Transcripts For SFGTV Board Of Appeals 20240713

Building inspector. And we also expect chris buck, urban forester with San Francisco public works. The Board Meeting guidelines are as follows. We request that you silence all phones and other devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. Please carry on conversations in the hallway. Each are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with the party must include comments. Members not affiliated with the parties have three minutes each to address the board. To assist the board in accurate preparation of minutes, youre asked to provide a name. Speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. The board reserves the right to not call an item after 10 p. M. Please speak to board staff during the break, or after the meeting. We are located at 1650 mission street. This will be rebroadcast on fridays on channel 26. The video is available on our website and can be downloaded from sfgovtv. Now well swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. Any member of the public may speak without taking an oath. If you intend to testify, and wish the board to give your testimony weight, please stand if youre able, please raise your right hand and say i do after sworn in affirmed. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth . Thank you. Please be seated. Commissioners, we have one housekeeping. The parties for item 7, appeal wernette versus public works. Subject property at 3896 noriega street. Motion to continue. Okay, we have a motion from commissioner honda to continue this to march 18. Any Public Comment on the motion . Seeing none, santacana aye. Lazarus aye. Tanner aye. That carries 40 and that matter is moved. Item number 1, is general Public Comment. This is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the boards jurisdiction, but that is not on tonights calendar. Is there any member here for general Public Comment . Seeing none, well move to item number 2. Commissioner comments and questions. None. Commissioners . No, okay. Well move on to item number 3, the adoption of the minutes before you for discussion, january 8, 2020 Board Meeting. Vice president lazarus commissioners, any changes, deletions . No, motion to accept the minutes. Okay, we have a motion from commissioner honda to adopt the january 8, 2020 Board Meeting minutes. Any Public Comment on the motion . Seeing none, on that motion, commissioner santacana aye. Lazarus aye. Tanner aye. That motion carries 40 and the minutes are adopted. Were now moving onto item number 4. I guess we can start. I dont see inspector duffy here yet, but hes needed commissioner honda is he needed for all of them . For the next two, not for item 6. So. Commissioner honda if we need him, we have to move to item number 6. Were going to move to item 6 because Senior Inspector duffy is not here. Oh, hold on. In the nick of time. Okay, were going back to item 4. This is appeal number 1910. Rosehillson, versus department of building inspection. Appealing the issuance on november 6, 2019 to george hume of an alteration permit, replacement of eight foot fence on the rear Property Line, north, east and west. This is permit number 2019, 11066606. Well hear from the appellant first. You have seven minutes. Good evening. Welcome. Good evening. I have my agent here nancy with me, in case i cant finish. Im rosehillson. My tree is a rare variety of the native which the Indigenous People collectively refer to as the to provide food, shelter, and medicine. This people respect it and protected these trees to the benefit of the environment and themselves. Im respecting the tradition by respecting this tree in our city. I love my tree. I have spent at least two decades determining and studying this specimen. And in having to vigilantly protect this tree from harm. My efforts were rewarded when the board of supervisors agreed with me and the urban Forestry Council to protect the tree through awarding it landmark status in 2008. This landmark status is supposed to ensure that the city now is my partner in protecting my tree from injury or destruction by law as described in public works code article 16. The city is not doing its job to safeguard my tree. Or probably any of the city landmark trees. The Zoning Administrator under code section 810e shall be required to identify designated landmark trees on proposed construction sites. And notify the urban Forestry Council and public works. Also, the Zoning Administrator and public works shall be required to impose measures to protect landmark trees on a construction site against damage to trunk, roots, and branches. Public works director approval of the tree Protection Plan is required by law to certify adequate tree Protection Measures will be taken as part of the construction plans. No one can approve a tree plan Protection Plan. No one else can approve a tree Protection Plan. These city actions described must be taken before a Building Permit is issued per section 808c2. None of these requirements were met before dbi issued this permit. The bureau of urban forestry, of public works, had no signoff on the permit because dbis permit process does not include d. P. W. Bureau of urban forestry before issuance. I was never shown a copy of the construction plans and the work to be done to replace the Property Line before the permit was applied for. We now can see the construction manner in the permitholders response to you. My tree is not indicated on the drawings. There is no indication on the application there is a landmark tree involved in the construction area. I had to make an appeal to you to stop this unlawful Construction Permit and request that you deny its issuance. There are so many things wrong with the permit. So many legal steps not taken before it was issued. This permit cannot be amended with conditions. It must be revoked. A new Building Permit application must be required for any project that could affect my tree. It must include me in creating the design plan drawings and Protection Plan. It must be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and public works, including the separate bureau of urban forestry with the director of public works. In the event of enforcement action being needed, the director of public works shall request the director of building inspection to initiate enforcement action under the Building Code for 808c7. Also, the landmark trees location needs to be shown on all city records, on all adjoining parcelle s parcels so 808a shall be complied with. Please do not put my rare mccann nita tree in any jeopardy. Thank you for considering my comments. Im going to need the overhead to show the picture. This i my tree. Vice president lazarus well now hear from the permitholder, mr. Hume. Good evening, welcome. Vice president , lazarus, honda, tanner and santacana. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the appeal ms. Hillson. There is a history rooted in fact and fiction. If you listen to mrs. Hillson, you would think that myself, my wife and our contractor daniel harder are conspiring against mrs. Hillson and want to hurt the manzanita tree on 115 parker avenue. You would think we didnt follow the correct permits, follow rules and not take the wellbeing of the tree into account. And you would think that our city officials have been negligent in their duties. This is not the truth. This is the truth. We have worked with mrs. Hillson in the process of our landscaping work from 2017 and our fence project in 2019 as Good Neighbors do. Communicated via over 100 emails and numerous meetings on site. We enlisted the help of her arborist even though she would not give us the name, and we had to call many to find one that. We have written approval, where you can see mrs. Hillson is copied, mayor to move forward with the landscaping plans. Which we have every person who does work in our backyard read and acknowledge. We have another tree Protection Plan written by her arborist for our fence, that mrs. Hillson approved and stated, roy, thank you for the tree Protection Plan and helping out with the situation. Thank you for helping figure out the fence project together. Chris and nick, sorry we missed you, but this should fulfill the requirements of the ordinance. Weve had her attend numerous meetings with our arborist, herself and contractor, where everyone was 100 on board to repair the fence. Mrs. Hillson asked us for a private meeting on her property to work the issue of the shared fence together. We were happy to do so, to put a plan in place as neighbors. We all agreed on a time and she never attended. Nor respond tony followup emails. We asked her to attend a meeting with the dbi on property to review the appeal and she did not attend. I had to walk over to her house and hold a phone to her doorstep so she could hear the appeal could be solved by being neighbors, all she needed to do was withdraw the appeal, given we had agreed to stop working on the side of the shared fence. She decided to move forward with the appeal, given there was unfinished work securing our fences and gate to the street. Luckily, mr. Duffy guided us and allowed us to complete the street fence and gate. I would like to express gratitude to mr. Duffy, the dbi and julie rosenberg, so it did not provide a Security Risk to the neighbor. I am born in childrens hospital. I went to school here. Our two sons, alexander, age 7 and james age 4, also born in this great city. My wife is a native, having grown up in santa rosa. We believe in being Good Neighbors and we have worked and continue to work within the rules and city guidelines when it comes to working on our property, including our backyard and fence. In the appellant brief filed, mrs. Hillson has grievances outside the scope of the appeal. In that appeal, she ask that the permit be amended to not include our shared fence. However, the updated appeal references complaints against dbi, and other divisions. She puts into question the entire process which we and our contractor did arduously and legally. We ask that you see this appeal for what it is. An attempt by mrs. Hillson to use the appellant process to undermine the procedures, use questionable tactics and misrepresentation to bring the city, workers and us and the end result, a fence in disrepair and not safe for us, our children, and also the landmark manzanita tree. A fence that is in extreme danger of falling down on our children or on the landmark manzanita tree if a strong wind prevails from the west. A fence that would be fixed with permits filed and approved. Please do not allow mrs. Hillson to invalidate what we have done thoughtfully, with a tree Protection Plan shared by her arborist and dbi, and contractors and mrs. Hillson herself. We have tried to hire mr. Leggett to work with us on this appeal, but mrs. Hillson has blocked us by not responding to his request. Leaving us, our kids, our property and the manzanita tree at risk. Why do that . To conclude, id like to para phrase what mr. Leggett said, in an email exchange when we told them of the appeal by the way he had no idea they had placed the appeal on the permit george and roxanne, rose has been hesitant to bring me in too often, which has led to her handling the fence issue herself and making the project too challenging for everyone else. Im sorry about that since the ideas we hatched were solid. Solid. Myself, my wife, roxanne, and our children are very grateful to all of you for listening to our side of this important matter, regarding our fence, manzanita, the permit, which is essential to the safety for us, our two young sons, alexander and james, and our property. Thank you very much. Vice president lazarus thank you. Mr. Sanchez, well now hear from the Planning Department. That beard is filling in, buddy. Thank you, it probably wont be lasting long. Appreciate the comments of the appellant and the permitholder in the matter. This is straightforward. A fence replacement permit, which are common and approved routinely over the counter and worth noting that the fence was six feet or less, no permit is even required. Appreciate the issues raised by the appellant in terms of process and how the process could be approved. The Planning Department does have a database that we get from department of public works and urban forestry with all the landmark trees in the city. So all the properties with landmark trees are identified. The issue in this case is that the landmark tree is not on this property, its on the adjacent property. Unlike most issues we have in the city when we note something on a property, its only relative to that property, like the historic status, its only relative to that and not the adjacent properties. Landmark trees are unique because the landmark tree, depending on its location on the lot could have implications on abutting properties because the Protection Measures need to apply to the dripline which is where the roots grow. Luckily, chris buck is here and can explain the details better than i can. In this case, we certainly should have been able to identify it as adjacent to a landmark tree. And the appellant has suggested that we look at every single adjacent property when reviewing one permit. That could be five, six, seven, a number of properties. Thats not a feasible option, but you know, they did highlight an area for us to improve and so were working with the department of public works and our staff to be able to better flag these lots. We may do every property, or flag every property that is abutting a property with landmark tree. Over time, well go in and work with public works and identify specific properties which need to be tacked tagged. In this case, its really only the one adjacent properties in the rear that could have impact on the tree. That said, i dont see there are any fatal flaws in the permit that would justify disapproval of the permit. What is required is a true Protection Plan, which as i understand has been prepared, accepted. They have the means and methods to move forward without damaging the tree, which i think is everyones goal and additional processes not the goal. The goal is to make sure the tree is protected to allow the fence to be reconstructed in a safe manner and let everyone move on with their lives. So with that, Senior Inspector duffy has been out to the site and also chris buck has intimate knowledge of this, so i defer to them for further discussion of the permit. But i wanted to share our thoughts. Vice president lazarus so, lets say that this had been noted there was this tree adjacent. What would have been different about the process . Essentially the tree Protection Plan coming before the permit is approved. Vice president lazarus would that be something that is referred to public works to review and they would sign off on the plan . The issue here, we have in our database the landmark trees. Dbi does not in theirs. So were going to have to work in multiagency to ensure we have a system whereby when the permit comes in, dbi can see if that needs to be a routing step. So well work with dbi, bureau of urban forestry to ensure that we can better implement this process. Vice president lazarus as far as youre concerned, its similar so what we see here, this is how were going to protect the tree, everyone agrees this is part of the plan and when dbi goes out to inspect, its happening with the protection on site. Do you have an idea of how many landmark trees we have in San Francisco . Its not a tremendous number. Mr. Buck might have a better idea . Yes. Well now hear from the Department Building inspection. Good evening. Joe duffy, dbi. The Building Permit as you know is replacement of 8foot fence on the rear Property Line on the northeast and the west. So the permit was properly reviewed and issued by dbi. There is nothing wrong with that. I did hear, i was involved in this originally during the early stages of the appeal because the contractor had started the work. And when the permit got issued and then the permit got suspended. But the yard was completely wide open. I mean, it was unsafe condition. Securitywise with the permit holders, they were keen to not have their property open for a period of until now from basically back in november. So we did let them finish the Property Line that would have been on the adjacent neighboring property. We let them finish that work. The only part that needs to be done is the back part that faces onto the appellants property. And i agree with mr. Sanchez f there is a tree if there is a tree Protection Plan, its my understanding theyre going to use the existing footings, cut posts, weld in brackets and then build the fence posts from that. Theyre not disturbing anything underground. There is ann arborist involved and he could oversee. But i dont see this as being a big issue. In my experience, ive seen a couple of oak trees that are protected and there are requirements around them. I believe this may be the only manzanita tree in the city that is protected, but mr. Buck can speak to that. My opinion is, let them continue with the work on the Building Permit that is issued, or sorry, that is under appeal. The work can be done safely if its overseen. And quality of the work on the response of the permitholder were excellent with me and correspondence. I have one question. Similar to what i asked mr. Sanchez in terms of process, is there any other steps . The appellant asserts there was a number of steps missed. Was the only thing missing the tree Protection Plan we have one. There is one agreed to. But thats the only kind of outstanding item that didnt come in with the permit application was the tree Protection Plan . Yeah, on this permit here. Maybe we can look at in the future. The problem this is 112 commonwealth avenue. We dont have a protected tree on that property. Capture all the properties affected by that, because the roots, who knows where theyre going. Its something in the future. I did speak to mr. Buck on the phone about maybe approving that. And the permit tracking system in dbi, we have a box for restrictions in the Planning Department or urban forestry use it as well. There is a little tick in the box. When you click on that, it tells you what restriction. That would tell us to write the permit. But i think youre right you can check with mr. Buck if it did go to urban forestry, would the approval have been any different than what it was . Vice president lazarus thank you. Just a followup. If the tree had been on the subject propertys lot instead, are you saying then the process would have been to route it to buff . I believe the Planning Department would have done that under their review, i believe that is what mr. Sanchez said. Vice president lazarus thank you. Okay, did we want to hear from the bureau of urban forestry . Okay, mr. Buck. Good evening, commissioners, chris buck with San Francisco public works, urban forestry. Good to be here before you where were advocating to protect a cultural asset. I want to thank rose, ms. Hillson. Im sure there is pressure to protect this landmark manzanita. It may not look like much, but genetically and in terms of its indigenous history, it is very important to the city. And thats why it was landmarked. Briefly, i was Education Coordinator for five years for friends of the urban forestry. That was 200002005. Which was allowed to hire an intern to get the city to improve the tree landmark program. It used to be under the urban advisory board. A few years later, im working for the city and rose and i both served on the landmark tree committee. So i would say the two of us are the most knowledgeable people in the city about landmark trees. One part i want to fill in and assure you. For sure, i think rose has brought up good points about adjacent property notification. But i do want to say, in the last 15 years that ive been with the city, let me tell you how it typically happens. If there is an issue with a tree or special landmark tree, my phone and email blows up. I get calls from both Property Owners. Thats what has been happening here. 2008, landmark. In 2012, issue with pg e. I have photos of on site. As rose stated in 2017 there was issue with the new owner doing work in her backyard. I had inspector under my direct supervision get to the site the same day. Landmark trees have the highest level of protection and that is reflected in the way weve been handling this. So were out there all the time. For this particular case, whether or not dbi was notified, i understand that in the bigger picture, the adjacent Property Owners need to be notified. In 2017, this Property Owner was notified when we went out there. We sent them a letter and the landscaping work they did, based on what i was told today, met the needs in the list of requirements from ms. Hillson. I inspected the site today to look at the condition of the rear yard, the hu humees. Theyre following everything agreed to. So for this particular case, we were being emailed and called. And we were going to get out there. We werent able to get out there that day. There must have been something incredibly important, otherwise i would have been out there personally. The last email is november 5 and everyone saying great productive meeting, sounds like were all on the same page. Now, if it had not gone well, that would be a cue to reach out to rose and say let me help. The appeal is the first time i heard it wasnt going well. With that, i want to provide reality check. The landmark trees as i stated, im heavily involved with them. As an advocate for friends of urban forest i was trying to advocate the city expand its program. I just want to show a couple of photos showing if we can have the overhead in 2012, we were on site. This is the landmark manzanita tree. It is unusual placement. This next photo shows that the base of the manzanita is very close to the fence. And so the drip line of the tree is not literally where the canopy exists, its really considered to be radiating out from the center of the trunk. So in fact, eight feet or so into the neighboring property. This is a photo that we took in 2017 when we were out the same day we received a call from rose. Again, just getting out there to establish what is going on. The 2017 work didnt require permit and the owner listened to both us and rose to do the work the way that she wished to see it done. And then just coming up current time, we have the copy of roy leggetts tree Protection Plan and we believe the work to replace the fence can be done without impacting the landmark tree. So we have a copy of that here. I think the one question, it would be terrific to clarify, is that there is two i think there are two proposals that have been discussed. One is cutting the pipes down to the cement plugs, or footings. Installing a new metal post and attaching the new fence pieces to that. That way there is no excavation whatsoever. That would require moving the fence, its shared fence. The other option is to leave that fence as is and to install a fence just inside that on the hume property. So i would say, ideally, id love to hear if there if rose has some specific things shes not seeing in the plan. You know, what would those be so we could come to an agreement . Im comfortable with both of those plans and protecting that manzanita. So thats what im looking for tonight. I believe we have a tree Protection Plan and would like to resolve any outstanding issues. Thats why were here. And just to defend the idea that we are actively involved with protecting landmark trees. Thank you. Mr. Buck, same question that i asked mr. Sanchez. How many landmark trees do we have in San Francisco . So the number of sites is approximately 20. There are some sites that have more than one tree that is landmarked. There is a number of palms. 100 on dolores. So about 20 sites. So not that many. Its a small handful. No other manzanitas . Correct, no other manzanitas on the protected list. There is an exciting manzanita in the presidio, but the whereabouts are undisclosed to avoid tampering. Thank you. Any Public Comment on this item . Good evening. Im here to support mrs. Hillson to protect her landmark tree during construction. This subject is very important to me because ive been helping my friends, mrs. Mary jay to landmark her tree since october of 2015. Mrs. Jay is now 99 years old and wants to preserve her tree for future generations. The only legal way to be sure the tree will not be cut down is to ensure the protections of the Landmark Tree Program. The procedures to achieve a certified landmark status of a privately owned tree are not easy. Theyre very detailed, involving urban Forestry Council, Landmark Committee members, examining the tree, making reports of their findings, getting exert arborist review, having public hearings about the tree, city reviews and of the nomination ending with the approval by the board of supervisors. Two years ago the russian tree received unanimous vote to landmark it, but were still working to complete the final steps. I mention this to you so you can appreciate how much work it takes to get the citys protection for a tree. The Landmark Tree Program is a gift to the city to preserve our Cultural Heritage of wonderful trees by putting city departments in charge of enforcing the law that prevents them from damage or injury. It is my understanding that its the city departments would be responsible for Monitoring Future Building Permits that affect the landmark tree and to apply the law accordingly. The monitoring action should not be the responsibility of the citizens who have landmarked the tree to figure out if the city is going to actually enforce the tree Protection Measures. I am deeply concerned now that our expectations for protecting mr. Jays tree will not be in force if mrs. Hillsons tree is not protected. Please uphold the laws on which we depend to preserve the citys special trees. Please deny the issuing permit. Thank you, any other Public Comment . Good evening. Im leslie here to support ms. Hillson appeal to deny a Building Permit in error. In 2014 sorry . You can speak at the microphone to your left. Its lower. I am here to support mrs. Hillson appeal to deny a Building Permit issued in error. Our neighbors sought successfully for the giant tree at market tree landmarked. This is a very first joint sequoia landmarked in San Francisco and i understand there are 33 trees landmarked in San Francisco. Beginning in 2011, the neighbor started working with the developer who was remodelling a victorian house on Market Street. We successfully negotiated with him to retain the giant tree because this tree is an actual landmark for the upper Market Street neighbors. You may have seen it yourself as you drive down the hill on market toward town. In 2014, a new developer bought the property to complete the remodelling and sell the house. This would mean that our agreement ended and a new owner could remove the tree. In order to preserve this very visible important feature to our area, neighbors decided that the tree should be landmarked before the property was sold to the new owners would be fully aware the tree was protected. We understand that the status would protect the tree forever from illegal harm to removal because its protected by law. The landmark status is approved by the board of supervisors in 2014 and house sold in 2015 and everyone continues to enjoy the sequoia. Now im concerned our happy story may not continue because mrs. Hillson has come to you, showing that her landmark tree was not protected. Is this the way the city protects the special status of trees . What would i tell the neighbors about how poorly the city has demonstrated keeping the landmark tree in mind. Dbi planning and public works have a role to play to implement article 16 that protects landmark trees before a permit can be issued. I think the city departments need to get their act together to set up a process to identify protected trees and enforce the law. If these departments continue business as usual [bell ringing] i ask that you deny the permit because the entire process is out of compliance. Vice president lazarus thank you. Any other Public Comment . Well move on to rebuttal. Ms. Hillson, you have three minutes. Today im requested that the board of appeals deny the Building Permit. Im asking the board to uphold the law as stated in public works code 16, by requiring city departments to implement the law as written. This law is very clear. The law is not conditional so that sometimes it can be retroactively implemented to fix an issued permit that is out of compliance with the law. The law is not unclear as to the requirements that shall take place before a Building Permit that may damage a landmark tree is issued. The law is prescriptive as to the regulations that shall be followed for its implementation. The law is clear that a permit failure to obtain the plan before the permit is issued shall be deemed in violation of the permit. These words were copied from the public works code included in my brief on pages 9, 10 and 11 and in your supporting documents package, pages 16, 17 and 18. In my opinion, i do not see any option in article 16 that would support a board decision to allow conditions, amendments to be imposed on this flawed permit ever the fact, or to uphold the issuance of this permit. Please support the law and deny this Building Permit. If a new permit is issued and applied and issued, then we can all discuss the suggestions made today, but this is not about procedures and suggestions. Its about the issuance of the permit. The current permit cannot be amended. Thank you. Vice president lazarus i have a question. Commissioner honda we have a few questions. Vice president lazarus i thank you for coming tonight. Can you talk about, did you participate in the creation of the tree Protection Plan that your arborist, mr. Leggett created . Yes. Vice president lazarus what were the challenges with that . Were you less than satisfied with anything in the plan . There are other things in the plan, i dont think everything was talked about. While the Protection Plan was written by my arborist, the whole story, nothing but the whole truth and story is not before you. You get bits and pieces. Vice president lazarus the question i have, when you look at that plan by your arborist or the subsequent plan by daniel harder and sons, are there any items you would want to add or change in the plans . There would be some, but i cant come up with them i mean, i have a whole list of things that havent been addressed, but i didnt think we were talking about procedures and amendments today. Its about the issuance of the permit being flawed. Vice president lazarus i understand that is your perspective. I think the permitholder has a different perspective. The permitholder asserted you did not want to meet or speak with them from the time you filed the appeal, is that accurate . Um, yes. Vice president lazarus and is there a reason you didnt want to meet or speak with them to discuss the matters . Because i cant take it anymore. Vice president lazarus okay. Thank you anymore. Commissioner honda i have a question, too, maam. So mr. Roy leggett has been before the body many times, has a respected opinion, is there a reason hes not accompanying you during this hearing . Hes decided he wasnt going to. I dont know why. But hes decided hes not going to. Commissioner honda okay, thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from the permitholder. Mr. Hume, you have three minutes. Thank you again for hearing our side of the story. Just want to go to what you had asked about mr. Roy leggett why hes not here. Im tell you why, because rose didnt tell him about the appeal. I emailed roy and said, will you come to the hearing today to hear and help us and talk to the board about this appeal that she filed . And he said thats the first time ive heard of it. Thats why hes not here. Not because he cant be here. He didnt even know about it, right . I mean thats a flaw in itself. We have done everything we can in order to help protect this tree, because we believe we believe in protecting trees. We have two different tree Protection Plans. One from our contractor that every Single Person who does work in our backyard needs to read and abide by. We have numerous emails weve shared with chris buck, and he can verify that as well. The Protection Plan that roy leggett put together, even mrs. Hillson even said, this should satisfy the tree landmark ordinance. That is her exact words she wrote in the email. I mean, weve done everything we can. And we are just we cant work with mrs. Hillson. She goes completely silent on us. When you ask her for meetings, she doesnt show up. We actually put this plan together and involved her as Good Neighbors do. And something that mr. Duffy said a while back really resonated with me. This is something that could be solved as neighbors. Like, were neighbors. For better or for worse. So i just ask that you please see this appeal for what it is. Its not, like we have done everything we can. We have followed public works code. We have a tree Protection Plan. Weve done everything we can. And weve done everything, given all the information we have. Please. Im open for any questions. Vice president lazarus i have a few questions. Yes. Commissioner tanner you provided the memorandum from the arborist and then you have the tree Protection Plan from the contractor in the plan and mr. Duffy indicated and the plan suggests youre going to grind down kind of the fence and use the same footings for the fence and have a bracket that connects the poles. Thats still the plan, correct . Repair the fence on that side, or has that changed . Can i call on my better half who is better with this stuff than i am. This is roxanne. Shes amazing. So at this point were trying to figure out what to do because obviously it would entail with the grinding down and installing the posts that are already fabricated because we were moving forward before the permit was appealed. Now that would also include the fence coming down, because we have to use those posts and those hold up the fence, its unclear, because working with mrs. Hillson, weve come to this situation. So if thats not available to us, then what we would do is work with mr. Buck and either mr. Leggett to find the best tree protection scenario and work from there. We went over a few options with mr. Buck today. Commissioner tanner to clarify based on the photos that mr. Buck showed of the way the fence is, looking towards the fence from the appellant side, there is a post that are there, that are nearer to the tree and the idea is remove the fence and cut those posts down and use the footings from those. But if you cant come to agreement with your neighbor, youre saying we want to come to another solution so you maintain the existing fence line . So it would maintain that fence line and we would build a fence on our property. And involve using tree protection. We dont want to injure the tree. Have a tree Protection Plan, but a different scenario. The thing, commissioner tanner, you need to realize that the fence is in really bad shape, right. Like mr. Buck was there today. Its rotting. And if there is a strong wind, that thing will fall. It will either fall on us or her tree. T commissioner tanner exhibi 6 showed and maybe this is roxanne to your point, showing there is going to be new fence posts on your side of the property, is that what that is indicating . Plan b, saying were going to put in new posts that protects the tree on our side. So we passed to mr. Buck today and we were going to go over with it ann arborist. In 2017, they didnt find roots in the property. Commissioner tanner is your desire today to amend the existing permit with a new plan . Is that the goal . Great. Thank you very much. Any other questions . Commissioner honda thank you. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you. Just to note. Considering the arguments of the appellant, this is not a final permit. I mean the permit was issued, but its not final until the board of appeals takes action on it as long as its in the jurisdiction of the board of appeals and we dont see this as a final permit. The board of appeals has the ability to make amendments and this is something the board has done if there is something found to be in error or correctable. I think that is something that is available to the board of appeals fully your right to do. Commissioner honda mr. Sanchez, are you giving any suggestions . It seems like there was a resolution here with the adoption of the tree Protection Plan. It sounds like from what i understand in speaking with chris buck, there is really want to work with the appellant to find out everything they have concerns about and address those, but maybe, as we heard tonight, we havent heard the whole story, but weve had briefs on this and plenty of opportunity in terms of discussion in terms of the final Protection Plan. I think everything is out there and getting it done now. Thank you. Mr. Duffy, anything further . I have a question. I guess im confused about the permit. Does the permit as written specify the methodology for replacing it . Because they talked about two different approaches to mending the fence . So does the permit stand regardless how they do that . Well, there would be a detail for the rear fence, but i read in the brief there was post and welding on the bracket, so that might be plan b. If it doesnt work. But in answer to your question, whatever is shown on the approved plans is the way theyre supposed to do it. So if they go to plan b, do they have to come in and amend the permit. They have do a revision to the permit or the board could do a special conditions permit, whatever road they decide to if they want to change it. It doesnt sound like theyre going to make the decision tonight. Mr. Buck got involved and bureau of urban forestry are involved, maybe they need to figure out the way to go with the new plan. And get that on a special conditions permit. That would mean continuing that item yeah, not for too long hopefully. I think mr. Sanchez said the ironic part, if the fence at the rear was two feet lower, there wouldnt be a requirement. And maybe it would be in a civil issue in court. This would not be in our purview, because its in the rear yard of a property in San Francisco, doesnt need a permit if its six feet or less. The tree Protection Plan, again, is that arguably voluntary because the tree isnt on their property . Yes. Its not required by dbi in this case. I think in the future, going if it was mr. Buck could speak to that, they would have required it anyway. Thats my understanding. Thank you. Mr. Buck . Good evening, chris buck with public works. Bureau of urban forestry. Just to clarify, when there is landmark tree adjacent to property that is undergoing any form of construction, even a fence replacement, it does trigger a tree protection requirement. So again last i heard, november 5, everyone was working together. And i want to emphasize again how much i respect what rose is trying to do. I want to reiterate the Property Owner is doing everything they can every step of the way. So much proactive communication between both parties, so im here to help both. I feel like we can get the fence replaced and still protect the landmark tree without an issue. What i was going to say, we have a very buried form where you where i had the humes fill out yesterday, yes, its not construction, its not a singlefamily home, its not sales force tower, its not a renovation, on the second page buried in fine print, there is a place that says construction, adjacent property landmark tree. There is a box. We had them check that. Thats what we had them do yesterday. But again as of november 5th, reporting back from both parties that everything was going well. So public works has what we need to basically sign off on the tree Protection Plan. I would be fine if the Commission Voted to uphold the appeal. I do feel for both parties. I think resolution would be great. So were here with the with your, you know at your recommendation, but we have what we need. And again, i want to reiterate to folks talking about their own landmark trees, we are heavily involved as you can see from the correspondence in both briefs to protect landmark trees. Thank you. Thank you. Question for you. Following up on Vice President lazarus, you say you have enough to sign off on the tree Protection Plan, what i heard from the permitholder, they may switch to a different route. They cant work with their neighbor to do the plan that the arborist suggested with the post, but switch to another plan to install a new fence on the property side. Thats if their first plan was rejected. Well, what i heard them say and i may have them come back up, they said theyre not sure if they would want to work with her. Would they go that route. Im trying to understand if the method of installing the fence were to change, would you need more time to review that . Or would you have enough information today for session conditions permit . Just trying to understand. Good question. So there has been so many emails back, im looking at emails a few years ago, last fall, discussions about what the best technique or approach would be. There was a discussion about, you know, just forming new pilings and not putting it right where it is, because thats close to the tree. Putting it beyond the drip line and hand digging carefully to create new posts. Its been discussed quite a bit. A lot of the options. Thats why im before you open to that. There is an openness, seemingly on both sides to look at what is best for the tree. You know, i do think the Property Owner has demonstrated a commitment to doing what is best for the landmark tree. And so if mr. Duffy with dbi says, well, thats a change, we need to modify that, im comfortable with posts going beyond the drip line and overseeing that work. I can come out and look at how the work is progressing. Its important. Commissioner tanner would you need more time to review anything . Or i guess im trying to think how were going to work as a body to resolve this matter. If were continuing it, looking at special conditions permit and what the conditions might be. So if they were to go to what im calling plan b which seems to be what is reflected on this exhibit 6, these posts on their Property Line. Thats maybe where im confused. There was an initial plan, cutting things, using the same posts and there seems to be this permit, which has the posts on their Property Line which is not the current condition. Both proposals, we believe the applicant can install without damaging the tree. Okay. So i would say were open to both. We have enough information that we feel comfortable, because theyve had even their own contractor, the fence contractor talk about the processes they would take to do Something Like that. Additionally i was forwarded an email today, the humes showed me an email where they have 10 bullet points, where anybody doing work this their rear yard has to read this. There are cases i would raise red flags, slow this down, this is terrible. This is not the case. I have one more question. In terms of the signoff on the tree Protection Plan, that is up to the bureau of urban forestry, thats not the neighbors prerogative, reecorrect . Correct. We certainly hope to win but the official sign off comes from them. Yes. Thank you. Can i ask the Property Owner to come forward one more time . Can you address the question of whether exhibit 6, which seems to be the approved plan, is that what im calling plan b, which is installing new posts on your side of the property, or is this plan a using the existing footings . The original plan was to use the existing footings. And then the plan we submitted in the permitting was because the footings are on our side, that was part of the drawings. Make sense . Great. So is that still what you want to do . So the issue is that at this point we feel weve hit a wall with mrs. Hillson, so we would prefer to take down the fence because its in disrepair, but if we need to do something on our side and have footings on our side, that would be i feel like its been a challenge to find the question here is, what do you prefer at this point . Because as per the permit that was submitted, is that what you would like to go forward . Or are you trying to submit a new design . So the design would be footings on our side that we handdig. Which is different than what is demonstrated in exhibit 6. What were trying to do was have mr. Leggett, contact him and have him walk through the process. One question. Just to try to illustrate. As a board, we had a couple of options before us. We can continue this. Okay, you have more time to figure out and you come back again before us and work something out. We could find for the appellant and we could overturn the permit and say the permit was not properly issued. We could say this permit needs revisions or approve it with revisions and you dont have to come back with special conditions, youre going to work with the department to make sure the conditions are enforced. But if what you have on your permit is not what you want, we need to know that. We want to modify the permit. And that was our plan once we if we came here and you were able to not get the permit appealed, we were going to modify the permit, switch the back, because the other side of the fence is already built, so this would maintain and wed modify the permit for the back. Great, thank you. That is helpful. Thats cleared. Why is that what you want to do . Because were having its challenging to work with mrs. Hillson and weve tried to figure out a way to Work Together and it came to a standstill. You said the footings are on your property. They are, but it holds up a fence we share. You just dont want to deal with that . Were having to take down the fence, but it seems stress for rose and we were just trying to figure out the bestcase scenario because were going to continue to be neighbors. What to say . Yeah, i mean i think i would move where im headed is to grant the appeal and condition the permit on revisions that reflect new footings that avoid the drip line of the tree and approved by the bureau of urban forestry and tree Protection Plan also approved by the bureau of urban forestry. I agree. Im sorry, sir, you had the opportunity to speak, its now over. Were in deliberations. I mean, i think granting the appeal and conditioning it on a tree Protection Plan that is actually signed off on by the bureau of urban forestry, formally, because this has been irregular and to the extent that a modification of the permit is needed, then dbi is going to have a sign that, too. Yeah. Motion . Yeah. Before i officially make the motion and ill restate it so we have it all. I want to thank the appellant for bringing forward the issue. I think it raised an important issue, that planning, dbi and bureau of urban forestry have to work out. The trunk is not the whole tree. The root system is part of the tree. If were going to landmark our trees, we have to be cognizant of what the tree is. It is a living thing and grows. But following the letter of the law, it doesnt seem this permit was improperly issued, only that the review didnt encompass as wide of a berth as would have been prudent to encompass. Do you need to add something to my motion . That is helpful. Commissioners, joe duffy. I want to remind you that we might need some language in there for the existing fence in the event it did fail completely, started to fail. Because were leaving that in place and putting a fence on the inside. So maybe in the tree Protection Plan that needs to be addressed. This will take care of the problem now, but what about later when the fence could fall onto the protected tree. Im just trying to maybe there is a way to the existing fence. So we might need to address that. Im sure in the tree Protection Plan, we can do that as well. Iius want to just want to make everyone aware of that. Wouldnt it be possible to remove the fence boards. I just wanted to make it clear i think its getting too much in the weeds. Go ahead. Youre the lawyer. Well, just my opinion on that is, the parties can continue to Work Together in this process. Obviously there is a risk of the fence falling on this protected tree, which would be bad. And so if its going to be addressed in the tree Protection Plan, i think ms. Hillson, it would be in your interest to make sure you have input into that. And mr. Buck, that you Pay Attention to the issue mr. Duffy just raised. But you know, ultimately, if they want to build a fence inside of it, then its not really on the appellants at that point. I agree and you have to be careful what you wish for. Additionally, i hope this motion wouldnt preclude the appellant and the Property Owner from working together and still having a resolution they came with. The revision of the permit could be something that we havent thought of. But anyhow sorry, may i . That just raised a different issue for me. If they go to this one, im going to call plan b and left the old fence in place and the fence blows over and hurts the tree, where is the liability . Well, im not going to opine on that. Well that makes me uncomfortable. I think this hearing will be protection enough for the appellant. We can continue the matter. Im not worried about the appellants, im worried about the permitholder. I meant the permitholder. But that is not my legal advice. [laughter] im sure your fellow partners would love to hear that. Does anybody want to offer a different direction . No. It takes four to overturn. Unless there is four votes, the permit would hold anyway. The Vice President , there are a lot of issues not resolved by this motion alone that need to be addressed. Would you like to give them a short leash to continue . Like tonight . Like until the next available hearing . Yes, no . The most i would support is tonight. You want to give them to the end of the night . Not particularly, but if we think it would help. So, can we have both parties stand at the same podium, appellant and permitholder. If you guys cant do that, we cant go forward with the next decision. Ms. Hillson, can you come forward . Before you ask them anything, remember we need four to condition a permit and i need to leave before 7 00. So this continuance would turn so basically this board has made a decision to grant the permit basically allowing them to build another fence. We are willing to give you guys 10 minutes in the hallway, if not, were going to approve the permit. Do you want the 10 minutes so you have something you kind of are happy with, or would you like the body to make a decision that probably neither one of you will be happy with . Is that a yes or no . I would love to talk with rose. Thank you for that. Let me clarify the question so you understand. We can impose conditions on the permit. And we already planned to impose a question that urban forestry and building approve a tree Protection Plan and if necessary, a modified permit. So essentially ensuring the process that you raised to our attention. Your tree was not afforded, thats what were requiring. Would require if the motion passes. If there are other conditions or agreements that you want to come to incorporate in the decision, this 10 minutes would give you the chance. The concern is that the permit holders are going to be allowed to build a fence within their Property Line, so there will be two fences. Our concern here is that there be one fence that both of you agree on, because the concern here is that the current fence is in disrepair and if it should fall on your protected tree, in the middle of the night at 2 00 during a 25 mileperhour wind, then the tree is going to be the loser of this issue. So, the question really is, are you going to work with them on building a fence that is common . Or are we going to allow them to build a fence within their Property Line . Thats really the question at hand here. If you have just that and keep it short. Because he has to leave at 7 00. I want to clarify that what youre suggesting, is that going to be done under the existing permit or the new one . Existing permit. Revised. Yep. Theyve agreed theyre willing to meet with you. Were going to call the next case. Were not going to wait 10 minutes and have them come back in. So would you rather continue it to a different evening . I just feel were going to finish it this evening. I believe that is the agreement. Commissioners, do you want to take a 10minute break . That hangs us up, too. I dont think theyre willing to agree anyway. Do you want to talk . We can talk and i dont know what might come out of it, but i can try. Please go in the hallway and could mr. Buck, thank you very much for maybe helping that. So well call the next case and then have. Why dont we just call a fiveminute recess and let them do it . The problem is the next one is going to be sorry, bear with us, were trying to determine next steps. So, folks, were going to take a 10minute break. Thank you for your patience. Welcome back to the january 15, 2020, meeting of the board of appeals. Were on item number 4. We gave the parties an opportunity to talk out in the hall. Do you want to give them how much time . One minute each to address the board. Somebody . We spoke outside and the issue is, i think, that we cant find a solution. Were trying, but its but were unable to find common ground. Thank you. Sorry. We didnt come to any agreement, but i think chris should be there for all meetings. Thank you, maam. Thank you. You can be seated. Commissioners . What was the plan . I would like to make a motion that we grant the appeal and condition the permit on having a revised plan that reflects the locations of the footings and the fence. And a tree Protection Plan that protects the landmark tree in accordance with the footings and location. To be approved by the department of building inspection and the bureau of urban forestry. Okay, just for clarity, you want the new footings on the permitholder side of the property . I actually dont care. Both of them are on their side already. The footings that exist on their side and the proposed footings were going to be another set of footings on their side. Either way is fine. Just needs to have the plan whatever theyre planning to do needs to be reflected accurately. On what basis . On the basis this satisfies the tree Protection Plan for the landmark tree. Okay. We have a motion from commissioner tanner to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that it be revised to require a revision plan regarding the footings. And a tree Protection Plan approved by bureau of urban forestry and department of building inspection on the basis that this satisfies the conditions for protection of the landmark tree. On that motion, commissioner santacana aye. Lazarus aye. Honda aye. So that motion carries 40. So thank you. We will now commissioner santacana, unfortunately, has to leave us. So hell be leaving. Were now moving onto item number 5. This is appeal number 19122. Scott mosser, versus department of building inspection. Appealing the issuance of alteration permit. Part of application number 2017, 07252933. No change to building envelope. And we will hear from the appellants first. Good evening. Welcome. Good evening. Thank you very much, commissioners. Ryan patterson representing the mosser family. In a nutshell, the appealed permit authorizes construction on a neighbors property, which we all know is not allowed, especially not without the neighbors permission. It was issued in error because the permitholder failed to disclose this fact when they applied for the Building Permit. I would like to introduce my client dr. Mosser to explain further. Ill use this one. Im going to use a few slides. Good evening, members of the board of appeals, my name is scott mosser. I live at 2826 octavia street. This is my daughter, five months of age. Doesnt like hearings. I filed this appeal because the permit proposes the addition of extensive new pipes in locations on my property. Could somebody connect the computer . So my driveway, which is my familys only means of entrance and egress i cant do this well but its this line here. Its to the bottom part of the blue portion. So thats my pan handle shape lot. The property is just north of that. And the Property Line is the edge of my driveway. It is their wall. So anything at all that extends off of the wall, extends onto my property and would theoretically encroach onto my driveway. The patents have no easement or any other right to run pipes on my property. Next slide. So on the left side, the beige pipes that are there were present before the project. So all of the other pipes that are on the right side, these dark pipes, are new as of mid october. And therefore, they were in place before the bathroom permit was granted. So for this part im going to zoom in on the right. This image, the right portion around the window, those are the pipes that are advertised as replacement inkind, but on the left side, all of that dark color is brand new and was never there before. That is definitely not an inkind replacement and not a repiping. The bigger deal by far is this left side. The brand new pipes. Im going to go back to the other image briefly. So you can see there was nothing there on the left image and now there is a whole bunch of stuff there. There are other photos that show this as well. The plans for the original Building Permit show a clean facade with no pipes at all. I only found out about any of the pipe install on september 25, 2019, when the pipe installation itself began. I immediately, that morning, emailed the patents to state they did not have permission to install new pipes on my property and requested their plans for the pipes. Mrs. Patten told me they were only replacing the pipes inkind and ignored my request for plans. I have a copy of the email response if anyone should like to see it. At no point did mrs. Patton say they would be installing new pipes for the bathroom and continued install pipes. The bathroom is in this area. Couple of pipes going there. The pattons response to the board states that all of this falls within the definition of repiping. And the reason it says that is because, the july permit only allows for repiping. But obviously, going back that other image, this is not repiping. All of the stuff on the west side cannot pertain to the repiping mentioned in the july permit. So this westerly side is all new piping. For the bathroom permit. And per a photo taken by the northerly neighbor, mrs. Joanne hamilton, it was already installed october 4th. Going forward a bit, this image, on the right here, was taken on october 25 by myself at 9 30 a. M. And clearly shows the completed new piping, again not repiping going into the new third floor bathroom. The photo on the left is before the construction project began. In this closeup sorry we can see those pipes going into the building itself right at the region of the bathroom for the permit in question. So its enough to say this is a permit violation. And its enough to say that its illegally located on my property without permission and that a permit cannot be granted for construction on a neighbors property. But, of course, its also a visual eyesore and its an increased risk to myself and my family sitting over my homes only entrance and exit, carrying sewage, should these pipes ever potentially fail. This is the latest of the pattons unreasonable behavior. When they started construction above the driveway, there was large debris falling on the walkway and without any protection installed. This endangered my pregnant wife who was using the driveway at that time and all the other users. The pattons assert they offered to install scaffolding, but this was conditioned on me being liable for any damage or injury caused by their use of the scaffolding. They refused all indemnification wording in the agreement. Two additional things were mentioned in jamies response to the brief. So i will mention them here. [please stand by] [please stand by] there have been threats to demolish it. A permit cannot be issued for work on property without permission. Your time is up. Thank you very much. Thank you. We will hear from the permit holder. Good evening. Im appearing on behalf of the pattons. If it please the board, i would like to ask jaime to address you first. Hi. Welcome. That was hard for me to hear, because i have such a different recollection of our history. I think you can see in our permit how hard we have tried to work with the mossers. We reduced the number of square feet we were enclosing. We did studies, we designed this weird roof in line with the sun so their light wouldnt be impacted. That was difficult and finally we get to construction. Obviously we asked for scaffolding. They sued us for not having it. And now we are on to the pipe thing which i think has been on the side of the building for, like, 80 or 100 years, older than we all are. The pictures they showed were midconstruction. They dont look like that anymore. Its confusing to me because they are under a different permit. And the mossers already complained about that permit. And the city already came out and closed that complaint. They looked at it already. So i dont completely follow the connection, but ill summit up by saying its been four years tomorrow since we started this. Weve been out of our house for seven months. We dont have functional bathrooms, which is the water thing, and now we have a baby coming in three months so i really want to be back in our house and be finished with all this. I had earlier today tried to submit a corrected version of one of the declarations. I would like to present that if i could today as well as some additional pictures that were taken of the lot. You can put them on the overhead. Overhead, please. I was asking for our guy down stairs to let you use the overhead. Mr. Mosser made claims about whether or not there was an encroachment here. I looked through the declaration of mr. Mosser, and he says its his property. My understanding is the pipes are on our side of the property. Theres no encroachment whatsoever. In fact, mr. Mossers expert also agrees that the Property Line is not the wall. In fact, it is not enlarging as much i would like but if you look at this diagram, there is a Property Line depicted. This is case number 068. And what it shows is that the Property Line actually is out from the wall of the house by several inches, and it lines up with a particular line. And that is you can zoom it in and out, please. The Property Line is actually on the outbound sign of the block, the deck rattive block at the address line decorative block at the address line. The problem is there is no documentation which shows what is the Property Line, where is there an enroachment. This property was divided as one single line. It was done poorly. As you can see, the lot contains the pattons property contains an eve over the roof. Arguably that would be on the pattons property, but thats been there for 80 years. These pipes are all within the in bound of the location here of the decorative point of the address bar. And in fact that address bar was something that was voluntarily agreed to by my clients but is in fact an encroaching characteristic thats on my clients property and is probably a violation of my clients right. They have tried to work with the mossers to try to get what has existed there for 80 years. Theres no question that if this were to go another way we were to have a right for an easement but this is not the venue for a prescriptive easement. The appeal that is before you has no documentation whatsoever to support the mossers claim that theres any enroachment whatsoever. If theres a need for a survey then by god, that should be done but until theres any roof theres such an encroachment and without such evidence, this appeal must female. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from the Planning Department. Thank you, scott san she has, Planning Department. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. I hadnt intended to speak on this because this is not usually in our purview, i was assured the Property Lines were correct but i notice it is an unusual lot configuration that would only result because of a variance unless it was grandfathered in and it would have to predate the standards adopted in the 1940s. In this case there was a variance. And the variance is from 1997. And what struck me as that it notes that the properties were subdivided front and rear. It says the property has no street frontage, and that is how the city records show. If i can have the overhead, please. So the subject property is highlighted here. So it doesnt seem theres that flag that handle is missing. And that is how we had approved it. It seems that now maybe perhaps after we had approved this, and the variance was clear in this, the configuration they have shown on their plans would require a subsequent variance. I dont see any subsequent variance on file, because reducing the lot size from 1375 square feet to 1,025 feet, but how they are showing it on the plans now. So that confounded me and apologies that this is newer information. I havent heard a reasonable argument from the parties as to why the citys records are wrong or how the variance decision is wrong, but as i see it, the plans that they are showing do not show the legal lot configuration as granted through the variance authorization in 1997, or shown on the assessors block and lot map, which this is showing lot 93 and 94 being updated the 2002 rolls, that looks like when they updated the map, and i havent heard a wow. What a bomb. [laughter] above and beyond this fact and assuming the Property Lines that they are arguing about are correct, i believe Senior Inspector joe duffy thinks the permit is properly approved, even in that case. So i will turn it over to him. So could you explain that further . So at this point they have no access to a property . Landlocked lots happen in San Francisco, there woulden an easement to provide access over the property. So thats that would be a prescriptive easement, and its not registered with the city and county at this point . This is all kind of newer information. Just found this as we were i think reviewing that. Mr. Ryan is going to have fun coming up next time. The information that we have now, i dont see how what they are showing is a legal lot. All right. Thank you. Sorry. I lost you there at one point. What lot isnt the size that you said or that they are purporting it is . If i can have the overhead. The highlighted property, the yellow property, i believe the front property there is no flag, there is no handle. That driveway is not on a separate lot based on what we approved under the variance, these lots were split front and rear. So thats full width of that front lot is not the permit holders property. So the driveway is the driveway is on their property. Thats what we approved under the variance in 1997. Thats what it shows. Im showing you the assessors maps. I spoke briefly with mr. Patterson and he said they have maybe recorded the wrong map or there had been confusion that maybe they identified that they believed what is correct and legal is what they have shown on the plans. They may believe that but theres no variance that authorizes that lot. They need a new variance for the configuration they are showing on the plans in which case they better Work Together and get that application in. They meaning the appellants in this case . It would primarily in fact the permit holder, because we would see them as they are further reducing the size of their lot. So they would need a variance to further reduce the size of their lot. So we need a variance from the minimum lot area because they are reducing what was already a substandard lot in the 97 variance, they are reducing that by 25 percent and having a lot thats less than 25 feet in width which is a violation of another code requirement. Sorry. Im still confused. Thats okay. I apologize. I thought what you were saying was that the driveway is part of the front yes. That is correct. Okay. So where is the reduction happening . So in order to make legal what they are showing on the plans they meaning the permit holder . Yes. Then they would need a variance to have an even smaller lot than what we believe them to have. Because by taking out that driveway and giving it to the property in back, that makes that front property more substandard, and they need a new variance. Does that make sense . I thought what you said was you concluded the driveway was part of it . I agree. Yes. So so, okay. It wasnt. [laughter] let me start over. Whos on first . [laughter] so what had happened, we had approved subdivision two lots, front and rear, so that driveway is on the permit holders property. But so thats what we believe thats what the records show. But to make legal what they are showing now on the plans showing that driveway being part of the rear property, that could only be approved with a new variance which we dont have on file. Why cant they just reclaim that as part of their property if thats legally where it belongs . I will leave it up to the parties. Im sure there will be other discussions after tonight and it wont end here. After reviewing the brief twice, the lot split was definitely not done very correctly . I mean especially with the eves as well as the plumbing. So that was a preexisting condition prior to and then the fact that a and b are not getting along, i mean at this point, people dont live in glass houses should not throw rocks. This needs to be resolved. It does need to be resolved. We believe that for our records, the pipes are on the permitholders property because their property is the full width of the lot. The driveway is theirs as well. I think i understand. But okay. So. Commissioner tanner just brought up the preliminary title. And there actually is a spot in there that indicates a turn around and an easement. This is exhibit. The turn around. I suppose people could provide easement even if the Property Lines are not what they are purported to be, there could still be the easement from the property across the to the rear property. Theres anesment looks like turn around over the easterly lot 94 which is the rear property and utility over the portion for the benefit of lot 94. So it seems like this is granting the rear property access across. Am i reading that properly . I dont have that document in front of me, but i did see it on one of the documents that showed a turn around area. All i have to add for the confusion is the partial map i showed which shows the lot being front and rear. We have a variation letter which is consistent with that lot configuration. I dont see they couldnt get to the lot configuration they are showing now without another variance. Yeah, in terms of Property Lines. Theres a Property Line question. And then the access. You are trying to make my night long, arent you . All right. I want to make sure you cant get out of here until at least 11 00. Thank you, scott. Fear the beard. We will now hear from the department of building inspection. Do you have any good news for us there, sunshine . Yes. Joe duffy, d. B. I. The permit under appeal is for a new full bathroom and a bedroom and referencing the 2017 permit, no change to building envelope. That permit was property reviewed and issued for work at 2828 octavia street. It went through building mechanical on there. And the 2017 permit was the rear addition converted deck includes the rear, obviously thats not under appeal. I just want to update you that that work has had several inspections for the work, sheetrock, electrical and plumbing inspections as well. So that project is well underway. The issue with the Property Owners and their dispute, its pretty sad to be honest with you. It looks like it was down here and mr. Honda you did take the words out of my mouth, it was pretty sloppy. And we have an eve overhanging a roof on the edge. If i can get the overhead, please. So as you can see. Thats better. Thank you. There you go. So as you can see, at the edge of the wall was the Property Line then this here and the pipes and then what happens with this part here thats actually along the rear of the building is connected to this building which isnt allowed, its connected to this building which wouldnt be allowed so this needs to be cleaned up. But i think the permit itself for the work its just for the bathroom inside the building. The issues with the pipes going out through the building, i get it. You cant go over a Property Line unless you have an easement. Thats the only way you can do it. So they need to figure this out somewhere. I dont think its the board of appeals. They need to go somewhere and figure out how to deal with this. Im not an expert on lot space. But i think it was i want to say 2001, someone may correct me on that, but it certainly wasnt done correctly. And when i see lot splits i have seen Building Permits associated with a lot split where someone will have to move the plumbing inside. Theyll split a foundation, theres all sorts of work that sometimes takes place because of a lot split. I couldnt find any in this case and im not sure it was done properly by the previous owner who ended up selling probably both properties. And hes well out of the picture now but obviously left a complete mess for thesis Property Owners. The part i dont get that, thats another thing that needs to be addressed. What i would tell you with this permit is the permit itself seems fine. Sometimes d. B. I. We get complaints like this, and if we got a complaint for the if i could get the overhead again. So if we got a complaint that the pipes were over Property Lines, our usual action is we dont want to get in a property dispute. Ive said this many times here. If we were given a survey with a report on what the issues were, we could address it with the Property Owner and say a complaint has been filed and we are doing a survey that seems to indicate there has been construction beyond your Property Line, please provide us with a survey or work with your neighbor to resolve this issue. Thats how we deal with it now at d. B. I. We dont want to be the surveyor in the case. We try to encourage people to figure these things out. So thats probably all i have to say on that. Again, this going across here, thats a violation as much as the pipes are a violation. So theres things going on with both sides. I want to reiterate that. I wish they would sort it out in an amicable way. That would be great. A few questions about the pipes. So some of the pipes were new for the new bathroom and some of the pipes were replacing existing pipes for other permits. Thats correct, right . Yes. And my understanding is because theres updated codes and such, the pipes had to be they are replacing but they are different, different size, different distance from the building, but the Building Department considers that to be in kind even if its meeting the new code or does it not . You get a break in inkind replacement because you are putting something better. We do allow certain conditions where its inkind replacement in my opinion if its on someone elses property it needs to be addressed but a plumbing inspector going out and looking at that, you are looking up a wall and seeing eves shorter than the pipes you are not going to draw attention to that but i think you wanted to know, it doesnt matter in my book. If you replace it, its new. So we get a survey to say its on the Property Line. There was some suggestions from the Property Owner, yeah there were pipes before but these pipes are different and sticking out further. I think what im trying to understand is they may have to comply with new code so they are going to be a little different even if they are replacing existing pipes, they are a little different. Very good point. You are right. Thats right. Okay. And then there were three permits there was an assertion that work was done without permits yet we see there were inspectors going out inspecting the work thats been done over time. Do you find evidence there was work without permits . Nothing in the record that i see. I dont think we investigated anything. I will look at that again but i dont see where we wrote anything up for that. Sometimes in these types of projects when theres work underway, if we get a complaint that they are exceeding the scope of the permit we look into it and stop the work and write a notice of violation. I dont know that we would get notified in this case but there were inspectors out there. Whether the work happened or not, that would be a question for the owner. I think i looked up all the complaints. I believe they were provided. Yeah, something about construction that confused me. Im not sure what that was about. We closed both those cases. One got referred to plumbing and they closed the case. Great. Thank you. Thats my question. Yeah. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, we will move onto rebuttal. We will hear from the appellants. Welcome. Thank you. Nice to be back. So this is interesting new information that obviously i would like to look into and try to resolve with the permit holders. This is something that clearly affects both very significantly. Clearly whoever did this lot split back in the day left some loose ends. And we need to try to figure out what exactly was done. But just because the the city mp does not show that driveway on there, that could be an issue with the citys records that they didnt file the new map. So we need to look and find out first if the lots are actually split with or without. Thats a fundamental question we need to answer first before we make decisions about this. As to the housekeeping matter, filing a corrected declaration, we have no problem with that. People make mistakes. However i do think its important to note what they changed in that declaration. And that is removing information about having disclosed the encroachment. Thats what they deleted from that. And also they said that these new pipes are not included in the permit but ill put on the overhead here, this is the new declaration they filed and it says the permit at issue authorized replacement of new pipes for a fourth bathroom. So i dont think they can argue that with a straight face, anyway. The question of where the pipes are, whose property its over. If we look again at the survey and we are happy to do a new survey that looks at the pipes specifically. But this is noted as a 7 width here. And if you measure the width from walltowall, its seven feet. So they said its actually including part of that address bar. Im happy to show you photos and measurements of that. Thats not accurate as far as i can tell from the actual survey. To the Building Code, obtaining a permit for work on someone elses property section 10683. 1 is not allowed. It has to be authorized by the owner of that property. It also has to describe where exactly the work is going to be done. And this permit failed to do that. Box 22 on the Application Form was not checked nor did they tell the Building Department that part of the work would be on the appellants lot. A question. The plumbing permit says repipe. Theres three bathrooms in there. They added a fourth. They got plumbing for four bathrooms and a plumbing permit to repipe three. They dont have a plumbing permit for this brand new fourth bathroom. The declaration says thank you. I have a question for you and your clients. They say that the appellant paid their water bill but it seems they havent been living there for several months. Is that a reason they havent paid the bill . Thats a great question. They have no portapotty out front, and they have a house full of men working full time. So with no functioning bathrooms so it seems like you are starting to try to make some point about that. They are not living there so that struck me as interesting point to bring up. Good question. So to dig deeper on this, in june they brought up via telephone they thought the water bill was unfair and we have extra landscaping so i said you know what, that very well could be true, why dont you pay 33 percent of the bill moving forward and ill pay 66 percent and they got angry and says that means you owe me 1,700 because thats my overpay since we bought the house. So you have an ongoing dispute. Yeah. That was raised in response to something in the permit holders right. I just want to understand. Willing to go down on that for sure. And thats fine. Thats not before our body. Im just trying to understand whats going on. Is it your assertion the eves of that home were on your Property Line . Im not having a problem with it. Theres no variance for that. But you mean the overhang of the roof . They have dealt their new portion of the house without that overhang, and that was a nice in the rear part of the building . Yeah. So it is overhanging my property and they acknowledged it and didnt build it over the driveway. Okay. Thank you. So probably so both your attorney as well as you, so this is really a Property Line dispute, which at which point did anyone think of hiring a new surveyor to actually determine where that Property Line was . And even after i looked at these briefs the last couple days, you can tell that theres errors in creating this lot line split. So at which point, prior to coming to this board of appeals, i mean, the Zoning Administrator discovered this error while he was sitting there in this hearing. And everybody here has paid consultants and yet that error hasnt come up until this particular moment. So why wasnt an Additional Survey ordered from both you, one of you . We were satisfied when this issue came up a while back because we have seen that other document. That document was four years before the lot split, and there was a point at which regrettably there was somebody saying they were going to dig up my driveway. And so we went back to the Title Company and said do i really own this driveway, and they submitted a formal attorney opinion that said absolutely you do, we are certain of it. I called the Surveyor Office and said now i have this contentious thing and somebody told me we have it and they said verbally the map is wrong, these things happen. But we didnt follow up on it. You are right, we should have gotten a survey and we should still now get a survey. This is a fair point. And you are willing to at this point. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. You can be seated. We will now hear from the permit holder. I think we have all heard about what should have been done two decades ago. It wasnt done. But what the board has in front of it is enough to uphold this permit. What i will say is that my clients want to work with the mossers. They want to get this thing sorted out. They want to get this done in a neighborly way. And on behalf of my clients, im willing to let them drive home on their driveway tonight. With that said, this is a point where our clients can work this out. But what you have before you is a permit thats accurate, thats valid and should be granted, and then well work it out. If we have to fight this, we can fight this in a San Francisco superior court with regard to a boundary dispute. We dont want to do that. We want to work this out with our neighbors. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez . Im afraid you are going to say more good news. You have that smirk on your face. I always do. I cant tell with the beard now. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. To make sure everyone can drive home tonight safely. So as a condition of approval from the variance it did note that it said the existing driveway easement along the southerlily Property Line shall be maintained to provide vehicle and Pedestrian Access to the rear building so that is how that space was accounted for when the variance was granted. This was 97 that there had been an easement in place already for access to that rear unit, whether at some point in time when the maps were maybe they were recorded incorrectly and maybe they did show that driveway easement as part of the lot rather than an easement but certainly what the variance authorized was two lots, one front, one back, the rear not having frontage, if they want to try to legalize what they are saying now is the current situation, that would need a new variance authorization. Thank you. Okay. So mr. Sanchez, since you already started a fire and you are kind of putting it out here, can you leave that on the overhead, please . Sure. So if you look at the language thats there and our attorney has already left, existing 8 wide driveway. Your attorney is sorry, my attorney is still here. Sorry, bradley. So 8 wide driveway easement, so they are allowing easement of their own property. Im trying to understand this. So at which point if the plumbing goes on the wall its still their property, they are just allowing a driveway easement. So basically its for the driveway, not for the space . So this is saying that the driveway balloonings to the permit holders belongs to the permit holders. They are giving access to the appellant through an easement that is for vehicular and Pedestrian Access only. So given that situation, the plumbing would still be on their property . Yes. As we understand it, the lot configuration as we approved it through the variance, the plumbing is all on the permit holders property is all legitimate. We dont have any issue with it. And i leave it at that. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Mr. Duffy. Just briefly. I did miss that there was a message from the chief plumbing inspector about the plumbing permit issue, and the message to the permit holders or to their contractors, please contact them to clean up the plumbing permits. There is some discrepancy on that that can be cleaned up by their plumbing contractor on the number of bathrooms and how they describe the work. Sometimes we do these lots. D. P. W. Is the map agency on the lots. I would suggest that both attorneys reach out maybe together or whatever but theres a gentleman called bruce stores who is the city and county surveyor and speak with him and try to figure out, go back and see what happened on the lots on this property and what actually where it is and whats what to try to figure this out. Because in 2020 we do get a package from d. P. W. At d. B. I. And i reviewed a sample and looked at this, and it does reference easements and all sorts of encroachments of Property Lines, how to address them. So i think they should read this. This lot split with the city surveyor and see where the mistakes were made and clean that up. Building permits can be cleaned up many years later. Thats what needs to be done here. And we just went through 95, 99 with mr. Patterson and another attorney and you heard it as well and three or four years later, many thousands of dollars they were told by a judge go figure this out. And thats what happened. [laughter] and go back to d. B. I. To figure it out. So i hope this doesnt go five years down the line and we are still trying to figure out these pipes on the sidewall of a building that are pretty common in San Francisco and originally this was not an issue, it was only the lot split that caused the problem. And for the permit you referred to that needs cleaning up, is that this permit or a separate . The plumbing parts are not under appeal but they are associated with the Building Permit. Theres a discrepancy with the way the bathrooms are listed on the permit versus the way they should be. They might need another plumbing permit to correct it. He brought it up and ive seen him at the office trying to speak to someone so i assume thats what it was about. And he did acknowledge he needs to see the contractor. And im sure that is easy. They can do that tomorrow. With three commissioners we cant condition anything at this point. I know. Thats a separate issue. Thats nothing to do with this. I just wanted to state that. And i wish them all the best trying to figure it out. Thank you. Commissioners, is this matter submitted . Can i ask mr. Sanchez one last question . Sorry to keep belaboring things. I just want to understand out of curiosity the process. They have this recorded survey thats recorded with the city, and we have this easemen, the documents you presented, how is that supposed to work . They get the variance, they get the survey recorded, how is it supposed to have gone, the map that you showed us illustrating the configuration . In this case its often triggered by a subdivision so theyll apply with an application that gets referred to us. We identify what they are proposing needs a variance. They go through the process, that is granted, we approve the subdivision based upon the variance and then they work with public works to record the subdivision map. And that becomes part of the assessors record. And what is shown on the assessors record is two separate lots, one front and one back. Thats the parcel map we get from the Assessors Office which we generally rely on. Survey points it is not but its generally the dimensions of the lot. Certainly i will probably be the third or fourth or tenth person calling bruce tomorrow and ask him whats happening with this lot. But we work to get to the bottom of it. Okay. Thank you. Who wants to start . We had interesting information added this evening. I guess ill just say wouldnt it be great if we could get along and work with our neighbors and work out issues in an amicable way instead of spending hours talking about this. But here we are. The evidence ive seen presented in the briefs would indicate this property is possibly the appellants the permit holders property actually. And as such, the permit is properly issued. And this board tends not to get into the Property Line dispute itself. So even if the line were in dispute, we have no survey other than the one from 2001. We have no updated information to really decide where this Property Line is. So based on that information, i would say the permit was properly issued without anything to counter that. So whats really before us is if the permit was properly issued. Theres nothing else before us. In this particular case the permit was properly issued. Separately, to both parties, you guys live next door to each other. This has got to be one of your largest Financial Investments that you each have. And because looking at these particular documents that are before us, it was done incredible incorrectly. Your water bills, the signage, your lettering, just as advice, i would strongly deescalate it and a bottle of wine and a sitdown and be neighbors again. Right . But other than that, whats before us, because you need clean up lot split, figure out where your water is. But as far as im concerned, the permit was issued properly. Do we have a motion . I move to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued we have a motion from commissioner tanner to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. On that motion [roll call vote] that motion carries 30. Welcome to a fun night at the board of appeals. Good luck, guys. Really, good luck. Okay. We are now moving onto item number 6, appeal number 19113, delmar s. F. , l. L. C. Versus the Zoning Administrator. This is assessors block lot 3925001. There is no registered street address for the subject property, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of harrison and alameda streets. Appealing the issuance on september 23, 2019 to delmar s. F. , l. L. C. , of a letter of determination that the legal zoning of the subject property is represented by the zoning map of the city and zoning map of San Francisco and specifically zoning map zn07 which shows the property zoned as p for public. This is 013344sad. We will hear from the appellant first. Nice to see you again. My name is ashley representing the appellant here. Despite my we are in a unique situation because thats par of the course tonight and thats that information came to light after we filed our opening brief that we were not able to submit a separate brief to the board. So im going to be addressing some new issues and keep my summary to a little bit more concise. As we discussed in our brief, this appeal concerns the property at the southeast corner of harrison and alameda street, assessors block lot 3925. And im going to use the overhead. As you will see, this block has two lots, lot one which is the subjects property and the smaller parcel and lot 2 which is the larger parcel which has been under separate ownership. In conducting Due Diligence to purchase the property, my client became aware it is zone p. This was a surprise to the current owners as it has been in private ownership for centuries and has never been put to any public use. The p zoning typically applies to publiclyowned land and under p zoning theres no commercial or residential use to which the property can be put. After conducting their research and finding no evidence that any rezoning action had occurred we submitted our request for the letter of determination that it was not shown correctly. The Zoning Administrator confirmed our research, concluded there was no rezoning legislation or action related to the property but determined the current zoning map would control and declined to order that it be corrected. After filing this appeal and after filing our brief, mr. Sanchez provided us with information that the city argues is proof the city was properly rezoned in 1978. Specifically the city provided us with ordinance 44478 and a related record on proposed residential zoning revisions, portions of which are attached to the brief. The citys argument is that map 7 of the report shows the property as p and therefore it was properly rezoned as part of the rezoning ordinance. This argument is an error for a number of reasons. So first, and let me see as you can see from this portion of the map from the citys brief, it is hard to determine which is being zoned p here and whether it includes all of 3925 or just lot 2 which would not be the subject property. Second, while the citys brief is silent on the issue of how this property could have been rezoned p in a citywide rezoning that focused on residential units when the city first provided this information to us, they determined they relied on one paragraph in the report which is paragraph 8. Which is incredibly hard to read. Can you help her zoom in . It is very difficult. Okay. Now out a little. Thank you. So as you will see the paragraph 8 states it is the property of a significant size that was at that time owned and operated by or leased by a federal, state, or local government would be rezoned to p. The problem with this argument is that neither factor was met nor does the city provide any argument or evidence in its brief to support that. First its clear the property would meet no definition of significant size for a tiny lot. I think you can see it. 3,000 square feet in size. So its not significant size. And while we know the property was never owned by a Government Agency theres no evidence that at the time of this rezoning the property was ever leased by a Government Agency. A term of one year or more requires the board of supervisor approval and a related resolution authorizing the lease. We asked the department of reams to review files of resolutions they have onsite. They were unable to locate any evidence the city ever leased this property. Additionally we asked the Property Owner to review its records to see if it had any evidence of such a lease and they were unable to find anything. When mr. Sanchez provided us this information we pointed our we had no evidence of any lease that the size issue would qualify this for rezoning in 1978. In response we were provided with a map, which is here. Sorry. There we go. Which lists the property as municipal storage yard. If this is the only evidence the city has this it was leased to a Government Agency its insufficient. This map is from 28 years before the rezoning occurred. And certainly is not evidence that the property was leased to a Government Agency at the time of the rezoning and second, it doesnt make clear whether the entire block is being used for storage or just lot 2. This doesnt separate the lots out. If you look at the map from the 1990s, where they are separated out, you will see that lot one, the lot at issue is parking and municipal portion is lot two which the not related to this property. Theres a clear demarkation of uses. You can see lot 2 has been put to public use. Thats not a property at issue. Theres also if you can see from this 1985 photograph, just to give you a little sense of how the properties are laid out, this portion here is lot one, the parking lot, and over here lot two uses municipal store yard. The documentation indicates that only lot two was actually being used for public use. Here it is. My papers are all messed up. You can see here that theres an application for municipal storage yard, p public use, the size of the lot indicates that it is lot 2 not lot 1 but it used the lot ones address improperly. Theres no evidence this 1978 rezoning applied to this property. There was a clerical error whereby this property was mistakenly combine with lot two. Essentially upholding this public zoning is tantamount to a taking in this sense. Thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from the Planning Department. Thank you. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. This is a very interesting night. One of the reasons i love coming to the board of appeals because the types of cases that we do have. So the matter and i cant recall a similar letter of discrimination or appeal being brought before the board of appeals, because zoning matters are legislative. They are legislated by the board of supervisors. And what we found here is in 1978 the San Francisco board of supervisors rightly or wrongly rezoned the subject property from m1 to the current p Zoning District. Not only did it happen once, but in 2008 when we did the eastern neighborhoods rezoning effort, a massive effort to rezone a good swath of the eastern neighborhoods of the southeast portion of the city, the property was again reaffirmed as p zoning and the height was increased from 40 feet to 65 feet. I dont know if the appellant is arguing that was done incorrectly and they should go back to the 40foot height limit, but what we have here today again is the current p Zoning District thats on the maps of the city. It was very conclusive in terms of this zoning map. In terms of the mapping itself and the weights, i would pay careful consideration to how the map is depicted and overhead, please. Thank you. There we go. Thats a little bit so you can tell by the line weights. You can see on other lots, the thinner line weight shows the lots. The thicker line weight shows the Zoning Districts so this is all within the p Zoning District. And this is consistent with the zoning maps that we have today, those boundaries. So i think its very clear that it is p Zoning District, does it make the most sense for the city a p Zoning District . I would probably think not. Its good to hear that there is someone who is interested in buying it and developing it, potentially using it for higher and better use than what may or may not have been parking over the years. But the process to go about this is to have the property rezoned from p to another more appropriate Zoning District. The letter of determination cant change, cant legally change. The Zoning Administrator doesnt have the authority to change the zoning maps of the city. That can only be done by the board of supervisors. Neither does the board appeals. Neither does the board of appeals. So this matter they have been aware of this for six months or so, i think since at least last summer. They could have gone to the Supervisors Office about legislation to rezone subject property. Instead they pursued what i perceive as a dead end through appeal of the determination because the zoning doesnt have the authority to rezone the property and the board of appeals doesnt have the ability to overturn the zoning decision and rezone the property. Plus the zoning was initially done more than 40 years ago. I appreciate the argument made by the appellant that its perceived as a taking but im not an attorney but there are statutes of limitations, and this is more than 40 years that it has been the p Zoning District. But i would think if they go through the proper process and rezone it, they can find an appropriate land use. The m1 Zoning District is not even found on any of the abutting properties so it doesnt make sense as the current zoning, because of the rezoning for the eastern neighborhoods effort. I think they need to go through the proper process, get the property rezoned. That is what is required here. Question. Yes . Go ahead. What about notice to the Property Owners at the time of the rezoning . In 1978 everyone in San Francisco received a newspaper, essentially, that was informing them, and it included one page of that in our materials. It was quite an interesting document. And it described the rezonings including all the new zoning maps for San Francisco. So there was notice provided to everyone in San Francisco. And we have no dispute that this wasnt properly done that the rezoning process didnt properly occur, and there was notice again in 2008 or even before that, 2008 is when the board of supervisors adopted the eastern neighborhood plan. But there was almost a decade, about eight years of intense discussion and debate about the proper zoning for properties in the eastern neighborhoods, and the Property Owner had the ability to, at that time, that would have been a perfect time to make that correction. I dont know why they didnt look into that further or ever inquire in the last 40 years what the zoning of their property may be even apparently when going to list the property for sale. I would think that one of the things when you are pricing a property you would look and see what is the zoning of my property, whats the what can i get for my property based on the development potential. I would assume at that time they went to put their property on the market they would have been made aware of the p Zoning District. I dont know why it would take the potential buyer to point that out to them. But i dont know the process that they went through. Thank you. So i have several questions. One, the permit by him was excellent. And i understand theres a burden to prove that it was not cityowned. I believe that should be the citys job. If it wasnt rented by the Property Owner, how is do do the Property Owners if they didnt receive rent . Its really irrelevant. The fact is the board of supervisors adopted a zoning ma no, i agree. And the other thing was it was i believe i read in the brief that it was subject to its use, and thats why it became a p. And what is pertinent is if that use was not used, then how is it actually converted to a p . If the board of supervisors made a mistake in 1978 its up to the board today to correct it i agree. Because this is an omission on your determination and whether we ere or not or whether you did or didnt ere, this body nor the the a. Has the authority the za has the authority to change the zoning. So if the administrator ered in his decision, theres essentially no effect at this point. I think the question is how would we have ered when we rely on the zoning maps that the board of supervisors adopted. The zoning maps show this as p. Whether that was properly done in terms of whether that was the appropriate thing to happen in 1978, thats not up to the Zoning Administrator to determine and thats not up to him to determine in this case. We tried to search the records and find out was there evidence of a change. Because there was a gap between 1975 and 1980. 1980 it was p. I agree but wouldnt it also if the determination to change it to a p would have required that it was leased or rented to a city entity, wouldnt it be on the city is bys burden to prove that it was leased to a city entity . This f this issue was raised it would have been the board of supervisors responsibility in 1978 i get it but as a realtor for many years, i dealt with Property Owners who have little or no contact and are three generations away. When selling the property to ucff, there were 36 easements from people in sweden and japan that didnt know they had a 2 by 2foot on third street. So to me if the city is going to determine that the property is appeased based on the fact it was used by the city, then i believe the city should prove that it was leased. That was a possible explanation for why it was. The question was it was rezoned to p why. We were trying to answer that question as best as we could. Whether the board of supervisors ered in making this p in 1978, we dont have any ability to overrule that. I mean, we can ask supervisor feinstein what her recollection was but the mayor, he is no longer around. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . We will move onto rebuttal. So let me try to address all of them in my three minutes. The first question of what the Zoning Administrator could have done in an l. O. D. And what this board can do. Our position was this was a clerical error, this got put into a different lot that was rezoned in 1978 and we were asking the Zoning Administrator to correct the clerical error. Theres no reason it should have been rezoned. It doesnt make any sense. Theres a Clear History of this lot being tied to the other lot, mistakenly so it was a clerical error that i think the Zoning Administrator has the ability to correct just like i think this board has the ability to uphold or im sorry, to reject the letter of determination, uphold the appeal to correct the clerical error. On the issue of why the Property Owner didnt know about this or come forward, the commissioner hondas point, this is a family thats owned the property for over 100 years. They are not paying any attention to how its zoned. Its one of the properties in their portfolio. I dont think its incumbent to be doublechecking every time theres a zoning change and realize my property might be rezoned. There would be no reason for that. I also note that the issue of whether it was ever leased or owned by the city, the only way this rezoning could have properly been applied to this property and wasnt just a clerical error is if it was leased or used by a city agency. Thats not one possible explanation. If the city is going to rely on the rezoning, thats the only explanation, because thats the only part of the ordinance that rezoned anything to p. Properties of significant size that were leased or owned by the city. Again, even mr. Sanchez was unable to provide any evidence that was ever the case. So, again, our position has been that this is a clerical error that can be corrected, should be corrected because essentially it renders this lot unusable for reasons that nothing other than just a mistake that happened in 1978. Thank you. Counselor, are you done . So, question here. Even if the Zoning Administrator errorred in his decision and its a clerical error, this board has no it cannot be remedied. Thats the problem. We dont have the ability to rezone something thats been zoned. Unfortunately as they have mentioned, more than likely needs to go in front of the board of supervisors. I agree with what you are saying because thats the take i got from your brief. And i like the fact you put it on one side and not both, and its good paper. But thats what i took from it but at the same time understanding this body doesnt have the ability, so even if that is the case, it doesnt change that it will not change the zoning. Our position has been its not so much a rezoning as it is correcting it was never properly rezoned to begin with. So it was never really rezoned of my it was pulled in mistakenly and it showed it as p and it shouldnt have. Unfortunately they didnt use lots in their ordinance, so its just the map is the only way to know what was included. I would bet if they included lots it would have been lot 002 and not lot 001. So that was why we filed we went for the l. O. D. Thats why we came here. We obviously understand theres the other route but to us this was just a clear mistake and clerical error and it was never rezoned to begin with. Thank you, counselor. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez. That you just. We dont see this as a clerical error. It is clear and definitive on the zoning map what zoning this property is subject to. So i think theres no way it could be interpreted as clerical whether through a policy perspective in the preparation of that map that should have been something different, that would have been up for the board of supervisors to determine at that time. And with others, i think it very much is the Property Owners responsibility to Pay Attention to zoning. I mean, they are going to be impacted by that when zoning changes on a property, they should be aware of whats going on with their property. There are going to be impacts from rezoning efforts and they should be paying attention to those. Im available for questions. Several. So, what zoned it is that significant property that was leased or owned by the city and county . No. So what is the actual verbiage . Can you put it on the overhead . Its the map. I see that you have the map. And also there has been a confusion in the lots prior. It has not been it hasnt been clear that one lot has been included and the other in its description, and the other is what is the definition for significant . We have two separate documents. And we have the planning code, and we have the zoning maps. And the planning code refers you to the zoning maps for whatever you want to find out what zoning you are, you look at the zoning map. You want to find out what the regulations are, you look at the planning code. In this case whether there may have been a disconnect, and that property shouldnt have been zoned p, it was showing on the map as p. So we have to treat it as p. Thats what governs. Whatever shows on the map, we see as definitive, and we have to apply that zoning. But even if its a p and it was given incorrectly, shouldnt the public have a right to some relief to that . Im not saying who is right or wrong here but looking at the brief, when i was doing that, and then what is the definition for significant . 3,000 feet considered significant . Theres no definition. But i agree that they have, and they do have a right. Im telling my wife im significant when i get home they have a right to address this to the board of supervisors. That is the way of addressing this. All this information could be presented to the board of supervisors, the District Supervisor may help them go through that process and initiate legislation. We do have other properties that are zoned p that are under private ownership. Thats not to say it doesnt happen. Sometimes they are very small. Weve had lots that got rezoned p as part of maybe bart work or the highway work. I get it, but what was presented in the brief was there was a specific criteria that changed this particular lot into p at that particular time. And granted i was only in the ninth grade but and thats the rationale for how they got to the maps. But the maps are definitive. We go by what is on the map. Thats what we have to do. And we cant go property by property and hearing well, i didnt know about the rezoning in 1978, can you make me back to c2 . I can do a lot more with my property. We have to go by whats on the zoning maps. Im not saying its to go back to what was in 1978 but like i said, the specific criteria which rezoned it, i mean, the city is an entity that keeps records. And if theres no records that indicate that this was leased or owned by the city, then that letter of p was issued in error. It may have been, and the board of supervisors can correct that. Thank you. Thank you. Matter is submitted. A question for our attorney, brad, if you can just kind of share whether we do or do not have the ability to influence zoning in the board and where we fall in our jurisdiction with the matter. The board reviewed this letter, the letter of determination for error and abuse of discretion and the Zoning Administrators interpretation of the maps. Neither the z. A. Or this board has authority to rezone a property. Thank you. Just start again. Sure. Its your night. Yeah. Here we are. I do it does seem [off mic] its not. Going in a different track. So i mean, so to me this seems like it maybe it was erroneous and there was an error and its gone unnoticed for however many decades. And thats something the board can fix if the board chooses to avail themselves of that, property issues to pursue a rezoning but i dont see that the error or abuse of discretion in this instance. I think that the decision made by the Zoning Administrator was not an error or i think that the decision prior to that was. And unfortunately, no matter what, theres no relief from this board not to make an excuse, and i think hopefully going forward, that your client will get some relief going forward. But do i personally believe there was an error prior to the decision made by the Zoning Administrator . I believe so. But the information the decision that the Zoning Administrator made was accurate and correct based on information that he had. You want to make another i move we deny the appeal and sustain the letter of determination. Im sorry, on what . On the basis that it was properly issued. No error or abuse of discretion. Sorry. We have a motion from commissioner tanner to deny the appeal and uphold the letter of determination on the basis that the Zoning Administrator did not ere or abuse his discretion. On that motion [roll call vote] that motion carries, and the appeal is denied. We would like to take a tenminute recess. I apologize for the wait, guys. Its been a long night. I got to s the meeting of the board of appeal, we are now on item 8 . Aappeal no. 19122. Jessie fernandez versus the Planning Commission, subject property is 65 ocean avenue, appealing the insurance on october 24, 2019 to riyad ghannam, of a section 328 home s. F. Project authorization, Planning Commission motion no. 20551, adopting findings relating to home s. F. Project authorization to allow an exception from the rear yard requirements pursuant to planning code section 134, horizontal dimension and rear yard requirements of planning code section 135 and dwelling unit exposure requirements of planning code section 140 as part of a project that would construct a fivestory, 54foot, 7inch at all building with 193 dwelling unit, a 5,942 square foot childcare facility, 117 resident deppial Parking Spaces and 149 bicycle spateses, this is record no. 2016006860ahb. I wish to disclose im part of a project that hired this law firm. Their appearance will not have an effect on my decision. There was a request for an intenter and ms. Elizabeth rice is present. Will that member of the public who needs an interpreter raise your hand . Okay. So maybe ms. Rice, if you two can get together, and ms. Rice will interpret for you. Additionally, if you need help, would you come up during Public Comment, she can assist you. Okay. So if you can make that move right now, that would be great. Ms. Rice, maybe you can sit in between them. Is there two people . Is that correct . So she will be simultaneously interpreting. Okay. So she can start. Okay. Great. Okay. So we will hear from the appellant first. Hi. My name is Jessie Fernandez. So good evening, San Francisco home s. F. Program is providing a huge bonus to private developers, allowing them to swell the size of their projects in exchange for false promises of increased affordability. While the program claims to increase onsite affordable units by up to 30 percent, in reality the majority of the units cater in annual incomes of 49,000. 2017 report comparing the average rent paid by San Francisco residents with median household north carolinas by neighborhood show all district 11 neighborhoods listed as one of the most burdened neighborhoods in San Francisco, 36 percent rent burden or higher. The district retained the lowest per kappa incomes of 28,000 a year and Median Income of 75,276. The home s. F. Programs sets income targets for the affordable units that are skewed by the extreme wealth inequality in the city by pegging the income targets to higher regional Median Incomes across San Francisco and san mateo accounts instead of local neighborhoods, working class communities like the excelsior are left vulnerable to displacement and cheated out of affordable house. According to data, district 11 is the only district in San Francisco with the majority foreign born population at 51 percent, district 11 has the largest average Family Household size, highest percentage of Family Households, highest rate of households are seniors and limited English Proficient residents and second highest population of youth in San Francisco. The development recently approved by the Planning Commission at 65 ocean, the former home of little bear and crayon box preschool and Discovery School was allowed to triple its size to 193 units. This windfall to the project developers doesnt translate into meaningful affordability to the community because neighborhood Median Incomes are substantially lower than regional Median Incomes. While the excelsior is heavily working class with a majority of Family Households and retains the Lowest Per Capita incomes in the city, only nine of the 193 units are actually affordable and family sized for local residents under the home s. F. Program. The project is proposing a 117 units sorry, 117 residential Parking Spaces in a location that is transitrich while none is required under existing code. Contradicting the transitfirst policies. Moreover the financing scheme for this project is facilitating really raciallyexemploy at a timive processes exploitative processes resulting in windfalls. By granting lucrative tax breaks, opportunities intend to encourage new investments in poor areas around the country where they are deemed eligible based on poverty rates above 20 percent or median Family Income below 80 percent of either the statewide or metropolitan area income. The program has been criticized as a giveaway to the rich that will not only bring promise that will not bring promised revitalization. And there is no mechanism to track the programs results, how much new investment comes into a zone, how many jobs are created, or whether it tracks unintended consequences. So to avoid paying Capital Gains tax, wealthy and private nevers can put a billion dollars into an Opportunity Zone, those come with three breaks. The first is you can defer tax by investing previous gains in an Opportunity Zone project allowing you to invest more money up front, plus you can hold the investment for several years and you will get a significant reduction in taxes. And whats more, any additional grains from the new investments are taxfree after ten years. Currently white households estimated 72 percent of stocks, 80 percent of the value of real estate and 83 percent of the value of other assets. The wealthiest ten percent of house holes account for 6 households account for 64 percent. So the average never invest invr is someone statistically to be a wealthy white person. The 35 million residents of Opportunity Zones are 60 Percent People of color with the poverty rate twice that of the country as a whole. Finally as i have outlined in my brief, due to its unaffordability to the local neighborhood context and local neighborhood residents, the result in impacts on low income tenants and gentrification, design compromises that negative live impact the quality of several units and the inclusion of 117 Parking Spaces at a sensitive intersection near several Public Schools as is the 65 ocean project is a poor fit for my community, and i request the entitlement be overturned. Thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from the attorney for the project sponsor. Good evening and welcome. Good evening. Thank you, commissioners. On behalf of the project sponsor. Thanks for your time. I know its been a long night. So i ill try to get you through this. Here here on a home s. F. Project. This is just the type of project that home s. F. Was created to encourage. Its 193 unit familyfriendly, 45 percent large units that are at least one bedroom plus dens, 25 percent affordable, childcare space, the things we are trying to encourage in the city and in the excelsior. This is a great project. And youll hear a little bit more about it from the project sponsor. We dont have a lot of time. And we are not going to walk through all the plans, but i wanted to remind you about the general design and the compatibility. If i can just put the overhead. Its a great project that we are all excited about on the project team, but thats not even the question before us tonight. The question here is whether the Planning Commission ered in interpreting the planning code or abused its discretion in approving the project. Appellant hasnt made any arguments that would approach meeting that standard here. We addressed some of the issues raised in the brief. On the affordability, the project exactly follows whats required under home s. F. In fact, when the home s. F. , when we opted to participate in home s. F. Program, the fordability rate was the affordability rate was raised. The point is its looking in the mix of building and market rate and b. M. R. Units. Again, the modifications that were sought are allowed under the home s. F. Project. I think whats happening here is a little bit of a debate about affordability. We hear a lot about gentrification and affordability and thats a lot of whats being discussed in the city these days. I certainly dont agree with the argument that not building market rate housing increases prices, and i think the history of San Francisco shows the opposite. The reality is we are not here for that debate today. We are here to determine whether the Planning Commission abused its discretion. It did not. This is a fantastic project that benefits the neighborhood and the city, and we ask that you allow it to move forward. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from the Planning Department. Thank you. Planning department. The project before you is located within the Excelsior Outer Mission street Zoning District, neighborhood commercial Zoning District. The lot size is 40,497 square feet. It does have a unique assignment. It has to be frontages. The project proposes 193 dwelling units. Its doing this through the home s. F. Program. And the Planning Commission properly approved the project here. They were seeking some bonuses under this program, an increase in density to 193 dwelling units, an increase of height by 10 feet and also further increase bonus to the ground floor ceiling height of 4 7. They dont meet the rear yard requirement or the usable open space requirement in terms of the exposure requirements but give up the unique siting, we do believe these units are quality units. The courtyards that are being proposed are substantial. In terms of their rear yard requirement, typically the rear yard requirement is to protect a midblock open space pattern but given the configuration of the lot and its ajay citizensy to other developments its adjacentsy to other developments, it is not required here. You can see it highlighted in yellow. To its southwest is the project at i believe 915cayuga street. 50 percent of its units are affordable. The zoning of that have lot is a little different. They are also pursuing it, not through the home s. F. Program but through a Development Agreement with the city. So the projects have been designed to be in harmony with the strict application of the rear yard requirement isnt necessary given the configuration of the lot with its frontages and it being adjacent to the new development. I appreciate the issues about affordability. Most of the issue was speaking to tax policy which is not before the Planning Department, certainly not before the Planning Commission as part of this decision. One of the issues that was raised in the appellants brief was about the relative affordability of the proposal. Under home s. F. And planning code section 206. 3c1, all home s. F. Units must be marketed at a price that is at least 20 percent less than the current market rate for that neighborhood and shall reduce the income levels set forth in order to maintain such pricing. So we can factor that and have it try to be affordable for the neighborhood. The codes have been adopted to implement that as best we can. We have tried our best to consider. And they include reference to a study that would appear to indicate new Housing Development increases existing rents nearby. Certainly the board of supervisors and the housing policy personnel and the city can review that and take appropriate measures, but what is before you now has been properly reviewed, and current planning code requirements have been applied. As i understand, its one of their arguments, this is going, the development of housing is going to increase the cost of housing that is there currently. If we were to take that and extend that out and strictly apply that, we would not have any new housing and i dont think it can be argued that not developing housing is going to make San Francisco more affordable. By their argument, we would have been quite affordable now as it is because its already that we havent been developing enough housing for our needs. So with that, im available for any questions that you may have. But i believe through the appellants presentation and their brief, they havent highlighted any issues that would lead us to support us overturning the Planning Commissions recent decision in this project. Could you talk a little bit more about the exposure requirements and just kind of how the case before us a few weeks about about an easement, a ground floor unit that didnt have the right exposure and there were concerns about light and access to air. How does this meet if not, do it varies from the numerical amount but still meets the needs. Can you explain that 1234. You are required to face on to a street 20 feet in width width to an interior courtyard at least 25 by 25. Increasing the inverted so it has to get bigger and bigger at each level. So in this case, most of the units face on to the street frontage because they have three street frontages but a number of units face only on to the courtyards which are 25 by 25 meeting that minimum requirement but they dont have that inverted so they dont get bigger and bigger as they get larger. That doesnt mean that it doesnt have adequate or quality exposure. I think the other examples we had before were something that was less than 9 feet. We are not talking about 9 feet. This is 25 by 25. Its possible under the code given you can face a codecomplying rear yard and still meet the requirement. A codecomplying rear yard can be as small as 15 feet. So this is something that we do pay very close attention to, and the commission pays close attention to it as well. And the livability of the units, theres no point in developing units if they are not livable. And we believe that what they are proposing does meet the requirements. And the appellant stated they dont think they are quality units but didnt go into any detail or analysis as to why. And with the parking, i know the board of supervisors recently created did away with parking minimums so you can, i believe, throughout the city, build with limited parking. Can you explain you are not a sponsor but when you look at the parking if it is overparked, underparked, folks can say i want to build parking, are there limitations and where does this fall . That regard . So you can correct. About a year ago the board of supervisors removed all offstreet parking requirements in every use except mortuaries so there is no parking requirement for this building under the current law. There is a parking maximum, that is one parking space per dwelling unit. They are well within that given they are proposing 193 units and 117 Parking Spaces. They are within whats allowed under the planning code. Does the Planning Department or commission have any ability to have people do less parking or do we have a certain amount of that is certainly something debated as part of the project review. We have requested that project sponsors reduce the amount of parking the Planning Commission has that on occasion as well. And that was not required in this case. The last question, can you repeat the statement you read about the 20 percent less than the neighborhood income for the rent . Im not sure if you just repeat what you stated they do in this instance. 3c1 that states all home s. F. Units must be marketed at a price that is at least 20 percent less than the current market rate for that unit size and neighborhood and shall reduce the income levels set forth in order to maintain such pricing. So that does factor into the pricing for the unions eventually is looking at the neighborhood units eventually is looking at the neighborhood. So thats a consideration that was raised and was muchdebated as part of the overhaul of our affordability requirements that we had for prop c. I think what some people described as the grand bargain. This is a requirement, and they are complying with the requirements. So there will be some metering to this neighborhood versus of the entire city . Correct. Okay. Great. I have a question too. Go ahead. I feel that weve heard a number of heard about a number of developments where the exposure and open space requirements have been dealt with through a variance. Is that a correct impression that this is not an unusual sort of request for a project this size . Yes. And those are often requirements that are waived or modified through our review process, different mechanisms be it as part of the Planning Commissions approval here or separately through a variance that the Zoning Administrator considers, but yes. Its on a case by case basis, and we want to make sure the units being proposed are quality units. But its not unusual . Not unusual, no. A couple things. So that particular block is undergoing quite a bit of construction . I believe theres another approved project that with close proximity. Yes, and i believe the site permit may have just been issued for that. And that was 50 percent affordable . Developed as part of a Development Agreement with the city, yes. The other concern is when we see projects like this that are essentially going into these neighborhoods, i mean, this has been there for a while. Is there any plans for that particular not that im aware of. I did look, i didnt see any applications on file for that site. Because we generally see when all of a sudden the midas has been there 20 years or however many years and a new Development Goes in, we hear complaints that theres too much noise, theres exhaust, and is there some type of agreement or something that will stop that from that problem coming before this body again . In terms of complaints about existing uses and users . Correct. Yeah, i mean people who build homes and move next to an airport and complain about the noise. We see it. We had the barbecue place on Market Street where it had been there for quite some time and the new Development Condo that replaced the auto parts store, they were complaining they could smell the barbecue. But it was there before the building. There are requirements particularly in Industrial Districts where that is based into the notice done to the future tenants as part of the process that is required on the deed of the property saying you live in an industrial Zoning District and there may be uses like that that you have to put up with. Not for this Zoning District, im not aware of any particular requirements. In this district it would just be a similar provision we have for entertainment establishments. So we review these applications with the Entertainment Commission if they are within close proximity to an entertainment venue. But nothing that would particularly, i think, apply for this property and for its relationship to the midas. So theres nothing to stop the new residents of this, you know, very attractivelooking building from saying im hearing noise at this particular time . Then maybe ill address the project sponsor to see if theres something in place. Anybody has the ability to make complaints at any time. Its a question of whether or not someone is in violation. There is complaints about that lets hear about your beard. There is complaints about that all the time. Im with your wife. As long as they are operating in compliance, there wont be any enforcement. Thank you. How many people are here for Public Comment . Okay. So if you could line up against the wall. And after you speak or when you come up to speak, hand mr. Rosenberg or mr. Longway a speaker card so we can keep track for the minutes. And each speaker, given the volume and the hour, will have two minutes. First person, please come up. Please come up and start. Okay. So give the card as you speak so we can keep track. Go ahead. Good evening. Welcome, alex. Thank you. Good evening commissioners. Im alex lanceberg with i. V. W. Local 6 and the Construction Industry. Just wanted to extend our support again for this project. One of the things that we were trying to Pay Attention to during the presentation was actually identifying something that is outside the rules of the Planning Commission approved rather than a policy discussion. While i think theres a lot to be said about the policy points they made, thats not what we are here for tonight. And you have really no jurisdiction, no basis to decide on those things. So lets stay within the four pages of what we are here to do, take a look and evaluate this project. We are here for mr. Sanchez, the Planning Department is comfortable with the analysis. I havent heard any evidence otherwise and its time to takemake this thing go. Since we are not supposed to be here, we should just close up shop right now. Next speaker, please. Good evening and welcome. Good evening, commissioners. Thank you. My name is Michelle Bell and im the general manager at mission hiring hall. We are located in the mission, and we have two offices. We have been proud to support San Francisco residents mainly with Workforce Development training and placement. We have a history of making a difference for working families and communities that we assist through work first development. We believe this project will enhance the neighborhood and the lives of the clients and their families that we serve. Jobs paying a good wage and benefits, change the lives of our clients and their families. And this project will provide over 500 jobs for Union Construction workers from all disciplines. We all must be a part of the solution for San Franciscos housing and affordability crisis and mhh is proud to be a partner on this project to help connect as many workers as possible to workforce opportunities, it will make possible. This is a prolocal workforce, prochild enrichment. And to speak to the child enrichment, one of the greatest challenges to women in this city getting into the Construction Industry is childcare, because of the hours that construction takes place. It was brought to our attention that we have in district 11 alone, the 3,919 children between the ages of zero and five years old, and we have only 15 licensed day cares and 124 licensed childcare homes. That leaves many children without childcare near their holmes and near their future schools. So we really ask you to support this project. We continue to support it. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is ms. Brown, im the director of inner city youth. We opened up a job center on broad and capital. One of the biggest hindrances for our clients is Affordable Housing. New developments in d11 havent happened ive been born and raised in the o. M. I. , and Affordable Housing is just something that and new developments is something that we dont see. On behalf of my clients, any type of Affordable Housing that is in close proximity is welcomed. We can get people jobs, but they have nowhere to stay, commuting from antioch, pittsburgh, the majority of my clients are africanamericans that have roots in the o. M. I. , and most of us have out migrated, we come all the way from sacramento. So any type of Affordable Housing that brings us back to San Francisco thats affordable, convenient, has childcare, is something that we definitely support. So we are in support of this new project. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening and welcome. Thank you very much. My name is danny campbell. Im a representative with the sheet Metal Workers union, local 104. We do support this project. The sponsor has committed to partner with the San Francisco Building Construction trades council, committed very early on. And the what the lady said about creating good middle class construction jobs that pay healthcare and retirement is what this project will deliver. It will create Career Pathways for local youth through our Construction Apprenticeship programs. What that means, the community benefits, direct, tangible community benefits. It will allow existing members that live in district 11 remain living there. Wages and benefits that allow them to do to so and allow folks to come in in the trades to earn a wage that they can possibly qualify to afford to live in the affordable units that this project will deliver that our city badly needs. So we look for you to deny the appeal. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening and welcome. My name is halvier florez from labor local 261. For us, we have been talking with the developer for a long, long time. And one of the unique projects where its a winwin solution for us. We represent the members Apprentice Community and others. And this will help out quite a bit to any of our, not only my members, and theres only three of us from the building trades, but its more than enough. But i encourage you to vote yes and move this project forward. Its an important thing for all the trades. Especially for the community. They are behind us. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening and welcome. Welcome. Thank you. My name is gilbert williams. Im a native san franciscan, born and raised in excelsior. Im also a carpenter. Its good these jobs are going to come, but they are temporary. Im a journeyman carpenter with the union. I can barely afford a onebedroom apartment there. And i just, ive been coming to these meetings for years now and with people from the mission with relatives. And its like these big, huge developments cause gentrification. I dont care, you know, all the justification you can put on it. Our rents have been since 2007 are, i mean, 11, they have tripled. People are getting, you know, people are getting kicked out of the city all the time. I mean, its amazing to me its not amazing, because i know that it just seems that people care more about or theres more care about a tree, roses tree, than there is human beings that are getting impacted by big, huge developments like this. And im not saying that to be funny. Im just saying that these are human beings. They cant afford to live here anymore. Im totally against this project. And i hope my hope is that you guys at some point will stand with the community, stand with people that care about gentrification and care about keeping their communities, trying to keep their communities affordable and stand with us and not with the developer. Yes, theres jobs to be made, but they are temporary. This is going to be with us forever, this development. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Since we do have an interpreter, you will get [speaking spanish] i live in the excelsior district. Four minutes. I work for a moving company. And as my partner said, there are sometimes that work comes and goes, but we cannot afford the prices of housing in San Francisco. Im not in agreement with the supervisors and the mayor. Its because the working class is being affected. The rent and the food is expensive. And we also have children, nephews and nieces, and we cannot afford. We also think that the Planning Commission made an error making that decision. And not consulting with the community. They need to plan for 192 units and they made a plan for 192 units, and thats a joke, because its only nine for lowincome families. Thats like a joke for the community. And im not in agreement with San Francisco continuing to make luxury housing. And so you need to start making housing because thats affordable, because i see a lot of young people that are working working. People sleeping in the streets, and that moves us. That moves us. And i think i could be one of those. As a parent i need to think of the youth. As for everyone, the older people, the gentlemen, theres lots of communities that earn little money. And they cannot afford the price of the rent. I thought that you guys had approved and you were going to make buildings for the working class. Okay. That was four minutes. Thank you. Next speaker, please. If you need an interpreter. [speaking spanish b. Good evening. We are from the Excelsior Community. We come to make a proposition we are petitioning the building on ocean street, 68 ocean. It makes me sad because nine units, thats nothing. We had a meeting, and they are abandoning the schools because they can they cant pay the prices of the rent. They cant pay the rent prices. There are some that are living in antioch and oakland. And its difficult. And so we come to beg you to take into account the people that are of low income. And those are my only words. Thank you. Can we please get speaker cards from both speakers so we know who they are . Next speaker, please. If the interpreter could help us, ms. Rice, and from the last spanishspeaker as well. Okay. So you need an interpreter as well . Okay. [speaking spanish] good evening. My name is araceli catalan. Im a counselor with cas a justa for eight years. Im here to support the appeal of the 65 ocean project. On behalf of our Community Member Jessie Fernandez. We believe the Planning Commission made an error in the decision that was made. This project on 65 ocean will cause more harm than good. Nine affordable units, familysized, are not a benefit. It is not enough to address the gentrification and the displacement that will happen in our community. The increase rents and destabilization of communities and increase of traffic congestion. We believe that the Presidio Bay Ventures doesnt know our community. They are not mindful of the needs of the families in the community and the project that is being proposed is insufficient to address the needs. Thats im here to request that the board of appeals overturn the entitlement so they can engage the community to create a project that addresses the neighborhood needs. One more thing to add about Affordable Housing, that Affordable Housing would only be accessible to people that make in excess of 90,000 a year. In our community does not make that income. Thank you. Did you fill out a speaker card . Next speaker, please. You dont need a translator. Ill do it in but i are. Good evening. Im the lead San Francisco housing organizer with just cause. And i live in the neighborhood, off ocean avenue and capital. Im here today to oppose the 65 ocean luxury project. And again, similar to what folks have said, i believe the Planning Commission made a mistake in approving this project. Mind you, there were over 1,000 people from the neighborhoods who signed letters in opposition to this project and many people were here to speak against the approval of 65 ocean. I agree that approving this project will only exacerbate evictions and rents in the neighborhood. We run a tenants rights clinic in the mission and see a high volume of tenants coming from the excelsior. We have seen a rise in verbal evictions, rent increases and buyouts with eviction threats in the past year. Shortly after that hearing in november we had a tenant who came into our clinic with an owner movein eviction notice from their brother and their brother had told them they were going to remodel the down stairs unit, the in law, and rerent it at a higher rent. This is what we are seeing in our clinic coming from folks in the excelsior all the way to the mission. We are here to demand the board of appeals overturn the entitlement of this project. This doesnt meet the needs of the neighborhood. And i am sad to say if this project is done, we will see an increase of more of these fraudulent evictions, increase in rent increases and folks have mentioned congestion in the area. I walked on ocean avenue every day. And fear for Pedestrian Safety. As we know that luxury housing projects do not ride public transit. They ride lyft and uber and they have their own cars. So we will see Pedestrian Safety as an issue as well. Thank you. If you could get a speaker card. Thank you. Next person, please. Good evening, welcome. Good evening. I work at Community Action network. I grew up in excelsior. I went to James Denman Middle School and balboa high school. I support the appeal for 65 ocean, because we believe the Planning Commission made an error in their judgment and abused their discretion for the following reason. The 65 ocean project will cause more harm than good. Nine affordable familysized units is too small of a benefit for the harm that will come from gentrification and displacement. And also rise in rents, Community Destabilization and increase in traffic. I see the harm that gentrification brings to a Community Every day working with families in the soma. Families are getting displaced every day because they cant afford to live here. 65 ocean project is going to bring more luxury housing in the excelsior and is going to displace families in excelsior. Excelsior has always been a workingclass neighborhood. And we dont need a project that is majority luxury rent. I demand the board of appeals overturn the entitlement so the developer can engage in an authentic way with the community to design a project that truly meets the neighborhood needs. Dont have a housing crisis, it has an affordability crisis. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening and welcome. Thank you. My name is marlin duran. Im born and raised in San Francisco. Im someone who was unable to stay in the unit that i lived in. And i was lucky enough to get a belowmarket rate unit in mission bay. From what ive learned when for Profit Developers include or create some kind of Affordable Housing, they are out of touch with the needs of lowincome communities. They dont address the concern they experience every day. They ignore a lot of their problems and im afraid we will see that in this project. When for Profit Developers say they are going to support lowincome families or give them a unit and provide a way for them to stay there, and ive seen a lot a lot of my neighbors leave because for Profit Company was was unable to support the families when they needed them. So dont believe that the developers will be able to actually support these 25 the claim of the 25 percent they have here would benefit our community along with the rest, the 75 percent having a big impact in the neighborhood of the excelsior. I want to say that bureaucracy is really cold in this way. So we heard people say that there is we are fighting a specific thing. But for a community we are fighting for Affordable Housing every day and we are here to give you our stories and tell you whatever we can, we are going to try to stop this, because we need more Affordable Housing in our communities, especially by people who understand our needs. And lastly, i feel like this developer is someone who shouldnt be trusted because when they had a meeting februare supervisor had only been supervisor for a month and they say theyve been working with him for six months. I feel like theres i hope you deny this project. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Please. We have another person who needs interpretation. So that will be four minutes. [speaking spanish] good afternoon to each one of you. My name is sonia. I belong to the Organization Called poder. Im here to oppose project on 65 ocean. Im not against the process that theres a need for so many im against the need of a few people. We all have the right to a roof. And there are people that we cant allow a rent. Its good that theres a building. But that part is the bad part is they are not taking into consideration the needs of the community. The excelsior is a family community. If one of you have gone to excelsior, there are no buildings that luxury building in that area. Its good to build. Theres a need for living units. We all have the right to a living unit. I dont know how much you guys are but that doesnt mean that i dont have the right to a life. Do you guys think this is justice . Thats why were against this construction, because you are not taking into account the company, their method, their way is just to make money. Because if you were to build with your heart, you would take into account the needs of the community. The Excelsior Community is families. The families that come to work in San Francisco. We clean the buildings in San Francisco, to do the work that other people dont have the ability to do like other people. Take into account our needs. We need, please, that you take this into account, our needs. There are a thousand people that are against this project. Not everybody is here because they had to work three jobs to pay rent. Thats why those people arent here. Please take into account the needs of the community. Im talking to you [indiscernible] thats not new. This is a problem for San Francisco. I appreciate your attention. Good night. Thank you. Next person, please. Good evening and welcome. Good evening. This is my first time here with the board of appeals. My name is reyna. Im a very concerned san franciscan. Developments like these that only provide nine familysized units in the affordable range that the current existing community can take is a very big concern when you are building 193 units. The Planning Commission did debate back and forth, there were people afraid to fall on the sword. There was one no vote that did consider the quality of life in some of the units that are nested and dont have enough access to light. But it was one no vote. We are here so you can act responsibly and review everything and deny these permits. We dont need to have childcare. Theres a childcare there. Its already there. Its functioning and its not going anywhere. And so these people just like to build a huge building. And they will have to be displaced and, quote, unquote, come back. We dont have anything in write. I dont trust them. We have met with them. All we got was roundabout answers, smoke and mirrors. We didnt come down to an actual number so our folks give them a number. Nine affordable units. How is that increasing affordability in the city. I dont understand. Everything else really qualifies as market rate to everybody else. Lastly, i will say there was over 1,000 signatures collected against the project that were turned into the supervisor, into the Planning Commission to precede owe bay ventures, and we have yet to hear back from any of them. Do you think that is responsible . We need to stop building on a case by case basis and have a unified plan of what our neighborhoods will look like, with and without these buildings. So i encourage you to please approve the appeal, have them go back to the drawing board, and they can start over again. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening and welcome. Good evening, commissioners. My name is charlie. I go by that site every single day. I live around the block with my family. I use the bus stop every morning to bring my daughter to school. I think the Planning Commission ered in a number of ways. First, i would say the issue of affordability has been raised is that the Planning Commission made the decision on the basis that it was delivering affordable units. That in fact are not affordable to this community. If this development were built in a wealthier neighborhood, those belowmarket rate units would be affordable. But in the excelsior, the belowmarket rates unit are basically marketrate. So they are not actually affordable to the working Class Community in the neighborhood. Second, its been mentioned that over 1,000 Community Members signed letters personally, not an online petition but personally, people that have a stake in the neighborhood, delivered that to the Planning Commission, the fact that the Planning Commission did not address that shows they did not do their Due Diligence to ensure that Community Members have a real voice in this development. Third, the Planning Department actually launched a neighborhood strategy planning process in 2017. One of the key recommendations that emerged was that a housing plan needs to be created for the neighborhood that would address these issues of affordability. Three years later, that plan has not been implemented. And instead we are stuck with responding to market rate after Market Rate Development that only increased the supply primarily of luxury housing. In that case, i believe the Planning Commission improperly conducted their work which is why i urge you to bring this project back to the drawing board so that the community and the developer can engage in an authentic process to create a project that will really address Community Needs and housing needs. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Fill out a speaker card. I need your name. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Come on up. Dont be shy. Welcome. Good evening, everyone. My name is jean and im a counselor with the south of market Community Action network. I stand in solidarity with Jessie Fernandez and the Excelsior Community behind us to deny this support, support the appeal and overturn the entitlement of this luxury Housing Development at 65 ocean. Most units at this development wont be affordable to working class families because adding new Housing Stock like this project wont be included in the city and states rent control and just cause ordinance. Approving this project will worsen the Housing Affordability crisis that we are in right now, because longtime and existing residents cannot afford more than 3,000 market rate rent. This will be the same fate of the excelsior. Although it has 136 marketrate units, only nine affordable units to lowincome families and 48b. M. R. S, these units have a tedious qualifications process and are very selective. Most units in this project are studios and one bedrooms and dont comply with affordability and needs of our familyoriented community in the excelsior. By allowing this Market Rate Development in the excelsior, it wasnt the Housing Affordability crisis in our city, it doesnt alleviate it. Property values including existing rents in adjacent properties will increase as developers and the Planning Commission and Planning Department continue to prioritize luxury marketrate housing, then none of our Community Members will be able to afford to live in their homes regardless if they are tenants or homeowners. Please overturn the entitlement of this project on 65 ocean avenue because luxury housing is not for our community. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Good evening, commissioners. My name is amy. I am here to support the appeal by my neighbor, Jessie Fernandez, on 65 ocean. I live in the excelsior on brazil close to the park. Its a beautiful walk. I also take the 29 almost every day passing by this site. I work in the community. I work near geneva and every day i meet with immigrant families who have questions around their status. I always do an intake, and i notice that way more than i would like to see, we always see incomes that start at 20 and dont go above 40, every single day. This development wants to house nine working families. I see way more than nine working families in one month in the excelsior. Sometimes i see three of them in one day in the excelsior. And so we are really here because, yes, we are not against building housing for communities. We recognize its important, but we need to consider that its affordable and it medes the needs of the neighborhood. Any given day you walk through the neighborhood, youll see children, youll see families coming down the corridor, going to school. A lot of these people who are living there now will not be able to live in the development that is being proposed. And for that reason, we really hope that you all will appeal the permit and really stand on the side of the community and really consider what the needs are for our neighborhood. All of us are here because we know what those needs are and we are expressing them. So also echoing everything youve heard before. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. Good evening and welcome. Hi. My name is teresa. I work in the neighborhood. And i was born in the city and seen a lot of friends and family being pushed out has been really hard. I feel like the excelsior or district 11 has been one of the last strongholds of folks, of family, of friends, of people we have known our whole lives, friends and family. When we see kind of like these all these empty apartments and empty homes all over the city, and we see all the homeless folks that are teachers, my sister is a teacher at monroe elementary, that are working folks. My dad was a laborer in San Francisco. My mother was a baker, bakers union. To see the proposal of developments that are giving pretty much corporate bonuses on density and height on governments that are only going to give us nine units in the basement of one studios and onebedrooms or nine units, it feels really, really like San Francisco needs to step up and take responsibility for allowing corporations from outside the city to come and disrespect our community and build things that we cant afford. Because average Median Income in the excelsior is 68,000. The majority of these units are going to be 95,000 and above. I think these developers also come in and divide us as working people. My dad was in the union. And we need to Work Together, because even if we build Affordable Housing, we are still going to have union people working there. We are still providing those jobs, only they can afford to move in. So just like you were saying earlier, i wish we could all get along. I hope this board is able to deny this not allow for this to be built and that we could Work Together as neighbors, as unions to make sure we are building housing that is meeting the necessary. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, welcome. Thank you for sharing that. It really touched my heart. And my name is jackelyn. I also work in the community. Im here to oppose the Luxury Development at 65 ocean. I live nearby. And i understand the needs of the neighborhood some composed of mostly families. Thank you for reminding us that excelsior is a cultural hub for families. I want to share that shares a one bedroom apartment with two family. For this developer to offer nine family units is shameful. Its hurtful. And its awful. Its disgusting. And i think you know that. And i know that the Planning Commission knows that too, right . So its time for folks to rethink this for people to rethink this, people in positions of power to rethink this because we know and live that every single day. I look at the Development Just down the street on mission, that is lying mostly empty and has a storefront thats completely empty and has been for over a year. That is the proof of the lack of affordability for Luxury Developments in this neighborhood. I ask that you listen to neighbors and the residents and to rethink this decision. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. If there are any other speakers, would you please line up now . Thank you. My name is antonio. Im with an organization poder and we have been organizing around land use, Community Planning issues in the mission and excelsior for over 20 years. First i just want to say that too often folks that raise concerns about Development Issues are labeled as not wanting any housing, which is totally untrue. As youve been hearing we have a dire need for Affordable Housing, and thats what we need, Affordable Housing. For us as an organization as well, we have a track record of advocating for Affordable Housing both in the mission and the excelsior, projects that are coming up like 2060 folsom, and the upper yard in the excelsior, came about because of organizing that we did, the people power that we raised to be able to have these kind of Affordable Housing units. When i hear about and youve been hearing from other speakers about this particular project and the minimal number of affordable units and in some instances as we know, when we say affordable, we need to use quotes in that. Its astounding that projects like this could get this far and that it would go through the Planning Commission. I was astounded to hear that if i understood them correctly, the representative from the Planning Department say luxury housing that theres no evidence that prices will increase. Also in the area which is obviously untrue, the urban displacement project at u. C. Berkeley documented that that is the case. Map 2020 document from the Planning Department is also proving that as well. My last point is in support of the appellant Jessie Fernandez that addressed concerns about the Opportunity Zone and how its manipulated. Theres an article in the new york times. Your time is up. Please respect the process. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening and welcome. Hi. Good evening. Please dont talk out in the im a 15year resident of excelsior. Im a Third Generation renter in San Francisco. And every day i think about my future with my mom and my brother. And my grandparents who have passed away and our longevity in San Francisco. And i support this appeal. Ive been in ive actually been following this i live, like, a few blocks down. So i get to see the whole different parties just thinking about the future. Something will be built there. But we want to make sure itzhak successable for people, even its accessible for people. Even if i dont get to live there, someone will, maybe a seventh generation renter will be able to afford that. I want to be able to see that. I teach photography about displacement in south of market. And i was able to bring my views to support the appeal for the victoria park. And so we will continue to advocate and support and educate about displacement. But for me i dont need to go to urban Planning School in order to see that there are people who cant be able to afford and just squished into these nine units compared to the rest of whats going to be built there as well as in a transitrich area. Im hoping that you listen and regardless will continue fighting. Thank you. Thank you. We will now move onto rebuttal. Mr. Fernandez. You have three minutes, sir. Thank you. Overhead. Here are some a. M. I. Thresholds from 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019. Spoiler alert. Things get really expensive for workingclass communities in San Francisco. That means that affordability, like so many folks have mentioned, is a misgnomeer for a lot of new developments and particularly 65 ocean which will not be accessible to a majority of residents in the excelsior neighborhood. This is an actual production pie chart from 2015 to 2020 where you can see that above moderate housing at 120 percent a. M. I. And above is 70 percent of this chart and we are clearly lacking Affordable Housing in this neighborhood. I want to connect with the sentiment that ms. Tanner shared. It seems like this body is making space for people to resolve tensions and resolve conflicts and to come to a happy solution. And i think that the people behind me have made every effort to work with Presidio Bay Ventures since the inception of this project in 2017. Community members mobilized to the First Community meeting that was held at a Police Police station, of all places. After that, Community Members have hosted the developers in Community Forums more than a few times to communicate and articulate what the key concerns are and when it was time to hear how these developers were going to incorporate the key spirale concerns that Community Members took it upon themselves to share with the developers what Community Members heard back was nothing more than aesthetic changes to the design features of this building and demonstrated flagrant disregard for the key concerns that you have heard today and that have been raised for years on end. At the october 24 Planning Commission hearing when the permits were approved, i believe it was Dennis Richards who said that having just come out of a Racial Equity training he wished there were, quote, unquote, something that the department had had to lay some kind of Racial Equity lens over projects like these. And here you have people behind you who for years have demonstrated exactly the kind of litmus test that Developers Need to meet in order to develop new projects in their communities. And that is not a test that they have passed. It is not anything that they have entered into with any semblance of good faith effort to have that conversation. And lastly, i just want to thank everybody who has been a part of that, who has shown up for the struggle and not just today, all those years of modeling, to show up to meetings. Thank you. Thank you. I have a few questions. Can you come back to the podium. Mr. Fernandez, good to see you. I just want to understand a little about the 20 percent that mr. Sanchez was talking about that there would be a metering for neighborhood prices that the market rates, the rents would be 20 percent less in the d. M. R. S. Am i understanding whats listed as the Neighborhood Market which seemed to address some of the concerns you have the neighborhood a. M. I. , but i want to understand if thats going far enough or what your response is to that policy that they have. Im not particular with that particular alteration to that proposal. I would love to have that conversation and understand what it is they are looking to alter to make this development more accessible. But i also am accountable to so many people and neighbors who are also very interested in having that conversation. And i think are willing to understand what this proposal is. And i will say im trying to repeat what he said so i know very little about what the exact policy is but it duds sound like something that could be promising for making the units more affordable. And i want to make sure im understanding and reading your brief clearly. You are proposing the nine units are not affordable because you are saying family size and two and three bedroom units and affordable to the 80 percent area Median Income and below. Is that how you get to the nine number . I believe it comes from the units that are family size, two and three bedroom and 55 percent a. M. I. , which is part of the requirement under home s. F. Got it. And for the parking requirements, i appreciate the push to reduce parking. Im a big proponent ofry deucing parking. How of reducing parking. Sometimes neighbors feel concerned theres not enough parking. It seems like you feel the opposite. If you could share about the response you have gotten to proposing less parking. I think its a contentious issue in the neighborhood, in particular in the excelsior. I think that like i said, i think that at the forefront of this conversation that every step of the way has been first and foremost affordability. I think that the conversation about transportation is really one about public safety. And i think thats really grounded on the concerns that people have. And i think that theres, you know, good reason to be concerned given that one, this is on a pretty narrow street where traffic would be letting out and getting accessing the building. It neighbors balboa high school, denman middle school, san miguel Early Education center, leadership high school. And on the other side of the street is al alameny boulevard where traffic moves pretty fast. Thank you. We will now hear from ms. Knight. Thanks very much. I dont want to get too far back in the weeds of the policy argument, but i want to point out statistics about the project. Weve heard about a percentage of affordable. Im not sure where that comes from. [off mic] excuse me. Let her. Nine units. So 25 percent affordable, below market rate units are 28. Distributed over three a. M. I. Categories. The greatest number of units is ten percent, 55 percent a. M. I. Which would be 19 units at the lowest percent. The total is 48 units. A few other things to point out. Not only are there 48 affordable units through but this has a significant number of true familysized affordable units. Its hard to get yourself a threebedroom affordable unit in this city. And the fact that this project is proproviding five is pretty significant and is providing 14 twobedroom affordable units which is also significant. Those are true affordable b. M. R. Units. The ultimately the goal of home s. F. Is to provide mixedincome housing. And the other goal is to actually provide a mechanism where we can get some of this housing built. The reality is we can all talk all we want about Affordable Housing but if the units dont come online, nobody can give there. Ultimately this project will allow 48 families to remain in the city in affordable units and live in a mixedincome environment. On the parking, so with the parking works out to is. 6 which is pretty reasonable and significantly under what would be permitted. We think its reasonable in this project given the number of familysized units. Again, 45 percent onebedroom or den and larger and it makes it easier to stay in the city if you can have a car. If youve got a couple kids in the city, it really is reasonable to try to have a parking space. And not everybody will have Parking Spaces. Weve talked a little bit about various studies. Theres now a recent study that has the opposite finding regarding the impact of marketrate housing. And im sure well all be talking about this for many years to come, but thats not what we are here about today. What we are here about today is whether theres an abuse of discretion. And this project is squarely within what the city asked the developers to do when it created the home s. F. Program. This isnt a windfall. Adding 25 percent affordable is challenging for development. The childcare space, they could have beat out, they are building out a childcare space which will cost 2 million more than would have cost them to see out. But they want to invest in the community and provide that resource. Thank you. Ive got a couple questions. So one, a member of the public had brought out that there was some negotiation that fell through regarding the childcare. I see someone rising to the occasion. We are happy to address that. I have several questions but thats the first one. Im not sure what that comment is it im with the sponsor. Good evening. Were you in conversation with the current childcare facility or is it all going to be fresh . Can you walk me through that . There were two Childcare Providers that were onsite at the time that we purchased the property four years ago now. One of those Childcare Providers ended up buying their own location and had to actually done so prior to us purchasing the property. They were in the process of renovating their what essentially is a home they converted and needed some time to stay over. So they moved to their own property. The second moved to a church. That Childcare Provider is the Childcare Provider that will be coming back. But they had already made plans with the church to move prior to our ownership. After they left, we actually brought in and accommodated another Childcare Provider who is in the process of trying to either lease or purchase, i believe purchase their own but is having land use issues with the neighborhoods. And so we accommodated them since we had vacancy, and did so to enable their continued service to the community. Okay. So thank you for explaining that. The other question is and i might be slightly offtopic but theres a midas repair shop that does banging and a bunch of stuff. That was a great question. Let me finish. What we have seen here is we have allowed buildings and the Zoning Administrator says someone moves next to a train and the first thing they do is complain the train is too loud, as we have seen at the caltrans yard from some of the properties there. Is that going to be a concern or problem . Is there a disclosure relating to the fact that all people that are buying this property understand that there is a shop that is zoned for this that can rev their motors, make their noise, is going to have a foul smell from gas vehicles so we dont have them in 2050 or 2040 but what is the mechanism in place that is not before us regularly . Thats a very valid concern. And theres a couple of things we have done to mitigate that. The first is we have been in contact with the owners of the midas site. The midas shop is leased or leases the property from ownership thats comprised of several family members who dont live in california. Our initial conversation surrounded the potential of actually incorporating that site into the project. And evidently that didnt work because its still a midas. Because they had a lease that goes on until 2020 23 so thats not that far away. Not that far away. Im sorry, everyone was polite and conscious when the speakers spoke. Please afford the same manners, courtesy. Please go ahead. So weve been in touch with them with regards to a couple of issues. Noise was one concern. The other was environmental as it related to potential underground issues with their site. The use has been there for quite a long time. The family has owned it a long time. At least where a family actually doesnt have any control over the operations that midas has. We have raised concern they look it for themselves as to whether or not midas had potentially and i get that. But is that going to mean when you sell the properties that sorry. The punchline is these are rentals. They are not for sale condos so theres no disclosure issue in that sense but we did extensive sound testing and we have a requirement dealing with the current condition at midas so we have recorded that the noise levels are and planned for it to avoid that. We have a project thats on top of third street rail, and the new Window Technology deals with this pretty robustly. So on the Window Technology, so are your windows soundproof at this point . What is the rating for the windows that you are using . They are different throughout the project. And in fact we had to inversely actually provide sound barriers around our own equipment on our roof deck to not create Noise Pollution to the neighborhood either. So what are the percentage of windows that exceed the normal standard, meaning what windows are soundproofed in the building building . Do you know which ones are we would have to sorry i dont mean to get too much in the weeds but ive seen this too many times that we allow the building and then they are complaining this today place is making too much noise and theres too much smog. And i dont find that fair to the existing tenants that are there as well. The walls are solid, we have no openings overlooking midas. Do you mind filling out a speaker card as well . Absolutely there might be consolation there there were Childcare Centers that seem to have managed. We are going to go there. Trust me. We will now hear from the Planning Department. If you could give him the card when you are done. Thank you. Thank you. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. I dont have much to add other than we have under this program, the benefits is that theres a higher affordability requirement that they be onsite for the life of the project. Otherwise i agree with the permit holder that this is the type of project that was envisioned when this program was adopted by the board of supervisors and meets the relevant affordability requirements of that provision. So im available for any questions. Would you give examples of other home s. F. Projects . I dont think im familiar with it. We have not had many. I dont think theres any under construction. Its a recent program. A handful have been approved by the Planning Commission. I think the lucky penny site was one, maybe the first one that had gone for approval. You will have another one on appeal in two weeks time on judah street. Oh, yeah, that one. So theres not a large number. The idea is for many decades the state has had a provision for allowing increased density for the provision of Affordable Housing. We are seeing the state density bonus, we are seeing more projects interested in that, and we created the home s. F. Program as a more attractive process to try to incentivize people to come in for this program, separate from the state Density Program which is still available. Weve had a handful of those projects as well, very few. But with this project that we can review and approve greater density, greater affordability than standard code. Thank you. Commissioners, this matter is submitted. Do you mind if i start . Okay. So first of all i would like to thank everyone for showing up. I personally would love 100 percent Affordable Housing in San Francisco. The and everyone that i have met in the past that is for 100 percent Affordable Housing has never gotten anything built. Theres unfortunately im sorry, can you. [off mic] its not your turn to speak. And with Construction Costs in the city exceeding 400 to 600 a foot, when people give, the first thing i asked was how many three bedrooms are going to be in this project. We see many projects. They dont offer three bedrooms. They are usually studios and one bedrooms. That doesnt do anything for our community. When i say our, if you look at that building, it says discovery bay. I went to preschool in discovery bay. My favorite teacher mrs. Rasmussen was my favorite teacher ever. And playground they have was a restaurant called ticktocks. They had two locations. It was a restaurant when i went to day care there. We talk about affordability. I get it. My parents left the city in 96 because they could not afford this city and here we are in 2020. Theres no way they could afford here. My grandmother who rented in the tenderloin for 35 years, when she became sick, she could not afford to live in the city. And yes yes, for profit, they are so bad, so terrible. If they dont build, they have to make something. Otherwise they dont build. The stopgaps that we have may not make everybody happy, but there is going to be some families that are that will have that housing. And if you look at that lot, let me tell you, i pass that lot for the past 50 years. There was nothing there. Theres an easement in the back. Theres a trench in the back that a developer now is developing. And yes, is that development 50 percent affordable . Yes, that is. Was that involved with the supervisor thats currently in place . I believe according to what i read, that was also the case. You know, what does this do to our community . I really dont know. But i would like to see something being done. And yes, its really sad when its not affordable. I have children in this city. I also have friends that we talk about the 49ers and they live in las vegas. We talk about the Golden State Warriors and they live in dublin because they also could no longer afford here. So when developers come, i would love for them to build and say, hey, this is free, we are going to give this to the family, we are going to give it to the people here. Its just unfortunately doesnt happen. Does it hurt . Is it tough for me to see these kind of projects . It is. And unfortunately, the board of appeals, as you were here, most of you were here the whole evening. Not even leaves happy here. And everyone though throws the darts at us because we are the bad people that make these poor decisions. We put a lot of thought into this. And its very tough that this project that has been in the works for four years now, four years, this didnt just happen overnight, that there was a huge process that this project went through. And at the end of the day, this unfortunately is the final process. Do i wish it was 100 percent affordable . I do. But to see that there are going to be some families that are going to be in this building and how it affects the immediate neighborhood. Not good enough. Not good enough. Please. Shame on you. Excuse me. I have to ask you to leave. Can i call the sheriffs department. Can you call the sheriffs, please. This is unacceptable. Please call the sheriff. Alex, please. At the end of the day, whats before us is an error or abuse of the Zoning Administrator. Unfortunately, there is no error and abuse that the Zoning Administrator has caused in this particular case. And so for the debate further debate . The Planning Commission. Abuse. But of the Planning Commission instead of the Zoning Administrator. Is that correct . I want to echo the words of commissioner honda and thank everyone for being here and mr. Fernandez the work you put in. A lot of people, organizers, counselors working hard with your neighbors to try to help people to stay here and have a place to live but we also heard from testimony from folks who are excited to have people who recollect at this project and build housing and have the jobs and the income and not just income but the training and career path this will provide for our tray trade people which is a great opportunity for those that can take advantage of it. I dont want to repeat everything commissioner honda said but i will give a strong yes to everything he stated. I think he spoke very well of what we would love to see happen in the city but what the duty of this board is. The housing is not all affordable. This project is a great example of what can happen to begin to create places that are affordable to folks in the city and hopefully continue to be affordable places in the future. And the program that the administrator talked about, that is according to to the entire city to deal with the issues that were brought up in appeal in term it is of the incomes being affordable only to those of higher income in the city. It sounds like a program that Mayors Office is offering that could help to alleviate some of the issues. This is not going to fix the issue but not building housing is not going to fix the issue so i support commissioner hondas motion. I guess im making the motion to deny the appeal on the basis that the Planning Commission did not ere or abuse their authority. Okay. We have a motion from commissioner honda to deny the appeal and uphold the determination. The basis of the Planning Commission did not ere or abuse addition discretion. On that motion. [roll call vote] okay so that motion carries 30. This concludes the hearing. I ask that you look up 1960 [off mic] Affordable Housing. [please stand by] Planning Commission for january 16, 2020. We do not tolerate disruption or outbursts. Please silence mobile devices. Please state your name for the record. I would like to take roll at this time. roll call . We expect commissioner richards absent. First is consideration of items for continue you once. First is 2018002124 c. U. A. At 54 fourth street. Item two. Is 2019001455 c. U. A. 1750