Attorney who will provide legal advice this evening. At the controls is the boards Legal Process clerk and i am julie, the boards executive director. We will be joined by representatives from the city departments with cases before the board this evening. We have the administrator planning the Planning Commission and joseph duffy, senior building inspector. The Board Meeting guidelines are follows. The boards turnoff and silence electronic devices. Appellants and Department Respondents have 7 minutes to present the case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated must include the comments within this period. Members of the public not affiliated with the parties have three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. If you have questions about requesting a rehearing, please email the board staff at board of appeals at sfgovtv. This is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast on friday. It is available on the website and downloaded from sfgovtv. Org. We will swear in or affirm those who will testify. I will admit two people to the meeting. Please note any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to rights under the sunshine ordinance. If you intend to testify and wish to have the board give evidently weight raise your hand. We will do our best with this. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth . Thank you. Please put your mic phones on mute. I want to make an announcement Public Comment will be taken by phone. If you want your phone number blocked dial star 67 prior to calling the number. I understand from sfgovtv this number is being broadcast live across the screen and also on the website. The appellant for the first case just arrived. Since there is a short lag time between the broadcast we will be going slowly. We want to ensure all members of the public can provide comment. We are going to first go to item 1. General Public Comment. This is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak to the board but is not on the calendar tonight. Is there anybody member who wishes to speak to an item fought on tonights agenda . We will review the callers that are here. Star 9 to raise your hand. If you are a caller to speak on general Public Comment please press star 9 and we will see. We will give it 30 seconds. There is a delay. Star 9. Okay. I do not believe we have general Public Comment. We are going to move on to item 2. Commissioner comments and questions. Commissioners. Any comments or questions . Okay. We will move to item 3. Adoption of minutes. These are the minutes of the march 11, 2020 Board Meeting. Any additions or changes to the minutes . Just a motion to accept. Who made that motion . Rick swig. We have a motion. Is there any Public Comment on the motion to adopt the march 11 minutes . Okay, seeing none. We have a motion from commissioner swig to adopt the march 11 minutes. On that motion commissioner sab takecana. Aye. Vice president honda you are voting on adoption of the minutes. Aye. Commissioner tanner. Aye. That motion carries 50. The minutes are adopted. We are moving to item 4. This is appeel 20019. Carolyn gage versus department of building inspection. Appealing the issuance on february 13, 2020 of an alteration permit. Upgrade electrical repair dry rot 100 square feet at the back of the house. Permit 2020 02 13 4409. Ms. Gauge you are on the line . Yes, can you hear me. I did press 4 for Public Comment. In my address to the committee, thank you for allowing me to speak. I want to clarify you have seven minutes to speak. Public comment is for people not affiliated with you to speak on the matter. You have seven minutes. We are going to start the clock. We will give you a 30 second warning when your time is up. Please proceed. Thank you. Okay. I just want to address the subject with this going on and remodeling, dry rot i have no problem with removing dry rot or mold or any harmful inhabitants that may cause damage in the future of this dwelling. Okay. The main opposition that that d was to just leave space and restructure with contemporary and modern material, not giving sentiment to traditional and historic materials that were there inside of the kitchen. Or anyplace. Due to the corona and quarantine i am not really prepared with everything. Gentrification is happening. We know that it is real, and upgrading different kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, upgrading is okay, but if it is not broke, dont fix it because sentimental value, traditional value has been placed on these homes and in furnishing these homes. Like i said before, if it is due to dry rot or if it is due to some material that will cause mold or mildew, that will in the future cause a hazard risk to people in the household, of course, replace it. Other than that if it is not broke, dont fix it as far as remodeling and getting new marble and tile to refinish. I am having a bad connection. I am echoing. Can you turnoff your tv. Do you have a tv . I dont have a tv. It is not me. Maybe sfgovtv can mute their link to this meeting. The control room. I think someone had a tv on in the back watching it. I dont hear it any more. You can continue, ms. Gage. Okay. With that said, just, you know, the homes that were built there, they are older model homes, and i understand that some may need to upgrade, you know. Can you hear me . Yes, we can. Okay. It came on that i was muted. If it is not broke, dont fix it. If it is not going to cause a hazard or health condition, then dont replace it. That is my stand. Do you have anything further at this time . Not at this time. If i can be allowed to come back in. You have three minutes in rebuttal. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We will now move on to the current holders attorney. You have seven minutes, sir. There is still an echo. Thank you very much. I would like to address the board. Very simply no legal grounds whatsoever for this appeal. This appellant is addressing her wishes to maintain the residence during the condition it was during her ownership. There is no grounds for this appeal. The permits were validly obtained. The only grounds given in the appellants brief were that she wanted to preserve the character of the neighborhood. The arguments she wants to maintain the property in the historic value on the state it is in and only allow emergency repairs of the harmful conditi condition. However, my client is the new owner of the property and is entitle to perform whatever modification are allowed by code. There is no grounds for the appellant to maintain the property in the shape she would like it to be as long as it was validly obtained. I would like to address the fact that all of the repairs are necessary to prevent further deterioration of the property. The dry rot in the back of the home is absolutely necessary. The kitchen work has exposed electrical components. Pictures of the damage to the kitchen. All of the items were obtained. They address the harmful conditions that lead to further deterioration of the property and potential injury to the occupants. Finally, there is no plan to say the appellant has taken this matter as a personal vendetta. It is extra legal means going so far as to threaten the current owners and workers. And later to file this appeal which has no grounds. That is all. We rest. Okay. Thank you. We will now hear from the department representative. Mr. Sanchez do you have anything to add for this appeal . I dont have anything to add. We did not review this permit nor were we required to under policies and procedures. We do not have anything to add. Thank you. We will go to mr. Joe duffy from department of public inspection. Please go ahead, mr. Duffy. Good evening. Joe duffy. The Building Permit the electrical and repair dry rot at the back of the house was made over the permit. It was filed on the 13th of february and issued the same day. The appeal was on the 19th of february. It was properly issued. It is a fairly typical Kitchen Remodel dry rot that we have seen a lot of in San Francisco. I dont have any issues. There was another permit after this one for some work at the exterior yard window and door opening and partition walls. That permit on the 16th of march, 2020 has not been appealed. I want to give you that information. There are no issues. We did get a complaint on the 26th of march. Someone complaining about hammering. That case was closed. That is it. We will move to Public Comment. I will wait 30 seconds. I understand there is a delay. I will set the timer for 30 seconds. This is Public Comment. If you are listening for appeal 20019. If you called in and would like to speak press star nine so we can identify you. We are going to give it 30 seconds. Once again we are on Public Comment portion for item 4, appeal number 20019 at 1335quesada avenue. Anyone nor Public Comment on this item . 15 more seconds. Okay. I do not see any callers. Ms. Gage, we are moving to the Public Comment portion. Can you hear me . I am sorry rebuttal. Ms. Gage. You have three minutes to present a rebuttal. Can you hear me . She might have gotten off the call. Can we try to call her. Maybe she is calling back right now. Can you hear me now . Yes, i can hear you. I am sorry. I dont know what happened. I could hear you but you couldnt hear me. I can hear you. With all due respect, i dont know this person. I dont know him. Yes, i am the owner. I was bamboozled out of my property and i know you have nothing to do with that. I am in a court battle and i am going to court, but i dont know this person. I have never met him. 29th street i had a contract with them and i know you have nothing to do with this, commissioner. Like i said, through the gentrification process and everything going on within the community, this has happened to me. I will continue to fight mr. What is his name . I dont know him. I have never set eyes on this man before, you know. Yes, there were problems in the home that needed to be attended to. The dry rot. That was my home. I have lived in that home over 50 years. That is my home, my legacy. My parents home. I fought for that home. I have lived in that home. It is my childrens home. I will continue to fight for it. It was sold to him illegally. Okay . So i am not sorry, but i will continue to fight. All of the work you have done go to the other side because i am continuing to fight for my home. I lived in that home, grew up in that home since i was 2 years old. Do you think i would just move out . No, no. Gentrification and predatory relending. I want that on record. I dont know who this man is, and i have never laid eyes on him. I am trying to do everything right through the legal system. With all due respect to you, commissioner. That is why i am here still on the battle field fighting for my legacy and my rights. Do you understand . 30 seconds. Am i understood . Thank you, ms. Gage. Do you hear me . Yes, we hear you. Thank you for your time with all due respect. Thank you very much. We are now. I will be down to get the court records. Thank you. Your time is up. Thank you. We are moving on to the permit holders attorney. You have three minutes. I just want t to say although my client sympathizes there is no valid reason. We request the appeal be denied and my clients be allowed to proceed with the work. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Duffy, do you have anything further. Nothing further. Am i able to add anything . I apologize. Lets go back. Why dont we start the time again. For the time . Go ahead. Is paul, the owner and purchaser of the property. I want to speak because i was there when we met ms. Gage when we were in contract. She has met me and met the seller and told us she did have issues with the previous owners. It had nothing to do with us. Basically she is taking it out on the current owner. It has nothing to do with her previous issues. She has threatened us by saying we better not do anything to the property. I wanted to put that on the record. Thank you. Do you have any more witnesses . No more witnesses, thank you. I understand from mr. Duffy he did not have anything further. Thats right. Do you have any questions . This matter is submitted, commissioners. Can we raise our hand or just talk . I am sympathetic to the appellant for her plight, but i see this permit was issued properly and therefore i would unless there is any other comment move to deny the appeal based on the fact that the permit was properly issued. I would concur. Do we have a motion . I make a motion. Okay. We have a motion from commissioner to deny the appeal on the basis it is properly issued. Commissioner santacana. [ inaudible ] okay. Commissioner santacana. Aye. I am sorry on the motion to deny the appeal, commissioner santacana. Aye. Okay. President lazarus. Aye. Vice president honda. Aye. Commissioner tanner. Aye. That carries 50. The appeal is denied. That concludes this appeal. You are free to leave the zoom meeting. You can follow up with me tomorrow about the 10 day waiting period before the decision can go out. We briefly talked about it. Thank you very much. The people who are part of that appeal can now leave the meeting if they want. Thank you. Thank you very much. So we are moving on to item number 5. This is appeel 20011 christopher schulman versus department of building inspection at 1410 franklin street. Issued on january 23, 2020 application for retail professional service overthecounter permit. Change of use only, no work, no change of occupancy or occupant load. Permit 2019 10 15 slash 4433. Mr. Schulman you have 10 minutes. Thank you for hearing this appeal. Thank you to staff for your time. I am bringing this appeal forward because this appeal by not classifying this property resulted in conditional use hearing before the Planning Commission Community Input and process. I would highlight my brief. I think my brief adequately showcases my position. As stated in the website and in one of my exhibits this is a retail copy and printing and Business Service change with over 5,000 locations. The Planning Department this is a Service Retail professional insurance brokerage, Real Estate Firm and clerical business. The businesses are clerical in nature and focus on the business of information and documents. They do not include exchange of tangible goods or services. These are businesses such as accountants, Legal Consulting and insurance answer real estate. They do not have similarity with ups stores and other mail and shipment stores. I with my brief i presented to you that ups stores meet the definition of general retail sales and service and i included in the definition had my brief for your review. However in my brief is the part including Office Supplies and copying. I would ask you to note in my exhibit w the sponsor notes over half of the Stores Business would be printing and copying. That is a significant part of the equation. Additionally, the definition applies to shipping services off offered by upa as service use open to the general public. Again, thank you for your time. Applying this correct definition will lead to requiring conditional use and allow proper public input. Thanthank you very much. Okay. Thank you. We will now give the permit holder an opportunity to respo respond. Mr. Chiu. You have seven minutes. Good afternoon. I am the permit holder and the store owner of the ups store on franklin street. Exactly one year ago i personally applied for the conditional use permit myself with the Planning Office, and in september i learned from the Planning Office that we do not need a conditional use permit because we are classified as Retail Professional Services. Myself i believe we are a Retail Professional Services and i will tell you why right now. One of the reasons i joined this franchise selfservice of tangible goods. Our Monthly Sales over 97 of sales are to services. There are less than 3 of the sales total Monthly Sales to tangible goods. If you guys dont know, the ups store shows shipping, notary and printing. I will say more on printing later on. I can show you guys a picture. I will show you two pictures right now. Okay. Can you guys see the first picture is showing the Security Camera view of the store and from here you are seeing over 95 of the store laid out. You can tell me what exactly do we sell that is tangible goods . Nothing that we sell as tangible goods over this 95 of the layout. On the right of the picture there is a counter where we process ship minut shipments an. The driver picks up the package in did back and that is it. The second picture. The second picture shows the rest of the store. These two pictures show you the complete almost 100 of the store. The second picture is the only tangible goods that we sell. Again, that is total sales is less than 3 of our Monthly Sales. As you can see here, we mainly sell tape, envelopes and bubble mailers. All of these tangible goods, that is all of them. They are a convenience, service to people coming in to ship packages. They can buy tape and they want to pack their own stuff so these are the only stuff that we sell that is tangible. I want to touch up on the printing Profit Center that chris brought up earlier. I think i said it wrong before or maybe he misunderstood. Our printing is not about 50 of the business. The 50 is what the ups store and the Home Office Want to do. They want to promote printing as 50 of the sales. They want to bring in more printing, but the truth is we still have a lot of sales. Printing is not more than 10 of the total sales. The ups store knows that shipping, the sales is declining so they focus about half of the effort to try to promote printing. To go back to the first picture, near the top right corner of picture is one office printer. That is about it. We make copies for customers to take home and Everything Else like posters and banners we print is not done here. We ou outsource this to another company to print. If we get any jobs, those print jobs are sent to the customers home address or office or they can come in to pick it up here. I think i am done with sharing the pictures. My second point is tha that they point out we are ups with 5,000 locations in the united states. I want him to know that i am an individual myself, a Small Business owner. I live in San Francisco all my life since age 13 when i immigrated here. The only difference between me is i pay ups to use the brandname. The same thing is the pack and shift companies in San Francisco. The only difference i pay ups to pay the name and they did not pay ups to use the name. Also, in owning the opening the store is my money. Ups did not pay a penny to help me open the store. You can see i did not have the money to hire a permit expediter. It is shy going to the me printing out the envelopes and sending out to the community and also myself going to the post office and apply stamps to send the mail out. The appellant is trying to put something into a Big Corporation image. 30 seconds. I am myself. In conclusion, i just guess the appellant is trying to reduce competition in the community. They do not want competition to come in. I am guessing he is one of is not in my neighborhood people. Okay. That is all i have. Thank you. Thank you. Okay we will hear from the Planning Department. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you. The property at 1410 franklin street is in the m c3 zoning. Neighborhood commercial district. It is subject to the retail requirements outlined in 303. 1 of the planning code. On may 20, 2019 the permit holder submitted conditional use authorization for a formula retail use of general retail store for the ups store. In the application they found the use was disclassified by the applicant. It was a conditional use with the determination and the formula retail use controls went into effect two decades ago. To my knowledge some of their stores have not been subject to the requirements. This was confirmed by the Zoning Administrator. The applicant withdrew the conditional use authorization. On october 15, 2019 subjected the permit for change of use for retail professional service. This was issued january 23 of this year. On january 27 of this year a certificate of completion was issued to finalize work under the permit and on the following day the subject appeal was filed. At issue is the correct use category for this. They determined this is not a general retail sales answer vision use. The sales and service use. The language found internal retail sales and service was added in 2008 under legislation that primarily made changes to restaurant uses. I review the materials there, there was never any indication to broaden or expand the category. The retail use category a few years ago was part of the wholesale change to article 7 reformatting article 7 but generally has been confirmed since adoption in 1980s as a rezoning effort. The retail sales and service use that provides to the general Public Professional Services including but not limited to management, clerical, accounting, legal and travel services and may provide services to the Business Community and the general public. This question has come up several times. Maybe there is more recent expansion of the uses but we have been matthew matthe cong this is not subject to the retail use controls. This concludes my presentation. I am available for questions. I have a question. I believe commissioner swig has a question. Commissioner sanchez the application was applied for in march. When was it determined it would not qualify . The application was submitted in may, may 20th. I dont know the exact date staff made the determination. It was sometime over the summer, probably between june and august. The application was withdrawn in september. Thank you. That was my question. Commissioner swig. It sounds like you have absolutely no hesitation that this permit was issued correctly and there is no gray area, is that correct . We believe this is properly permitted. This has come up many times. We always came to the same answer. It is not general retail sales and service. We are confident in that determination. I want to clarify. I am a Small Business guy, i really am, sole practitioner i dont have stuff like this store offers in my office. This becomes my thirdparty department for lack of better analogy to get those services. That is the interpretation of the Planning Department as well . Yes, that is the range of professional services, Business Services that serve the general public and the Business Community. Thanks. Thank you. We are going to mr. Duffy. Do you have anything to add for this case . I see you shaking your head. Nothing. We will move on to Public Comment. Again because of the lag time we are going to give an extra 30 seconds. We are hear for Public Comment on item 5. Appeal number 20011 schulman versus department of building inspection. 1410 franklin street. Push star 9 and we will see your hand to provide Public Comment. Call three. One, two and four. Hello. I am a resident of the neighborhood and the issue i wanted to call in to voice support of the appellant regarding the classification of the business. That is all i had to say. Thank you. Do you want to state your name for the record. It is not necessary, but if you would like to. She may be gone. Okay. We are still on the Public Comment portion for appeal 20011 for the 1410 franklin street. If you are here for Public Comment on the phone press star 9 and we will see that you want to speak. We will give extra time here because there is a lag. Public comment portion for 1410 franklin street item. If you would like to provide Public Comment please call in or if you are already on the line please dial star 9. I dont see anybody else. Thank you. We will move on to rebuttal. Mr. Schulman, you have three minutes for rebuttal. Let me unmute you. Thank you so much. Respectfully for the Planning Department, i understand this has been a long standing practice for them. I understand their favorite line but not limited to, but you cannot hesitate and look at the list of including, which is management, clerical, accounting, legal, consulting, insurance, real estate brokerage, travel service, nothing that has anything to do with the exchange and shipping and copying and it has nothing to do and none of those have anything to do with what we are talking about today with the ups store. You look at the definition of retail sales answer vision in general. A retail sales and service use provides goods and or services to the general public. Not a separate retail sales use in section 102. It includes Office Supplies and copies services and not in the other use. I believe the Planning Department hasserred for some time and now they have a concern of citizens. You looked at the list of citizens who showed up in on onf my exhibits. I understand i cant speak for all of them, but from folks at the meeting there was significant hesitation. There are email records to the Planning Department for folks with hesitation. This will require a conditional use hearing and right or wrong by the Planning Department i appreciate your time and thank you for considering this. Thank you, mr. Schulman. We go to mr. Chiu. This is your opportunity for rebuttal. You have three minutes. Hi. Thank you. As you can see w we we sell selzerviss. We sell the services. Some people they know something about a subject that they think they are right, and they tack on the definition of a, b, c and try to apply it to everywhere. I want to let you know that that is why we have a court system, a judge to determine things to see if they are the same group of things, same nature or not. I dont agree with people who know a little bit about a subject and think that the definition applies to other business. I will trust the commissioners and everybody here to judge to see if the business is a professional retail service. I hope i made that clear. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez did you have anything to add . Yes. We have a robust legislative process. The planning code is amended a few times each year. We have had issues and questions the proper use categories included in retail uses in the past. The board had many discussions what are the proper use categories. Over the years the Planning Commission and board of supervisors had a member of the planning code to add additional categories. We had a robust change a few years ago when it was brought into 303. 1, its own section of the code. The board of supervisors feels that they are miss applying the code, they can amend the code and better clarify it. I know the retail professional Service Category was debated to include that or not as formula retail use in the last go around and it was not included in the list of retail uses. That is something the board can further address in the future. We have been consistent in our application of this. As far as the Planning Department we dont have a reason to change that. We were comfortable in our application of code. I am available for additional questions. It looks like commissioner swig and tanner have questions. Commissioner tanner, please go ahead. Following up on that. Could you perhaps for our benefit explain if i were the appellant reading that definition. It seems like Office Supplies and copying, the ups store does more than those two services. How you look at that. The lay person could say this does apply to that. You may be just explain this and why the reading is different. This may seem easy to put it on the list. I think looking at the retail sales and service it included services. Generally they are retail uses. Subsection i includes books, stationary, office applies, copying service and music and sporting goods. Whereas the retail professional service use is getting more focused into the Service Aspect of it and we would include the shipping services and the other services, Notary Services they provide there. We are looking at ups as a professional service use versus a general copying service. The business has changed over the years when you look a kinko. They dropped that name a few years ago. It is primarily fedex. They offer the services. That is where we landed with the determination. The board has amended these code sections many times and still continues the categories or hasnt identifying shipping and those services as something that would need to be in a different category, is that correct . Thats correct. The topic has been debated much in the specific uses. Now the conversation is started this can be brought to the board of supervisors to determine knowing how they interpret the code they can know what changes if any they want to make there. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Duffy did not speak before. I assume he has nothing else to add. No. Thank you. Commissioners, this matter is submitted. Commissioner swig. I am sympathetic to the appellant. There may be ambiguity in the te way it is written. I was clear to ask mr. Sanchez if he had hesitation to support the permit. Furthermore this is one of the things that i observe in our hearings is the consistency of the behavior according to what the law is. Mr. Sanchez indicated this is the consistent behavior of the Planning Department to approve stores like this as this permit was issued, and therefore i would be in support of the permit holder and move to deny the appeal. Thank you, commissioners. Now commissioner honda would like to weigh in. Being on the board for 7 and a half years we have heard many cases for formula retail. We have had robust conversation for the retail store. At which point as mr. Sanchez indicated, the board of supervisors amended it because of the process, very robust process we went through. I do believe that the decision was correct that this does not fall under the formula retail. Is there a motion . Motion to deny the appeal on the basis of the permit was properly issued. We have a motion from commissioner swig to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. Santacana. Aye. Lazarus. Aye. Honda. Aye. Tanner. Aye. That carries 50 and the appeal is denied. You can leave the meeting now, if you were hear from that item. Moving along. We are now moving on to item number 6 00 a. M 6 for a and b. It is jerry drater versus department of building inspection. 25 17th avenue. Issuance on january 30, 2020. A site permit to comply with n nov201623795 and 57399 and 6009806. Add entertainment room and one bathroom at first floor, andre and three bathrooms and replace sidewalk and repair stuck co, relocate meter, repair fence, add one bedroom and bathroom. This is 201707071206. We will hear from mr. Dratsler first. Mr. Drater. Are you securing your screen right now . You are muted. We are not going to start the time. I am clicking on mute. Mr. Drater. We cant hear you. Can i hear you now. You are sharing your screen right now. Is that what you want be to do . There should be a powerpoint slide. We see a picture of the 25 17th avenue. There will be 16 slides. This is first one. You have seven minutes. Please let us know when you are ready. I will start now. It shows the three story bay the developer removed without a permit. The Planning Commissioner ordered it. Note the windows on the south bay wall are clearly visible from the street. Slide two summarizes the project. Disrespectful to violate the Building Code. To submit the architectural plan to abandon foundation repair. Permit board of appeals approved in 2017. Slide 3. Preapplication meeting plan claiming existing houses. 5817 square feet and the addition of great room, family room, entertainment room would only increase the size of the house by 244 square feet. Enormously disrespect full to the 20 neighbors. Slide 4 plans for 578 5780 squae foot thousand dollars acceding the plans by 260. Slide 5 the 5080 square foot plans are for 5990. This is disrespectful and rewards developer with legal bay removal. Slide 6. Clarifies and explains the Planning Commission decision to require permit holder to revert to previous condition by restoring the bay. Their decision does not require interpretation by the Zoning Administrator. Slide 7 addresses the principal statement. The developer failed to legalize the bay room before he submitted the certificate of compliance application. Lot 21 was ineligible to file the c. O. C. Because it was out of compliance with the local codes. There were two outstanding and the Planning Department noticed enforcement requiring the restoration of the bay. A certificate of compliance is a certificate stating the lot is incompliance with local codes and lot was out of compliance. The c. O. C. Could not have been issued without the removal. Slide 11 have two lot opioid tables froownershipand they apps created and the 25 lots four and five cease to exist after 1919. This is the first time a legal description for lot 21, the 51 wide lot was recorded. This is the same legal description and slide 12 is a very and slide 13 is the 1985 revised block which replaces lot four and five with lot 21. The revised block map evidence the city approved the merger of the two lots because only the city can create new lots numbers and they brought the parcel map into agreement with the legal map. This dis proves the permit holders claim he purchased two separate lots. Slide 14. Documents and email exchange. Where the zoning add minutes straight or asked the city surveyor about the status of the two new lots. They did not assure the Zoning Administrator the lots are legal slide 15. The ceqa letter shows the Zoning Administrator approved the lot split of lot 21. Lot 21 had to be a legal lot but the Zoning Administrator to approve a lot split. Slide 16, its likely that lot 25 is not a legal lot. This lack of certainty indicates the board of appeals should proceed cautiously and ask the City Attorney to issue a written legal a opinion on the legal status of lot 25. The project does need to move forward and the path forward is to require the permit holder to submit revised plans for a 5,589 square foot house that includes restoration of the bay and to make the issuance of the site permit contingent upon the receipt of a written legal opinion that lot 25 is a legal lot. Thank you for hearing my appeal. Thank you. Ok. So, we will now move on to mr. Granis foray peel number 2014. Let zizi where yo see them. Are you on video . I can hear you . I believe i am. I have a spotlight. There you go. Thank you. Welcome. Are you ready . Sure. President and commissioners, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify in port of my appeal in the expansion of the home at 25 17th avenue. I will refer to the subject property. We have lived in San Francisco since 1984 and 20 18th behind con figurous to the subject property since 1999. My wife and was born and raised and is a fourth generation san franciscan. My appeal is straight forward. On march 25th of last year, i filed an application with Planning Department for a discretionary review of the above reference Building Permit. Adhering on july 25th, Planning Commission con committed to take the discretionary review as requested by approving the Building Permit application with the express condition the developer quote, refer the existing been to its previously existing condition by restoring the threestorey bay, end quote. Its my understanding that the decisions reached by the Planning Commission be to be respected and enforced by the Planning Department, the department of building inspection and by this board of appeals. It is on these assumptions my appeal is based. There is nothing ambiguous or unclear about the order issued by the Planning Commission. It is painfully obvious that the Planning Commission decided that the developer should not benefit from the deliberate, illegal acts that they committed by submitting false plans and illegally demolishing the threestorey play. Planning communicated its intent that the developer was not to be granted any benefits that they had hoped to gain by the poison us acts they committed. The developer own grief submitted to this states very plainly the threestorey bay was demolished without authorization of a Building Permit. Despite several attempts to use language in the design to minute miz the seriousness of that act this board should not be distracted from the illegal packets or their repeated attempts to benefit from those acts. This board has an obligation to enforce the clearing and of the Planning Commission in the Crystal Clear they issued, its all im asking for. Despite the somewhat long and winding road of the the cutting corners and obtaining improper approvals to build two monster sized homes is not complicated underring what has occurred in connection with the subjects property since the developer purchased a single lot number 21 in 2015. Number one, the developer took title to the subject property pursuant to a deed that referenced the purchase of a single spot 21. 50 feet by 120 feet. The developer, usin use rodrigon chaz failed the bay to pull a over the counter permit that allowed for foundal repairs and demolish a deck, the threestorey bay window and a threestorey chimney. When the outdoor deck, bay and chimney were not present with the help and participation of the developer proceeded to get a certificate of compliance recorded that completed the improper lost of the appropriate appropriate Public Notice for procedures. If the developer had not been illegally demolished the outdoor deck, the threestorey bay and the threestorey chimney the certificate of compliance would never have been issued because the home on the subject property would have existed over the new Property Line and the home would have been on two parcels. That insult to injury the developer is now attempting to use the existence of the new Property Lines to justify the need to modify the throwstorey bathreestoreybay. It would violate the intent. They have the illegal demolition of the throwstorey bay and ordered to revert the existing building to its previous existing condition by restoring ththreestorey bay. Very clear. Number five, the developer spent the next six months using their influence to work the Planning Department in order to convince them there was something to be interpreted in connection with the Planning Commissions plainly worded order to restore the threestorey bay which resulted in the permit being issued. Number six, the developer in their brief, has attempted to falsely recreate for the order to be interpreted and argued the Zoning Administration is empowered to do so and has approved the plans. The plain fact is, not only did the Zoning Administrator did not sign off on the plans as they have been submitted, but since the Planning Commissions order was written in plain language no interpretation of that order is called for. Number seven, the developer attempting to modify the planning conditions Crystal Clear order that was issued in connection with the subject property to restore the threestorey bay. In addition, the developers repeatedly referred to the construction of a new home on the improperlily created lot the subject property to create the impression of the developer entitled to build that home where it has anything to do with this Building Permit that has been issued on the subject property and Planning Commissions order to restore the threestorey bay. Please dont allow yourself to be fooled by the developer or his counsel. Its not ambiguous, it does not require any interpretation. The threestorey bay is proposed by the developer and included in the plans submitted does not comply with the Planning Commissions order. As proposed by the developer, the threestorey bay eliminates seven of nine windows and most significantly removes a required and preferred second path of exit by eliminating a door that clearly existed in the threestorey bay. Please consider the language used by the Planning Commission and they did not order for the developer for example, to rebuild the bay in a similar matter to allow for as large a home as possible to be constructed on the lot to the south. Instead, they listened to the testimony and considered the documents and ordered the developer be required to revert the existing building to its previous exiting condition by restoring the threestorey bay. It seems to me that the board has an obligation to make every reasonable effort to see the clean inpent of the planning is respected and enforced. My appeal is simple and straight forward. I request that you required the developer to do what the Planning Commission ordered them to do last july. Revert the existing building to its previous exiting conditions by restoring the threestorey bay. Please require the developer to do exactly that. Nothing more and nothing less. Thank you for your consideration. We will now move on to the permit holder. Im going to unmute you, mr. Kevlynn. You have 14 minutes since you are responding to two appeals. Great, thank you. Can you hear me . Yes. Great. And we bring up the can you see my slide show. Its great to see you all despite the circumstances. In fact, one of the last times out in in public at the last hearing. So the permit on appeal today is the remodel and rear expansion of an existing family home at 25 17th half in a 700foot increase floor air. Its consistent with the neighboring charter has been confirmed by the Planning Commission on discretion rar review. Several of the Board Members here saw the building on appeal back in 2017. And at that time, a permit was on appeal that would correct the demolition of that south bay on the side of the building. And at the time, while the board was clearly focused on adjudicating the bay demolition it acted to ensure it was in a safe condition and let the planning process play out. And thats exactly what is happened since then. The Planning Department has reviewed the proposal, neighbourhood notice was issued, and the Planning Commission heard the project on discretionary review last july. Virtually the entirety of that hearing was concerned with what to do about the demolition of the bay and what was their appropriate consequence. Ultimately the commission decided to require the project sponsor to reconstruct the day. If anyone would have seen that hearing, Planning Department staff always has a role in interpreting the guidance of Planning Commission in response to a discretionary review. Typically, the direction is not so limited and had been discussion about that actual condition itself. In fact, mr. Eye own and the Commission Secretary asked commissioner richards for further clarification and a question was called and the vote took place. Many cases are much more clear than this when interpreting the Planning Commissions intent. No other modifications of a project were required to even discuss which confirms the appropriateness of the remainder of the proposal. Its unsurprising considering the project would be subordinate to its closest two neighbours. If you take a look here at the front elevation quickly, the project is still up fourstoreys which is the same as the two nearest buildings and in fact a short of the two nerrest buildings and the depth of the new building is the same depth as the abutting building to the north. And the proposed home would have setback additional rear set backs of the fourth flor. So again, the complete lack of discussion about the rest of the project indicates that thats really not of any concern. So since the Planning Commission hearing the project sponsors for the project add conditioned. The permit does inincluded the reconstruction of a Southern Bank and considering the significant neighbourhood interest in the permit it was careful in directive and it was simply quote revert the existing building to its previous existing condition by restoring ththreestorey bay. End quote. The proposed mapping is identical to the exiting bay but the appellants are suggesting every must detail and in particular reestablishing all windows and doors on the side and rear of the bay. This is neither possible relevant or even desirable. First its not possible since the previous bay, which was not part of the original construction of the building was from the early 20th century. Building in fire codes and Building Materials have evolved since then and so theres no way to have an exact match of what was there before. So therefore, it is isnt just a simple black white do exactly what was there before. Remember, this bay crosses the Property Lines so that further creates significantly greater restrictions on openings. Not just at the Property Line but across the Property Line. Second, its not adding the windows and door back is not relevant since the buildings primary facade which is how the public experiences the building from the street, which is what is relevant and respected as historic review will be unchanged. The windows facing the front, let me bring it up here. Here is the exiting and proposed side elevation so were clear about what the differences are. And again, looking at the front of the building, you are not going to notice any difference of that bay. And finally, probably most importantly, its not desirable to require that the reinstallation of the windows and doors on the south and west side of the bay. Since the vacant lot at 27 17th avenue should and will be developed. Its vacant currently with a garage structure at its rear and the middle of the mid block open space. Having doors and windows at that building creates serious privacy concerns on the future singlefamily homes and its occupants. Rear facing windows will face into the new home. Having egress on to the front lawn of the future home is unnecessary for egress purposes. Theres two means of egress and the tracks from the use privacy and the security of the future home to force folks to cross the front yard of that new home. So in short the Planning Department and the Planning Commissions decision approve the permit and confirmed the resolution to the bay issue that was intended by the commission. Which is the role of the discretionary review process and the Planning Commission. Now we have time to bring up this certificate of complaints quite a bit so i want to make things clear about this. Yes, during the course of the entitlement process the counter surveyor confirmed they are two separate legal parcels. This was confirmed pursuant to a certificate of compliance. This process did not make any changes to existing lot lines. It cannot make changes to existing lot lines. Per the state law. Its clarified the existing status of those lines. Now the appellant spent effort identifying every document related to the two parcels that have identified them as one parcel since the building was constructed in 1913 and the answer to this is it really doesnt matter if the Historic Preservation report, a marketing material, city, staff reports, or even Assessment Tax records show these at one parcel. You can only modify Property Lines pursuant to the states map acts and the Legal Process has been fulfilled to merge the two parcels or it hasnt and the certificate of compliance confirmed it hasnt and as such, 25 and 27 17th avenue are two separate parcels. Now stepping back for a minute, all aspects of this permit making process, the plan interview and the permit processing, have all been done in a context of excruciating scrutiny by the appellants. City staff has had to be particularly careful and methodical throughout this process. Now, continuing this trend, the appeal ant thrown at a number of allegations large and small about the review of the plan and the processing of the permit. We do speak to some of those issues in the brief, i dont think its worth it to walk through each of these allegations. I will offer that to the board that our entire team is here in case there are any particular questions. This includes the project sponsor, architect and the surveyor. So, what we have here today is really culmination of a process that the board got an early look at in 2017 and should be familiar. At that time the board clearly stated the board of appeals that is, clearly stated its concern about the demolition of the bay without a permit and allowed the planning process to proceed in order to adjudicate that issue. The planning issue held an hour and a half hearing where considered significant amounts of Public Comment. Almost exclusively to discussion and appropriate consequence for the bay removal and decided reconstruction of the bay would be appropriate resolution. The appellants today are asking the board to overturn staffs approval and modify the project that would have harmful impacts on the Rational Development of this block for generations. A Family Living in the new structure will unnecessary suffer from a compromised privacy and security in their front yard. A coherent, block face will not be achieved due to a major front setback on the new building that is out of context with the block. Theres absolutely no reason to burden future occupants and neighbours with this resolve. This is adjudicated pursuant to the Planning Commission approval thats in the permit before you is the result of that adjudication. So, we are asking the board to allow the adjudication to be carried out and deny this appeal and thank you and ill finish the initial comments. Is anyone else from your group, you still have time left. Does anyone else want to testify . Not in these initial comments. We will move onto the Planning Department. Mr. Sanchez, you have 14 minutes. Thank you. So the subject property in reality there properties, 25 and the 27 17th avenue, the subject Building Permit is for 25 17th avenue in r h1 Single Family Zoning District with a 4k district. The lots are 25 by 120 feet deep. As has been stated in the past, they had been viewed as one lot apparently and all of that was never officially recorded as one lot, ill get into that a little bit more. With the timeline of the history here, given this is fairly complex. In 2015, the current owner bought the subject property and in january of 2016 the Property Owner obtained permits for foundation replacement and these were prepared engineer Rodrigo Santos and to be clear on the party it wasnt rodrigo sanchez. They depict a bay window in the foundation replacement permit. June 26th, the Property Owner obtained the permit for a dry rot repair and however they dont show the bay window. Subsequent to that, the city began to receive complaints. First complaints dealt with work on the existing deck which was i believe the scope of any of the permits and also complaints related to the bay window or lack thereof because it had begun to be removed. And in july of 2016 the property own per obtained a permit for temporary shoring and they were by the same engineer as the foundation permit and the dry rock permit and did not show the bay window. At this time they received a complaint with concerns about alterations to Historic Resource and prepared our notice of enforcement. When you get a notice of enforcement, we would give initial direction in there. In this case it was for them to restore the bay window but if they go through the proper processes there are other alternatives and so in january of 2017 they submitted an Environmental Review application and part of that Environmental Review scope of work was the removal of the bay window. In february of 2017, the department of public works issues a certificate of compliance to document that two legal lots exist and both comply with the planning code. 25 by 125 lot is completely code compliant. In march of 2017, the Planning Department issues our ceqa our state Environmental Quality law finding the subject property is not a Historic Resource and part of that determination was the scope of work including the removal of the bay window. The ceqa decision, which would be appealable to the board of exercises was not appealed and final and on our record and in may of 2017 the report owner submits the removal of the bay and performance strengthening work and in july of 2017, the Property Owner submitted the subject permit which included a horizontal expansion. In august of 2017, the city issued the permit to legalize the removal of the bay and allow the strengthening and it was appealed to the board and in 2017 the board of appeals heard that matter and they granted the a keel and upheld a continuance limiting work to ground floor only airing concern made by the Property Owner that given where they were in terms of the work they needed to provide additional shoring and strengthening of that ground flor for the safety of the building and the board found that to be reasonable and allowed that element but did not allow the bay window removal as part of that scope of work. And in june 2018, the Property Owner submits permits for the adjacent property 27 17th avenue and demolition of an existing garage. Between the february 21st and march 25th 2019 the neighbourhood notification noticed was performed for the subject permit. Actually both permits. The subject permit and the new Construction Permit on the adjacent lot. Two were filed by the appealant and they hold the public hearing on the d. R. Request for both properties for 25 and for 27. At this hearing the commission took d. R. And approved the subject permits with the condition that it revert the existing building to its previous condition by restoring the threestorey bay and finding condition is imposed on the new Construction Permit that acknowledges the bay restoration. The fact that the bay is to remain, required the adjacent new construction to be designed itself because that was now encouraging over the Property Line. And its within the billable area. So a couple issues that have been raised here that primarily is the question of the reconstruction without the windows. And the debate on what exactly does the Planning Commission mean by their decision. And ultimately the applicant submitted the plans as they are now and at the present time Department Staff reviewed them. The planners working on this reviewed it with the Zoning Administrator and the Zoning Administrator found it could be consistent with the Planning Commissions decision. The fact that requiring the restoration of the windows would render it to be non compliant because then you have the privacy and window adjacent issues that the resident cited there so from a design perfect tive its not appropriate for those windows to be restored. It would cause a condition that we would not approve typically. We would find it to be non con consistent. The certificate of compliance. This has been addressed at length with the department of public works. They have had multiple letters between mr. Yatler and public works and he has raised many good issues to discuss and to debate and as my understanding, d. P. W. Has considered all of those and found the certificate of com compliance to be issued. Theyre finding the lots were never legally merged together. Certificates of appliance have happened and administrative matters and it is not uncommon for properties and i understand it and as i understand it, people will, for tax convenience purposes and the assessor will effectively merge two lots not merging the lots legally under what we would look at for public works requirements but they do it for tax convenience. That appears to be what was done in this case and they may have found it to be eligible for this certificate of compliance and its been issued and finalled. There have been questions raised about Square Footage calculations. Everything we have at the plans we find to be codecompliant. I know the appellant has [please stand by] we received thousands of permits every year. They were relying on the title under the building permission of the department of building permission tracking. They have a code and that stands for city planning clerk. That is not the Zoning Administrator. Every permit that comes to planning for review is cpzoc. That doesnt mean the Zoning Administrator has to approve that, if that were the case he would approve all permits. No permitting would be approved. There is another code cpza in the system. That is city planning and Zoning Administration commonly used. I cant recall a time it has been used, but as i understand the appellants concern they look at it and the Zoning Administrator needs to approve the permit. That is not the case. There is an easement that has also been prepared as part of this primarily with the City Attorney and department of building inspection that is a standard process, and everything seems to have been properly performed in there. Lastly, i guess i would want to remind the board and you know this is a de novo hearing. This is how the board of appeals feels this project should be approved. They could appoled it as currently proposed. It does not comply with the residential Design Guidelines. You can remove the bay or make other changes the board finds necessary to the permit. It is my understanding the other permit for new construction on the adjacent lot has not yet been approved by Planning Department. It might be on hold because of this appeal and the permit holder may better address the status. It is my understanding it has not yet been approved. With that i am available for questions. We have a question from president lazarus. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez, when the commission took dr and the one stipulation was that the bay window be restored, what was the assumption or understanding as to how it would be restored . You refer to the fact that it needs to be remembe residential guidelines. Is it conceivable when the bay was built it was a different set of guidelines now it needs to conform to what is current . The requirements in effect at that time would no longer be in effect probably they would largely be superreads. The Building Planning code requirements but i think one of the issues, the Planning Commission did make this decision. There was not a lot of discussion. He did this consistent with recent actions of the Planning Commission when someone has come in with a project with serial violations or just violations that the Planning Commission has asked them to restore things. 214 state street, hopkins, multiple cases that were listed. There was not much discussion at that point about what that means and could they have the windows or not have the windows . That was not discussed by the commission. The president spoke in opposition to the motion. They voted against the motion. The other commissioners voted in favor of it. Then there is really no what is applicable would be the current guidelines and need for the rebuilding to conform to those, would that be correct . I dont know what the Planning Commission. They didnt opine if windows were required. It was not discussed in any way, unfortunately. We do have this de novo hearing for the board to make a final decision on the matter. It was at the discretion of the department and they looked at the plans and they felt they were appropriate to be permitted . Yes, as proposed without the windows. The window primarily facing the street remains. You can read it from the street as bay window with a window. The department didnt feel it appropriate or compliant with Design Guidelines to have windows that look directly on the new construction, both directly lateral to it and the bay window looking back at the new building and the Planning Commission didnt give us the guidance on that. We went with the practice of applying the guidelines. Thank you. It looks like we have a question from commissioner swig. Thank you. I recall this previous hearing significantly because i think i made a motion to do it commissioner richards ultimately required to put it back the way it was. Mr. Sanchez clarification on your story. Thank you for being so clear. Was the deck that was destroyed done without a permit, correct . Illegally, right . It is my recollection there were several things done without a permit. The deck and bay window. The bay window was destroyed illegally. The other leave out, and that i remember i know there is a do novo hearing. It upset me and i dislike and i am not accusing, the facts are the facts. Those things were done illegally in our discussion this was a do it and then pray for forgiveness. This is a way to manipulate the project which i was uncomfortable with. What i believe when i made that motion, it was denied, as i recall. We made another motion and that motion had significant stipulation and can you again repeat yourself by clarifying what that motion was and what they were directed to do as part of upholding the appeal with condition . Sure. It is my recollection that the decision required the i will pull up the decision. The exact reading is that the board grants the appeal and orders issue answer of it be upheld only work be allowed interior remodel at ground floor and lateral strengthening and partial structural strengthening that the specified work is defective. That is my recollection. I recall that was done because there was significant testimony at that time that there was a hazard that had been created by the project developer because they had undermined the house so badly that there was fear from the neighbor, and i believe possibly from planning or d. B. I. That the house could fall down and go boom or create a Health Hazard to the neighbors. The implicit nature was that you guys better fix it pretty fast. Then what happened to the permit . I think that permit is maybe Senior Inspector duffy has a better recollection. My understanding it is still showing as suspended in the system. I dont know if there was a subsequent permit that dealt with that. I do see there was a subsequent permit issued pursuant to the boards decision that was issued on december 28, 2017. Do you see that work was done . I dont believe that work was ever done and it was allowed to last, is that true, or should i ask mr. Duffy. Mr. Duffy may have better information. In looking at permit tracking it is issued not as completed. Again, what i am getting at here and we will let the commissioners discuss it later. I want to put it on the record. We have a developer who tore down the deck illegally. Destroyed the bay illegally. And then when the board of appeals were very concerned, they gave a specific direction that permit was issued to shore up the building to protect the health of the public and that developer just let it lapse and never did it. Mr. Duffy can clarify what happened so i will leave it at that. Thank you. We are moving to the department of building and inspections. Mr. Duffy. You have 14 minutes. Permit 201707071206 to comply with two 016. 57399 on the planning case. Horizontal addition. Elevator, first floor laundry, three baths. Replace sidewalk, repair fence. One bedroom and one bathroom on fourth floor. The permit was filed around the seventh of july of 2017 and issued on the 30th of january 2020, suspended sixth of february. It is a site permit. We are getting the addendum. It will be fully sprinklered under a separate Building Permit. The issues that are in the brief pertaining to d. B. I. Would be two administrative bulletins 005 and 009. My business to check with the staff that the director senior building inspector and the plan check terry viewechecked. One for the egress windows. There is no issue. No Fire Department review on the Single Family dwelling except the sprinkler issue. The Fire Department had not reviewed. No requirement for that. The issue brought up about the second exit. No second exit required on the site. It might have been a convenience store. The Building Code does not require it. It is not a requirement on that existing. It was an issue but it does not require an exit. The violation that i have for the july 2016, almost four years ago outstanding. Removed the deck. The client is protecting the property. That was a violation outstanding. It is almost four years. This is the permit to fix it. I know commissioner swig has questions for me on issued permits, completed permits. I did print up some permits. There was a permit signed off in 2017 on the compliance. At every story and transfers direction. [ inaudible ] that permit was dated 12th of september 2017. The original permit obtained on suspended status and something has to be done with that later whether it is revoked or whatever we need to do that needs to be some point in the future. The project sponsor would be better to give you an indication where they got the work on the ground floor on the work allowed. I can look it up here and check for the inspection history on other permits to see where we got to with that in regards to that work. Mr. Calvin might enlighten you on that. I am not sure of anything else here. If anyone has any questions, i am happy to take them. We have a question from commissioner swig. For clarification. We passed a motion and that required the shoring up and for Health Purposes for the protection of the neighborhood we required they do the shoring up so the building would be at no risk of falling down or causing any damage. Mr. Duffy, did the project sponsor followthrough and protect the neighborhood by acting on that permit and doing that shoring . I just read the details from the 2017 permit that would from me reading it, it would look like they did take care of some of the issues on the ground floor. I am not sure if they got it all done. I can look it up and get back to you on that one. Thank you. So we are now moving on to Public Comment. I understand there are a number of people who called in for Public Comment. We will take our time. We are on 6a and b. 20013 and 20014. We will start with the first caller. How much time would you like for the speakers . How many do we have . If you are here for Public Comment please press star nine and i will know you want to speak. Right now i see nine. Given the circumstances of the meeting two minutes should be sufficient. Start with the first caller then on the top of the hand raising. We have the first caller with the phone number ending in 499. Are you ready to speak . Yes. Please proceed. You have two minutes. If you could identify yourself. My name is janette. I live in the neighborhood. I have been walking through the neighborhood for years. Over the last four years i have noticed this horrible looking building that is all covered in maywood that looks like it needs renovated. I took the time to investigate to see what was happening. It seems to me that this is an opportunity for another home in our neighborhood and being in richmond we know residents are starved for Single Family homes. It seems like a lot of the roadblocks to getting this building renovated seem to be really nitpicky. I just feel like lets get this thing rolling. Get the building rehabbed. Get a family in there and put people to work. Right now we are in a situation where there are many, many people out of work. Here is a great opportunity to get people to work. I notice in the same block there is another building that looks like it is held up by the same type of nitpicky reasoning, and it feels like these are homes that are waiting for families, and all they need is to remove the roadblocks and move forward. I am done. Thank you. We are now moving to the next caller. This would be the caller whose phone number ends 2174. Are you ready . We can go back to you. We will go back to that person. Next caller phone number ends 6867. That is me. My name is jim riley. I live at 1601 at the corner of 17th and lake street. My biggest concern about this is, number one, why are we here again . We keep rehashing the same thing over and over. The city commissioned the city board to make the decision and somebody skirts it and goes around it. Somebody hires somebody with influence. The plans submitted are still fraudulent. They are existing plans showing the south side of 2,517th avenue is completely false. They did not remove a three story bay. They removed a twostory extension that connected the four and three story. I went to all of the hearings. It was very clear what this action what the dar was. Restore it to the existing condition. I remember commissioner swig using the term board by naylor. Or something to that effect. That is the language they have to use then that is what they should use. When somebody says restore it, it means put it back the way it was, and also quit using your influence because you used to work at 1600 mission street. Thank you. Can you repeat your name for the record please. It was jim riley. We will go to the next caller. Go back. Do you want to go back to the caller . Yes. Hello, are you on the line . This is 3747. Hello. Hi. I am carol. I live directly next door to 25 17th avenue. This is a great opportunity to speak. Thank you. I not only live next door. I lived in the house for a while where we remodeled. I want to say while it is a bit of a mess from the getgo because i think the developer didnt maybe do what he should have done by pulling the proper mitt and i know her tore off a bay and that was a bad thing to do, but since then i feel like he has made amends and he is trying desperately to get this started. We have neighbors who dont want this project to happen. They also dont want a house to be built in the empty space that is next door to that. These people will continue to fight this. I just wanted you to know we are totally opposed to this sort of tactic. I hear recently that now there is somebody who wants to put a neighbor wants a historic overlay over the neighborhood. This is just a way to stall this project and making it impossible for the developer to move forward. It is time to move on and to get going. It is a horrible thing to live next door to this. We need housing. Lets do it and stop all of this. Thank you. Lets try the caller. You are on the line. Would you like to speak in Public Comment . Hello. Caller 7. Would you like to speak . Yes, please, i would. Identify yourself please for the record. I am eric lou. I live between lake street and california street on 17th avenue. As a neighbor i wanted to say that i see this project. It has been held up for various reasons. I dont understand why it is stopped for so many years. I want to echo what the first callers sentiment has been. Not only am i speaking on behalf of myself but on behalf of other neighbors. We feel these stopped projects make no sense for our community. Additionally, it is my understanding the Planning Department has supported this project, much the project sponsor or the developer has done what they needed to do to work with the Planning Department, and if that is the case, it seems to me that i as a San Francisco citizen would like to support the Planning Department in doing their job. They have done their job and the project is proper. This should be moving forward rather than stalling the way it has been for god knows how long. It is an eyesore. That is all i wanted to say. Thank you very much. We will go to the next caller. 4288. Would you like to speak in Public Comment . Yes. I am steve reuben. I dont live in this neighborhood but i am familiar with the project. I have driven by there it is close to the golf club where i belong. I am concerned about this. In forest hill we dont have this problem. We do as neighbors we work with the architects and owners to approve buildings. We have had subdivision lot line issues where new homes have been built. It adds revenue to our city, adds jobs to our city. I think it is crazy. I served as assistant Corporation Council for the city of attorney and i was involved in the appeals and zoning permit violations. Then i have the ability to serve on the zoning and Planning Commission. Specifically looking at National Historic sites which are in chicago and also in the village of la grange where i was working on the commission. There is nothing historic about the bay at all. I actually looked at the construction plans, and that bay did not exist. We are not talking about a house that was built or designed by Frank Lloyd Wright or a home i owned in chicago designed by an architect named roberts. It is tragic in process has taken more than three years to build. It needs to be built. I think the second home needs built. We need housing and revenue. The city is in dire financial shape. We need the real estate taxes. Lets get the house built. Hello, you are on the line. Would you like to speak in Public Comment . Yes. I am frank. I live on 21st avenue. I have lived in San Francisco since 1973. I also want to echo what seems to be the largest sentiment of this call. This needs to get built. We need housing everywhere. I have got my daughter and her husband. We live in a building on 21st avenue, a few blocks away. We are dying for them to have a chance to get into a house by themselves, and they cant because the situations like this exist where neighbors or concerned parties just hold things up. It appears that the planned sponsor has stated something wrong in the beginning but reacted to everything the Planning Commission has asked them to do. In San Francisco that is no simple feat. Since the Planning Commission approves it we should allow it to happen. Lets get the housing in place. Lets get this built. Thank you very much. Why dont we call user five. Would you like to speak in Public Comment . Hello. I am a neighbor on 17th avenue. I would like to stay anonymous because people that have not agreed with the appellants have been uninvited from participating in community meetings. Like a very important one was to discuss applying for the recognition of the neighborhood as a historical district. I am so disappointed we continue to allow a few bad actors to voice their extremist positions over the rest of us who dont have the same views or luxury of the time to argue with word complaints. As i understand it the home stopped construction almost four years ago. The issues were put to rest three years ago. I dont understand why this construction site sits like this for three or four years. There is now another three unit building on the street and the main appellant is against that one from progressing. Is this really the main issue of the appellants . Do they want to entire block at the community expense . They are holding hostage to all of these homes. They are holding all of us hostage. We have housing in San Francisco. We all need to do what San Francisco has always been about which is growing and progressing since the beginning. The Community Needs to have a voice especially now during this pandemic. We couldnt imagine the changes now and we freed jobs. We need opportunities. Your time is up. Thank you. We are going on to the caller whose phone number ends in 3186. Hello. This is susan taylor. My husband and i bought the house at 1600, the corner of lake and 17th. This is my first entry to these proceedings. We did review the record carefully before we bought the house. I want to say a few things. One, we need more houses to be built. Sheer to be clear we are talking about a 500 square foot house. We are talking about a multi Million Dollar house. This is not low Income Housing we need for a depression as a result of covid. We have permitting and laws. All of us have to recognize we generally need to comply with the laws. Otherwise there is no point in the commission and no point in rules around housing. The neighborhood should Work Together but i think this came about because the developers didnt comply with the laws initially and still arent. The third point bing missed is when there is discussion of the current babying in violation of design rules and regulations they are assuming they will proceed with the second lot, the building on the second lot. If you scaling back the construction on the second lot so there may not be that design violation. I would ask if we are going to build and i think we should build to create jobs pan housing. We have people constructing buildings. Hello. 2174. Please press star nine and we can see you raising your hand and we will call you. We did get most of the people. Star nine. Hello, would you like to speak in Public Comment . Yes, i would. My name is scott. I live on 15th avenue. I have been a resident and owner in the neighborhood since 2002. To be brief i am outside right now with my kids, but i just wanted to say thanks for the Planning Commission to have this at unusual times. This property on 17th is nothing but an eyesore right now. My kids, it is boarded up. Homeless people, graffiti take, it is a disaster. I was against this in the beginning. After meeting mr. Canter and reviewing the plans multiple times. The Planning Commission has had four years on this. From the plans, it is all in compliance. A few people dont like it. That is understandsable. It is a neighborhood eyesore and magnet or crime and homeless. I was by there today on my bike with my kids. Please approve what is in front of you so we can get this built and get th get rifraf off the. We are moving on to the phone number ending 5999. Are you there for Public Comment . Yes. I have lived on the block for 55 years now. The homeowners take pride in architectural character of our neighborhood. A complete resttorration three story bay is very important. You know, we have celebrated. I have been in that bay window and on the deck. We have had parties and halloweens. It is a family oriented block. We love families and kids. It is a great block to live on. The main problem these people didnt follow the rules. They are disrespecting not only the neighbors but the city pla planning guidelines. It should be built there but they need to follow the guidelines and the rules. It needs to be architecturally significant. We appreciate that. That is all. Why dont we move to the caller 5576. Hello, you want to speak on Public Comment . I also live in the neighborhood and echo while i like the gentleman on the bike with kids i walk in the neighborhood with my dog. The condition of the property is repulsive andrews attention from potential thieves. I dont want that in my neighborhood. I would like to develop the geninvolved getting back to work. I would like to look at a nice fact saw when i am in the neighborhood. I cant understand why the apple laboratory continue goes to stall the project. It makes no sense. As most people commented we need the housing and people at work on the west side of town where there is ray clear lack of housing. Thank you for listening to my clients. I will restore this. Thank you. We will move to 0342 caller. Thank you. My name is kathryn pety an architectural histor his histor. I ask the body uphold the position to restore the policy. It is my professional opinion that there is a lick street histor lake street district with numerous impact dwelling constructed between 1906 and 1927. 2,517th avenue guy architect ee young very much on par with other historic architects in the hearing is such a contributor and Historic Resource. It should be treated in accordance with the secretary of interior standards. By restoring the three story bay as discussed at length. Last year i was asked to explore potential for a landmark district. We met. We are preparing a nomination which is pending Department Review and Neighborhood Outreach on the part of the Planning Department. It is important to know in 2012 the department considered the lake street district eligible for the california register and Legal Council advices the nomination is filed and pending review the Department Must consider the status. I am sympathetic to neighbors offended by the eyesore. It isir responsibilities of the developer who created the situation. Moving on to caller two. Hello. We cant hear you. We are trying to hear you. 2174. Are you on the line . Would you like to speak in Public Comment . Not there. I dont see any other hands. Right now we are in Public Comment for the item related to 15 17th avenue the two appeals if there is a caller with Public Comment press star nine. I see two hands. When we go to the calls no one is saying anything. Maybe we can try to call that person. 1092. Are you on the line . Would you like to speak in Public Comment . Yes. I am kevin. I live in the neighborhood close by on ninth avenue. This is a project i have been following for the better part of two and a half to three years. I would like to say i am in support of the plan moving forward with the developers. I feel like they have addressed a lot of concerns for our neighborhood and have jumped through hoops to try to satisfy others with the issues that have been brought up. Personally just being in the neighborhood is a little disappointing to see a few Neighbors Holding something up for four years. No one is living in the home. We need more housing and projects. Especially with what is going on now, we need more work. I think the developers have done a great job adjusting their plans to be able to meet really the deadlines they have to they are losing a lot financially by going through all delays and at some point i think the effort of one, two, three or even 10 neighbors shouldnt hold this up when they tried to accommodate the concerns. I am in favor of improvements and i want to see more building happen. I hope that is considered. Thank you. For 2174. Ms. Clark are you here . There is another person. We have Public Comment for the items related to 25 17th avenue. Somebody has a radio or tv or internet on. Please turn it off. I have a echo here. I am going to mute all. Lets start again. Lets try. I believe ms. Clark called in on 2174. We have tried it multiple times. She is not saying anything. Ms. Clark, are you there . Lets try calling user number two. Hello. Hello. I am stefani peak one of the 27 neighbors who signed the petition asking the Planning Commission dr directive be honored and it be restored for the original condition. For 35 years i have lived next door and admired the bay until 2016 when the developers tarped it to hide illegal removal of the three story bay. In october of 2017 they sent it back to the Planning Department. In july 2019, at the dr the Planning Commission required full restoration of the 100yearold bay to original condition. The developer submitted mu plans 25 17th is one of four houses by the architect young. The full restoration is important to the character of the block. I believe the developers demolished without a permit when they couldnt get the permit for the second monster house. For the last four years my neighbors and i have been abused with lies from the bad actors. React for full restoration to the windows and doors as approved by the Planning Commission. Thank you for hearing our appeal tonight. We will try 7323. Is that caller here . I am andy taylor. I am a resident on 17th avenue. I lessened with interest to the comments made. There is no issue with homelessness on the block and that while the house is an eyesore, it does not create a Public Safety issue. Finally i want to say that my wife and i believe that laws should be obeyed and the developer should not be given the opportunity to develop the houses on a place where the house that was less than 4,000 square feet with architectural significant. On these lots create jobs and housing but follow the rule of law. Thank you. We have a caller with a phone number ending in 7997. Hello. There is georgia. Can you hear me . Yes. Good evening. I was watching. I was going to call in but then i went to the site that showed the house as it was in 2015 and the interior when it was sold for 4 million. It was was a beautiful house. I dont know what they have done. It was stunning. Now it is worth 4. 5 or 6 as it was. If the Planning Commission wanted the bay restored, that is fine. The issue seems to be some people who called in and saying they want housing is the lot next door. I dont know what is proposed in the lot next door and that is another issue. The issue is what goes on in the lot next door and they cant have the windows looking at them, my suggestion is the lot next door be designed so it can be affordable housing, not a 4 or 5 million house but something smaller that doesnt have the impact by the windows restored in the original bay as the appellants want, and you do something small that could be affordable to people who want to live in that very expensive neighborhood. That is the reality. That is a pricey neighborhood. The people that called in to say we have to have housing. Very few people who want to live in San Francisco could afford to build to live in whatever is going to be built in the empty lot. Never mind if the other house is not built. I have cabin fever. I want to say look at the side to see the house as it was in 2015 when bought by the developer. Please look at that and consider that as you proceed. Thank you and be well. Goodbye. Any other Public Comment. There seems to be several callers. If you called in to provide Public Comment press star nine right now and we will be able to see that you want to speak in Public Comment. Star nine if you would like to provide Public Comment for the two appeals to related to 25 17th avenue. We have call in number two. Is this a new caller . Hello. I am calling because nancy clark keeps pushing star nine. She cant get into you. Are there other directions that are clearer . We tried. I see her hand. She doesnt need to press star nine. She raised her hand. I dont know why she cant speak. We have unmuted her. Tell her to call in again. We are on the Public Comment for apples 20013 and 20014 at 25 17th avenue. You need to call in and dial star nine. We will know you would like to provide comment. I understand we are waiting for ms. Clark who was having problems hearing us or getting through. We saw her but couldnt hear her. We want to make sure everyone is heard. We will give it some more time. Can we try to call her . Press star nine if you would like to provide Public Comment. This is audrey with the land use coalition. I am on two phones. Which number are you seeing . Push star 67. We dont see a phone number. We see call in user number 10. I dont know which one. I am using the landline and calling several times and pressing star nine with no luck. It is i dont know which phone. You can go ahead. We can hear you. Please go ahead. The i will go ahead and commenonthis. San francisco land use coalition. The point i want to raise is the Planning Commission asked the project sponsor to restore the three story bay. Had they done this, we would have saved a lot of time and wouldnt be here again appealing the case. Mr. And chez brought up the remember Design Guidelines and the fact most of the times we cannot have windows on the Property Line. I wanted to encourage you to look at one of these projects that was just newly approved and newly built at 1235 sanchez and mr. Sanchez presided over the variance for a roof deck. You will see that there is a bay window directly on the Property Line looking at the property next door to it. Also, i wanted to mention that they can easily modify their design for the building on the next door lot. The owner is the same person. They dont have to build the building next door at the same Square Footage, at the same size that is going to bring it so close to the Property Line it is going to prohibit this bay window from being restored to the original state. Please take the appellants case and force the permit holder to restore the bay window. Thank you. If you would like to have comment press star nine on your phone. We dont have that many numbers. We should check each number that is showing. My house shares. Welcome. Could you identify yourself. I am clark. I live on lake street. My house shares a Property Line with the 25 17th
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.