>> yes, i'm ready. >> welcome to april third of the san francisco board of appeals. vice president -- i need to check the sounds. vice president lemberg will presiding and joined by commissioner swig. travel vina and eppler. also is deputy city attorney jen hoover will provide legal advice. ooem julie rosenberg the executive director. we'll be joined by city departments that will be

presenting before the boofrmd up front corey teague reporting plan and kevin birmingham acting chief building inspector. the guide lines are as follows silence electronics so they will not disturb. no eating or drinking in the hearing room. appellates, permit holders and spanltds begin 7 admissibilities to present and 3 for rebuttal. people affiliated include comment in thes periods. members of the public not affiliated have 3 minutes to address the board and no rebuttal. our legal assistance will give you a 30 second warning. 4 votes are granted. if you have questions requesting a hearing or scheduled e mail staff at board of appeals. and now public access and participation are of importance to the board. sfgovtv is broadcasting and

streaming live and will have the ability to receive comment for each item on the agenda. and sfgovtv is also providing closed captioning. to watch it on tv go to cable channel 78. tell be rebroadcast on friday at 4 p.m. on channel 26. and a link to the live stream is on the home page at sfgov.org/boa. public comment can be provided one in person. two via zoom. go to the website/boa and click on the zoom under hearing section. you can provide public comment by phone. and sfgov.org is streaming the number and instructions on the bottom of the screen if you are watching the stroll. to brock your number dial star

67 then the number. listen for the public comment and dial star 9 equal of raising hands so we know you want to speak. you will be brought in the hearing room. you may have to dial star 6 to unmute yourself you will have 3 minutes and a 30 second warning before your time is up there is a delay with live proceedings and live streamed on tv. it is important that people call nothing reduce or turn off volume. if the participates or atendseeos zoom need assistance make a request in the chat to alec the board's legal assistant or send an e mail. the chat function cannot be used for public comment or pregnancy. note that we will take public comment from those members present. now we will swear in or affirm those who intends to testifiment note that any member may speak

without an oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance if you intends to testify tonight and wish to have the board give evidenceary weight raise your right hand and say, i do. do you wear tht testimony you are about to gift truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth? okay. thank you. if you are a participate and you are in the speaking put zoom speaker on mute. commissioners we have a housekeeping item of item 4 appeal 24-009, 100, 233 and 251 gear and he 345 stockton has been with drawn by appellates that matter will not be heard tonight. >> okay. >> commissioner trasvina. >> i want to inquire weather the letter that the appellate submitted is is that part of the public record? >> yes. we'll include it.

>> thank you >> we are moving on item one, general public comment. an opportunity for anyone withhold like to speak within the board's jurisdiction but that is in the on tonight's calendar. is there a member who wishes to speak on an item not on tonight's agendaful i see two hands raised. on zoom. anyone in the room? vick guy are you here for general public comment? he put his hand down the number end nothing 6663? are you here for general public comment? you may need to press star 6 to unmute yourself. alec. if i a cohost? i'm not seeing the option. do you want to try?

thanks for that tip this is vick. >> can you start over. we just are you in hearing you. is this for general public comment not an item on the agenda? hello. the number in 6663? for an item on the agenda. thank you. can you put your hand down we are not on that item yet. and vick guy are you here for an item on the agenda? can you allow him to speak.

ozy ram? can you hear me. are you here for an item on the agenda. yes, i am then i'm confused about the phone line. and what i'm supposed to press when i'm raze to speak i dialed the number and i dialled the code but then you know i was not instructed on standing by or what -- >> okay. our agenda on our website has instructions. but basically when it is your turn you raise your hand. press star 6 that will raise your hands if you call by phone when it is your turn we will call you. >> great. >> looks like i can use the zoom for this purpose. i am comfortable to keep going on zoom. star 9 will raise your hand on the phone raise your hand when we get to your item

>> thank you. do i lower it or the system will lower it. >> it is lowered you would have to lower it. we need to move of vick guy. are you here for general public comment? we will call when you it is time for that you can put your hand down. thank you. is there anyone here for general public comment. i don't see any hands we'll move on to item 2. commissioner comments and questions? all right we can move on. >> okay. thank you. so we are now moving to 3 the adoption of the minutes. before you for discussion the minutes of march 27th meeting

commissioner trasvina proposed an amendment to the minutes for 6a and b sunday of stefani as an agents for the permit holdser he would like the minutes to say she say parent of a chieldz at the school adjacent to the property and shared the appellate's speaking time. move to adopt the minutes as amended by commissioner trasvina. why public comment on this motion to adopt the minutes amended by commissioner trasvina. >> no one in the room or zoom. that motion commissioner trasvina. >> aye. >> commissioner eppler. >> aye >> commissioner swig. >> aye that carries 4-0. >> we'll now move on to as i mentioned item 4 is with drawn. we'll move on to item 5. this is appeal 24-008.

edward gotovskiy and freed man appellates versus planning department. santa rosa avenue the issuance on january 23 of 24 to chen of the site permit e rekt a 3 story single family building with accessory. permit 2021, 10, 29, 14, 97. we'll hear from the appellate first. thank you very much. commissioners. members.

i know the best public speaker i apologize. it is frustrating. however, hel edward gotovskiy and my wife. we would like to thank you for giving us this opportunity to present our appeal. our first concern is privacy and security of our home at 35 santa rosa avenue in san francisco. during our first and only meeting with mr. ting back in 2020 we brought our concern about the second floor balcony at our first concern. he told us that is -- an easy fix. and will look into it. the balcony this close to our bedroom window placed a privacy and safety issues as well.

unfortunately, there has been accidents in a strainingers getting in our backyard as well as the backyards of our neighbors. there will be stairs going from the backyard to second floor balcony shown on our exhibit number 1. therefore, anybody who gets into the 39 santa rosa backyard will have access to our balcony and from that balcontow our window. mr. tang stated in his brief that will put wall to the balcony and adjacent to our wall. i don't understand it took 3 years and this appeal to come up with such simple solution. considering this was the first thing we pointed during our first meeting. back in 2020.

this situation makes us nervous about integrity of the team behind this project. including the owner. as we don't know if mr. tang informed him about our concern. he was not present in our zoom meeting. this house will be adjacent to our house and any short cuts that might be taking during the building will affect our home directly. going down to the next issue. address discrepancy was brought up to our first meeting mr. tang explained in his brief this issue will be addressed shortly. which is great. however it seems to me it could have been done in the past 3 years to avoid confusion. with the correct address on the

current documents. the last but in the the least is removal of the historical palm stroll. the tree was beautiful and neighborhood landmark. we do understand that it has to be removeed build a house what we don't understand is first, why it has to be cut down it could have been relocated, donated, sold. and the second concern, second is why cut down in a rush? mr. tang's first project he should know permits per building of a newhouse in san francisco take years. in this case 3 years. i would like ton why this not for the cutting tree paper note has been tucked under the look

instead of security taped or stapled to the fence. in is a busy street and we don't know how long that note stayed before it fell down or someone could have rip or trashed t. we live next door and we never saw this note. otherwise, we would raise our concern. immediately. and the conclusion. in conclusion i would like to bring to your attention the fact that our safety concerns number discrepancy could have been addressed by letting us know what is going on by e mail simple low by the letter or by the new meeting. alcohol take this meeting total low unnecessary. and save everyone a lot of time.

i believe that those 3 issue would not have been addressed if we did not file this appeal. i will ask -- why we are here. when we want. we would like we want this house to be built without extension and balcony. however, if not possible, we would like to propose wall on the balcontow be make at least 7 feet tall. to separate new construction build to ensure our safety. i also would like to bring to your attention that, that the way this simple issue were handle reenforce our doubts about mr. tang and chen. commitment necessary to achieve optimal results and how much they care about neighborhoodses.

and us. the future next door neighbors. construction however, of a now much big are house twice size of ours. will close that will be be close to older building of house. might bring problems. all of them of for example from grounds shifting. 30 seconds. >> from grounds shifting which may cause cracks and damage to our house to damage to the wall during construction which would be visible from outside. like to ask all permits and construction the house received a close attention and we don't trust tell be done properly with care to our surroundings. thank you very much.

thank you. i don't see questions at this time. so. you can be seated. >> we will hear from the permitted holders. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm andrew. mr. tang is the mentioned a couple times. can you speak more in the microphone? can you hear me fine? okay. i would like to thank you for having this opportunity for me to get the reasons behind some of the decisions that the next door neighbor has. i would admit we did drop the ball on not addressing the balcony issues at first. we at the preapplication meeting it was during the height of the pandemic. it was rushed through. we followed through and we responded back that we will

build some barriers with our balcony with the neighbor's wall with the neighbor's wall. but i guess has been busy and did not get carried through and it was not built and not submitted for the second permit it was not erected at that side. but throughout the time, the whole team and our office thinking of ways to mitigate issues. work with the owners to make tour sure we will address that mitigate message to see what we can did to reduce that privacy it is a one -- 2 story above adu and we do answer a 25% of a

setback that put which would all the way out of 10 foot more than what we allow as existing now. but we understand that we want to create less of an obstruction and disturbance to neighbors. from the beginning, as we want to create a harmonious environment with neighbors, we did not push all the way back as allowd and restrain ourselves to the extension. so that it will not create as much as an obstruction to the neighbors at the rear yards. in that sense, we give we hopeful low we have a good deed to show the neighbors we are not taking the most potential of the site and we are still respecting the neighbors space.

so, i think we voluntary create that wall. i heard from the neighbors correctly. he would suggest to have it 7 foot and we are okay with that mitigation. that we could if possible by building and planning upon departments we will do the 7 foot solid fire rated walls to protect the visual connections to our balcontow their walls. the second 90 it was brought up is the we submit the permits that number did noted go through

the permit process yet. we are not sure of the procedure wise and what we should submit first to get the number changed and we do agree that number is confusing and it will trigger confusion in the future we are okay with the street number changed for our building. the third point it was indicated the issues. i think just because the owners are very eager to talk to the projects when the permits the post was posted on the fence. and noticed. and there was no objection after the 30-day notice and permit issues mr. chen the ordinance of the property hop in and just call update tree cutting companies and have the tree

taken care of. it was quicker than one neighbor anticipated. in this sense i think, yea, it is it is a bit quick decision this the owner did because he wanted to have the projects go as quick as possible it has been a long time in the review process. i think that is all the points i have. to address what the neighbors, thank you. why thank you. we have a few questions from vice president lemberg, travel vina and commissioner swig. >> thank you. i want to verify something you said which is regarding so. the balcony -- is not represent instead current set of plans? or the wall on the balcony? >> the wall, typical 42 inches

tall. but we wanted make it sick foot high it will be blocking the vision. yea. the current are set reflect the 42 inch. >> correct. why okay. >> and then what -- you said that the it was include not guiltied original set of plans but did not get built at all? is that correct? or may be i misunderstood. why no, no. it was shown on the plans that we will have i 42 inches high solid guard rails. >> has construction begun >> no it is permits. we do have a process to go

through next. >> okay. that's all i got. commissioner trasvina. >> you mention third degree project going on for awhile. can you explain the level of communication there has been between mr. chen and the appellates? >> um, let's see. mr. chen has language barrier but he is a very hand's on developer. actually. so he has been on the site, does he live there. >> no temperature is an empty lot, actually. empty lot so the changes to the empty lots and building a new build would impact the neighbors i do understand that it is a to developed a 3 story high building. i think mr. chan has been on the

lot while building new fences. and also talking with the neighbors on the other side instead of the 35 -- edwards. he has been also on the site on dealing with the tree kuth. he was the mr. chen the property ordinance all the cordination with the tree cutting. he has been on the site but in terms of just communicating with neighbors and mr. edward i don't think there was too much of a communication with the 2. >> that concerns me when you say a professional and will this field of developing and must know the importance of communication with the property owners and there has not been anymore i bring it up because as vice president lemberg has asked about whether the 42 inch system

in or not. on the second issue of the building the numbers. you seem to describe it you are willing to allow that to happen. as opposed to committed to changing it. as we -- resolve this matter,mented know how -- specific we need to be in order to make sure the things you may express as willing to do or open gets done. because it is not starting out well. so -- tell me on the you described on the first item, that you or the the agents you are committed to the higher wall? >> correct? >> that's right. >> and on the building numbers, the numbers for the property?

>> yes. >> that is is that a process that you are the owner will initiate? we will. actually. i would hope that dbi would us on that. i think we reach out to the permitting search through e mails mr. chan did. e mailed to see the process for changing the street numbers. for the properties. and we got some misleading some -- conflicting information. but we do certainly would go forward with doing upon changing the street numbers, >> thank you. >> yea. >> commissioner swig? >> i gallon in the same direction. get clearer. were you the architect, agent? architect. >> architect. >> there was a 311 notice it is site permit was there a meeting?

there was a preapplication and meeting. tell me about it and did the neighbor attends, was the neighbor invited. all the neighbors were invited. there was a chart look of what most low occurrence are and those concerns were shown to the brief as well. how many people showed up? >> probably 11 or 12. >> yea. >> and the neighbor on -- both sides? >> on the -- on the if you look at the building on the right side. not the appellate? >> they did. >> they did. and the people on the other side, too. >> good. >> okay. i reach out to them and i sort of delivered plans over e mailed plans over. to explain the. >> i'm going to move along so i

don't waste time. 2 numbers on the height of wall 7 feet or 6 feet? i will ask mr. teague about the planning what is the level of a wall. >> whatever makes the neighbors happy and satisfied. >> you said first you said 7 then 6 feet. 6 is when we drawn before today's meeting that is when i heard today he preferred to have it 7. >> and i didn't see that wall as part of the plans have they been submitted it is on holds now. >> okay. >> second thing, i mean i will ask mr. teague about the tree. the and the mr. teague about how the street number. and that's a new one me. that is special.

is this a speck house. mr. chen leaseing house or for development profit y. he still debating one time he wanted move in to live there. on the top floor we built the design is got his liking.

planning department in a 40x height district and vacant not a building there that was demoed or proposeed be. this lot was previously subdivide friday an adjacent lot in year's past. the permit is for proposed new construction of a 3 story building a standard unit on second and third and ad sxushgs garage on the ground floor. there was a preapplication meeting there were 5 neighbors. the appellate did and raise concerns during that time i believe some of the issue were addressed the plans clearly not

all of them. the project did receive design comments from planning and other minor revisions made. the permit went out for section 311 neighborhood notification. and -- during that period there was no dr filed. it was consistent with the design guidelines and the planning code. and the permit was issued in january of this year. regarding the tree, this was a matter that was permitted and approved for removal from public works. the bureau of urban forestry and this permit references the permit received from bureau of urban forestry from that removal they inspected the site before signing off on the removal of

that tree. that was a public works permit in process separate from the permit and the planning department review. the required property is 30%. we do allow pop out to go in the required rear yard no further than the 25% line and for this property that's when they propose one story property 39 property line up to the 25% america is proposed here. as mentioned, as proposed and issued, that pop out would have solid railing of 42 inches the max on the property line would be 6 feet. there is an opportunity to go higher if you full off the property line. a one to one if you full off the property line up to 7 feet.

so those other 2 options that are floated. that was what would be permitted under the code. otherwise, other than that issue that is addressed by wall, again the department determine today to be with the design guidelines. department's permit issued correct low. if the permit hold and board and the appellate agree to adding a code compliant wall the planning department would have no issue. with that, recommend aside from this issue however you want to the permit was code compliant. and issue appropriately. i'm available for questions you

may have >> commissioner swig. you made recommendations. were they heedd and have they been put on to the plan? >> yes. whenever we dot comment and code. no dr foiled we sign autopsy and, prove. i got a sense the wall in question now i'm confused.ed it on the deck? opposed to the property. the property line? i think my understanding and of course others can correct me is that00 autorear pop out guess up to the side property line and abutts the appellate's property and their wind sxoes that's where the privacy issue is raised. on the deck but at the property

line. that's where i got confused you had me until one foot off if you have you will build a fence on the deck, does this money you have to bring the deck in one foot off the property line and build the and then build the snen >> you are allowed on the property line at 6 feet. you don't change anything. the code says for a pop out a pop out you are going in the required rear yard. you are in the required rear yard limits how you obstruct to the rear yard. for a one story pop out like this, it stays if you want to do a fence on the property line 6 feet if you mean want to do taller you can but squeeze it in. you get extra height with the distance so you are not doing a

taller fence. they would not have to bring the structure in another foot. they would lose a foot of usability of that deck space if they did a 70 foot fence there. that is 6 and 1-1/2 and dozen in the other. wild be fine with the 6 foot on the property line. >> tell mow about 3 numbers. i never seen on a city plot map go from you know 31, 37, 35. >> i will happy low defer to my clothe at dbi they handle address assignments. mr. birmingham can tell us how that happened since the architect and the sponsor are

confused how to get it done.

he addressed all the occurrence the numbering of the lot goes back before it was split can this point one number assigned 35. there is an easy way to fix it. information sheet. g06 administration permit to correct the address for this lot it is in the a big deal. we would like to see that observe the addendum was issued. it is not that hard of a procedure to correct the address or reassign.

we feel it should be issued. >> commissioner swig. if we move forward tonight and grant the appeal and make it a change on the fence should we make mention in that motion to reassign a new address? >> yea. that would trigger you all -- you would. get it done. i set it up and lost my question. joy will finds it and ask you in rebuttal yoochl sorry. >> other questions. i don't see we will move to public comment is well anyone in

the recommend to provide comment on this item? anyone on zoom? i see one hand raised? ys kim of upon 39 santa rosa in >> yes. go ahead. i'm a neighbor that lived on the first block. and some of my occurrence have to do in addition to what edward brought up we have a property developer building a 3 story building does not seem to meet the design characteristic laid out in the design guideline being a 3 story box building? and i fear that -- a look of long-term residents including

the family that had the 1900 this were sacrificing the feel and the characteristic of the neighborhood for someone that will notteen upon even live on the block. i see traffic jams. thought of changing that characteristic. we don't have 3 story homes. >> okay. thank you. is there further public comment. rebuttal we'll hear from appellates for 3 minutes.

>> mr. gotovskiy. you have 3 minutes to address the board. okay. >> so then we will hear from mr. tang again. do we have a question for the. yes. vice president lemberg has a question for you if you can approach. do you have opinions about what the planning was saying regarding a 6 foot fence on the property line versus a 7 not off of the property line, those are options available. >> thank you for the question. i mean. the reason i brought 7 foot barrier because of my height. i can jump over 6 foot now. so i would like to make it 7.

we of course we have to follow the code until then and also would like to make sure that -- the barrier is fire protection material. of course what i want it is one thing. whatever allowed by the court is the law and we have to follow it i respect the decision. >> understood. thank you. >> thank you very much. first i want to thank you for your presentation. on the matter. and the purpose of the ball to you is -- is it -- more for private easy or safety. >> both. >> it is our window is very

close to the age edge of my property and mast are bedroom window and it is easy to easy to reach to my window from the balcony. just want to have a protection. and security and privacy. why thank you. >> thank you. vice president lemberg >> no. >> you can be seated >> thank you, >> we'll hear from the permit holdser. i don't have much to ad i wanted to let the ordinance of next door know now on and i understand that changes in the just always happen today it is an empty lot we are building a 3 story building impacts and just want to add for patience and bear with us during the construction time. now we need to establish a

better communication with the neighbors so we don't have to come to this situation to have this simple matter taken care of. promise them we can use e mails and phone calls to build a better communication. from now on me and mr. chan will be more transparent and communicate with neighbors >> thank you. now the planning departmentful thank you. a couple quick updates based on comments. the site is vacant. it is the max number of units are two the standard and adu.

it is not used adu and local program are not eligible for short term rental. and on the size and character the design review staff determined this -- lot to be in the mixad character influenced by large 3 story building. and also mix of homes that are 2 stories with a gabed roof to add height. determined it was consistent with the design guidelines. i'm available for questions you may have. >> next. i don't see questions. we will hear from dbi. remember your question? >> i gotta it came back i knew when i shut up it would come up.

>> so, we heard over and over again justified when a new construction is happening, next to very close lot line and urban neighborhoods the issue of disruption under mining what will happen is my existing structure is the niche going to get injured and how we will prevent this. could you tell me for benefit. during a heavy construction process which might impact a foundation. might have vibration. might the fear is criticing a wall. all the things that we heard does not happen all the time. but could happen.

so would you explain you to and for the benefit of the appellate what the protections are in heavy construction next door? >> at the start of the project we have a start a work inspection the inspector meets with the contractor and develop and he will explain what he wishes to see if there is the lot of expectation there is in the in this house they have to fill out a silv notification than i will work within 30 days. of at is that meeting we can reach out to the neighbors and meet with building inspector. >> the moting and we will talk about noise and dust mitigation

and it is especially with the church and conducting traffic on the street its is concerned. as it would be for as well. between ourselves and neighbors and the owner. is you not big thing. thank you. i'm sure you brought more comfort to the appellates in the situation. >> the form for the address correction is g06. >> that's our information sheet tells them how to fill out a permit to address the address. to -- yea. >> instruction sheet. thank you. >> i don't see questions. so commissioners this merit is submitted. >> um -- i think i went in the

direction indicated the direction i will go. pleased make a motion to only been 10 years uphold the appeal with the condition based and issue the permit based on the condition that a 7 foot wall with one foot setback from property line put in the plans and the proper process julie you can put in the numbers, of reassigning number a street number will be completed prior to construction. okay. . commissioner eppler -- we can take a vote

>> i agree. i would like to instead advocate for the 6 foot wall on the property line the reason is this will be on a patio that has furniture from the point of scaling said twlaul is no difference the material difference between the two is where this wall is on something that will exist anyway. if you slide the wall over a foot you get over the with you you have a foot place to stand and access the property. we are not scaling back the bump out from the grounds floor. we are picturing where the wall guess. having the wall adjacent you make it difficult to access the niche's property well is in place to stand and get down you are on the top of the wall and nothing on the neighbor's property to access.

i advocate the 6 foot wall. >> i adjust my motion to your recommendation you are absolutely right. with no one foot set become from the property line. >> commissioner trasvina? i upon will support the motion. >> >> okay. i want to clarify dbi do we need to specify a one hour fire rated wall? okay. so, we have a motion from commissioner swig to grant the permit on the condition it revised require that the property line wall abutting the appellate's property raised to 6 feet and be an hour fire rated. we have the permit holder with dbi to correct the address.

>> that it public low addresses the privacy and safety concerns and corrects the error with the address? >> they are in that the in that the permit was proper low issued however, and you can put in those issues related to the safety and security of the neighbor and -- the need to have a primary order of address on the street. okay. >> okay. >> and -- i think -- thank you. lemberg. that motion carries 4-0. mr. tang will be in touch tomorrow about the press for submitting revised plans.

you will need a special condition permit. okay. thank you. we will move on to item 6a and 6b. service a appeal number 24-011. jennifer mei and lui versus dbi planning department approval. subject property 4547 bernard issuance on january 24 to tina and lindsey huston. existing brick foundation and siding consists of seismic soft store upgrade with 9 foot rear yard addition and fire exit code finished to match existing permit 2020082224, and appeal 6b item 6b24-010 the permit holdser

tina and lindsey huston versus dbi planning department approval. peeling the same permit. and so we will hear from the appellates for 24-011 first. mrs. mei? and lui? welcome. you have 7 minutes. good evening vice president lemberg and commissioners. i represent lui and jennifer mei the appellates and neighbors of 45 bernard. and john lum an experienced architect familiar with the various plans the sponses submitted we are here this project is a mess. initial matter it is important the board consider whether it is right for review. project consists of remodel, expansion and legalization of adu the adu is not part of the

plan submitted. it is possible upon begin the past actions the sponsors intentions to build beyond the scope. we believe it did noensure this probable complied related mid block open space and light and air. importance of maintaining open space. mr. lum will explain the plans are unclear and inconsistent and

code violations life safety issues related fire and did not follow the planning requirements. they are asking the board to approve a different project than proposed with that doctor lui. >> commissioners my part in jennifer mil and i live at 1146 pacific for almost 80 years, 4 generations of my family lived here. we ask the board deny the huston's appeal and approve our appeal to submit the planning recommendation october 4 of 2020 with one exception. ask that more green rear yard open space than the planning commission approved this map. over head. this map of upper china town.

the bound easier of broad way to sacramento. 11worth the green area the open space and the alley ways will other, is -- this map focuses on mid block open space of the site. the limited open space for sunlight and privacy. illustration 3 -- shoes the eastern view. this photo of the proximity of building stairways. west side has more open space and intent to preserve temperature you will hear from others who's building, jaycent to the site that they can ask the board to require the childrens to comply with the residential design guideline

preserving mid block open space and light and air to the neighboring building. thank you. why the aushth reviewed this when submitted for the 3 complen pointed out code violations that are in the drawings. during the 311 hearing planning raised concerns reviewing a project not meet code. ed drawings don't wrap the 311 project. the project sponsors uncooperative and with held the project for a review until briefs were submitted. the disorganization of the drawings and code violations

criminalitied to the plan check they don't meet standard of care. we believe that require the experience to revert to the original drawings approved by the planning commission and include the fire sprinklers. add-on a condition to approve the adu completed before the permit is signed and the unit rent controlled. suspend until a second plan check by fire. look at this slide. believing they can -- use the fire escape for access to the rear yard. removed the sprinklers from the

project forces the need of egress they are river low approved egress necessary for the roar reducing the 15 foot yard to 13 foot 4 in the impacted neighborhoods. justification for the fire escape roof access for a future deck. avoiding 317 hearing begin the

history of 11 low income seniors who are evicted by the experience we ask the board to require the adu the condition approval. >> drawings have errors. sidewalk blocked by security gates to life safety concerns. the main stair case and gas opening [inaudible] the response disregards saying the issues dealt with and the drawings are fluid. there is no way to appeal error in code. >> thank you. >> i don't see questions at this time. you can be seated. we will hear from the permit holders.

the permit holders have 47 minutes responds to this and than i have their own appeal. good evening i'm lindsey huston

thank you for your time. we want to highlight when we are hope to cover and know there is a lot. we will speak to the condition of the property. the scope hurdles and time lines. appeals, modifications and what is asked before the board i this is my primary residents. bernard is a 3 unit building with basement in knob hill. purchased in fall of 2019 as our primary resident. the appellates themselves other nentials to the south on pacific. and involved the neighbor to the east. today is the south the others will be public. we have i tenant this live in unit 45 for over 40 years she is supportive of the project. we talk about the conscience of the property we recognize her right to reoccupy. we will provide required reelection. renovation and this is our only

home. keep communicate with her and her family. the property continue is in disrepair. building never maintained. that was the condition from the prior land lord. units are small not functional and lack shared living spaces and 50 years of deferred maintenance. well is water damage and the rear of the structure. neglect by the prior lands lord. pluming and electric. windows will not open and windows that people were using as a bedroom that have no exterior windows the basement we are happy to answer about is not habitable the place where utilities are the gas meter. it has a bedroom in it. which is a source of the confusion. but it is not habitable space.

our project scope hopeed workom foundation, seismic upgrades bring the tied in the basement addressing the maintenance and code issues. many of which will benefit the tenant herself. we are proposing a minor extension that will remove that porch where our kitchen and bathroom not on foundation it is settled ripped off and we will extend the foundation and space to provide private space and functional living space. we have been in 4 years trying to get this perimism 3 hearings sorry. numerous revisions. sorry. and we have not been afford a single conversation with these neighbors. we made concessions to date this address every one of their

requirements. reduced the building by two feet you see we will offer comply with planning code and reduce 3 inches further. we inset the windows. went through the dr hearing. i really apologize i'm stressed out a bit. >> and restricted the project further and we went through a ceqa appeal and now we are here. garther myself. >> good evening. i'm jenny huston the co-owner of the property with my daughter lindsey. we am cover this slide here we feel there is confusion what is in the appeal and it is project as a whole. in our review the appellate over states the complexity of this project. i chose that word carefully this is a simple renovation with minor expansion complying with

planning code and w within existing conscience. the building you are not touching at all. the this slide out livens the points for review and focuses on the 3 simple topics here. the first is the roar yard. our modified request we understand there was a planning code change this occurred with the time our permit approved and issued. our modified request for code compliant set become alined with the characteristic which is in line with the residential design guide lines. we urge against imposing unnecessary low restrictive set becomes to accommodate a rear neighbor property benefits from a deep setback of 4 store and he roof deck optimized the maximize their usable space. the planning code changed and willing to make concessions to

get to that planning code different than the 2019 code which we based our plans. second, you see the second row restrictions posed by the dr. we are asking in our appeal to remove the conditions. that will allow us to create more open space and also to remove the flooring and stair layout constraints allow us to enhance the efficiency. you realize these are small units 700 square feet with the attached porch. all of this within code. and within the existing conditions. the third topic is mentioned the basement. under this permit our focus is the foundation work. basement modifications and creation of emergency e egress the architect got up and spoke

recommended in fact at the dr provide emergency from the rear yard this was in our preapplication or planning meeting with the dbi this would be required. we have a budget to adhere to for the project. so, this is a consideration for us. and if we decide to pursue this that will be under another perimism asked to separate the separate permit by the city. okay shift now to the detail on the topic. the primary source of concern here for the appellate is the rear yard setback. the appellate is asking to you impose the third i'm sorry floor plan as you see in the neighborhood the neighbor's property 51 bernard a single family resident asking to impose that same design standards on a 3 unit building. this is inpromote. the board should not allow the

appellate to dictate an arbitrary 22 foot set bike by virtue of a vague preserve mid block open space guideline no circumstances to warranty the requests. the planning code considers open space and does so in an actionable way and with specificity. project clear steps within the existing mid block open context. proposed as built. it would still be 90% of the properties on the block this have -- less setbacks. it is what is proposed code compliant and comfortabletive. 2 properties including the appellates sit at 9 feet and 11 not including the stairs. which are noncompliant. i will picture speaks a thousand

words we got pictures here. first one is slide 12 depicts the neighborhood context the right is looking east. you see the shallow setbacks of the neighborhood context and the stairs are at or on the prospect line. on the left is an arial view and the small photo shows the looking at the property from the niche's deck. slide 13. next. this slide focuses on the appellate's property. highlighting the proximity not property line the appellate that just spoke. the windows you will notice have been replaced with floor to ceiling glazing on the left the property is looking looking east and west. from the front you see the fourth story addition to the appellate's property. and just one other point on the back what is on the back is

noted bedroom they are half a commercial and half residential space. in the back should be commercial space and living area and we believe on the roof is a bathroom. there is no bedroom in thes rear. slide 1439 bernard a property to the east of us. you see from this photo there is deep blinds wall. so in a perfect world if we did not have the 5 foot setbacks we would put a stair up against this wall. stairs are 7 feet from the property line this shows where 15 foot setback would be relative to this existing structure. note the window is facing in our rear yard and a deck at the edge looking to the property. slide 15, includes a small shade study. 51 the subject of as built variance required.

the appellate tried force the 51 bernard owner opposing our project with a confidential agreement. in exchange for not opposing his variance. note the variance was approved under the 2019 planning code would establish a set become for 59 foot 9 inches. on the right the shade study. no point during the day will our property cast shadow or loss of light for the neighbor property. we are to the north of the appellate. so it is the opposite. you see from the small picture in the corner that we tried to plant grass which died because of the shade and debris that is cast from the appellate's tree. slide 16, emphasizes visibility of our yard and the roof decks. wlindzel talk about the dr and we were asked to remove the roof

deck no consideration for the fact every neighbor on every side has an officer deck we were asked to remove ours. the 3 neighbors have roof decks that are at the edge of their building. in the picture you see is also of the backyard. this funnel shows basically the line of site to our yard. the appellate will refer to open space. you see this is a private year yard and you see the impact of this. will neighbors on 39 have a wall they cannot seat property or the rear yard. 51 bernard a view from the upper deck. the two neighbors may have a slight of skew from the windows. looking around the tree or the fire skaechl

>> now back to lindsey. we ask the d r motion language removed all together. we did discuss a number of circumstance this is came up post hearing we were made aware of. what we want to reiterate we made substantial effort, 15 plus times two preplanning hearings to meet with the folks and they have refused. and never speak with us they decide they want to meet with planning commissioners before the hearing have them to their house. we are not understanding when about that behavior is acceptable. ful but if than i want to do that that's fine we ask that

when we showed up we thought we had the same 7 minutes and that was not the case. so, that's all i want to say about that nothing exceptionalor extraordinary the circumstances my mom discuss third degree property comply with thes kaeshg of the mid block open space. we want to highlight the roof deck is important. it we continue is can seem to be a beneficial thing. and very dense areas. thank you. the last thing they delay unrelated we argue our plans will be updated based on the request comply with planning code and the basement is not easy happy to answer questions on that to explain that.

dr made their changes. and your last slide you being you put the last slide back up. this one? >> the i guess that is the last one. the dr was taken and made some dr means this is when they want you to do. >> yes. >> and in your testimony you say we don't want to do that. all right. andure didn't tell us. >> okay. detail of exactly what you don't

want to do. and as director in the the design review. a we don't want to do it does not work here we have to know this can we go back to the left slide and reverse your comments we don't want to do it regards to the dr direction. at the dr what i mean -- we want to make neighbors happy the reduction of 2 feet we were not expectingly much else. the roof dock and they asked when they proposed modifications why do we want it isn't answer

we gave is that these are dense looks. i live there with my fancy we want to get married have a kited. having intearior pits they are not huge they are 2 bedroom and two bath. by get that willing roof deck we don't have to provide the porch on level that allows us to have more interior space the propoedz roof deck was set become on all sides by 5 feet. it was mod sxeft just achieving the open space requirement. remove nag now we have to provide the space on the floor cuts in the physical space. the other argument we had made at the hearing which is why don't you go down to the basement and reality when you are on the third floor we don't go down to the basement t. is a functional source of open space for you to have it closer to the unit. what we would like iffeen i think the comments made was that

the bulking or massing again the property line was the issue we would redesign it and interior access it does not bulk or protrude to the mid block space. to get this back if we set it back we further back that would work for them. we would be willing it provides ability to get open space for the third unit next to the unit. and provide more space interior when we have kids it is space. it is tight. the 3 items that were handled with the dr were related one to remove the roof deck other to configure this third floor to the second floor providing that open space on the deck itself. on that level itself. and the 30 was to remove stair case to the officer. what commissioner moore did not like about that was it was massed up against the 51 bernard

property. you know our assumption than i went together if in the massed up and provided a light are elegant design that would not have been an issue. the other thing is i heard them today skw the roof deck removed that was not in the original dr that was something planning themselves took up as an action it was not asked by requestor. >> going you bring up plans. the appellant i'm confused by the plans i seen a lot and this one had me talking to myself. this weekend. and and the will appellant came and said the plans that came out of the design review and submitted by the project experience were different from what the plans were originally and nothing to do with the

design review and so that's further added to my feeling of ambigutey. what plans are we using? are we usingior original? using the dr review recommendations with or are we gone a whole new set of plans i'm confused. i will ask mr. teague because he is smart. i say that i promise you. >> he is better. >> with sincerity. no sarcasm. mr. teague is good where we know this was a building and manage that would not be built today a handled years ago. i will ask mr. teague to focus on this issue of what plans we are using.

i'm asking, what plans are you using. i will explain the changes because there are a lot of change its has been confusing for us when we submitted the 311 notice the setback of the building was 15 feet 9 inches. that was because the neighbor at 51 bernard had a rear wall we thought based on existing conditions that qualify exclude allowed us to use that wall as average. then our notice come out. they dr the project. mr. teague looks at it realizes that probably should not have been permitted the way it was and asked us and we complyed ruse the setback to 17 foot 9 which is what you see in front of you. difference is between the that is what was reviewed by planning commission the 17 foot 9.

what we have today. we are saying to you that if you would like to take action and require us to comply with the concern planning code now 18 feet. we would do so. the difference is there between what happened at planning commission and the plans today we made adjustments to address the planning commission's expectations removed the roof deck. made the third mroor have a porch. and removed the spill roll stair. in addition, part of planning commission one of the commissioners kept referring to ed edits we need a fire egress. we added that. because that is what required by fire. we put this in. the other thing is they require with a bedroom at the back require eero exit. this is why we attached the fire

escape. the set become on and we did show this is the edit. one change is that open space. comment which is the porch because we provided that e egress we thought that would meet open space requirements mr. teague said that is not the case it is support in the our request you make us comply with the new planning code. >> we are happy to address that the setback, fire code, be the plans 3 everyones shorter and changes from the new planning code to meet open space requirements >> i'm going to ask mr. teague

to comments on the fire safety piece. obviously you can't dodge temperature >> we don't want to. >> we can't -- we are not designers. we can't deviate from the code and have to listen close low to planning. one final question. the issue there was seems to be an under pinning of claim from the appellant about the basement and the potential for an adu. do you have any plans to make an adu out of that basement? >> we do for a place for my

mother or inlaws to move in. but what happened it has been 4 years special a lot happen in the this time. it is an expense factor as well. the requirement piece i want to make sure if you have questions we make those clear which is, our planner 4 years ago informed us and up until we provided the form that the physicality alone assumes that somebody occupied the space when we purchased the property in 2019 there is a bathroom we has been transparent about the conscience. they invited us that because there is a bathroom it being be a udu and you have to willingize it. but when we come do understand is this there is one the physicality element, and two, the fact of did anybody occupy it? we when we bought it, not

occupied the neighbor we listed this in the appeal we have no evidence or rent records. no gas or electric utilities in the basement. stealed be we want it to be but it is become contentious. and we are trying to do work under this permit that will allow that to be a possibility raising ceiling hits it is instead to code. it varies but that is our intention. because we want to place for my parents or inlas to live when we have kids. we just can't holds up the habability concerns reported we need to address and the focus of this permit. >> yea. the norm avenue when we see udu situation well is this thing called a stove that always seems to be the driver where was the stove and the gas hook up?

you know and in hundred year old badship not occupied publicly housing stuff happened. this may have been who knows. right. exactly. >> and without evidence of a stove or gas hook up that -- becomes again hazy. what i will ask mr. teague to comment on that issue whether this is potential low an ad you gos if it is should we be asking to you wrap an adu permit in this. een though you don't have to build it. potential of adu if mr. teague

come become and say, not going to happen. then to satisfy your neighbors nsr which is a permanent hold on the property that says never going to have an adu will get him off your case. and allow you to move forward. i want to thank you for the presentation. this is the met complex case had on this commission. and i a lot to focus we will hear from the city short low.

i want to focus on one point. and this is the roof deck. >> yea. >> you -- i understand it you said you wanted part of this to get roof deck back. we would like to, yea. >> and i understand that the appellants were not objecting to it but the planning commission decided against it? and -- can you confirm your building is the only one without a roof deck. we have one picture all 3 neighbors have one. many people in the block have one. we have a count my mom has a picture. >> you described the difficulties or disadvantage imposed upon you and your family without having a roof deck. what is the advantage to

eliminating did planning say >> i think it had to do with the again, there are a lot we can argue if one objective reason was that the spill roll stairs are set along 51. who supports the project. regardless, there was a bulking concern thing we had to have a full height wall that then the stairs inside that goes up to the floor. she thought may be that would cast shadows. that seemed to be the primary concern. when we did not hear was if you inset or insteerior space set closer to the front this does not have impact at the back. it was 2 feast reduced from what was there. but i did not hear anything about that an issue which we will be happy to redesign it in

a way not access from this back. the team started working on some option fist this is a possibility. if we did not bull beingk it at the back the stair at the back that would i don't i didn't hear anything. they put the no roof deck language make its hard to do anything in the future if we wanted in a different design. >> the problem is the not deck it is access? and if that is the case at least then it gives us or you and departments to say. is there a way to address whatever identifiable problems with with access. >> yea. >> for me, i disagree with taking away the roof deck. >> and more with the city when we get to it. thank you. >> this image dotted the ones

we see from google map the yellow is our property. you see this is the appellant south of us and this is his roof deck. porn bernard has 2 roof decks one on the top and below.

of net the planning commission were very interested and concerned about the omi.

on the site. and they were want to ensure the laws were followd and continue to be followed. asked a lot of questions and they were appreciative of the answers the owners provided regarding the omi and understanding what the legal requirements were going forward. there was discussion about the mid block open space and whether or not consistent with the residential design guidelines. and they other planning commission pounds it to be consistent with the mid block open space on the block and consistent with the residential design guidelines. as discussed the one area where the planning commission determined the project was not consistent with the residential design guide lines was related the spill roll stair and related fire wall was proposed at the time to access the officer deck.

and this was on the property line adjacent to 51 bernard. as referenced not an issue raised by planning but an issue raised at the commission. based on that conversation at the commission. following conscience were required. to rescue noise the rights related the omi per rent ordinance going forward.

and finally required update report to the planning commission 6 months after the issuance of the voting permit. this is a complex case with many issues and moving parts. and evolutions of plans over time. you know i saw all the materials it was robust and multiple plan and it can be easy to get lost. in that. and -- i think what the way it helped mow to look at it and what was touched on by commissioner trasvina the experience came inspect with a proposal. the dr requestor and appellant wanted that modified. planning landed in the middle. and as a result, you know we are back here where the appellant the dr requestor still requesting to the board go

further than the planning commission was willing to go in modifying the project. that is where we are today on this. you know the board third degree everauthority it review this in total and determine if the project as issued the permit or modified if the board choses to can be done in a way consistent with the planning code and design guide lines. i want to touch on the specific issues raised and need to be addressed. first rear yard. as mentioned when this permit heard by planning. the year yard was 45% and this allowed you to average up to a mack the 25% line that result in

the rear yard requirement of 17 feet 9 inches. this was issueod january 24th of this year. that result miss a rear yard requirement for the property and this permit when issued of 18 feet. mean that from a code compliance the main portion of the structure have to be shortened by 3 inches in the roar. the planning code does allow with the 30% requirement a pop out and the last case one or 2 story up to the 25% line that is an option to have that massing in the >> rear and code compliant for this permit. another thing there is that

previously urn the rear yard controls, if you averaged the last 10 feet limit to height of 30 feet and this the plans as issued have a drop in height at the roar to accommodate that. that requirement went away when averaging went away as well. 45 bernard on the first story. the upper units can go down they that your does not count as common open space it is not learning enough to do this. as mentioned the plans that were before planning had each floor

begin carved out 100 square foot porch or patio or deck. on that level. alcohol be the minimum requirement. >> and then the plans were resunrised such in after the dr hearing was reduced. to an year less than 100 square feet. second and third floor did not have compliant open space. but this unit on the first floor is required maintain 100 square feet of open space. those are important because regardless of where the board landos policy issues the plans need to be amended come in compliance with open space requirement.

the project plan cert in the with the department did not speak with him about this case but because the basement level physically being meet the program terse of the udu that conversation was had "applicant. the applicant moved forward with the plan to do an adu there as discussed required separate permits at this time. that was a separate permit. but never a full screening done to determine if there was an unauthorized unit to require it to be legalized or not. that screen suggest on going. if we determine there was an unauthorized unit they will be required under code to legalize it through adu or a cu press to

remove it. it was confusing the way it was framed in the past acknowledging it was there. my pndz everunderstanding from staff that wod the project other than the main staff person and the applicant there was a level of confusion about the conversations and what was meant there.

consistency. plans issued with the plans, proved and under condition by planning commission. they did change partially there was change in the roar and the addition of the fire escape. and there was the removal of the stair and the roof deck as required. and -- the requirement that the third floor layout identical to the second is they both had a smaller resulting porch area. and in the final plan. that was issued and before you today. i know there are issues related building and fire code i will defer those to my colleague at dbi. i know they reviewed the issues.

i will try to wrap that up by saying that again those other major points here. i think the over all design of the building the planning department and commission supportive of i think the roof deck and stair issue would concur with the property owner said i watched the hearing i don't think there was conversation about negative impacts to the deck. i think the concern was the massing and wall impact of the stair and fire wall.

>> correct the language on the permit this is 3 unit proposal. and then recommendation to uphold the planning commission's conscience of approval and recognitions in their d r decision. and then -- regarding the best way to move forward on correcting the plans by motion if that were to happen later or done through plans that come back before a final decision this is your decision. that concludes my presentation and available for questions you may have. thank you. questions from commissioner swig and commissioner trasvina. there seems to be a lot of would have could have should have's here. it will not present a bias in my

decision i become very sympathetic to the permit holdser because look at what happened here. i mean you know -- 2 days 3 days before the plans were presented the rules change. you know not only are they subject to neighborhood feedback which they are trying to manage. but then you know the city changes the rule. welcome to san francisco. my sympathy toward their stress about getting job done is significant and i'm sure have you that same simple 3 that will not influence us.

we relate organism space issue and the decks. we have the udu or not a udu this will be resolved. when? sometime. we have a deck this everybody else had this was removed and ash trailer by planning but not entirely because there was the massing issue. the stairs.

what is your advice to us. i are my opinion which i will hold with me. ask s is wise and -- in the spirit of transparency to the appellant and to the neighborhood to let you go work out plans at our direction with the permit holder or should we just hear this on another day when you go down the list of changing city standards the unanswered question of the adu. the reintroduction of the deck concement with an appropriate stairway to get up. and other clarifications what -- give us guidance on this.

clearly this the plans are not red for primetime yet. and from my point of view, you know the golden rule spirit. i would like to see these owners of the property this property and whatever way they will do it move forward already. you know and also enhumans a building which is -- suffered significant low due to no upkeep over be degreeds. and therefore improve the neighborhoods. what is your advise? should we -- ask to you come back go get it done and come back and show us the plans and then let us make an evaluation on something which is finalized? and reviewd and we don't have

ambigutey? or should we do what you suggests let you w it out in an off camera. >> sure. honest low that will come down to a comfort level. you know at the board. and in terms of if you feel comfortable with making specific actions being required part of your decision. or if something you feel you need to see on a set of plans before feeling comfortable to close the case on this. i think either way. what my advice it to be specific on each individual element. that you want to see changed. again, the roar yard issue and open space issues are requirements they have to be addressed. you know that the thing that needs to has to happen. but if our other changes you

want to see whoa the board feels comfortable being in that direction and making a decision and that go forward without the plans come back or the same thing and requiring they come back before making the final decision this is the comfort level of the board.

here other questions. my fear is that because you got 4 lawyers i don't know who, me with skills and one unskilled in the skills or not architecture, construction or anything like that we might leave something out that is in my heart and soul. and that is for the benefit of appellant and the permit holder. secondly. why should we not be worried about whether it is udu or not because if it came back no it is not a udu that could not be

converted to adu, this changes the skoecht over all building. if is come back, yes it is a ud sxushgs can be converted to adu that will change the scope of the building. and we heard this from the permit holder yes , i want it for my parents or relatives. i bet if i agree with commissioner trs vina why is the deck left out that is more open space. everyone else has one. i bet that you what is in mr. trasvina's view how the stair case will look versus my view,

and then if i took locked at the other commissioners i bet their vow would be different. not seeing a later version when all this stuff and et cetera. you know the decks and open space. why should i not be uncurrently we are letting go of this early and not come back and have you present a full set of plans. i don't want to can i tell you you should be comfortable with either one the board will have to determine how comfortable they feel with those based on the tact factings of the case the adu issue the determination does not have impact for this

permit. the scope will do this work on the basement floor. at this time excavate it and make it habitable. whether or not that in the future is converted to adu is a separate permit. if it is required or not tell be on file that will not change the scope of this permit either way. it informs how the basement level be used. does not change the scope of work in this permit. >> it -- does it not -- because it was raised by the appellant that we are concerned there is

not an adu there and not getting clarity on that. and -- so -- in the spirit of taking into consideration the occurrence of the appellant if we it has not beeneen though adu is not in the permit your testimony is when they dig it out and the ceiling is higher they can come become and do it. and adu. and -- and then we hearing from the permit holder i would like an adu there. and if we wanted satisfy and put the appellants at ease we can put the adu to death. could we not? >> just on the last issue you could not if it was a state adu.

if an adu this meets all requirements we cannot say, no. to it. it is mandated by law. if we adopted a condition no additional feign they are adu if state law adu it would over ride any condition. and but whether tell or will not be that is i question tht board have to determine if this is a

factor to whether or not the permit should be approved based on the planning or other policies. because that issue would be separate and handled through a separate process if added a separate permit. i recall pass on to commissioner trasvina. thank you very much for educating us on as well as the appellant. it is their concern on the adu issue. the good state can when in and and say -- tell be an adu weather you like it or not that is an important thing to hear and things you are concerned with. a blessing to the permit holder they then and there at some point if than i don't when they

do work and don't have the funds to convert, newscast future they can use the mandate to build it. sorry for going long. >> thank you. my comfort level on planning handleing increases throughout your testimony. and increased in every answer you provided to commissioner swig and the public. you have done everything you can to identify the issues. present nel a straightforward manner and demonstrated it mow my own inability and disability to be able to get in the middle of this long protracted debate

and discussion over the plans. i think planning regard by getting involved on the roof deck issue. my question i are a couple you have been able to kickoff all of my most all of my questions in your presentation. the loss of the roof deck does it have implications to the open space requirement y. not from a planning code for required open space back to the fact as had property exists now the -- second and third floor don't have code complying open space. would a deck improve this. >> yes. the minimum is 100 square feet.

access to open area 10 by 10 that is the private open space. nought other 2 above have access to the space. it is in the adequate and common open space. those 2 upper units are deefficient of open space. than i are not required to add that bring units up to corrode with quality requirements like open space is always encouraged. in addition to taking away the deck it takes away open space for the top. >> yes. two levels. the proposal in front of planning had -- 100 square foot

porches inset. for 45 or 47 and froin had the smaller porch with stair it up an officer deck of similar size. >> thank you. no further questions we will hear from dbi. good evening. the building department again. the skoecht permit does not include the roof deck or adu. this is scope of the permit is to address the conscience of the foundation replace am in the basement and we feel had work would be of benefit to the building and replaces a brick foundation and stabilize the

building on that matter if it becomes adu we will make sure that was code compliant. a lot of the specific measurements and items on the addendum going throughout plan check on hold. the architect will be addressed in that. fire escape was approved under city planning and fire department and building went over it embedded in the full set of drawings. this at the roof check is theateret cal if it came in later we would look and make sure that everything was code compliant for you deck and access.

let me see. a lot of this is build in with the deck. we are looking at this from an upgrade of the foundation and addressing anything done up to code. that's all we have commissioner swig? yea. so let's talk about life, fire, safety. with an older building they have that hundred years ago. and insert you the word you want to for that. the -- appellant brings up well, they could do splifrng lers versus -- fire escape. they have an address things that

will happen that will require for the purpose of life, fire and safety that will add things apendages. can you address that stuff? and the most director question i can ask you is it -- more appropriate to have although i heard the fire escape thing for access. is it more appropriate is it -- looking for a bert word. recommended? or otherwise to -- have a fire escape versus sprinklers understand being this when you have spring lers you add big bucks to an expensive under taking.

the basement does have spring police it now. that is one thing. it is -- its -- a design factor. they are allowed to put a fire escape on the back. thank you that is important. appreciate it. >> okay. thank you. i don't see questions. you can be seated. now move on to public comment. is there anyone in the room who would like to comment? okay. if you can lineup against the wall there and you can come

forward. >> i'm sarah hoffman. i'm a san francisco land use attorney and not the attorney for anyone in the room. i am hereof to support speak and support of the sponsor. theel appellants have not shown the planning commission or dbi abused discretion or violated the law allowing this to go ahead. i think if we look at the appellant's upon demands they are asking you to have language the sponsors had to keep the rear yard green.

this is a code compliant project and private backyard is not a community immunity. and i did sit throughout planning commission hearing and surprised when the project sponsor explained we need this roof deck for open space so we don't make our bedrooms small are in the per minute and one of the planning commissioners was dismissive and said her and her husband had no problem and that is find for them why not find for the sponsor? and i think there they missed the point namost of the other

houses on the block have roof decks and with the massing of the neighborhood. and what the discussion has showed and i'm do appreciate the thought that the commissioners and also mr. teague put in this. creative thinking can resolve the issues that lead to that removal of the roof deck. my experience if there is a unit there the planning department is going to grab on that like a dog with a bone and not let them do anything. if there is in the a udu there. state lus do allow machine to install one as of right. we had a housing crisis and like this entrenched neighborhoods who don't want anyone to do

anything. that gets in the way of a young san francisco couple making a home they can live in. so i'm agree with the recommendations and grant the xael deny the appellant's. thank you. how is it going? i will start i moved america 10 years ago in july i'm proud of that. i was proud because of american have yous i benefit friday an american citizen and strifeedup hold that. the american vowels i'm proust of a go and make it better and give a project to go. i look i think that lindz and he

her mother are doing is awe someplace they are trying to make a good star and set themselves up with i dhid is awesome and american values. and they made efforts to meet with neighbors and dot right things. the other side a bunch did not turn up to have a conversation with your neighbor that is unamerican can it is about how you engage with each other. the appellants taken for you years out of the people's lives and made it hard. rules changed and seem to be

screwing with them. they got people trying to make the neighborhood bert and trying to create more housing. we have a shortage, right. more how doing will help. housing prices go down. trying to have a roof deck. trying to go become to the yard when neighbors went further. i'm confound how the ridiculousness upon waste of my property tax. is warrantied here and like trying to understand why we don't let this young couple have a great life. now proud citizen and do their thing.

this is mr. wong. a former attentive of 45 a. the udu. fourth unit at the bernard street. disabled and cannot join us he agreed to our making a video about the importance of the rear yard at 45 bernard. fresh air issue sunlight and open space. laptop, please.

next speaker, please. you said this the you were about to play a va. of the gentlemen who lived in the basement of apartment >> yes. >> former attentive. >> what you are saying testimony is without showing the video and is -- comment is that there was you found the person who was living in the substandard basement apartment? >> that's correct >> thank you. >> can you fill out a speaker card and thank you. good point. >> okay the next speaker.

please. good evening thank you for allowing mow to peek i'm frank sam. and i live kitty corner at 45 bernard street. i'm here to -- i'm here to tell you a story about mr. wong or neighbor. and -- mr. wong -- used to live at 45a bernard. and later moved to 1130 pacific avenue. so the importance of fresh air, sunlight and open space to many of us on the block. this is very important for us in

our neighborhood. his story, my mom's store and he others also shared same belief. mr. wong immigrated in the 80 aye and lived in the basement unit at 45a bernard. when he arrived the backyard was voilths to his life. spent most of the time in the kitchen cooking and supporting his family. my mom immigrate friday china and arrive in the san francisco november 1963. she worked hard in china town. raised 2 kids and single parent and saved machine tow purchase her home where we now live. we have been living here for over 40 years. she is concern the lack of open space and sunlight by the

horizontal expansion. at 45 bernard. tell prevent her from going out to her porch. additionally, our other neighbor is concerned about the lack of open space. in short my mom is retired senior citizen. her only longhornure time is preparing food and cooking in the back of the kitchen which is in the back of the house. we urge to you accept the appeal. hope open space will stay with us forever. just like mr. wong said in the vo, sunlight and fresh air is good for our health. thank you.

good evening i'm bob and our family owned a property this is -- across the way at 115456 pacific. before i forget. one thing i really requests that i don't hear again that everybody has an officer deck. we don't have an officer deck. there are tremendous number of neighbors this don't have officer decks. i suggest in the future that statement modified. my wife's parents bought a house at 115456 pacific in 1950. so -- and then in 1970 flats was built.

open pace and -- light and sun. is in very short supply on this block. so, i'm suggesting to you that -- it needs to be taken in consideration. it is something really, really, really very important. and so to dismiss it is a major problem. thank you very much.

no separate meter for adu. ad, shares with number 45 at bottom flat. two upper in thes have separate meters. so -- what is it? i mean it is concerning and confusing. what the plans actually are and again we would support an adu this is legalized and now this seems to be up in question. not addingly housing. possibling low demolishing housing? again, i ask you to uphold the planning commission's decision. thank you. >> thank you.

next speaker, please. hemo~ commissioners i'm jennifer mei. i want to. allowed to comment on 24-01 where are not a party to that appeal. >> the appellants. thank you very much. sorry for interrupting. i'm sorry to interrupt you. the appellant's claim quote they are refused to meet or compromise. despite our 14 plus attempts to do so. i'm here to say the concontrary here is the sum row we initiated them to boshg out our differences. they include e mails to welcome them to the neighborhood. concerns about a power line. emsuggest responsibility. need to resolve difference. reaching out to meet. dates of mediation with david

winslow and attempt to pick update plans from the hustons by our attorney. i have i list of these to share and also the supporting documents that i would like you toville if you so wish. let me know. thank you. >> okay. thank you. she is submitting that as public comment. thank you. next speaker, please. good job you filled out your card. hi. i'm lisa mc clur i live in knob hill on pleasant street my husband and i moved here 4 years ago from chicago which is a corrupt city and we moved here because there are opportunity we work in technology and lindsey is a good friend of mine. the thing they think is irrelevant frustrating as a resident of the city is this it is very difficult for newcomers

to build or establish a community here. arguments this are coming no matter what my friends does are just i feel like over locked. i'm a mom and i live in the city and there are hardships to living in the city with a toddler and lindz and he teddy still want to be here and raise a family the only thing that keeps people from leaving the city and going to surrounding areas is allowing younger people to come in and make change that is not oppressive. and they are going to be the future of the neighborhood. and i think that should be taken under consideration. i think that lindsey has been accommodating and every piece of feedback she has been begin from the commission and from

neighbors. that's it. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello. i'm taylor huston. i live the 47 bernard and the rmi. >> so is she related. i guess should be a tenant? related to the appellant's permit holders. i'm not on the title. i want to touch on the personal nature and living conditions. i think what helped here my opinion is this we got off on the wrong foot with our neighbors and have been trying to get become on the right foot and have not found a good way to be able to do that instead you

know there has been lawyers, architects, multiple you know hearings and commissions to try to reach a negotiation when jennifer mentioned the most recent attempt they came by with the lawyer. failed to have a conversation, they requested only the plan and they were not willing to have a conversation again instead they prefer to raise the concerns at these forums and honestly exhaust our opportunity to do so. our tenant is supportive of the project with her family. she is live nothing not good conscience. for example, when it rains water come in through her back door and the base of the pillar is rotting away. it is based on the water damage it is likely to continue to be an issue.

>> my wife spoke. with lindsey. do you want to say there is an interesting thing about the open space. everybody wants sunlight and wants the fresh air but it is wored that this roof deck is a concern. and it seems conmow that we want to remove the roof deck and not give them open space but restrict open space from the people that are look to have it. i agree, we are a young fell in san francisco. we heard of people have been here for 40 years we are new to

the city and trying to finds our place export to stay here as long as these folks have. for you years is amazing to live in the city. lindz setrying to have a family. raise her kids here. and to be honest the house is a dump it needs to be renovated and needs to be looked after. for the sake of the neighborhood. and that is exactly when they are trying to do. they are trying to have it as their home and their fell and raise a family in the same neighborhood that the other folks have had the opportunity to do so. thank you. i'm not testifying for my the project i'm part of. i wanted dispel myths what has been discussed fire sprinklers they other norm for all new

construction they are a requirement the fire sprinklers are expensive we need go to a fire escape is absurd. escapes were banned from the building code 20 years ago. i'm shocked that dbi would allow a condition this would add a fire escape not desirable way to rescue people. nay would allow that. these exceptions are because there are situations you cannot provide the second means of egress or sprinkler the building i implore the board to because of the impact the fire escape does not open space and necessary thing and main low this is a standard everstandard in the industry the reason why dbi adopted sprinklers is

because it is sthoen save lives. so, i'm glad there is some sense in priority iegdz the safety of the people with the building. i think this you know other things that are so irritating to me as a practicing architect for 30 years i have done over 400 projectless in the city. i never have been begin this. oh , we don't have to document the udu. oh , all of our drawings are rejected. if we don't have ab19's.

the standards of this project are so low. where time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. i'm here to play video had does

have sounds. >> okay. >> are there speakers that are connected? in any way? you can try to use the connectors on the side there. i don't know. i can try to use the microphone. you can do that. it is not showing. you can show it on the other computer >> good idea. okay >>il grab the thumb drive temperature is loaded it i load today. why should be on the play mode. the -- on there? should be.

can you start if the beginning? i'm [inaudible]. i amim guarantee from china to

san francisco. >> i immigrated in 1983. the first place i lived was 45 bernard street. that unit has a backyard at this time i exercised, did house sxhoers got sunlight in the backyard. and lived there for 8 months. then i moved to another unit on pacific. and lived here with my mother and son for you 39 years. when i first move in the the unit the rent was 240 dollars per month now it is 870 per month. i used to work in china town making dim sum. because i have arthritis i'm

retired. now i can't walk properly. i need my son to help with my daily life. this location is very convenient. the neighbors are nice. i like to sit in the kitchen have the door open opening the door gives a good air flow. the sunlight is coming in. this is good for my health. >> this is where i live. although the place is tight, this is my home. yes. more about mr. wong who we had the privilege to meet. every morning his mom is norn. she is blind. he lives on the third floor has no lights wakes up and when she wakes up he washes her face. brushes teeth and makes her

breakfast. these are the members on our block. and this is their lifestyle. i was we -- we talked about the experience of stability in affordable housing these are my people. for us we want to protect them and we want to be sure. is anyone in the room who wants

to comment? we will move on zoom. >> hello. i'm jim huston. and you know i want today talk about architect. you drew up the plans for this project. so -- the other architect filed the appeal and comments on your daughter's appeal and not a party you are daughters are party to both appeals and drew up the plans it is in the appropriate for to you comment. >> thank you. >> yes he will have time if you want to use your daughter's time in rebuttal you can address the board >> thank you. we will go to zoom. vick guy.

go ahead. hi. i'm vick guy i live down the street on bernard avenue. i'm here to talk and support the family appeal i have been watching it go from bad to worse a gentlemen said it is a missed opportunity for making life better for all of us living here. the folks live thering especially the owners are all for the project. it is necessity including all the high prices we pay for construction. [inaudible].

you need to unmute yourself. what you did before. go ahead. >> sure. good evening. san francisco alliance coalition. you raised good points regarding the basement relevant to the permit. at issue here is whether the basement is udu or as the experience now claims it is just a storage space with i nonworking toilet and shower. the project sponse admitted that

the basement unit was occupied by someone and she saw old mail for him. clearly what we have in the basement is a udu. not uncommon for owners occupancy and unauthorized units removing kitchens or bedrooms to show the space used for storage. we see this all the time when owners contractors and coming in removing kitchens and bathrooms to misrepresent and the basementful there is a udu and cannot be erased from the permit. if you approve this permit for the renovation of the units you are authorizing the demolition of the existing udu. and know a prit permit for building adu in the basement

will not rectify this loss. because that permit application is not approved and second low it should have never been accepted by planning the plans for it are base on the plans for this permit. which is appealed tonight. we are concern with the claims that what made the planning commission saying because the developer is using the state program the adu is not subject to rent control this is false. and department city attorney austin ylang misinformed the commission. the basement where the adu is locate side part of the building that was built prior to 1979 and since the expansion is per of the renovation and not a demolition it will remain under our rent control ordinance regardless of the program. in fact. nowhere in the state program

there is troefrns removing rent control status in cities where there is an ordinance. that's why we ask to you require the project importance to go become to the plans that were approved by planning. and include a condition of approval for the adu to remain under rent control special shall occur before the permit sign off. thank you. >> thank you. >> lynn, go ahead. >> yes. thank you. i, too a low resident and i'm familiar with the project. and i wanted to state my support for the family. i have no issues with their plans. house is clearly in need of significant repair. and the correct 10 act would welcome the changes you heard

that the current living conscience are horrible. as a lot of people have said tonight and we all heard the detail this is press has taken such i long time. now you know going on 4 years. and the family has clearly demonstrated over and over again they want to be cooperative. meet the code requirements. but as we have seen can be difficult when it is a moving target. they are changing mid stream. had they moved forward earlier the owners and attentives and the neighborhood would have benefited from the investment they are willing to make in their property. a lot of the neighbors who are opposing this they certainly pushed their ewileyization of properties to the limit.

jenna. go ahead. >> good evening. greetings to all on the board and commissioners. and the commissioners was board. i'm jenna and my husband and i

residents of rush yen hill neighborhood for a now years and familiar with the project and permit requests. weez have full support to the huston family during this hearing their effort its improve their property for the betterment of family and community deserves support, not obstruction. it is evidence the renovations are crucial for the safety and over all well being of all the current and future residents. the hustons perseverance in the sxresz accomodating the occurrence of neighbors demonstrate. the campaign waged against them by wealthy neighbors is unjust and unwarrantied. from lindsey huston's testimony it has taken a tell the huffons are trying to better the lives

of the 10 acts and at accommodate to neighbors we see from the block they have many surrounding buildings with issue residing prosecute appellants. including the video this was played in which no proof of occupancy was begin.

allowing neighbors to weaponize the planning process to stall the project is a disservice to the city and taxpayers like me. it time to see through the charade the permit issue does not. institute officer deck or udu issue for consideration but a strong update to get the building up to code. the huston family strug toll obtain a permit issue within the city. we believe in the rights of homeowners to make improve ams to property when it occurrence plumbing and electric.

there were claims it was secret and historic. we heard from both plan and dbi that there is a support to move

forward. on whoond people in the city don't want greedy developer. on the other hand we are holdingly and up saying no to honest families to upgrade homes to live in it and unjust and unfire hold them up from making up grids that are less in scope to the neighbors have. the plan and permitting process have been equal and reasonable and not be held up after 4 years it is creating unnecessary suffering from the huston family. this is not an upon developer with deep pocket its is a young family. please approve this building project. thank you. robert f? go ahead.

i'm robert a san francisco nativive 39 years my family immigrated here in 1976. have been residents since. upon i'm aware of the state of the building i walk about it in it and fallen down the stairs it is old and very clear this building needs to be updated. just looking you know updating give a better living situation and you heard the tenant is on board with the updates and hoping for this to happen soon. city and neighbors delaying the approval for years. everyone living here that has not been update in the a hundrediers and clearwater neighbors don't understand why it important for the build to be updated. well is no reason they should be

fighting for the house for the building to are not be extended. and the update its occur. when sf has a housing problem already. they were happy to receive extensions and approvals but don't want anyone else receiving those. not asking for approval so everyone there can have better housing and a better life. i want to keep the board's minds to the 89 quake that occurred and all the houses that came down in similar state, if the board does not approve this, they are now putting lives at risk. thank you. why thank you. >> we'll hear from angela. go ahead. angela. i see you unmuted yourself. we can't hear you.

i don't can come become we are not hearing anything. so -- now you muted yourself. try again. try call nothing look at the phone number on the agenda 1669, 900683389951249783 it is on the website. thank you. okay. we will hear from sam brad shaw. go ahead. hi. thanks. of the opportunity i'm sam brad shaw i live in knob hill i want it call in today to voice support for the huston project. the build suggest very much in need of renovation.

not just to make it living space liveable but to make them safe. the concern tenant support its it is a good project and i recommend the board it gets supported. however whatever form that takes. i ginned buzz i want to make a point about open space and i have been listening and realize i don't comprehends the rules and they are moving targets and it is contentious and subjective. i wanted leave with one point that is the residents of the city should have the same rights and responsibility by the building code and in the permit process you all are presiding over today. i would expect that as the owners of that process that you -- created here to process

robust to roadblock catharsis put up by the neighbors to the project. i guess i would ask that you evaluate the project and provide out line for the hustons to complete it. thanks. >> thank you. >> anatasia. go ahead. good eviling i'm anatasia. a member of san francisco tenant union on the land use and planning watch committee. i advertised the dr hearing i was concerned about tenabilities who were evicted from the property. 11 attentives evicted by the hustons. and some of them were disabled there is one there in the building and concerned about her welfare. moving on to the project. yes, there is a udu down there.

and that should be rumming on an operate permit not part of this project. what i'm asking is to require the subject permit to remain on hold until review of the adu reviewed so the planning department and dbi can verify this both sets of plans are accurate, code compliant and consistent. you know -- people are saying different things here and there. i'm telling you that open space and green space is -- needed. and that the planning commission decided that the stair case extended to the green open space and that's why they got rid of it. okay. that's temperature all i have to

say. >> thank you joe ann diver. go ahead. unmute yourself. can you hear me. why yes. i'm a residents of san francisco in the knob hill area exit want to ask you look favorablely on the huston project the tenant is supportive the huston will update their plan for the changes in the code. and the project is compliance with the mid block open space requirements of our city. so. it is a modest renovation. bad low needed and i think we all the neighborhood want to keep our ain'ts to update our homes and not get mired down in controversy and time. i support the project. why now stelea lui?

go ahead. >> hi. thank you for your time. i'm stelea lui the daughter of the tenant at 45 bernard i lived there my entire life.

can you hear me. >> yes. this is thank you for your time, commissioners this is angela wong and i represent my russian hill community born and raised 1 envelope blocks from the property. better than in the neighborhood

i [inaudible] and [inaudible] i know this neighborhood and the area well. went it college and came back in 97 and move in the with my grandma. 1 and a half blocks from the huston family it is over 42 year living here our neighborhood has been peaceful and safer we work together to maintain the fabric of the community the situation is very upsetting and infutureerates me the hustons unlawful shade i practice and intentional malicious behavior to their neighbors they are disrupting the peace and harmony of our community this we worked heard for. we can't work with them that's why we are going throughout court proceedings what do i mean by shady. disregard to what was approved and hoping nobody catches the changes the daughter lindz

seimmature and poild and entitled we have video clips. commissioners if you like video i am theme share that. she and her friends worn in front of cameras saying, f you and one time the friends are banging on the gate in the night. okay. and then again saying f you duringet day and night. lindsey knows we have video clips television show continues this obscene immature behavior and happy to share video clips. and i feel they are disrespectful and unlawful and malicious and intentionally doing this. and they are intimidating the neighbors that's why we can't go to them and talk. let's work this out. no it is not happening i worked in downtown 21 years. i saved my money to stay where i

am now on pacific and jones. i want our community and our city to continue standing for what is right to maintain peace harmony and respect. the shady practices and disrespectful behavior it is everything we don't want in our community nor we tolerate this behavior in the city i have 3 generations here i want san francisco to dot right thing the hustons to aby the city law and mature and respectful to this community that they moved into. and this has not been the case to date. all of the friends supporting the hustons neigh are new to the community as well. and have been here over 40 years. any other public comment. i see one hand. you have already spoken. one mobile home.

we can't take further comment if you you are already spoken rebuttal dp hear from the appellant's for appeal 24-011. you have 3 minutes. >> thanksgivingment will noilg disputing the property needs to be improved. commissioner swig i share your confidence in mr. teague but your concern no one knows what the plans will consist of. we heard support for the huston project what is the project? appellants doctor lou and mei don't have strong feelings about the roof deck but want to know what the building is proposed to be and preserve open space. the property owners less then

and there truthful. as miss mei stated mrs. huston did not meet, ms. huston knew the basements of a udu. the legalization of basement units someone did live in a shower,/and old mail. happy to show sugoing to the ad u program. neigh did not follow planning commission's requirements. the third floor deck much the second floor to create the private open space. and the board should put this over and get plans properly and fully reviewd and ensure consistency with the adu.

>> architect understanding now that theed father is not a licensed architect would explain the inconsistency of the drawings and code violations. when one signs a planning application this is the truth under perjury of law. nought experience is reneging on the permit applications and state thering is no udu. why did the tenant evictions if the board is not put conscience there will be no consequences the city lost 3 afford annual units due to planning failure to do diligence. consider this and put conditions on to make sure the udu is a good with adu. thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the hustons. you have 6 minutes.

this was a lot. a couple things one you heard from cella that vo that was played where they said 45a. it is 45. again. we can base off the knowledge we have. we have been fully transparent about the unit if we need to legalize it or tonight the city will make us we provided the information we have. there is a bathroom. there is no kitchen well is a sink. but we will follow their direction. we don't have any evidence no lease agreement no units or nothing there it was assumed somebody was levelling there. that has not changed the i 21 someone's gate or somebody else it never happened ever. i don't know what that comment is or who that person is.

i'm a 30 year old working woman i don't have time to stop by a gate in the night. i don't know when they are talking about it it is not me nor anybody i know. i like to make that clear to them and combebls i don't know how to respond to this. um -- what we are asking i like to bring it become to this. we would like to resunrise our plans in a way that middle easts with the new requirements directed by corey teague. propride open space maintains conditions and meet the planning code as it is today that will result in a delay we don't want a delay we want to keep moving that's when we ask and the second per is the planning modifications allowing you to provide open space. kwleen tolls say i can't respond

to people who i never met before in my life who make the statements. >> just in line with also what corey said, i think you know what we are asking for is to reverse the decision of the planning commission to remove the roof deck allow us to go back now the planning code changed during this time. we would like the opportunity to look at change and make slight modifications. what we struggled with up to this point is clearly the rear setback the appellant said they don't care about the other stuff as language as we don't extend in the yard they have want us where we are now or minimal extension. we would like out of this commission to get guidance here we can live by. the current setback under the code 18 feet. we are willing to go with that despite the fact the plans many

months ago. and if this includes permissible obstructions under the code we will provide open space that meets at least what is there now and hopeful leave begin the officer deck extend and other height requirements. but what we hope for here is some difintive response so we can remove contrains and submit plans that meets these requirements >> and one last comment if we don't get a definition we will continue to cycle an appeal this is where it is at. regarding the udu we invited the city over we are heavy to have them to validate our statements and plans. sounds like that is in affect we welcome it. we are novelty there is nothing that we are trying to do

unreasonable. and ultimately we would like this space to be a unit and if the city requires us we will make it one. that's all we can comp one other point there relative. we are not aware and i did find the forms we did not know existed months ago we are not aware we tried to ask the prior owner of the property stelea said nobody lived there. we are making guesses what was there before the gentlemen in the video said he looked out the kitchen window there is no kitchen window in the basement. there is a kitchen on 45 we are not sure where he lived that the first we heard tonight anybody actually identified a person that lived there. we are not sure he was in 45 this does have a window in the kitchen. thank you >> i question from commissioner

swig. i think we will find out this there will be udu and you will be an adu and that all get fleshed out. what confuses me we had as that was prohibited us not in front of me i saw it on a screen. read to us under oath by council that said that one. you came up with document this says we got mail. >> we did have mill for 49a the top unit i don't know it was not going to the basement but have a mail thing 49 a. first there is a commercial door it is not guaranteed to be the basement. >> i know you are excited. i would be, too. sympathetic. >> and -- connected to you that

was not an affidavit that talked about 45a? no. >> that was, okay. that's all. we -- understand. and this is to be honest this is the thing. its okay. all good. >> yea. all good. thank you. why thank you. why really tough. >> thanks. now the planning department you have 6 minutes. >> good evening. core teague za with planning. i think the thing really to follow up on is just i hope i was able to provide clarity of the proposal. actual plans that were issued. that is very clear what they are. the rear yard. amendment the open space requirement for 45 need to be made. the amendment to the plan

application and planning cover sheet that say 4 units. because of the udu thing the ad you was separated that needs to be corrected. those are thing this is need to happen. and then -- the udu we will be clear like it it is not up to the experience. if there is not a udu this is what the za will make. that is the point i made about the permit this permit will do this proposed and improve basement flefl a way that being be in the future converted to adu. the question whether tell be required to be converted or osh tain a c u authorization to remove udu will be when the udu

screening process is done and make a determination is there a udu there? ghaen is a determination that is med by the department and za. and that is issue will be resolved. like all udu issues are and because this permit does not propose to legalize the unit in the basement that is why the crux of when i said that issue is an issue will be addressed not jermaine to this permit except there is work in the basement tloefl make it habitable. ip want to be clear about that. you heard the property owner say required do it they will. that was their plan to gwen with and require we will require it. it simple just that process was not fully completed. and the assumption is once

raised the experience addd and never an issue where it was a situation the planning department was requiring and enforcing an owner to move forward with that work. if are are quills about how we determined the udu exists or not i'm happy to answer i will not get into that unless you have questions about that. again, i knowledge those erwill main points and again -- how you want to move forward making the changes weather the motion or requiring plans to whether a motion of intent you want to seat plan before final action will be up to the board. i'm available for additional questions you may have. >> thank you. questions from commissioner swig. >> i like to think or fantasize this board about 6 weeks after i joined it was responsible for what you just talked about.

because i remember about 6 weeks after i yoined on 17 or 18th avenue on lake street upon e member got kicked out of their apartment and the homeowner decided they were going to abandon and take over that spot. where somebody lived for i language time because they wanted and forced member to be homeless. i get emotional about that injustice. and as a result this body wrote a letter to the board and said this is bad behavior. i like to think the board of supervisors they liked that and acted on it god bless them and like the think the birth adu movement started at this board. once it is udu, it is a habitable and should be

maintained in the housing stock. i understand very clearly that every initiative will be taken to maintain that bring this back. thank you for that but how long did it take? for planning department to say, is it we -- heard a gentlemen on video and he said he lived there for a short period of time. but he live there, all right. that is and he lived there. that is when he also said and i think misheard by the last testimony he locked out his window that was another place. but said he lived in that 45,

for a moment. how long does it take for plan to decide an ordain this is a udu so this project can move forward. >> sure. happy to answer that. depends case by case on the nature of the documentation available from the sources of information. we have. one factor that can sometimes take time we do part of the udu we "records from the rent board related to the property there are rent board records that indicate. under the rent ordinance if unauthorized unit it is a unit.

on that issue um this is not like 6 months there is in the 6 weeks tell be the next 10 days. yes. this is i fair estimate. >> great. thank you. moving on. worn thing you did not address upon -- was open pace.

we talked about space of -- available -- to space available accommodating the city compliance. requirements but did not talk about open space mid block. open space and -- those things which seem to be important to the appellant. and looking at this that same map presented 4 hours doing. now the sarcasm come. yet you know the rush yen hill area china town, certainly and a lot of north beach the mid block open space left us 1875. you know.

so, what should we as a board look at begin the conscience which are -- customary conditions in russian hill. can surrounding areas going in telegraph hill. tell us about open space and how you feel on this block. in the german north americaed. sour. we touchod it in my comments because it was discussed by planning commission in deliberations it was an issue raised at that historying than i spent time on temperature the consensus was this from the mid block open space proposed was consistent with the block. you saw area photos and maps and you referenced the mid block open space is small. there is one there and fir low small. primarily the buildings on lots

on the south side of the block that front pacific have very small rear yards with exceptions. where as the lots on bernard have large are yards but it is a mixed bag, back there. there is no question this the existing building at 45 ber in order is a shallower building than tipical on the lot. and you know the planning commission determined this -- it was consistents with the residential design guidelines compatible at the roar and mid block open space. as designed at same depth this is presented in the plans today.

vice president lemberg. a follow up question regarding the udu determination we know is coming in the near future. because of that does it make

sense to sounds like minimum we make the project sponsor make several changes to the plans to comply with the things you talked about earlier does it make stones wait for the udu determination that is what my question is. may change other asspekts of the plans if there is a udu if required to build if not required to build. or adu. does that make sense for you to consider including in the possible continuance or something or am i off base here? >> the point i would make i can't speak to the significance you place on this determination relative to this permit the point i was trying to make is the opposite. whether or not that udu determination is positive or

negative does not change this permit. the proposal issued is to excavate and make that grounds basement level. getting you instinct % there to putting an adu in. the property ownersment this space to be habitable. the question is going to will we require them to move forward with this operate permit on file or have the option to do this or not if not determined. that's a question for this permit and less about this one even if there is a negative determination in the a udu the permit issued. this is in front of you to do that work to prep this basement level. that's making sense the other

thing if they are required to turn it to adu under the planning department determination that would edit the scope of this project and permit if it includes all of the legalization work. i upon don't continuing would the way it is proposed adding a durkes, is 2 step process.

thank you. commissioner eppler. >> thank you. quick question because the controversy during public extent can you comment on the status of reason krell on each the units the 3 main units this would exist after and the adu should it become an adu. sure i can tell you what my understanding is we are not the rent board and i'm not an expert on that. my understanding is the building is rent control building the units are rent controlled. and the distinction that a caller -- did not agree with is whether or not a state adu would be able to be required be subject to the price protection

and rent control. the attorney at planning gave that add voice it would not.

and no doubt upgrades the

service which we irrelevant would like to do exterioring things but farz the dbi it hen reviewed if than i make changes we make sure they are code compliant and happy to issue that permit. thank you. commissioner swig. help mr. lum get through process his frustration. i have no frustration. i like to help out. reassure us in the process of when somebody buys a house and guess through renovation.

the fact of life. you know but that happened when you make mr. lum some satisfaction and this he ain'ts the only one that he that this his frustrations shared by the permit holder. i am finds stuff. iel. and the -- permit holder will not get a free ride and going to be held to city compliance and mr. lum and permit holder have i beer and curse you like you know others do. i did not know this would happen.

of so. it the this is in the going to be a free roadway or not come close to considered for compliance, may surfist later on. >> correct. >> thank you. why commissioner eppler. why one question to that. can you remiejdz us why they have not been subjected that plan scrutiny. it is in their set. this is a site over all the view. and all the details are worked out in the site on hold because this permit has been suspended. commissioner swig. first of all.

it is a dump and it needs fixing. anybody agree. hearing none, there you go. we love young family in san francisco. and without young families going coming in to san francisco we have no future in san francisco. anybody disagree? agreed. your family, sir, came here and were they young and god bless them buzz than i gave you life i disagree with that. remember that. so -- for mow, i had no idea how we can give up jurisdiction of this permit at this point. this is a mess. and -- last week i upset

commissioner trasvina i said no , i don't want a continuance on this one i don't like continuances because they stall things and i finds this they credit a hardship to the permit holdsers often. this permit seems to be such a mess between what plans are this and when plans are that should there be a deck are we going to do this is it a udu is it not. it will get stalled entail and i don't think this having it continuance would provide hardship and i think this by continuing our jurisdiction of this with a better set of plans and clarity on all the stuff we discussed tonight would benefit both appellant and the permit holder. and i can -- you know go down

the list of everything we have discussed tonight. and i hate continuances because i think they do sometimes get in the way of progress. and i think in this one i would really love to see clarification i would like to see -- revisions that we can share together >> and look at a page and say, these other plans. i'd like to see them discussed let's have a condition

expectancy get i clear set of plans and not going to stall they gotta redo the plan anyway. i yield. commissioner trasvina. thank you. and -- i'm -- heartning everning to see south american swig a late adopter of my thinking. here in the room and on the zoom. tremendous amount of pain and concern. dlar, lack of xhunz. i want to put this to a stop.

this is one time i say planning commission went out on its own and i don't seat base i for denying the officer deck. and we heard from highway to make the roar yard compliant and seems like there is agreement there. i of course we are i rescue noise there is uncertainty and multiple plans there is light getting to the end of this. will i'm -- i'm more optimistic we resolve this without a continuance than the item previously at the earlier hearing. if it is we are able to get the

udu issue feedback from the department determination from the department within the next 7 to 10 days that is music to ears we can have difintive to the issues including whether the issue over the roof deck has to do with the roof deckerarc sesz to it. i -- i -- again i'm -- i'm very appreciative of the testimony tonight. from the za. committee fares involved with the city and the departments resolve and own the decision better that making a decision from here. i will join commissioner swig.

a limited continuance for these things to happen yoochl commissioner eppler. thank you. i would agree with my fellow commissioners. there issar difference in this continuance from the last.

i agree with you it seems slightly odd this an issue not brought as part of the dr and dr was taken i would like to see that handled and how it happened with the 18 foot year yard. as for the current. i would support this continuance as well and deal with the other issues. thank you to everybody who spoke tonight and fellow commissioners for wise reasoning with this. i'm pleased say i'm in support with the proposal hereof tonight. i was also going to suggest a continuance. that the correct answer there are too many things outstanding

for me to feel confident we are giving 100% of the right direction. and because of that i think a continuance to which will flush out in a minute is the correct answer. ultimate low you know what -- what this body is job is tonight is to #out the errors with the permit and the shortcomings. and -- what i'm about to say this is not coming in my decisionmaking tonight.

you know this is in the to ghn particular but tick a chance on the new neighbors they are here to stay. i don't think i think this they are here and believe them when than i say they are here to stay. take a chance on them. i think there is community that be built out of this process. that's what i wanted to add-on that note i'm happy to support a motion we come up with together to be leth and he complicated. could i ask mr. teague to the podium, please.

i was going to suggest the same. i republican down a list ever stuff you have yours. and there is also the the upon answer on the udu a week out in is easy. we said, okay we want resunrised plans. how long and i i'm sorry that there is not a licensed architect here who testifyod behalf of the permit holdser. that would make this easier. how long will it should we and it should take.

to acomdate new compliance issues two, to get straight all the other things that have been brought up tonight and so we can get a set of plans that is one set we can review -- to say. yate or no to. it can be case -- and when your person is and the changes made. other thing is when i start to tweak things.

that can snow ball the plans it may not look like much. can we make this a join conversation i was going to ask the permit holder where the architect you in we found the architect. is this in you both can answer this question. is it should we expect a 2 week continuance, a 4 week continuance, what are we expecting and could the

architect chime in asouffléing you have been listening all the time xu take notes on all the adjustments. that we have been discussing tonight. >> before they weigh in there are 3 factors. how long it would tick for the architect to provide plans. and then i need time to review them and a bit of time and they need another tweak and how soon you want the plans before the next hearing if you want them a week ahead. all those things we need them in time if we do this we gotta do it right and need them in time to do a proper review when the -- deadline. all 3 factors go in to how long is necessary and dwland. that statute functional aspect. you are in the next phase.

within a week? i would let the architect peek to that the reason suggest challenge to say. again the brought up i could make a comment minor and domino to other code issues and from design. i think at this point i think the questions are better suited for the architect. why can we >> sure. we are busy in the next available hearing may 15th. and also -- aside from corey the z achanges consider whether or not you will over tissue the planning commission continues.

nathan, please go ahead? yes. i have been listening all night and i do have notes. we have two last versions with a stair case not in the back setback and fire escapes and open space. by the -- permit holdser and -- we are going along as well with the building departments code.

we could have ready for you next week. for core tow look at and we would expedite adjustments within move it in for a week to get that done. you said. if it -- dominos to other codes and the caveat. first time we have the chance is may 15th. >> now you can take it from here to see if they are available. >> du want to give direction in further discussion the third condition to make third floor

identical to the second. >> nobody addressed that. before we delve in deep i would like to talk about a few other things. the new codes that surfaceed that does that have anything to

do with anything? >> the new requirements for the rear yard will make the building 3 inches less deep. it will contract. the we know this the first floor unit 45 will have to provide code compliant open space. i think it would be helpful tht original plans that the planning commission approved had 100 square foot you know porches for the first floor and second floor. and the third floor if it is able to kept xhengzs have the same thing. and comparable to the first

floor and third floor will have the roof decks the guidance needs to be strit forward. but that is up to the board to determine. if you want to keep what the planning required. >> and -- what was the intent of the planning commission in creating that parody with between the floors? my recollection is there was no discussion of that. there was discussion about removal of the -- stair and the roof deck and the press of making the motion the motion was made to remove the stair case and the roof deck and make the third floor it is like when do you do if it does in the have the stair and roof deck. layout the same.

meant when we made recommendations to the planning commission for the discretionary review, did not have any objections to the roof deck. obviously, the planning commission and their vote you made took the made the decision that they made. so what i would do at this point give the direction to the what i would do at this point is give the direction to the architect to consult with their client and then, as a result of discussion with their client, present plans , is that that go one way or the other and, and take their chances. that would be with with the roof deck and a revised staircase. it might look a that might show some concession to the wishes of the appellant or say, you know what, we're just not going to do the roof deck and we're going to go to parody. so i would leave that i think

we're we're getting into too much manipulation here. and it's really whether they want to bring it in front of this board or not. that would be my is that is that wise or unwise? well, i mean, i'm, i don't know that i'll speak to the wisdom of it. i do think that ultimately the question before the board is what is the outcome that you think is appropriate, and if there is an outcome you think is appropriate, then that singular outcome, to the extent that it can be articulated to the designer is going to is going to allow this to move forward more clearly. i'm going to give way to commissioner lemberg, i think it's worth the four of us talking about whether we would support a plan that involves the inclusion of a roof deck. i personally am actually fine with it, i think. i do think the planning commission overstepped its bounds, and i, you know, i don't know if we have to be more specific than than just

overturning those two conditions that the, that the planning commission put on it. it we are asked if we are moving forward with the continuance, we would be, you know, demanding all these other plant changes to the plans, but it sounds like from what the architect said, that they already have those plans drafted up and i, i don't see the necessity in us dictating how that roof deck should look like. if we're okay with the concept of a roof deck. generally, i just don't see the necessity in that. and i think we could potentially give the direction tonight. yes. include the roof deck. i i'm okay with doing alternatives like commissioner swig was sort of hinting at, but i don't know if it's necessary. and i think it might be overly burdensome if we do do that, but i'm. i'll pass it to commissioner trevena and then eppler. hey i'll be brief. i agree. we're getting into we're getting away from

continuance and more into deciding tonight if we if we go that route. my view is that the planning department, planning commission overstepped its bounds is arbitrary. and reverse. and so granting the request of the of the project sponsor to reverse that decision , that would to me, that would leave a roof deck with an unobtrusive stair access, whether that's internal or external. i think we can leave it up to the, the, the, the project sponsor or the architect planning department to, to figure out what what that is. my question and it is a question is whether or not, we want a roof deck proposal and a non roof deck proposal, just in case we don't like the roof deck proposal and it doesn't work. i mean, i maybe we address it at

that time because it seems unlikely that that will happen. and we just roll the dice and say okay let's go with roof deck right now and see. and you know, because we're we're all on the same page about, you know, how likely we will find that the planning commission overstepped its, judgment, but that that's my sole question that remains that i posed to the rest of you. if i could respond, i think we can. we can ask the. we can. we can direct them to be prepared for, for both alternatives. just in terms of another point, it, it seems that the interested parties on the roof deck issue are the 51 bernard and not the not the other appellants. they've already said they it's not their issue. so i think i think in this case, if the project sponsor, the architect, the department, can, can, can come up with something, that should be satisfactory if we

want to if we want to have both. i'm fine with that. okay may i take a shot at a motion, please, i make a motion to continue this item for the purpose of clarifying the plans, to include compliance, to planning department, standards and with direction to the, the architect at the will of the permit holder. to potentially include a , a rooftop component, a roof deck component or not. i think that's the best thing that we can do. and spiral staircase and spiral staircase and obviously spiral staircase, which would provide the access and we'll see what we have. at least we'll have one set of plans, guys. okay. can i, can i make can i make a, make a, a change. because i don't want to dictate

spiral staircase unless in case they have another brilliant idea. how about we just relax the three conditions posed by the planning commission and their, discretionary review? we also need to add in there the other conditions that mr. teague was talking about, which are the, 18 foot setback, the what was the other thing? i think there we can just say compliance with current planning code requirements, and that will cover it across the board. thank you. jen. yeah. that's great okay. so we have a motion and we need to check with the parties. yeah right. let's check on the dates. is everyone available? may 15th. so you're available on 15. but are we required to be there or are we. yeah. you could have your architect represent you by zoom. sure. yes. so we're

not going to be here. but we could we could do absolutely no problem. okay. congratulations mr. rosenbaum, i'm just checking with the. are you available? may 15th. i'm. i'm sorry. will you have another attorney from your office available or. deborah holly. okay, so i'm not clear. is that a yes or a no? you're not. i'm sorry. i don't know. okay, so i think the question to the appellant, are, are you comfortable with giving that you're you're not available on

may 15th and having a good time getting married, would you mind a postponement, for a week or two after that? is that going to cause you a burden, a hardship, and manifest injustice? that would be important for. that, i mean, i would be willing to attend by zoom for my honeymoon. i'm just interested in, you know, this is really about. this is really about you. because it's really quite first about you. because it's your permit and it's your hardship. every day we you know, every day you don't get this project done, is stalling your future. so it's really about you and what you're comfortable with. comfortable with is absolutely not possible.

we could make this work. i would prefer to take this thing. we can make that happen. but you know what? we're but i don't know how it works if they're not available or i don't know if we want to do it with 26, i want to do it. it's a long time out. i mean, i think the real question is whether the appellants are willing to, you know, willing to accept a may 15th date if there's not a guarantee of their counsel being present. that's i think, you know, i think the primary question. there what about this third floor just. okay yeah. oh, yeah. okay. got it, got it. okay yeah. got it. okay. thanks sorry. i understand

the importance of looking at. so no, no judgments here. we're just trying to figure out what works best. so i'm hearing a no from the appellant. so that means we should push it back further. i don't see any other solution. what's the other dates, julie? what's next? well we have may 29th, june 12th, june 26th. are you are you back from honeymoon? june 12th. we can make any of those dates work. yeah. why? she said i believe it was on. 26 or 12th. 29th, 29th or 12. does that work for you, mr. rosenbaum? may 29th. may. may 29th. can i see that all right. sounds like we have a winner.

legal counsel. well, you still have time to review the plans in advance. and you could submit a declaration or something. but they're represented by an attorney, and he's present. so what do you think, commissioners? yes, 29th. okay. yeah, yeah. okay so. okay, so let me see where we're at. okay. so are we ready. motions heard okay. so we have a motion from president swig to continue this item to may 29th, for the submission of revised plans to comply with changes to the planning code and remove the

requirement to comply with conditions imposed by the planning commission to eliminate the roof deck, eliminate a spiral stair, and configure the third floor to be identical to the second floor on that motion. commissioner trasvina i. vice president lehmberg i commissioner epler, i, so that motion carries 4 to 0 on the matters continued to may 29th, and we would like to have the plans submitted the thursday prior to the hearing. so you have time to review them on the weekend. so by 4:30 p.m. and also provided to the to, the appellants for 2401 one. so they should be submitted to the board office and to the appellants. okay. i think that concludes the matter. thank you everyone. oh thank you

>> [music] art withelders exhibiting senior art work across the bay for 30 years as part of our traveling exhibit's

program. for this exhibits we partnered with the san francisco art's commission galleries and excited show case the array of artist in historic san francisco city hall. >> [inaudible]. call me temperature is unique when we get to do we, meaning myself and the 20 other professional instructors we are working with elders we create long-term reps i can't think of another situation academically where we learn about each other. and the art part i believe is a

launching pad for the relationship building:see myself well. and if i don't try when my mom again. she may beat the hell out of mow if i don't try >> seniors, the population encounters the problem of loneliness and isolation even in a residential community there hen a loss of a spouse. leaving their original home. may be not driving anymore and so for us to be ail to bring the classes and art to those people where hay are and we work with people in all walks of life and circumstances but want to finds the people that are isolated and you know bring the warmth there as much as art skill its personal connection. men their family can't be well for them. i can be their fell and feel it. >> i don't have nobody. people say, hi, hi.

hello but i don't know who they are. but i come here like on a wednesday, thursday and friday. and i enjoy. >> we do annual surveys asking students what our program does for them. 90 plus % say they feel less alone, they feel more engaged. they feel more socially connected the things you hope for in general as we age. right? >> and see when i do this. i am very quiet. i don't have anybody here talking to me or telling me something because i'm concentrating on had i'm doing and i'm not talking to them.

>> not just one, many students were saying the program had absolutely transformational for them. in said it had saved their lives. >> i think it is person to support the program. because i think ida elder communities don't get a lot of space in disability. we want to support this program that is doing incredible work and giving disability and making this program what supports the art and health in different way bunkham art as a way of expression. a way of like socializing and giving artists the opportunity also to make art for the first time, sometimes and we are excited that we can support this stories and honor their stories through art. we hope the people will feel

inspired by the variety and the quality of the creative expressions here and that viewers come, way with a greater appreciation of the richness what elders have to share with us. [music] book. thank you. >> (music). >> my name is orlando i'm the owner and operator of sf pizza.

>> pizza is my expansion growing up i loved pizza and loved to cook and been in corporate banking jobs my that whole life wanted to own a pizza or and moved to san francisco 45 years ago and couldn't find pizza i like so one day of saving and trying to figure out what i would like to do to fulfill my dream and to literally must be that i went out on my own toes an interesting things skills i again have to working on the slight changes to find the right product and came up with something i enjoy and continue it. so the positive important thing in years and years and years of trying to get it where

i like it is for the sauce i use a unique sauce to bring out the flavors have to mats and capital improvement plan any and using use a high quality of cheese the products work together more important to me have a high quality of pizza and made with love and what i try to keep it to be a comfortable foods or food and that's what i try to over and offers so having a really bus illegal day in the community and rile appeal to me and that's what i was trying to accomplish i have thought when i got into pizza the main thing if i can, make a great cheese pizza he can do anything like growing

up that's what i brought to to and now called san francisco

okay. good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday, february. february april 4th, 2024. when we reached the item you're interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes, and when you have 30s remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your allotted time is reached, i will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record, i will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. i ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings, and at this time, i'd