department has seen everything that needs to be approved.

>> yes, we have. i met with both sides of counsel yesterday and we went through these plans. >> thank you. >> i have been waiting to ask this question since february when this first came up but never had the chance to hear it. i would like to ask the question not in the spirit of this particular case, but this is an oddball and i would think the commissioners and myself would be educated with the answer to this question. in my years as sitting on this commission, i have not had the opportunity to hear a case where a wall is shared by two owners because i guess that doesn't happen anymore, right? >> correct. >> yes. so what are the special, this is an odd one where a literal

building wall is shared by two building owners. you have to state that that's unusual. >> it is very unusual. >> so are there any special terms and conditions in the planning code that it incited that provides special rules and obviously this is never going to happen again. when you come across it, do you wing it or is there something in the planning code that says when there is a wall shared by two building owners. >> i won't comment on the planning code but the building code, the fire rating will remain between the two. we did the survey in the early 2000s.

it was difficult. this did not come on that list. so these buildings do exist. to save space and lumber, but it is an unusual situation. >> it is noted in the building rules and so when stuff like this happens, you know how to deal with it specifically in written form? >> what happens if we have to do a little more building code research because it is not an everyday event, but there are references to the building code. >> thank you very much. would anyone like to make a motion?

>> i move to grant the appeals pursuant to all the conditions. >> i need to check to see if there is any public comment for this item. if you are here to provide public comment, please raise your hand? >> okay, i don't see any public comment. on the motion by commissioner lemberg. >> [roll call] >> that motion carries 4-0. we have a waiting period, but i will reach out to ms. guerra and discuss the process for the issue of the permit. thank you. that concludes this

item. >> next item is general public comment. (1) public comment at this time, members of the public may address the board on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the board will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. public speaker: i'm here the provide to provide public comment and you were hoping for the time for the neighborly process without having to make a rule. it landed with me because i don't think that's representative of the actual experience out in the world trying to do things. we are not here and didn't reach a conclusion as a result of neighborly goodness finding its

way forward and the people with us that notified itself after construction and the stuff coming in the vents in our little girl's bedroom and found ourselves sort of under assault in our own home and looking for someone to help us and the city basically refused. and we ended up spending this college savings until they figured out how you to help us to protect us. that's a solution that is not available to the average resident of san francisco. this is a tens of thousand dollars process. it's not a neighborly goodwill. it's not neighborly goodwill, and it's not cooler heads prevailing. it is raw

money and knowledge of how the working of government works and we are lucky even if it comes at a cost. but most people of san francisco can't. by the number of people that probably need to be here in front of you and have no idea how to do that is great out there and the people that need help from dbi and planning is great out there. when we filed the initial complaint when things started going wrong we had to reach out to the planning department and that is something you have to plan for. i don't know anything about this stuff. i have learned a lot about it but we have learned it the hard way, right, in many ways. i'm happy to be at a resolution, and no offense to you and hope to never come back to this again but i recognize that getting here was not a reasonable

process. this resolution was not a reasonable process built on neighborly goodwill. i hope that as our case as a precedent for anyone that finds itself in this situation but i also want you to hear from regular citizens of san francisco how hard it was to get here and to know how to have you guys help us because i think there is not a situation where people are looking to actively help you when this happens. that's all. >> we don't normally respond to public comment but gives me an opportunity to do a public service announcement which would be very helpful. i appreciate your, and i have to say something to you and you can't give me feedback, that's just the rules. sorry about that. but i think you will like the

answer. >> twice, i think in the last two months, we have had situations where, and by the way, your experience is every week. we have people who, citizens who come in front of us every week first time and they didn't know when they bought that house this was going to happen to them. they didn't know what is a permit, what's not a permit. they don't know anything, and you know what, if i hadn't done public service for the last 20 years i wouldn't either and it's really scary. what the public service announcement is this: you have an elected official that's in your district, that's your supervisor, and this goes out to everybody who is listening here and for the public record. your supervisor is your fail safe

point. if you are not getting what you need and you are a voter or not, but you are a resident in san francisco, calling your supervisor representative and talking to their staff should provide you with answers to your questions especially when you are not being served according to your view or can't find service court ordering to your view of whatever you are achieving. i'm sorry that you experienced that. it's not unusual. it is a blind alley for everybody unfortunately unless you are experienced, but that's the way around it or way to address it. call your local supervisor, they should have staff to assist you. thank you for your comments. it's very helpful. >> thank you. >> i do see another hand raised. mr. osgood, are you here to

provide general public comment on this item? >> yes, if you don't mind. >> and not to talk about your case which is coming up. >> yes, i understand that, are but in the same vain, i have to say as an average joe, things are put up against one of the best attorneys in san francisco when you know, i'm just here to protest a local neighborhood issue. i mean that's quite a daunting task. and the cost is a factor. we didn't hire an attorney, but people certainly advise that. >> i feel like this is touching on your case. so i don't think we can allow this type of public comment. maybe after your case is resolved, you can come back to address the board with your

concerns on the process. >> well, i would like to address mr. swig's comments about contacting your supervisor. easier said than done. if you happen to support a candidate for office who doesn't win, you may very well be blackballed by your supervisor and not responsive and where do you go? that's a problem with district elections, i understand. but anything you folks can do to make this easier for the average person would be appreciated. thank you. >> thank you. is there any further general public comment? >> i don't see any. >> what are we doing about mr.

clips general public comment which we received by mail? >> we did receive a letter from mr. cliff. he expressed some concerns about prior cases heard by the board and you did remind me to ask you about it. >> i'm sorry that mr. cliff is not here to represent himself, but commissioners, you all received a letter from mr. clip that addressed some concerns much like 23rd avenue where we asked dbi to do something, they didn't do it. we didn't ask them, we put it in the motion. much like 23rd avenue, i use that as an example because it's the most recent, not because it's the worse or the best. we had a motion on an action on

market street. we requested an action by dpw. dpw according to mr. clip has not followed up on the results. >> right, i don't think we should have a substantive discussion about that. >> i'm just trying to frame the letter. i'm not discussing it because there is nobody testifying and the letter has been submitted. but after reading the letter and i would like to have some dialogue in response to the letter. it seems that dpw did not respond to what was put in the motion by this board and i would like to have ms. rosenberg contact dpw and indicate that we have received this letter and suggest that we have some commentary back. >> a response, okay, no problem.

>> does that work for everybody on this panel? >> alex lemberg: i'm fine with the idea. having read this letter, i support this body doing whatever we can especially as the bureau of urban forestry is not here at every meeting like planning and dbi tend to be. so if we can ask mr. buck or dpw as a whole to come to a future meeting and agendaize it to have a conversation about what the contents of this, i would certainly support that as well. i don't know what's in our ability? >> maybe we should get the letter to see what they say and make a decision at that point? >> that makes sense.

>> because i almost crossed the line as far as too much dialogue as ms. rosenberg pointed out. >> since we are writing a letter, it occurred to me in reading this letter that there is a new tool in getting dpw to comply with other city processes, i'm sorry, not dbi, but the department of public works so they can understand as well. >> great idea, thank you. >> john trasviña: thank you for that response. if we are having difficulty seeing our actions filled, then imagine the public

and it gets back to the discussion of the first party who came before us tonight. fortunately we are graced by the members of the board of supervisors who is active and listening and helpful and responsive. i would hope that collectively, we are able to help the city of bureaucracy to move forward, and i would ask president swig about the past if the matter is in the public comment predated at least my service and perhaps others, whether we have as part of our motions ask for a report back from the relevant departments as to the implementation or the status six months later as a routine matter. is that something that we can do? i think that might help move the discussion along, but i realize we can't take any action on this matter at the moment, but i wanted to hear from you if that might be a helpful way of

helping the public. >> richard swig: as commissioner lemberg suggested, let's make sure that dpw has received the letter, see if they would like to come and address this board at the time that we agendaize that item for this board. then it will become more of a full discussion and just maybe your questions might be answered and that accountability that i'm conjecturing that you are looking for might be addressed. >> okay, thank you. that was a mix of commissioner comments and questions. is there anymore comments or questions? >> i just need to check is there any public comment on this item?

>> okay. i'm going to adopt of minutes ago. (3) adoption of minutes discussion and possible adoption of the june 21, 2023 minutes. items (4a), (4b), (4c) & (4d) shall be heard together >> i move adoption of the minutes. >> is there any comment? >> all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? >> the minutes are adopted. >> we are moving onto items 4a, b and c. >> (4a) appeal no. 23-020 david osgood, appellant(s) vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 101 spear street. appealing the issuance on may 11, 2023, to hudson rincon center llc, of an alteration permit (sign c: install two illuminated double-faced projecting blade

signs for "tenant xyz rincon center"). permit no. 2021/0525/1018. for hearing today. (4b) appeal no. 23-021 david osgood, appellant(s) vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 101 spear street. appealing the issuance on may 11, 2023, to hudson rincon center llc, of an alteration permit (sign d: install one nonilluminated single face canopy sign for "tenant xyz"). permit no. 2021/0525/1021. for hearing today. (4c) appeal no. 23-022 david osgood, appellant(s) vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 101 spear street. appealing the issuance on may 12, 2023, to hudson rincon center llc, of an alteration permit (erect an electric, single-faced wall sign "rincon"; four total). permit no. 2021/0525/1015. for hearing today. (4d) appeal no. 23-023 david osgood, appellant(s) vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 101 spear street. appealing the issuance on may 12, 2023, to hudson rincon center llc, of an alteration permit (erect a non-electric single wallfaced sign permit "rincon center"). permit no. 2021/0525/1011. for hearing today.

>> mr. os ghat good, you have >> osgood, you have 28 minutes. >> thank you. >> i'm david osgood, the appellant. i have lived at rincon center for almost 30 years, almost half of my life. by the way, will you let me know if you have trouble hearing me. please feel free to interrupt. thanks to staff in helping in the preparation of all this. i see one familiar face. i understand that many of you are attorneys. i hope you agree that the city should not be giving special treatment to those simply because they are managed poorly. i hope you also agree this is more than just a legal matter. we believe, it's our understanding that