Transcripts For SFGTV Health Commission 20240713

The third floor primarily because of the fact that you had to walk through the lower floor unit to get to the third floor unit. There is no access to that unit. In regards to other issues raised by the appellant, i think those are primarily rent board issues for the rent board to properly adjudicate. One thing i will notice, maybe perhaps the appellant will enlighten us and maybe i missed this earlier. In the photos that are in the appellants brief, it showed the hood above that kitchen nook area where the wet bar is. Its my understanding from staff that when they did a site visit in december, that hood was not there. Perhaps the board might be interested in finding out who removed that vent hood, but that was not there when staff visited the site. I dont know the dates of their photo, but my assumption is that it was proved prior to our staff visit. It wouldnt make a difference on whether its an unauthorized dwelling unit because that see relying on the access. Our determination is also based on what staff observed. I dont know what other changes may have been made that would perhaps be trying to make it look less like an unauthorized dwelling unit. Thats one of my concerns, whether they were actually taken by any party to make it look or function differently. Based on staffs investigations, we found it not to be. This is a de novo hearing and the board will be the final entity to make a decision on the part of the city. Im available for any questions. Thank you. We have a question. Im not sure who raised their hand first. How about we hear from president lazarus, Vice President honda, commissioner swig. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez, the permit in front of us is to remove the wet bar because when planning inspected, it was determined that that was illegal and needed to be removed. Is that kind of the essence of what this is about, at least at the moment . Yes. I mean, there are several issues with the property. They have the illegal unit on the ground floor which they have submitted a permit to legalize under the citys legalization program. But the permit that is before you is to remove that wet bar which there is no permit for. So it is not legal and reviewing the layout and one of the concerns to have them remove this is because it does facilitate a potential illegal unit there. The rooms matrix does not necessarily specifically apply in this case because it does apply on the ground floors, but it does inform policy decisions elsewhere. That led the staff to require that the wet barb bar be removed. [speaking former language]. Thank you. We now have a question from Vice President honda. Yes, question, mr. Sanchez. Hi, milo. The question is during the inspection the appellant had mentioned that some doors were removed. Granted from just what we see on the floor plan or the footprint, there is only one door to the outside. But if there was a door accessing the upstairs and a door accessing the middle floor space, would that then create a potential for an a. D. U. . The issue can ms. Mah interpret that first, please. [speaking foreign language]. Thank you, ms. Mah, for all your hard work. No worries. Mr. Sanchez. Maybe could you repeat that. What was mentioned earlier is there was no way my question is determining what can be an a. D. U. And not, one. The appellant said there were doors between her space and another and there was space to go into a separate unit. The difference is between an u. D. U. And an a. D. U. An u. D. U. Is an unauthorized dwelling unit. If that was found, then theyre required to obtain a conditional authorization if they are going to remove it as they want to legalize it. The staff found on the existing dwelling conditions that it was not an u. D. U. Its possible that tenures could have been configured in a way that that becomes a common area and entry and you have one unit below and above. The situation staff found is that you have to walk through the stairs. But because that lower area is open, would it be possible for this to be configured, maybe, but staff did not observe that. I know this is considered to be an r 3. Would this possibly be a twounit building . Can we let ms. Mah interpret. [speaking foreign language]. In regards to r3, that is a Building Code classification and the chief building inspector can correct me, but it is for a one and twounit building. That does cause confusion. That is separate from a planning code and classification. In this case, it is an rh 2 which allows for up to two dwelling units. In this case, were they to i think potentially there could be a path forward for them to legalize a unit on the property and have a total of three. One could be an a. D. U. One could be a legalization. It hasnt been applied for and we havent seen if that is possible. If something is determined to be a u. D. U. , they are required to obtain the c. U. To remove it only if there is no path to legalize the unit. Its a potential here that if something hasnt been investigated, that if it were to be determined it were a u. D. U. , there would be no path to legalize it. That hasnt been determined at this point. There is a potentially a path at this point, but it has not been exercised. Correct. That has not been researched. Thank you. Okay. Ms. Mah, did you want to provide a brief summary. [speaking foreign language]. Thank you. We now have a question from commissioner swig. Im going to be semiredundant, but i need some clarification. Sco scott, its been represented that there was a door, there was a door at the entry to the second floor unit and there was the assumption on behalf of both the second floor occupant and the third floor occupant that that was the mutual entry to their second apartments. Is that what you have heard from testimony . Its still a little bit unclear to me exactly where the door may have been. I understood it may have been at the top of the stairs on the third floor and that the second floor was still open because we had walked through that entry and get access to the kitchen and the floor is in that area. We can get clarification on that, since were both thats what follow up to this commentary is all about. Let us say that there was a door that was assumed to be an entry door that was shared as an entrance to both the exclusive use of a second floor apartment and a third floor apartment and it was presented differently during a tour for planning and that they were both separate apartments, would it then be the case, hearing this from your commentary, that the second floor apartment would be viewed as a legal unit and the third floor apartment would be viewed as potentially as a u. D. U. . And that that wouldnt help. If ms. Mah could interpret. [speaking foreign language]. The determination of an u. D. U. Is based on whether you walk through a separate unit. The access is showing that this independent access like this and the information that we received from the appellant has not been able to define or to confirm that it is an unauthorized dwelling unit. That is based on the information we have and its now the de novo hearing and up to the board to make the decision based on the facts before you and you do have the Additional Information we had at the time of the permit review whether there is an unauthorized dwelling unit. Thats a difficult question. Would your answer be the same, discovering there was one door that led to the alleged independent dwelling unit on the second and third floor . What we found is there is one door and you walk up to the second or third floor. You only get up to the third floor unit by going through the second floor area. So there was no independent access. Ms. Mah, can you interpret, please. [speaking foreign language]. Thank you. Thank you. So i dont see any more questions. Thank you, mr. Sanchez. So we will now move on to the department of inspections. Mr. Duffy. [indiscernible] on the building on the 22nd of december. It was suspended on the 23rd of december and suspended on the 24th of december. These are difficult ones, as you know, because obviously someone is renting the top floor of this building and theres obviously been modifications made to that top floor. There is a bathroom and a kitchen combined, which personally i have never seen in all my years. I have seen a lot of strange things. Having a bathroom and a kitchen is unusual. But in these times we are seeing a lot of things [indiscernible] to provide housing. I think this one is separate tenants in each bedroom. From the legal standpoint of the building from the [indiscernible] most of the permits are Single Family. I do agree with mr. Sanchez with the singlefamily dwelling, that the permit that was referenced [indiscernible] unfortunately, that permit did get issued as a singlefamily. That would normally not be issued that way. I do know there is a permit in to convert the top floor now. The bid, i was looking at the lease, it seemed to be rented. The land [indiscernible] in the lease, but obviously now it was never a legal unit. Stuck with that situation. [indiscernible] under a Building Code. There is a classification for that. Its currently an r3 occupancy. To make it a threeunit building, it would be an r2 occupancy. A lot of people get that mixed up with the planning classifications. [indiscernible] the opposite of that. Weve got [indiscernible] and stuff like that. It is quite a model and im available for any questions if anyone has any. [indiscernible] interpretation from ms. Mah and then well hear from Vice President honda. [speaking foreign language]. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So, Vice President honda. A question to Senior Inspector duffy. Often before this board we hear builders who get ahead of themselves in regards to permits. This is clearly not the case. The downstairs and the kitchen on the third floor were constructed to avoid the permit process and this has been multiple years. Was there a violation on the property and has there been a penalty or whats the penalty involved here . Thats a very good question. I would like interpretation from ms. Mah. [speaking foreign language]. [indiscernible] Single Family dwelling unit being used, we would need to see that top floor. Its the kitchen part of it, the stove, and what would be written as a violation. We would usually write that as a family dwelling in all likeliho likelihood. [indiscernible] especially on the ground floor. The top floor, i dont know [indiscernible] [indiscernible] i should have said mr. Sanchez mentioned that briefly on his description of the u. D. U. They have to go through a process of the Planning Department and a check list. Thank you, superior inspector duffy. A lot of this is not unfortunately before us. This is going to be something unfortunately for the rent board to handle. The fact that mr. Omar masery, who does the shortterm rentals was involved, that they have violated multiple permits. So i would like to see that to be honest a pound of flesh be instituted. Thank you. Ms. Mah, a brief summary, please. [speaking foreign language]. Now were moving on to Public Comment for this item. Are there any callers here for Public Comment . If so, please press star 9. Were going to give you extra time if you called in to provide Public Comment. Star 9. Im not seeing anyone raise their hand. Lets do a check. I dont believe theres any Public Comment. Lets move on to rebuttal. Mrs. Decararava, you have three minutes. Let me make sure that okay. Can you ms. Decararava, can you speak, please. Yes. Thank you. Ive heard the comments of the parties and i appreciate the information. When i saw this unit, it was a separate unit with a front keylocking door to the second unit with direct access to the street. Ill appreciate the attention to the fact that the interior door, which was the entrance door to the second floor apartment, is the fixture that is missing in this equation. I just also would like to provide further clarification that at no time is it necessary to go through the second floor apartment to reach my apartment. There is direct access from the exterior front door of the building into a common vestibule to go up the stairs to the third floor. If you go to the right of the vestibule, there was a locking apartment there. The second floor apartment started after the vestibule. It was second. I just wanted to provide that clarification. [please stand by] anders. Gerald. Jero and remove my unit from the description of the property, and also had denied my tenancy. Clerk okay. Are you finished . For now, yes. Clerk okay. Well, this is your time, so do you want to take it . You have 20 seconds left. No, thats it for now. Thank you. Clerk so well have a brief summary of her interpretation, and then, Vice President honda has a question. [speaking chinese language] interpreter thank you. Clerk thank you. Well now hear from Vice President honda oh, wait. Youre on mute. We cant hear you. Okay. I took you off. One moment. Okay. Vice president honda okay. Question to the appellant. Okay. Its been said several times earlier it was kind of our understanding that you were the person that complained about your unit, but you just, you know, clearly stated that you were not the person that turned this unit in. Is that correct . Clerk okay. Quick interpretation, and then, well have the appellant answer. [speaking chinese language] interpreter okay. Clerk okay. Miss decarava, well hear from you now. Yes, thats correct, i never made a complaint about the unit. I contacted the Planning Department at one point when i realized that the owner was listing or had entered into a permit or the ground floor legalization plan and was leasing the property as a singlefamily home, and in that permit application didnt identify the existence of my unit or my tenancy, said that the building was vacant. And so i contacted the Planning Department just to find greater clarification about what this project was on the ground floor, and, also, to identify that my unit does exist and my tenancy does exist. I never made any complaint. I did contact the Planning Department to get further clarification, but never to complain about the unit. Vice president honda and so second question sorry to interrupt is that did you ever have an issue or complaint with the shortterm rental that was being done down stairs . Clerk okay. Quick interpretation, and then [speaking chinese language] interpreter thank you. Clerk okay. Anything further . Am i to answer that . Vice president honda yeah, to answer the question, yeah. Okay. Well, the airbnb rental, my Lease Agreement was with the landlord, and as part of the requirements of the agreement, she agreed that she would only rent to other cotenants on the third floor that were agreeing to a oneyear lease. So when she began to use airbnb to fill the vacancies in my thirdfloor unit, i did complain to her, and then, i did at some point complain to the Planning Department. B i was only concerned to people coming into my apartment, using things, doing things randomly, very strange behaviors, and to be honest, i felt harassed and threatened by just her her not following the Lease Agreement. Vice president honda okay. Thank you. Yeah. Clerk thank you. Can we have a quick interpretation, please . Interpreter yeah. [speaking chinese language] interpret it we interpreter thank you. Clerk thank you. Okay. We will now hear from mr. Patterson. No, no, no, no. You left me out. Clerk my apologies. Commissioner swig its very difficult, julie. I appreciate you keeping us all organized in this very difficult format. Speaking of organized, i am very disorganized when it comes to doors. Can you please tell me the location when you moved in in 2014, where was the location of your exclusive entry and private entry into your unit . When i moved in in 2014, there were three other cotenants sharing the third floor apartment with me, and part of our Lease Agreement was that we shared the unit. We each had a private exclusive bedroom, and we shared the kitchen, bathroom, the common areas, and then additionally, i had exclusive access to the third floor balcony and access to the third floor staircase leading down to the gardens. So it was arranged to be a shared unit. Each cotenant was coequal in terms of access to the common areas the kitchen, the bathrooms, etc. That is the way it was designed, and at that time, it was very important to me to make clear that i did not i felt very uncomfortable with other people outside of those cotenants having access to the apartment, so i specifically requested in oral terms that we would rent at the exclusion of others or i would rent at the exclusion of others, including the landlord, but allowing the cotenants, of course, absaid shared access to the unit. Commissioner swig where is. Thank you for that. That was even more enlightening, and i wish i would have heard that earlier, but that was not my question. Where is the door that provided exclusive, secure, and independent access to that third floor unit, be it cotenanted or not . Clerk miss mau, if you could interpret, please. [speaking chinese language] interpreter thank you. Clerk okay. Im sorry . Clerk please go ahead. Thank you. The door for the portion of the apartment that was exclusive only to myself is the door to my private bedroom, which is exclusive to only myself. However, the door to where i guess you could say the entryway to the apartment that was allowing cotenants as well as myself would be at the top of the stairs going upstairs into the third floor. Essentially, the markation of the third floor at the top of the stairs was considered the entranceway to the separate third floor apartment. Commissioner swig okay. And there and there secondly was another door which was locked and exclusive and provided exclusive access and privacy to the second floor apartments . Thats correct. Commissioner swig okay. So there are two doors. One provide exclusive access and privacy to the second floor, and a second door at the top of the third floor stairs that provided exclusive access and privacy to the third floor. Well no, thats not correct. Im sorry. Just to walk back a little bit, so there is no actual physical door that marked marked the entrance to the third floor apartment. It was always an entranceway at the top of the stairs to the third floor apartment. And then within the you entered the third floor apartment, you have access, you know, to your own private bedroom, which is exclusive, but also the shared common area of the kitchen, the bathrooms, the hallway, you know, etc. There is no, like, physical third floor door in the entranceway. And what separated the second floor from the third floor is the second floor apartment was discreet within the wall of the second floor so that there was an entrance vestibule that you entered into, and you can choose to go directly into the second floor apartment through a private front locking key door to the second floor apartment, or you can go in through the entranceway to the third floor apartment. The two had no spatial visual connection. Commissioner swig okay. Thank you. You want to translate, and then, i have one very short question afterward. Interpreter thank you. [speaking chinese language] interpreter thank you. Commissioner swig so one final short question. I was doing some math. So, in fact, in 2014, there was an apartment on the first floor, an illegal unit housing somebody, a unit on the second floor housing somebody, and then three more separate rentals going on on the third floor, for a total of five separate rentals in that house at one time in 2014. And then, subsequently, three permanent rentals and two airbnb opportunities. Is that is my math correct . The math is close. Each each tenant in the building had a separate lease with the owner, so so even though the first floor apartment was my apartment, a shared apartment, there were three tenants in the first floor, ground floor unit, which had a separate lease with the landlord. So that would be three, plus one tenant on the second floor separate apartment, and then, there were four tenants on the third floor separate apartment. Commissioner swig so it was like a dormitory, illegal dormitory. Not really, because the cotenants chose to live together. I dont know that i would say thats the case in dormitorys, but i would say i chose to live here with cotenants because i cant afford to live by myself. I signed the lease to live with others. Commissioner swig okay. Thanks. Clerk okay. A brief interpretation, and then, were going to move on. [speaking chinese language] interpreter thank you. Clerk okay. Thank you, now mr. Were onto rebuttal for mr. Patterson. Lets get you on spotlight, mr. Patterson. Okay. One moment. Okay. Please go ahead. Okay. Thank you, and thank you to the interpreter, miss mah. Really appreciate it. Interpreter youre welcome. So the question that commissioner swig raised about the door configuration is a very important issue, and i think its being perhaps intentionally obscured here. So lets look at the building plans and try to clarify. Im going to share my screen all right. So are you able to see this cursor moving . Clerk yes. Okay. Thats where the door was. Thats on the second floor. So you walk in through the first floor. So id say this is the person walking in. You walk in through the first floor front door, and there is a door at the second unit. You walk in, you turn, theres no door here. You go immediately upstairs, and youre in the third floor. That means if youre in the second floor, and you want to go outside, youre crossing through an open space with the third floor. You could just as easily turn and go upstairs. Youre in that space. So while its honestly perplexing that this door is removed, we did talk to the Planning Department about it. Theyre aware of it, and im sure the appellant notified of that, so this was not a mystery to planning when they made the decisions. There simply is not independent access or administration there. If someone on the second floor wanted to go out, theyre in the third floor space. There is no separate access. If there had been a door at the top of the stairs, well, that might be a different situation, but thats not the situation that we have. Why that owner took that door off, i have no idea, but she was immediately responsive to things going on. She immediately addressed these complaints, including the airbnb complaint. Thats used for longterm tenants. The other tale is a u. D. U. Only has to be utilized if its a u. D. U. So the speculation that it could be reconfigured as a u. D. U. Is not relevant to the actual question if it is actually a u. D. U. The lack of independent access, the third floor has no door, and that means its not a u. D. U. Never was, and cannot be, so there can be no requirement about the preserve because it does not exist. Clerk thank you. Thank you, mr. Patterson. Your time is up, so well have a brief interpretation, and then, we have a question from Vice President honda. [speaking chinese language] interpreter thank you. Clerk thank you. Vice president honda . Vice president honda mr. Patterson, so you mentioned that the airbnb was longterm, so there was no shortterm rental because i believe that Senior Inspector duffy mentioned that there was some kind of violations that mr. Massery had brought up. The airbnb use, when it came up, was corrected, and at this point, theyre only longterm tenants. Vice president honda so when you say corrected, that means there are prior abuse or prior . I would ask miss lee to clarify exactly what was done. Thats outside the scope of this issue, so im not as familiar with that. Vice president honda well, i know that were way off base, and im surprised that my president hasnt wrangled us back in, so since you brought it up, i just wanted to know. No worries. Ill just ask that question later. No need. Thank you. Clerk okay. Thank you. Were just going to move onto mr. Sanchez. Hello. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. So just a couple of facts. From my understanding, there was, you know, very certainly a violation with regards to the shortterm rentals. I think staff identified more than a half dozen listings. Staff noted in their work that the listings were subsequently changed to 30day rentals. There certainly is a very clear pattern of abuse on the property, from a ground floor illegal unit to this dwelling unit on the third floor to the fact that this hood was removed. Maybe the appellant can provide a response as to when that was done because that was not done when our staff visited the site. Our staff also did not observe any evidence of a door at that lower kind of second floor vest vestibule because mr. Patterson said quite frequently it did exist. Im in frequent communication with my staff, and they indicated no such thing, that they were told by mr. Patterson or the Property Owner that that had existed, and that was removed. I dont know that that would make a difference in our determination as to the authorized dwelling unit, but given the kind of moving pieces even as we speak to the hearing and the facts that are being presented, i mean, im feeling less confident in that determination, and its my understanding that the Zoning Administrator didnt have the knowledge of that lower door when they made the determination about the unauthorized dwelling unit. So considering those facts, i might suggest to the board of appeals that this item be continued so we can research this and get facts straight and consistent and have the matter reviewed by the Zoning Administrator for a decision on the unauthorized dwelling unit. This is a serious matter when were dealing with someones housing, and i am losing confidence in our position as the appellant im sorry, as the permit holder is speaking. So kind of with that, and i respectfully suggest that of the board so we can be more autho autho authoritative and concerned, but i feel we need to make this request now. Clerk we have a couple questions. Lets have a brief interpretation, and then, Vice President honda and commissioner santacana have some questions. Interpreter the interpret he we were interpreter needs to clarify some things about the question. Mr. Sanchez, you said you need to postpone the hearing today, when you say you need to do more research and be more confident, is that what youre saying . That is correct. Interpreter okay. Thank you. [speaking chinese language] clerk thank you. Vice president honda . Vice president honda thank you. Just a quick question. So glad to hear that youre your recommendations, mr. Sanchez, is to continue, because ive got more questions and more concerns. One question. If we did not continue, and we asked that the permit holder exhausted all her ways to way to legalize, can you give me an idea of what that process would look like . I mean, i think the process would then be that they would need to submit a permit to legalize the third floor as a separate dwelling unit, and in terms of the length of that process, given the current conditions, you know, i think it might take several months. Wed have to ha we had we have staff that are dedicated and prioritized to this. I know that applications in the last few months have been moving more rapidly, but given the recent conditions and the fact that permits can be filed online, it may take a couple of months for final hopefully, we can come into a determination as to whether its even possible much sooner than that, but we would need to, i think, have a few months to make that decision. Vice president honda thank you, mr. Sanchez. This is probably going to have extra scrutiny and additional process any way, just Going Forward from what your recommendations are, but thank you for clarifying that. Clerk okay. Brief interpretation, and then, well hear from commissioner santacana. [speaking chinese language] interpreter thank you. Clerk thank you. Commissioner santacana . Mr. Sanchez, my question is with respect to the continuance that youre proposing, im curious what specifically the facts are that would alter your view of of this case . What facts on the ground do you think were different than you thought they were that would change your view . Clerk brief interpretation and [speaking chinese language] interpreter thank you. Thank you, commissioner santacana. So id like to get confirmation as to the doorway location. Previous to tonight, it was our understanding that there was no door kind door, kind of once you entered that second floor, that kind of separated out that space. I would just want to make sure that fact was made apparent to the Zoning Administrator. I can confirm that with both parties, which i can have our staff do. It seems that that is the understanding now. Id like to get that confirmed in writing from both parties, get the Zoning Administrator to review that site plan, the floor plans, and make a determination as to whether that would constitute access that would make it an unauthorized dwelling unit. It may not change that because of the fact that there and it seems that there is agreement, as well, that there is no separate door that separates out the common areas of the thirdfloor space, but, you know, i just want to make sure that the Zoning Administrator has all these facts when making this very important decision. And so it could change it, depending on what you discover. Yeah, you want to learn it, but ultimately, youre going to do the same thing. We may do the same thing, but the facts have not been presented to the Zoning Administrator for him to make a decision. These are all new facts, and there we want to be consistent in how we treat this and other similar other projects, and so we want to have a discussion based upon the project and these facts and that were treating it consistent with other projects. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Brief interpretation, and then, well hear from commissioner swig. [speaking chinese language] interpret it we interpreter thank you. Clerk thank you very much. Commissioner swig . Commissioner swig mr. Sanchez, what weve moved from is a very basic and simple illegal sink to something that may be a lot more serious because of some new information. Is that basically it . Yeah. We made a decision based upon the information that we thought to be correct that theres new information, and i want to make sure that the Zoning Administrator has the opportunity to do that so we can definitively stand behind our decision. Commissioner swig so its your recommendation that we should postpone a decision on this tonight . Yes. I dont think it needs to be a long continuance, to the boards next hearing. I dont think itll take us that long to bring this before the Zoning Administrator for review. Commissioner swig thank you. Clerk thank you. Brief interpretation, and then, we are going to hear from the department of building inspect. You cannot speak until there is a question posed to you. [speaking chinese language] interpreter thank you very much. Clerk thank you. Okay. Mr. Duffy . Not that much to add. I just was looking up some of the records from before, and we actually do have a notice of violation back in 2002 for a deck that got enlarged at the rear, as well, and that ended up going through a permit, and they ended up getting it legalized, but thats it. I dont have anything else to add to the hearing tonight, and im available for any questions. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Brief interpretation . [speaking chinese language] interpreter thank you very much. Clerk thank you. So commissioners, this matter is submitted. Commissioner swig so id like to make a motion for a continuance at the advice of mr. Sanchez for the for the reasons that he eloquently stated. Id also ask that you have a post conversation with the appellant as to what status that places her in if we do have a continuance so shes comfortable. Clerk okay. Commissioner swig with the status. Thank you. Clerk okay. Vice president honda . Vice president honda i would agree with the continuance. I mean, thats what i had mentioned earlier in regards to the doors. And given the gravity of someone losing Affordable Housing, i know we went way off track, and im sorry this took so long for everyone listening in, but this is an important matter, and the fact that the landlord or Property Owner was sophisticated enough to buy property, to alter the property, to draft leases, as well as to navigate the airbnb platform and circumvent that, i think this needs a stronger look at. Clerk okay. President lazarus . President lazarus i just wanted to ask what it looked like for forward calendar. Mr. Sanchez had indicated that it may not take longer than that. Clerk well, on may 27, we have six new appeals and one case, and four of those are tree appeals that bring out a lot of Public Comment. So i would recommend june 3. Vice president honda do we have all commissioners present as that hearing because you do know my present situation, right, director . Clerk yes, we will have all commissioners on june 3. Vice president honda thank you. Vice president honda so are we having a motion from commissioner swig . Commissioner swig yes. Clerk okay. Commissioner swig that motion would be a recommendation for a continuance to june 3 at the recommendation of mr. Sanchez. Clerk okay. Vice president honda on the basis that it would clarify the additional unit and the door, right . Commissioner swig yes. Clerk okay. We have a motion from commissioner swig to continue this item to june 3 so they can clarify the issue with respect to the door. On that motion [roll call] clerk okay. So that motion carries, 40. Thank you, everyone, for your patience. President lazarus . President lazarus im going to recommend that we take a tenminute recess. Clerk okay. And for the parties who have been waiting, thank you so much for your patience. Vice president honda and to the interpreter, thank you. Interpreter for the interpreter, can i interpret the decision to the client, please . Clerk yeah, sure. Go ahead. [speaking chinese language] interpreter thank you very much. Clerk okay. One moment. President lazarus . President lazarus i was just going to say, i dont know if its myriad in having the Planning Department share its findings prior to the next hearing . You were asking about additional briefing. Clerk mr. Sanchez, would you be prepared to submit your findings in advance of the hearing so certainly we could. I think its going to be, you know, pretty straightforward and we could deliver them orally. Its just a collection of whether were maintaining the determination that it is an unauthorized dwelling unit or whether it is an authorized dwelling unit or whether it is. So we could submit something in writing before. It would be quite easy for us to prepare and submit it or just present it orally at the hearing. President lazarus i mean, im comfortable with that, if that is acceptable to everybody else. Commissioner swig thats fine with me. Clerk so you want to have him present it before the hearing, at the hearing, or either . President lazarus at the hearing it fine. Clerk okay. So theres no additional briefing. Well just have mr. Sanchez submit before. He can present it during. But therell be no additional comment, as well. Interpreter can i relay the statement . Clerk yes. [speaking chinese language] interpreter thank you very much. Clerk thank you very much to the interpreter. You definitely earned your money tonight. Interpreter is there anything else for me tonight . Clerk no. The interpreter is dismissed. Interpreter then i am going to disconnect clerk we are now on item number 7. This is appeal 20022, mercy housing california versus San Francisco Public Works Bureau of urban forestry, subject property, 833 bryant street. Denial of a request to remove four red maple street trees with replacement because the trees are healthy and sustainable. This is order 722761, and we shall hear from the appellant first. Julie, commissioner santacana disconnected and he was trying to rejoin the meeting. I believe hes back on. Clerk okay. Commissioner santacana, are you here . Lets give it a minute. I dont see him. Yes. Commissioner santacana . I see his name. He is present. Operator yeah. Clerk but let me make sure. Operator i just admitted him into the meeting. Clerk so maybe it takes a minute. Commissioner santacana, can you hear me . Commissioner santacana yeah. I had a program crash, but im here. Okay. So well hear from miss sona reddy, who represents the appellant. Okay. Great. Can you see my screen . How about now . Clerk yes. Okay. Thanks. Super. Well, good evening, members of the board and city staff. I am suri reddy, an attorney representing mercy housing. I am pleased to present our appeal to the department of public works number 202761. We respectfully ask that the board of appeals deny this decision which denied our appeal to remove four maple trees at the location of 833 bryant. Ill briefly introduce the project to the board and the rationale behind our appeal. Well also detail our concession that weve come to with the b. O. S. This is a 145unit Affordable Housing unit which will expedite the essential piece of housing infrastructure to house people that are formerly homeless. So here is a rendering of 833 bryant street. Some of you may be familiar with this location. This perspective is from where the hall of justice is currently. So this is our building which we actually started construction in march, which is very exciting. Its 145 units and 100 Affordable Housing, permanently supportive. This construction is actually an integrated factory module ty type. [inaudible] to reduce overall unit cost. So before we talk about the tree conflicts, i just want to note that mercy housing is deeply committed to green spaces and recognize the importance of street trees for the health and safety of mercy housing residents, as well as residents of San Francisco at large. Unfortunately, the four large maple street trees as you can see here in the shot cause significant disruption in the development and work around. Its unfortunate that we need to remove them, and i hope this presentation shows the extreme diligence that we took in this request. There a so the first is the factory built housing staging plan. So these would be here, and this is included as an exhibit in the appeal brief. This pink area is where we need to do the setting for the module. They need to be craned in place to be safely put in and keep the pace of construction moving. Further, s. F. Requires keeping as much of the setting in the factory built housing units, and per the plans, the crane has to sit on the sidewalk and move along bryant street. So the four trees conflict with this plan and as noticed by our consulting arborist, its highly unlikely the trees will survive this modular setting. This plan to stage and set with bryant street complied with s. F. Fire Department Access requirements to preserve the alleyways on Boardwalk Place and harriet street, so theres no other place for us to set the factory housing than on bryant street. So our next conflict arises from serious concern around the ability to safely stage construction once the modules are also set in place. Per present requirements from sfmta, we need to provide an accessible path over the path of travel, so we have to install this tenfoot canopy over the pedestrian sidewalk, and these trees are taller than 10 feet, so they conflict with the canopy. And the trees conflict with the building as approved because these trees extent into the rightofway. So the next slide is our streetscape plan that shows the future streetscape with the seven proposed little gem magnolia trees which are currently proposed in the plans as 24inch boxes. We also have 75 feet of additional planting along bryant street as well as additional street trees on board walk place and harriet street, which dont have trees on them currently. So in collaboration with department of public works, bureau of urban forestry, we came up with a concession plan to remove the four red maples and replace with seven 36inch box gem Magnolia Maple trees. We do want to note that our plan includes irrigation and always had from the beginning. We request to overturn d. P. W. Order 722761, and thank you. Thats all we have. Clerk okay. Thank you. We have a question from Vice President honda. Vice president honda sorry. Im just looking at my buttons here. So good evening. I like the fact that youre replacing them with larger stature trees and more trees. Did i miss, what are you planning to do with the trees that are currently there now . Are you relocating them . That is a really great question. I mean, as far as i know, at this moment, our plan was to remove the trees. We dont have a relocation plan for the trees. Vice president honda okay. Thank you. Thank you. Clerk okay. Thank you. So i dont see any other questions, so we will move onto the bureau of urban forestry. Mr. Buck . So good evening, commissioners and president lazarus. Great to see you all here virtually. Its been a wild couple of months for us. Folks on my team are actually part of the covid19 response, so whbut were making due, and its great to be here. So regarding the subject case, the subject trees are four red maples, and at the staff level, we had denied the request to move them. And again, when were at a public works hearing, we had denied the request to move them, and were hoping to see the trees retained and protected during construction. However, as i became more aware of this site and the condition, i found challenges with being able to come before you and really fight to preserve these trees. And so if we can move to the powerpoint, i just have about eight slides and should be able to go through these very quickly. Again, these are a presentation, slides that i took from the public works hearing. So i just took four slides that show the existing trees, and well address the question from, you know, from commissioner honda about the overall size and whether they can be transplanted in a moment. If we go to the next one, so this is tree one, and tree two. In the applicants the appellants original application, the arborist they retained dont think they could be saved, but to us, we think theyre in relatively good condition. Well go next to tree three, just showing the existing size of tree three. These photos were taken in midseptember of last year, so theyre entering into that fall foliage where theyre not going to look so thick and lush. And one of the issues here, if we go to the next slide, if we look at the profile of the building thats approved, and then, you go to the next slide in greater detail, i have a real concern about lets say constructibility was adequately addressed and the sponsor could work around the trees. Now, whats been constructed so the pbay windows pivot, and theyre kind of triangular, and they come out to the right of away. A red maple tree at maturity gets very large, and the next image will show you how large those get. Theyre very columnar and upright, which is a good starting point just in general as a street tree in the city. But when you take that point only 15 feet above the sidewalk, and you start pressing those bay windows into the rightofway, i just dont see how were going to be able to work with those trees once that buildings installed. And so, again, at the staff level, at the hearing, we were really hoping that the denials would force the applicant to come up with ways to work around them. Unfortunately, as you saw in their brief, which is very detailed, it really goes into a lot of detail about how the building is going to be constructed, the staging, where the crane is placed, the movement of the crane, and the nature of the modular unit. As that point, over the last few weeks, we realized that coming before you and insisting on denial of the four subject trees was starting to feel like it was going to be a tough a tough sell. That said, you know, we really and i noticed one of the Public Comments prior to the hearing thats attached with the meeting materials we really are committed to treating street trees as permanent infrastructure. Weve been impacted greatly over the last ten years, 12 years, by the economy. We really want to see projects retain street trees. However, for this particular site and the nature of the building thats approved, the way those bay windows come out over the sidewalk, its really preventing us from maintaining the existing trees, but its also going to preclude us from requiring large stature replacement trees. So the magnolias that are proposed for replacement are called little gems. Theyre really a small or medium stature tree at maturity, and the idea is they would not conflict so greatly with those bay windows over the sidewalk. So during our discussions with the applicant, our request at public works, the one obvious one was to plant larger box size if approved, which would be a 36inch box size trees. We also confirmed that they would be on irrigation for those three years during establishment. A concession in their brief that didnt appeal to us was the use of structural soil, but thats no longer mattering to us. Id like to keep this appeal about the removal and replacement of specifically the trees along the bryant frontage. Were requiring the 36inch box replacements. The project itself, even if there were no existing street trees, the project itself would require the planting of new trees any way, so the planting of more than just a oneforone replacement was a requirement for the project as it is, so thats noted in the Public Comment, as well. So with great reluctance, you know, we do reach a settlement here to come before you, asking that you actually support the appeal and allow the overturning of the public works permit decision on the basis that they be replanted with seven 36inch box little gem magnolias and with the installation of irrigation, as well. And again, overall, as part of this permit, the property will also be required to plant additional street trees, and the in lieu fee for every street tree required of every frontages, the in lieu fee of 2,122 for each tree would be assessed just for construction of the building. But that wraps up my testimony, and were here, looking for your approval of this settlement. Thank you. Clerk okay. We do have a question from commissioner swig, and then afterwards, Vice President honda. Commissioner swig so id like to i think that a compliment to the project sponsor. At least they didnt do what others have done in other projects, where theyve moved forward on the construction and didnt recognize that they were going to tear down those street trees and didnt tear them down in the middle of the night or cause damage and come to us post mortem. I think its commendable that you came forward and dealt with the issue proactively to deal with the issue of tearing down the trees. Chris, there was, i think, reference to a situation where the trees were damaged before and deleted before they were asked to be deleted. Those remind me, on vanness somewhere. Yes. Around 2340 or 2640 vanness, exactly. Commissioner swig and so in that case, construction was ongoing. The trees were inadvertently ill use a kind term deleted, and then, a there was a mea culpa. I think there was a similar amount of trees. What was the ultimate solution to that, and how many trees did you require them to plant . Thats a good question, commissioner. I believe we assessed the landscape appraisal for those trees, for the loss of those trees. So instead of the standard in lieu fee for the trees, 2100, or last year, about 1900, we appraised the landscape fee for those trees. In those cases, its removal of that replacement. Were losing that value, and its subverting the public trust in our code. One thing, for the subject trees were talking about here, we didnt run a landscape appraisal, but were certain it would be below 2,122, the standard in lieu fee, so thats one reason were not discussing landscape appraisals as a part of this appeal. Clerk okay. Thank you. We now have a question from Vice President honda. Vice president honda two questions, mr. Buck. You know, as commissioner swig said, its always nice when permit holders ask for permission rather than beg for forgiveness. The question is how long to maturity will these magnolias take, and how many times have we had Developers Come in front of us and say oh, well plant the trees, and then all of a sudden, we cant do it because theres a light box or a telecommunication that goes in there. Whats the assurance that well have the amount of trees in here . So the first part, on years to maturity, the magnolia little gem are very slow growing, so were talking a long time. And the existing trees out there were planted in the mid2000s under mayor newsoms initiative to plant a lot of street trees. So they look young, and yet those have been there for at least 12 years. So the magnolias are going to talk a long time to reach maturity. Realistically, were talking about 20 years, 25 years. Regarding conflict with utilities, i did meet virtually with the project sponsor multiple times to understand that this question would come up, and so specifically, i sought out show me where the pg e vaults are going because those tend to be tree killers. And so theyve confirmed that the vaults, theyre tying into the vaults across the street as part of the hall of justice, so weve looked at the frontages very, very carefully along bryant, and we are confident that theres room for seven street trees, well spaced, and that weve really gone over that in great detail. Vice president honda okay. And last question, mr. Buck, is rather than killing the current trees, you know, its quite a feat for a tree to survive across from the hall of justice in front of a bail bonds place, in front of a parking lot, in front of a mcdonalds. These trees that are currently here, man, those are survivors and fighters. Can you talk about relocating them, what would that entail and sure. Its challenging to relocate street trees. We at public works recently committed to relocating magnolia trees on evans ave. That were planted by pg e and are part of a 911 memorial. Thats in front of the new kind of Health Safety lab, the crime lab, and other Transportation Services for Emergency Services clerk i believe we just lost chris. One moment. Operator yeah. Something happened with his connection. Clerk okay. One moment. Let me try to contact him. Okay. I think hes back. Mr. Buck . Okay. Mr. Buck . Yes. Clerk we lost you. Let me try to get back. Clerk okay. So you can hear my audio . Okay. So why dont i continue answering. Im not sure what happened there, but i will hit refresh. I had my family calling down to me, saying i dropped off. So commissioner honda, it is a lot of work to move street trees, even when they look as small as these look, and then, theres a lot of work on behalf of public works to ensure their survival. So were not were just not convinced that thats always going to be a good solution. Vice president honda i mean, though, the thing is, you know, that granted, this is for a good cause. Its 100 Affordable Housing. Thats amazing, but, you know, every developer should be treated the same as they come in front of the b. O. A. , and in past, if there was something there, weve made them relocate them. So and theyre getting trees that, although small, theyre imprinted over the last 12 years. Theyve survived a very difficult climate there. As you said, theyre replacing them with more trees, but, you know, before those trees get to maturity, were talking 25 years. Correct, so i hadnt considered in great detail the viability of transplanting those trees. Theres issues of where to transplant them. Are they going to go back in sidewalk settings . So its something that could be looked into. We could give that a shot. We could make that a condition of approval. It is Vice President honda i dont want to try to kill the project, but i do think that both commissioner swig and i you know, hes already identified lots of basins that have not been filled for many, many years, correct . So, you know, if we can kill two birds with one stone and get housing, its a winwin for everybody. Sure. The viability of moving the trees would be challenging, but i think thats a condition that the commissioners could consider adding to the conditions. Vice president honda its just a thought. Thank you, mr. Buck. Clerk okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions at this point . I dont see any other hands raised, so we will move onto Public Comment. We are on Public Comment for item number 7, 833 bryant street. If you called in, and you would like to provide Public Comment, please press starnine now, and then, i know you want to speak. Were going to give a little extra time given some of the delays, so were on Public Comment for the mercy housing california tree removal appeal. Press starnine if you want to speak on that. Okay. I do not see any hands raised, so we will now move onto rebuttal. Miss ruddy, do you have anything further . You have three minutes in rebuttal time. No, we have nothing further. We just want to thank mr. Buck and the commission for their time, and we look forward to delivering this 145 units of Affordable Housing for formerly housing individuals. We will own the building forever, so we do have a vested interest in the trees, providing irrigation, and from an operations standpoint, we want them to be healthy. Were not interested in replacing them. We want them to be back in soma for the rest of their tree life. Clerk okay. Thank you. And now, mr. Buck, do you have anything further . You have three minutes. Sure, just a moment. Probably one minute. Thank you, commissioners. Sorry about dropping off. Not sure what happened there. Regarding the transplanting potential, its a great inquiry. You know, technically, it it could be feasible. Its difficult work to take trees out of a sidewalk and transplant them back in a sidewalk again, so thats a concern. One other thing, its almost for the public. You know, bryant street is a very busy street, and, you know, we really i feel like there was a little bit of a missed opportunity through the planning process that allowed these bay windows to come out low over the sidewalk like that, so were going to talk to our colleagues at planning and try to avoid that on such a busy thoroughfare street, so thats one of our regrets here, that were dealing with site conditions that we wish we didnt have. We wish we could get a larger stature tree there longterm, but thats really the only additional comment id wanted to add. Beyond that, this one seemed reasonable to concede, and not have to require submissicommis to support eitheror. Clerk thank you. We have a question from commissioner swig. Commissioner swig thank you. Mr. Buck, you say you reached a settlement, so i can offer to steal your words pending the agreement of the appellant. Can you please tell me the terms and conditions of your settlement so we can act accordingly . Yes. So the the basis of the settlement would be on the condition of approval the removal of four trees along the bryant street frontage with the replacement of seven street trees that are 36inch box size street trees that are magnolia little gems, and those trees will be on irrigation for three years until established. And the public works findings is that the applicant did do a very thorough job in their brief to explain the constructionability issues around the existing trees and then the future conflicts with the new building facade. Commissioner swig thank you. Clerk so commissioners, this matters submitted. And i just also wanted to add that Vice President honda raised an issue of replanting these current four trees that are going to be removed, and, also, probably, i would like some clarification on the irrigation. Does that mean that mercy housing would be responsible for three years for irrigating the trees . Can i address that question . Clerk please do. So when new street trees are planted, trees are required to be watered for the first three years, and at that point, the root system becomes established and the tree can get water alone. So they can be watered by hand or they can be watered by the installation of irrigation thats in place. And when resources allow, irrigation is preferred because it typically avoids human error. So its just noted that irrigations planned to be installed as part of this the planting of these trees. Clerk so the mercy housing would be responsible for installing irrigation and maintaining it . Correct. And then typically after the establishment period of three years, public works reinspects the trees, and when found to be in good condition, we reaccept responsibility for maintaining the tree. Vice president honda so basically, that would be no less than three years, so subject to inspection by the department to determine the conditions. So it could go further than three years if you felt that more water was required. Absolutely, and thats correct. Vice president honda okay. Clerk so what about the what about replanting the four trees . Vice president honda im willing to remove that. I dont think i have the support commissioner swig cant we just say if possible, if feasible and just add that to it . Vice president honda it might not be feasible, but we can have them look into it. Commissioner swig id feel more comfortable with that. Give it a shot. If they cant do it, they cant do it. Clerk okay. Is there a motion . Vice president honda ill make a motion. Commissioner swig go ahead. Vice president honda to grant the appeal and condition the permit, that the replacement trees be 36inch box little gem magnolias, and at which point, the project sponsor will be responsible for automatic irrigation for a minimum of three years, at which point, the department will review and determine if further irrigation also responsible but from the project sponsor is required. And then, the last part would be that both project sponsor will submit or the department will look into, you know, moving these trees. Clerk and also allowing the removal of the four trees. Vice president honda and also allowing thank you. Thats why i have an awesome director. Clerk okay. We have a motion from Vice President honda to grant the appeal and issue the order on the condition that it be revised to allow for the removal of the four trees along bryant street and to have them replaced with seven 36inch box little gem magnolia trees along the bryant street frontage, and further, on the condition that the mercy housing is responsible for installing and maintaining an irrigation system for these replacement trees for a period of three years Vice President honda minimum three years. Clerk a minimum three years, and further, the bureau of urban forestry will explore the feasibility of replanting the four trees that are being removed. And on what basis . Vice president honda on the basis that clerk represents the agreement of the parties . Vice president honda yes, thats what i was thinking. Clerk okay. Did i cover everything . One point of clarification. That the planting of the existing four trees would be covered by the applicant, but that we would look into the feasibility. Clerk okay. And is mercy housing miss ruddy, you understand that . Yes, i understand. Clerk okay. So the feasibility replanting the four existing trees is the responsibility of one kbbureauf urban