We be joined by the City Departments ing this evening. Corey the Zoning Administrator and tina tam the deputy Zoning Administrator representing planning and Kevin Birmingham with the department of building inspection the guide lines as follows, turn off all phones and Electronic Devices so they will not disturb. No eatying or drinking in the hearing room. Appellates, permit hold and ares respondents begin 7 minutes to present and 3 for rebuttal. People affiliated must include comments in the 7 to 3 minute periods members not affiliated have 3 minutes to address the board and no rebuttal. For rehearing requests the parties upon given 3 minutes each with no rebuttal. Our legal assistant the warn you 30 seconds before your time is up. 3 votes are required to guarantee an appeal or to grant a rehearing q. If you have questions about a rehearing the board will electric autoaskeds e mail the board staff. Public access and participation are of importance to the board. Sfgovtv broadcasting and streaming live and we will receive comment for each item. Sfgovtv is providing closed captioning for this meeting to watch on tv go to sfgovtv channel 78. Tell be rebroadcast on fridays at 4 p. M. A link to the stroll is found on the home page of the website. Public comment can be provided in 3 ways. In person. 2 via zoom. Go to our website and click on the zoom link or the phone call 6699006833 and enter access code 834 4621 4114. Sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming the number and access instructions on the bottom of the screen if you are watching the stream or broadcast to block your number dial star 67 and the number. Listen for Public Comment for your comment to be called and press star 3. You miff to dial star 6 to unmute yourself. You will have 3 minutes depending on the length of the agenda and volume of speakers. Will provide you with a 30 second happening warning. There is a delay with live proceedings and had is broadcast on tv and the internet. It is important that people call nothing turn off volume on tvs or computers otherwise there is interference if you need assistance make a request in the chat function to the legal assistantor an e mail to the board of appeals the chat cannot be used for comment or opinions. We will take Public Comment first from those present in the hearing room. Now we will swear in or affirm all those who intends to testify. A member may speak without an another. If you intend to testify tonight and wish to have the board give your testimony weight raise your right hand and say, i do after affirmed. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth and nothing but the truth . Thank you. If you are participate and not speak put your zoom speaker on mute. So item 1. Is general Public Comment this. Is an opportunity for anyone speaking in the boards jurisdiction but not on tonights calendar is there a member who wishes to speak . Raise your handle. I dont see anyone here. We will move on to item 2. Commissioner comments and questions . Any comments or questions. Nope. We like to welcome mr. Gib ner but he is not here yet. He is in [inaudible]. He is here. John, welcome and thanks for your support during the time you are here. Thank you. Thank you. Why great. Is there Public Comment on this item . Raise your hand. Are is no Public Comment. We will move on to item 3. The adoption of the minutes before you for discussion and possible adoption are minutes of september 7 of 22 meeting. Any a motion or comments . Commissioner trasvina like to approve the minutes as presented. Do we have Public Comment to adopt the minutes. Commissioner trasvinas motion to adopt commissioner lopez. Aye. Commissioner lemberg. Aye. Politic swig. That carries 40 and minutes are adopted. Now move on to item 4. This is a rehearing and the request to rehear. Yes. Why this is rehearing 22051 at 118, 15th avenue. George tederby requesting a rehearing of 22051 decideod august 17 of 22. Upon motion by Vice President lopez the board voted deny the appeal and up heldz the notice of violation the Zoning Administrator did not use discretion and it was properly issued. The determination was restored to tederby. The Zoning Administrator in violation of planning code 174 and 75 due to the failure of completing the abate am work for the legalization of unauthorized construction work including alterations to the roof and front facade and removal the dwelling unit on second floor and fire wall in the year yard. The property is authorized for 2 family dwelling unit this is complaint and we will hear from mr. Tederby first you will have 3 minutes. Upon are these minutes recorded can i get copy of the minutes. This is video recorded. I can get copies of the minutes from last time and this time. And then also i have a question. Sir this is your time to present. Are you able to over turn Planning Department in the [inaudible]. At this point the rehearing is explains is for you to determine. Im trying to answer your question hold of at this point you are making a request to rehear the matter and you at this hearing you need to establish there is new evidence or man dest injustice. That believe im subject to manifest injustice. I wanted determine whether you had the power to not at this hearing now. Entertaining your request. Mr. Rosenberg stated a bunch of stuff and failed to mention the left time i was here i asked what is it that takes planning to get off my back after 6 years . I feel that i have been there is a misrepresentation and inequalable treatment of my property and neighbors property and several properties i show you evidence of that. I want to talk about mine at this point. Last time ms. Tammy my upon dem Zoning Administrator said, for me to satisfy plannings requirements i need approval of dbi of the facade. I did that. Also there was a 3 thousand dollars plus fine that there were no invoices. No idea of where it came from. How it started my request to get was ignored. Bite way the [inaudible] said i will take care television and i did. I got dbi to do an inspection and went out and kelly wong the [inaudible] supervisor. And i started e mailing them on the 24th. Did what you want according to the board. Figure out how to deal with had fine. You want the invoice you know. Who thes it for. I got no response the time went on and have 10 day its appeal on the 26th it turns out i paid my 150 bucks and im here. 6 days later gets an e mail work it out. And wong come become and says you know she had no idea what tina tam told you guys. She come up and says i want to be a [inaudible] ipment to keepow this indefinite fine indefinite never ending fines and penalties bite department that has nothing to do with building. I have no problem with building my permits are in in order. Plumbing paddle and appliances i know wham to do. I dont need planning on me especially since i have done everything they wanted with. Zoning administrator can tell when you she wants and have it over turned by individuals unelected bureaucrats. You know what power do you got im here to ask for justice and reconsideration of this thing and by the way, to alleviate the negotiations of fine we paid it. There is in problem with the fine. [inaudible] i have proof here i show it to you on the over here you want to see it. You can show it on the over head. Your time is up. Thank you. Yea. Would you like to see that. I have done when you wanted. I would like to make you comfortable and like to see the can upon we seat receipt on the over head. Here is my job card. There is the 2016 ends 4103 the permit and violation. Here is the sign off. Right there. Showing that this building well is the facade. Applies with this picture. There is the picture. That is upon the proof to approval. There is the picture. Belling inspector say its complies. It did. And i never get off the hook. When will this ends . Why do i have to deal with planning when they are different from building. We will hear from planning we have a question from commissioner lemberg. And ms. Rosenberg the other things you mentioned those are bureaucratic mumbo jumbo. Im a physician you are attorneys everybody has their lingo planning has their own lingo. Thank you. Then and there mr. Lemberg has a question and i will. Thank you. I do, mr. What you are presenting that is now. The filing. You are body the public go to for justice and you have the power to do something about it for the public who has no accomplice to go other than the courts. When you make a determination i, as a public individual node to do this and that and i accomplished the goals and i did my part and im not let off the hook how can they make the rowels and change and you have no power . You can do it or cant do it. You know. The question is not whether we have the ability to do it, we do that is fantastic that does in the answer my question what are you presenting to us that is new . What is new is that the facade was signed off by dbi. And the fine was paid in total. And if you checked the e mails from kelly wong the supervisor in the [inaudible] code enforce am part i can read it if you like or put it up. It say we will not let you off the hook until dbi gives you clearance. And may be we will do it or may be we will not. Or fine you more. No receipts or invoices. Follow up question. You paid the fine and dbi signed off on the property what are you attempting to have reheard . I want a manifest injustice. You as a body told me the rules i followed them. Okay. Last time i was here. Tin an tam has 2 masters and knows how to talk the talk. Do this. And you are fine. And then the next thing is the issue. Noninvoiced bilge of over 3 thousand dollars. And rather than discuss that knowing there was no response for me to the chief Zoning Administrator tegs and mrs. Wong or ms. Wong. We paid it. To be done with temperature her response is, you paid the first part but dont know how much more tell be. I can read it to you it is crazy. The president come out on memorial day saying half of america is his enemy. Crazy times. You know. Like. [inaudible]. It is like. [inaudible] lets stay on the subject you answered his question. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Trasvina. Doctor, i hear your frustration loud and clear. I can speak for my colleagues we hear your frustration. It is not we have members of the public it is disappointing you feel you have to be back here but you do. My question is whether you want us to undo any of the actions we took the left timure were here or whether you are simply seek nothing frustration. A way for the department or departments to respond to the actions you have taken since the time. No response. At all. Until 6 days after my attempts to address these issues with the appropriate individuals in planning. And only after i made this appeal request this they responded. And responded with no change. In the like you know deputy Zoning Administrator tam said you node to do this you did it you are fine. You are good to do. We are done. If you could try again and answer attempt to answer my question a different way. Is there an action this body took you want changed. Yes. What is that . I would like you to reconsider your denial of my initial appeal. And take my evidence as good enough and determined that i have done my required duties under this and it over and no open ended fine scheme that would go on forever. You know i dont understand. You know how up expect people tom plan to develop in this town and do good. I have your question answered. Thank you. We will try one more time. All right. We left here work hard together. We accomplished what i thought was a goal and correct me if im wrong that you would go to dbi and give you a sign off. Did dbi give you a sign off. Yes. Then, and im comfortable that i agree with you. Okay. Then that sign all according to planning was all they needed to if you paid the fine, according to tina tam. Yes. Cording to what i heard. You got a good memory. I try a little bit. And according to planning you get the sign off you pay the fine. We are done. Thats what i heard. Thats how i understand it. That the question is you want mow to ask planning is are we done yet . Thats it. Thank you. Simple. Thank you very much. Okay. Well hear from Planning Department. Thank you. Good teaching president swig, Vice President lopez and the board im tina tam deputy Zoning Administrator. This is i rehearing request for the appeal of a notice of violation and pent decisions that issued to the Property Owner at 1182120, 15th avenue. It was issued on june 30, 2022. The appellate is one of the ordinance of the property and the appeal was heard on august 17th. You may recall the board voted denight appeal. Despite the appellates belief he has not satisfied the requirements necessary to abate the violation. The violation is for ill willing work for the exterior and interior of the building. To date the corrective permit filed in upon 2016 has yet been fully inspected or deemed complete. I understand that the owner did call for an inspection after the appeal hearing, he requests that the inspection be only of the front facade. On august 23 of 22 on the day of the inspection the inspector was not provided access to the interior of the building. Of such the inspector did not inspect the inside or reminder scope of work under the corrective permit there is no indication of when the correct ever work will be completed or when the permit can become final. And the enforcement case in planning remains open. The Planning Department asked the board deny the rehearing request on the basis there is no manifest injustice no new information or different facts if such facts and circumstances were known at the time of the august 17th hearing they would have affected the outcome of the hearing there is in fine or penalties assessed on the property at this time. What he is referring to is staff time and material. To recover the work we have done to continue to track and work with the owner and the dbi ensuring well is progress in abating a violation. That concludes my report. I have a couple questions. Well is no new information and there is no according to associated with the hearing that we had, i dont siemens fest injustice. Now that we have may be my fellow commissioners will agree with me. But from my heart of hearts i gotta satisfy my own curiosity. Okay. When we left here i recall that dbi was going to inspect and the focus of that inspection from when i heard and i did not review the entire case im going from memory this we walked out saying dbi will inspect. I agree. And there is a focus on the windows and the emphasis that i recall is not on the interior. That does not mean anything. But that is what i recall is the focus on windows. If my recollection is incorrect that is where my memories come back. So i recalled dbi. And so i will stick with when we agreed to which is dbi will do an inspection they will come up with whatever the sponsor needs to get done and you will close the issue . With regard to the fees. Im hearing they are not penalties. Thank you very much. For this information. They are not penalties they are not fines. Correct something yes. They are staff time. Is there a possibility so that and this has nothing with the case in whether we are going to move this rehear this. I stated my point of view at this point. Just for my information for to help the psyche of the satisfaction of our customer who is a member of the citizenry of San Francisco, is there an invoice backum staff time that you can provide him, please. To give you satisfaction that his 3 thousand dollars is actually going can reconcile to staff time and hours, please. Can that be done . Please . Yes. Thank you for the question. My recollection of the hearing on august 17th the inspection should take place for the corrective per mitted that corrective permit covers a lot of scope of work and i think julie was. Clear what. I will not argue with the different types illegal done that needses to be inspected the window is one aspect of the permit. And in terms of the billing invoice we do have an invoice for all the charges required everybody in Planning Department are required to count for every 15 of minutes we spends on a case and happy to print that out for him. I appreciate you probably do, i appreciate that you will make that available to the gentlemen so that at least the satisfaction will be able to reconcile his payment. Thank you for the clarification of the inspection and i hope the inspection is done quickly and that you are able to resolve your issues. Thank you. Thank you. We will hear from the department of building inspection. Good evening president swig and the board. We did do called out for site inspection to look at the front facade of the building performance sorry. Um on august 23rd. And it does conform to the drawings. We did not inspect anything inside the building. He has the valid permits to complete the work. Upon once he is ready to complete we will inspect. What do you need. Are you done . Yes what do you need the project experience to ask you and what time will, space do you need to get your inspections done after hearing what you are about to tell mow he needs to tell you. He needs to complete the project. Clear inspections and the electric, plumbing and fire signed off andy wool final the job. Thank you very much. I have it clarity on that. Okay. Thank you. Is there Public Comment on this item. Raise your hand. Okay. I dont see Public Comment. Commissioner this is matter is submitted. Commissioners, i made my point i see no new evidence i see frustration that is not part of the deal. I dont siemens fest injustice i see the inability you lack communication the inability of 2 parties to have i Clear Communication with each other what i teamed do is open the communication, be clear what the project experience has to tell dbi and get in return i hope that was clear. And resolves the issue of the payment. With regard to the issue at hand which is rehearing i see no new information and i dont siemens fest injustice unless anybody else does i like to make that motion to deny the request for a rehearing on that basis. Commissioner trasvina wants to weigh inform i want to agree and associate myself with the comments and perspective that president swig mentioned earlier including my recollection of the previous time that doctor tedeschi was here. I know looking in the notes the caption included alterations to the officer form and front facade. Interior alterations. It was helpful and appreciate the tina tam refreshing my recollection as to what occurred at the previous proceeding. And i also agree that there is a lot of frustration here. The question about what is under the power of our board as different from stated the general ability of an individual to contact the legislative side of City Government and member of the board of prierdzs and mirs office and other places there are other accomplices to address frustration and if our role is as stated by manifest injustice the information and as for a rehearing i believe the request is lacking as to those point and that is the extent of the ability i believe it should be denied. Mr. Lopez. I wanted to claire foil for the benefit of the appellate and the public. The standard of review before us this question of new information. It is not meant for developments that happened since the hearing date. It is for information that had we known it on that evening, this matter may have been decide differently. So the things that were presented before us new information in the plain english meaning of the term but not as far as the standard of review before us. I think that you know the new facts are encouraging and show progress toward a resolution but according to the standard before us, as to whether or not whether anyone this then things would have turned out different low there was no way for us to have known they happened after the hearing. With that standards in minds i have to align myself with the comments made by the commissioners. Do we have a motion. We have a motion from president swig to deny the request on the basis well is neither new evidence or manifest injustice. Commissioner lopez. Aye commissioner trasvina aye commissioner lemberg vacarries 4of 0 and question is denied now to item 5. This is appeal number 22059 hahaila pucko building inspection appealing to shell and he tony man gety of alteration permit 20226085840 legalize existing hour rated window and infill window frame with wood framing and 5 eighth inch thai type x to comply with violation. Them is permit 202207269306 and we will hear from the appellate first and she is attending remotely. You have 7 minutes. Can you hear me . Yes. And see you as well. [inaudible]. [inaudible]. Yes. Good evening, commissioners so in 20 meneghetti performed a final edition to their home and the permit expired. That is a convenient way to arc void paying increased property tax im not going there. Now we had in 2001 meneghetti revised the permit and prove to add fire rated window in their life wall. Ch inside of followingly the permit they infill illegal infilled the light well and they installed unpermitted window on the Property Line that could not pass inspection instead of calling the inspector they cancelled the permit. And the permit here. On the next one here. They so in 2022, to partially comply with the notice of violation. They filed a permit to remove unpermitted window with their exposed siding. Of and that was approved and no issues with this permit but not even two months later on, you see here. I see. That would be this [inaudible]. Notteen 2 months later they fileed resunrise that initial permit approved now on this one the legalizing one hour rated window and infilling interior window frame. They did in the provide drawings i go by what i have as a hand sketch. The approved permit i have no issues with the infill this remove infill this permitted window and here would be infill the siding it match existing color and materials. The ones revised off the sudden you see the siding has changed. Which it has not and the only small thing they need to infill is this and trying to legalize the window. Look at the siding it is unpainted and there is punch of dry rot they should not be approved to be legalized. Now i will move to ab09. And ab09, states that any building arc joining building that occupancy should not be if than i have opening should in the be closer than 6 feet in any directions of opening of the adjoining building. And if you look here at our. The opening where our window is and window they are trying to legalize. We are barely 21 2 feet away from each other this should never pass approval and should not been given permit the reason why that happened is because they did not show case the conscience between the 2 buildings planning and planners kwho who approve it would have no idea that is what is going on and issues between the 2 openings. There is another issue that is since than i are trying to legalize the window now that it has been infilled on the inside. There is 3 inch gap between the building where tell ends up having a bunch of water seep nothing that will be sitting in there and will be a huge waterproofing issue down the line with both properties. And this is on the other ends of the life fill our window on this side. This is theirs it is barely forcing between temperature ab09 that should never pass and never been approved. This is the drawing in red you see their window and you see our openings here we have sliding door and 2 windows that is less than 45 feet from each other for 09 should not be approved and never been legalized. The only thing im asking for the illegal window to be removed completely including the metal frame that service no purpose. For the case to be removed and for the siding to be infilled per building code. This is a typical detail for exterior wall one hour fire rated wall. Thats all i have, thank you. Thank you we have a question from commissioner lemberg. I so your citations and all of your drawings and appreciate them. What i want to ask you is what the essense of your complaint with upon this window is. As far as affects your day to day life. The technicality pieces i rely on plan and dbi i dont understand a lot of what is going on in this case. But i want to hear from you what how this window is impacting your daily life . Yes. Let me share my screen again. So first thing is base on the code this window should not be approved that is one thing that it is illegally approved window. My issue with twhindzo they already infill nothing the window you see the 3 inch gap between the wall that we have to build because required by Fire Department. We had no choice but to build this wall. There is a 3 inch gap. When it rains this will be a huge trap for water. Now if they remove this metal frame here the window is filld and window does in the exist it should not be legalized if they remove this frame and remove the casing and just infill this wall nice and flat then waterproofing between the 2 houses will not be an issue. We will not have issues down the line because right now we are going back and fourth on this and many other things and im afraid that down the line that will ends up in [inaudible] tell be water intrusion and leaks and you know. You know how that goes i know this answers your question. Thank you a question from commissioner trasvina. Thank you for your testimony this evening. Can you share with us whether you have an objection to work thanksgiving out with the neighbor directly . Or whether there is a prohibition and what it would be to precludes you our a representative from work thanksgiving out with the neighbor or a neighbors representative . So. I will scroll down we cannot work it out directly because well is a restraining order in place. I have it here. Bear with me. Take a look restraint person is shelly meneghetti protected are myself and husband the reason is because tony came out and yelled at us and threaten us and threaten violence a judge granted restraining order. However, i reached out many times to robin from construction and they are false ly claiming due to restrickening order they are not able to work with us. I will show you here it is not true. Bear with me. As you can see Tony Meneghetti this is from tonys brief claiming that any third Party Associated with us, construction crew, can not engage with moiz and my husband. And but here is another line that he is stating is that he Tony Meneghetti himself is reaching out to my construction crew. We are the protected party. Therefore he is in the supposed to reach out to us. Therefore it is his logics we cant talk to his construction crew under which base i can he talk to my construction crew that is in the true the protection here is between us and them. I can speak with robbie and his attorneys and i have communicates and if there was an issue they would have drawn charges between us. Thank you. I dont want to get into any matter where you are represented by an attorney and you minot be at this proceeding. Im trying to get a sense. Correct me if im wrong, you yourself dont have an objection to having a representative on your behalf attempt to resolve this matter with a representative of the neighbor. Except for the existence of the potential barrier the restraining order places on the both of you. So, yes. I dont have an attorney so they can speak with me directly they dont have to go to anyone and i reached out several times to robin may and their attorney and offered to resolve the issue but they refused to work it out with me thank you i will ask the neighbors the same question. Because i do as noted believe in communication and im not sure we other best body through which to have the communications perhaps we are. But if there are other ways to explore a resolution im looking for that. Thank you. Thank you we hear from the permit holder and their contractor robin may is representing them you have 7 minutes you are on mute. Can you hear me . Yes. Worn. Im working with the meneghettis on this project. And im here to speak on their behalf. Tone and he shelly lived at their home for 26 years. And they would prefer to be here personal low given the litigation against them and attorneys advice they cannot be present for this hearing. I would like to point out that part. The this appeal applies to permit 20220726936. Which relates solely to the window and not to the current siding issues on the project. As mentioned in the brief from my clients submitted to your panel, dbi issued a permit and nov infilling the window from the interior a former nonopening sealed frame 1 hour fire rated light fill window so we did the moneed communication from the neighbor. Per section 6a. 2 of the Court Ordered retaining order anyone relate to the meneghetti is prohibited from communicating with the ordinance of 3627 diviz defer over regardless of if than i give a permission to do so or if they invite conversation. The restraining order in place prohibits anyone related them from communicating with them. After receiving the permit for the work we completed the work. Following the completion an appeal was file thered is no opening. And as the interior portion filled with the permit issued. In the brief the complaint discusses challenges with the forms the window and their constructed pony with you that covers 40 of the windso. My experience is this will in the be a problem and im not concern about theed waterproofing. In response we mention that theed the owner of 3627 proposed an e mail on arch 8 of 22 to the meneghetti owners they might seek a permit to extend the pony wall 4 feet higher. It is a great idea the meneghettis have no objection should the upon owner of 3627 want to increase the height of the pony wall that will give them control over when they look at and resolve other issues. The, issue to discuss is separate tr this permit. Given the litigation we are not able to inspect the area and determine whether there is an issue or not related to the siding and important level if there is an issue whether caused by the demolition of the second floor of 3627 divisidero. The permit in construction did instead encroach on the area now exposed and the cut out siding was not part of w that has been done. At 3621 divisidero it is possible it is result of the construction. We will address it once litigation is resolved. We ask consideration allowing my client upon infill to stand. Thank you. Any questions . We will hear from planning. No. Ing tina tam with planning. 3621 divisidero in rh3 zoning district. Construct in the 1927 the property is a potential Historic Resource the permit file in the july of 22 amends an earlier permit that was filed on june 8, 2022. Where as the juniper mitt called for removal of the existing Property Line window the july permit before the board called for ref tension of the Property Line window and infilling the window from the inside the healthful resides at 3620 divisidero the property to the west. And this property window face on her light well. Mrs. Pucko preference to have the Property Line window removed the window partial and not infilled from the in the. Cited concerns about water intrusions and waterproofing for the windso and then further states that there is a conflict with the upon window and dbi will ab009 and there is not enough separation with the Property Line windows and her property. Such planning was not a party to the review of the july permit. With that i will turn it over to dbi Kevin Birmingham to provide an over view of the building code. We have not had a Property Line window property they are special upon opportunities im speaking to fellow commissioners new to the process. Could you brief us on Property Line windows. Can you deal with like were what is the risk of having a Property Line window and when there is new construction what quite often is the issue raised with the Property Line window and then what can planning ask to be done to mitigate the situation with the Property Line windo when the subject arc rises in case of a construction next door . Thank you. From the planning code there is in the any provisions that limit Property Line windos that is a Building Department code question. But in terms of a new Property Line window we look at possible concerns and issues over privacy. Okay. Residential design guide lines. Questionis asked should be directed to building and the thing is when you build a Property Line window what is your risk . And what happens when something happens next door and somebody takes offense to or is in impacted by that Property Line window situation in. The big thing is fire spread yu are 6 if the arc part and protect it or fire rated window so the fire will not spread. They are not trying to legalize it they are trying to get rid television. It did in the trig are anything in the ab009 compliance. They are not trying to legalize it if they did not infill they would legalize it under a b error 09. What they are doing is building a wall inside it that is creating the hour assembly to protect the fire from traveling from one building to the other the fact the window is still there it is a weather proofing issue like having siding the assembly is inside the window it does not come in play here. Finish ask i would like to ask you another are you finished. We feel the permit was properly issued than i have taken an hour assembly on the instead and that meets our requirements for a one hour on the Property Line. So what i was struck with is if im the next door neighbor how i do fweel this. One, a Property Line window where it is a window namow longer is a window but looks like it it has a frame and a window but not a window and also is abusive to my sensitive [inaudible]. Is this dbi likes to see as a result. Does the neighbor next door have any rights when when when this type of correction is made versus what i would anticipate and what i have seen. Would be the proper correction, which was the complete demolition of window. The sash. And then replacement of siding so the Property Line window disappears and there is no history of evidence of it. Which was what is the proper what is dbi like to see what what would you like to have happen here. I mean i think ideally you like the window removed for the next door neighbor, they have proposed they are legal to let the build the wall higher to close the window that would waterproof the to which wall and they would control what the inside of their light well looks like. And technically, the window is you know meets the weather proofing criteria. You know and cant say take it out it looks ugly. Unfortunately if on the front of the building we might have leverage but we dont really there is no street site. You cant see it. On the on the issue of risk of building risk because of water, and well is a gap that was not there before. Is there anything in dbi can recommend implement, 3 a notice of violation on as a prosecute active fashion to prevent this possible opportunity. Its a vague area it is seals between to houses you come across the same at the roof line or front of the building. Technically you should not seal it off it is in the your property. We can say we want to see a bl proofing detail for that area. But the easiest is to build a wall higher weather proof it at the top with nice influentialing and match her siding or whatever her finishes to the interior of her light limp im not sure why that didnt take it out and reside it, this was it is a valird permit. It is an hour assembly. What we have here it might be per received as ug low to some but it is legal. It is legal. And it is an appropriate if not what is desirable but an appropriate and legal fix according to the permit. And even if a complaint were filed you would not support it with the notice of violation. No at this point no thank you very much. Thank you i wanted to clarify. I thought i heard you say the permit was not for legalization but is in front of us is for legalization of the window has ms. Tam states. No to infill the window if they want to leave it with in wall and as an open window for light it would need to be approved under ab009. They are infilling the window. I mean im going to read the permit revision to permit number and infill interior window with wood framing and 5 inch gypsum board what is the difference am are they 2 separate actions or 2 sides of the same. They misword today slightly leave the one hour window in place and create the assembly behind it if they were as a window and not creating the hour barrier they would need to go through ab009 but since they are infilling and creating the hour rated assembly they are not legalizing. Okay. Creating the one hour arc accept am bleat behind the window legalizes it in that it makes it up to code makes it. Yea. Of lets them use the window as annual exterior element in the one hour assembly as if siding it might be ugly but is legal. Thank you. Strange. Thank you. We dont have other questions now Public Comment. Is there anyone here to provide Public Comment. Raise your hand. I dont see any. Now rebuttal ms. Pucko you have 3 minutes. Is it okay to ask a question to dbi . At this point you are addressing the board you have 3 minutes. Got it. Again, i will will just restate what i said already i will shirr my screen. The permit does state to legalize one hour rated window. And based on ab009, that would not be allowed. Made a statement that meneghetti would not have an issue with having us build a wall but that it is such a grossly misrepresented statement because there is an e mail we sent out to my husband sent it out to cheryl who is for the meneghettis and said told me to build the with you all the way up to meneghettis house we considered that they did prop our contractor and propose that. We followed up and this is sharons response the meneghettis dont wish to change to light well we try today in the process of actually grahaming the husband they approached our foremachine we tried to ask if we could do that they said, never mind. Again. I feel strongly and really wish that dbi would consider our concerns because to have the permit to remove the window and then they revised the permit without involving Planning Department. It is just very loophole of that may was able to find and get permit revised and legalize window that has been completely illegally light well infill. Now causing issue for waterproofing. Plywood is rotten. I dont know how else to say it. And for them it say they are unable to see it is not trough they go on top of the build and see the plywood is rot then is an opportunity for them to if i can the house. Thats all i have to say. Thank you for your time. I have a question. I want it make it clear i want it make it clear, im i am i share your personal taste regard to what might be a better aesthetic condition but is it clear to you that what dbi said it is a legal construction. Despite the fact that it minot be aesthetically pleasing to yourself or anybody else are you clear on that. I am completely clear on infill being an hour fire rated and legal by the code. What im not clear on why the revision per mist is allowing windows to be legalized. Ab009 did not allow thats the part im not clear on. Okay i will ask dbi to make that clearer. To you. Also are you clear that it is stated that is testimony under oath that the meneghettis happy with you raising your wall so that what i hear if you went typeset plan being and dbi says we node to raise our wall that it most likely you would change your permit are you clear that it has been stated here in public under oath that your neighbor would in the get in your way of raising that wall . This is when they already said previously. Im saying yes or no. I need to hear that you heard what i heard. I have heard have concern. This is all im giving yes or no answer. Du hear had i heard . I have yes. Great. Thanks. We will move on from there. Now hear from the permit holder robin may representing the meneghettis you have 3 minutes. You are on mute. Im sorriful i dont have a lot more to add. I will reiterate they are no opposition should the ordinance of 3627 want to raise that wall. There will be no [inaudible] what so ever. Beyond that, i have in further comments. Okay. Thank you. Why we have a request from commissioner trasvina. More. An observation about the restraining order that you are represented and prohibit your client from consulting our talking with the your neighbor and we are again were being brought in a situation of lack of communication if that court order does state what it says or attorneys for your upon client represent this this there is a bar of communication would helped have had this presented us or that attorney to be here we are used in the role that is not perfect low suited for our role. And a lot of this could have been resolved had there been a welling tons resolve it between the 2 neighbors. So i would encourage you back to client and the attorney to see if there is a way in which the matters can be resolved without the use of this board. Where because we are being asked to get into a sort of extra legal issues about the quality of the wall or the or the window. If and today have to go back and if you can resolve the issues and going forward, between yourself. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner lemberg. Joy want to piggyback what you have commissioner trasvina was saying i dont know about the substance of this restraining order it was not presented before us. But say i represent client in restraining orders all the time and never heard of a situation where attorneys or other representatives including the architect in this case would not be allowed talk to the other party. I never heard of anything like that. I practice in San Francisco superior all the time in restraining order hearings. And does in the sound right to me. I encourage to you see if there are alternative options available so the parties can community if not directly through their representatives. Thank you. Mrs. Tam did you want to add y. Dbi, please. I did want to clarify sfaerz bodiesing department them is in the a window it is an leadership in the ectearior wall it is not a window. It might like like one but it is not a window. Therefore it is not being legalized. We heard from the folks that own the window which is in the a window. Yes have are will accept the raising of the wall to a higher level to obscure the window that is in the a window. Will the project experience sorry will the appellate have any problem with dbi raising that wall. No. And what is the does this fall under a. Just to may be an administrative permit to say the raising the height of the parapit there. Great. Simple. Over the county. Nonappealable or you know. Okay. Thats when we want to here. Thank you. Commissioners this matter is submitted. Mr. Lopez you. To start and i will finish. Yea. I dont have much to add. I think the case was clear. Ugly but legal. Is still legal. I might add that to my linked in prosecute file words to live by. Yea support a motion to deny the appeal. Trasvina . Based on the representations from planning and dbi i would also agree the disposition is a denial. I have nothing to add and agree with my fellow commissioners. At this point, i have nothing to add other than to make the appeal that this board the board of appeal often makes to neighbors in dispute. Guy us gotta live next to each other for your lives try to kiss and make up. What i heard here is yes , there is looks like window feels like a window but not a window but it is almost. And there are no issues there. There is an opportunity to cure by the appellate which is it raise the wall. We heard from dbi should be no issues relatederation the wall well is a cure. Even though the aesthetic on the next door neighbor will not be fixed and potential building issue related to the rotting of their exterior wall may occur. But you have given the opportunity and put them on notice they are not accepting your advice so it is the way it goes. But we on this body try to promote harmony recognition you are neighbors and we encourage to you do what you can to repair. And so with that, mr. Lopez would you make the motion . Sure i move to deny the appeal on the basis the permit was properly issued. A motion from Vice President lopez to deny the appeal and epihold the permit. On this motion commissioner trasvina. Aye commissioner lemberg. Aye yoochl president swig aye the appeal is denied we are moving on to item 6. This is appeal 22060 lisa gaut terproperty 95 st. Ger main avenue to the site permit add elindicator and car lift and bump of of garage. Decking and stone to the top of the garage roof permit 20 wo 50963 sick 408. We will hear from mr. Brian russell the attorney for the the appellate. Welcome you have 7 minutes. Thank you, good evening im Brian Russell attorney and i w with the law firm of hansen bridgeit. Me colleague joined us via zoom. Be handled litigation regarding the easement on in matter. She can answer technical questions. Lisa and patrice live arc jaysent to the residents at 95 st. Germain avenue. They have shared stair wells and live next it one another the easement from one side of the stair from the other side to the street to the front door of each homes. Were the they have a 10 foot wide easement from the shared Property Line for pedestrian use and use maintenance and repair of a shared elevator. The easement is 5 feet on either side of the Property Line. And that allows for pedestrian use as well as repair and maintenance of the easement for the elevator. The existence and location of the easement area is undisputed the scope of the easement is confirmed in the may 20, 2020 judgment this we provided to you. In this judgment it said the yes and all importances acting with the yes shall be permanently interferes with the right, title and interest in easements and within the easement area including but in the limited to their access, use repair of maintenance of elevator in the area. The easement grant a right of period of time use whether or not in connection with the elevator use maintenance or repair. Judgment was provided to the are board for 2 reasons first to provide the board with notice of the recorded ease am and the judgment including the express prohibition of any upon combfrns with the ease am the seconded to assure the board the yes are aware of the easement and legal obligations of the easement. The yes made the decision easy. They admitted on their plans they encroach in the easement area in the yees brief on page 6 they quote 2. 75 inches extends from the yees current remember wall in the yees own stair well space encroaching in the easement. Any extension by the yes in the ease am 2 penalty 75 inches or 10 feet is a violation of the ease am. Undisputed by both the plans submitted enreach in the easement area. You see hopefully tell is bigger on your screens the red area circled signifies the inches goes in the easement area and i have violation of easement. Section 175b of the san front municipal code state no application permit or license shall be approved or issued by City Department for the construction reconstruction or relocation or occupancy of any structure the construction or other activities would authorized by requests permit or license not conform in all respects to this code. So we like to address the issues address the yees argument of the judgment allows the yes to encroach in the your. It does not. The yee previously allowed temp rare maintenance and repair equipment, allowance allows equipment to be within the easement area the judgment language states the yes trespassed upon the property and within the easement by engaging acts upon in scope intrefring with the easement. It is further orderd that the yes and all upon importance acting on behalf or for with them issue be enjoin friday trespassing policing any item within an easement in our spray painting. There are 3 exceptions. The ease am placed a door mat and 4 walking statistic within 2 feet of the door. Maintenance and repair equipment for jointly agreed upon work for ease ams and Maintenance Repair equipment which is the one they are using to permit construction to the property wall arc butting the eedz am area with equipment remaining for no more than 10 days total or time identified by professional contractor necessary upon the nature and extent of the construction. Careful review confirm this is of an exception arc loud temporary construction itemless in the ease am during the permitted construction in the a right to go permanent low in the area. Use thanksgiving language and misquoting the judgment, to try to justify the encroach them is an argument that has no merit. So finally the yes tried to argue these are the city can make modifications. The gautiers have a valid easement and the city does in the have a right unless does not have a right to encroach on the propertys owners rights by permitting this type of permit. Finally. Asking to build in the easement this is a violation of the ease am the validity confirmed bite superior court with this knowledge the scientist does in the have Legal Authority on issue a per mist in violation of a Property OwnerAvenue Property rights. There is in the an exception which allows the ease to build or encroach in the easement area. Time if the city issues a permit allows the encroach inspect an existing easement this would establish a bad president for the city and that action by the city could issue considered illegal taking. As a result, we request the denial of the permit. Thank you. Thank you. A question from president swig then commissioner lemberg. I dont have a question directly for the council. I have a question for mr. Gibner, im joined on the panel upon dont by 3 talented and left lanesed licensed larceny im not one. Can you give. Our panel some direction at this point, please. This is my second bite at this apple i was here when we ruled on the variance im familiar with the site and discussions from the past. This went from our variance decision to the courts. The courts made a decision. We have all read it in the documentation can you give us direction as to can we do anything on this tonight or are we under the jurisdiction of a court ruling. And although we have a wighted range of powers and flexibility, we motive not be that wide ranging and may not have that level of flexibility. And i would like to have your opinion on what exactly we can do tonight so we dont go down a wrong path and do something not under our jurisdiction. Thank you commissioner swig. Deputy City Attorney, as you know, the primary dispute in this matter involves the interception of the superior Court Judgment. And whether it permits the ease to encroach in the easement area or to build a portion of their own in the ease am area. Each parties has a view on the proper interpretation of the order. Gautiers his council will provide their vow. If the board determined the order does not is not clear, because the 2 parties are both making reasonable arguments intercepting the order the appropriate step would be for the parties to seek further review by the court as to further clarification of the order by the court how it applies to this permit. In that case, this board would have a few options if you reach that conclusion. One would be to denight appeal because the permit was issued not clearly inconsistent with the court. Another would be to continue this matter while the parties seek clarification or review by the court to further clarify the court a judgment. So. What you are saying is it may be advisable to Pay Attention to the court and ared take a step with the consideration that we should not touch this until the parties go back to the court to get clarification. On the courts view of this direction in consideration of the courts finding, correct . Of thats right. Okay. Thats what i wanted everybody to hear before we get in the swamp and find out there is we went alligator hunting and there aint no alligators. Thank you commissioner lemberg. Thank you. I have a narrow question. Was the Court Judgment recorded . Yes, it was. Thank you. Question from for this purpose notify the parties including your own the easement exists and valid and should not be violated. Thank you. Yea. My question is for mr. Givener are you there . Yes. One clarification on what you just provided us. Will may we issue you know findings based on the 4 corners of the permit or do we have to take into account the order . Are um00 eye will say both parties agree that the dispute is about whether the per mist is consistent with the order. And as the appellate pointed out, dollar could be issues if you were to clearly presented construction in the easement area and the city allows that construction. Of so i do think the courts order itself the court should take into account and consider the [inaudible]. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner trasvina. Yes, thank you mr. Russell. Im not sure whether this question should be posed to you or the deputy City Attorney. But i will start with you. Did the easement area itself preexisted the court order, correct . Yes. It was issued bite previous builder the original builder built both houses at the same time and created that easement at the time of construction. The owners that owner the property inherited the easement it runs with the land. So i realize that about the easement is there a difference from the easement and the easement area . There is not. So and i wonder now i turn to either the City Attorney or president swig, are we able to make any determination based upon the easement area irrespective of the court order . Good question for the City Attorney. Sure. Deputy City Attorney again. I think the appellate position is the easement and i should let the permittee speak but i believe the appellates position is that the easement and the easement area are the same. That the court order did in the change the partys right to encroach on and build in the area. I believe the i dont haves position is the court order did authorize the ease to build within the footprint of the stair case. My impression thus far and it is always advisable to hear both sides, but i believe there is a possibility that we could should we decide to resolve this mattereen if we take the yees verz of the court and ared would be the not have it interpret. We would be but it seems clear under almost any scenario there is one valid interpretation of the ease am area. Lets hear further testimony and from the other side and the rebuttal and comments from the City Departments and we can pursue this conversation during that all that stuff. Thank you. Thank you. We will hear from the per mist holders and i believe the attorney representing them. Welcome you have 7 minutes. Why thank you. Good evening. Commissioners. I appreciate the questions this you have been presenting to the City Attorney because i think this is helpful begin that we have this prior court order on this. I doment to go back to commissioner trasvina talked about that im not sure that has to come in play as well given that the permit is issued and approved and we have yes, we can say we have different interpretations of a court order. Obviously the yees position is the gautiers have a very unreasonable interpretation it dealt with placing umbrellas, energies, cones seems like that in the ease am area. It never was considered to be dealing with the exterior wall of the property meaning to expand in their stair well area the court order says that the yes can do repair their stairs the gaut yers were aware the yes would put in a new elevator in their home dp this plan has been going on for years. They have tried to stop this along the way citing the variance and things that were am long the way until we got here. So now we are talking about 2 penalty 75 inches that extend in thes stair well area when the court order also has a very clear exception for permitted construction. And we have the permit p. So and this was always the intention of that order and moving forward so the yes could move forward with construction they could not be able to place it personal items and no trespass signs and umbrellas went area. That was the smrt and happening with the prior court order. So the yes position it is gautiers are taking unreasonable position with respect to the prior court order. The permit has been issued. And the appeal should be denied. And i suppose the gaut yers want to take it back up with the court they are free to do so. Are you finished. Yes. Do we have questions . Commissioner trasvina . Thank you, is it your familiar that the court order applies only to temporary matters that are in the on the steps and the easement and not a permanent . Encroachment . No. And nor do we consider encroachment i agree it is expansion into the easement area. But no that it is not something is it our position it is temp refer. Yes personal items would not pertain to something permanent permitted construction. Um and for that matter if we were to accept the gautiers position, painting on the exterior wall could encroach half a millimeter. You know or something and that would technically in their position be encroachment. They cant every paint their property or puticiding on there siding will need to be done with the construction would be a centimeter or so. Because of insulation. I feel you know this position that the gautiers are presenting is unarc tenable based on what the court order actually says and dealing with. Okay and taking to the other extent a minimal the depth of paining would violate or on what do you base from the court order or the codes that 2 and 3 quarter inches expansion is allowable but not hour does this go . A foot . 2 feet . Fair enough it does extend 2. 75 inches only extension to the stair well area of the eased property and their stair let footprint of stair well does in the need to be increased. And does in the impact the free pace available for you know elevator used to be there in between the properties that will not be there and will be a dumb wear the gaut yers decided to put in which is in the a passenger elevator and you know the yes are really need this elvirtand have been fighting for this for a long time so tai chi they can age in accomplice. But yes. The point is it is going in 2 penalty 75 inches in their own stair well area and the court order says they are fro to repair their stairs and have 41 inches for their stairs the i donts can do what they want went front inches than i cant accomplice personal items that the gautiers dont like that is fine my question is in your view or clients view 2 opinion 75 inches is allowable. Where is the limit . Um i do have our architect here. He would loishg to answer that i will say that heave design third degree elevator to are tight as possible and make it fit. The yes accommodated prior occurrence by the gaut yers rotating the elevator so the variance came back one foot. Of that the had prove for this variance. I read the oomph00 brought it in. I read the material you presentd and im sensitive to the medical needs of the clientses and the changes this have been made im wondering as either a legal matter is there an expansion that would be you would say that is not appropriate under the order . Im an architect for the project. You would never be able to extend the elevator to minimize the thee foot minimum egress width. We are not talking about doing that. As sinnel said we had clearances that were absolute minimums. For accessibility clearances that created the situation. The original variance did extend 18 inches. Into that ease am that is pulled way back and minimize the extension in the area. Thank you. I just to get to your point also answer your question, too, is that i understand your hypothetical. But we are dealing with permitted construction and this is when we have approximate is permitted for 2. 75 inches have not fought nor can we assess whether construction beyond that would be permitted in the first place it is hard to answer that hypothetical. I understand where you are coming from. Why thank you. We will hear from Planning Department. Dwro thank you. Tina tam for planning. 95 saint ger mail a singying family in rh1 d zoning direct construct in the 1979 the property is in the a history irk resource. The history upon behind this project is long. It has been to the board of appeals twice. As well as Planning Commission. Here is a brief time line of the project. In december of 2014 the Property Owner of 95 filed a variance to build a new 3 story elvirtand new garage and make other alterations. The new elevator and garage encroached in the front set become a front setback variance was required. In assessment of 2015ing Scott Sanchez held a public hearing and january 2016 mr. Sanchez issued a denial decision on the variance. Finding that the proposed project did in the meet all 5 findings out lined in the planning code. Specific low the prosecute pose the garage was too big and tall and incompatible with the neighborhood character. In february of 2016 the Property Owner filed an appeal to board of appeals prosecute testing the denial. Between the time the appeal was filed and when the board held their first of 2 public hearings there were discussions with mr. Sanchez and the project team. The discussions lead it changes to the prosecute pose the project. Resulting in a compatible design. The garage reduce in the height to 14 feet and the roof deck boost garage was removed. Bite time the board of appeal it is met for the first helling on july 19 of 17 mr. Sanchez reversed his approximate suspicion and stated he was in support of the variance the design was revised. At the same hearing the neighbors to the west stated that the new elevator and garage will cause privacy, light and view impacts to her property and violate the shared easement. To be clear the easement which is 10 feet wide and includes the area where the elevator with one located and stairs for 95 and 99 was created when the 2 properties were develop in the 1979. This easement is a private ease. Not a public one. Questions about how this easement was used overwill be used min tained or enforce side a civil matter with the 2 neighbors and not for the planning d. In the attempt to allow time for the 2 neighbors to resolve the ease am issue, that was brought up at the appeal hearing the board continued the hearing. In november of 2017 the board of appeals held the second hearing and voted 5zer over to grant the appeal. And over rhode the denial by the za the board directed the za to issue the variance on the continue that the permit and the plans be revised to reflect the rused size of the garage. Plans were submitted date the february 8 part of the decision of the board. The board adopted finding that read the proposed garage 14 feet in height. 3 feet shorter than proposed garage and the. Deck boost garage removed. In october 2018 during the neighborhood notification period for the Building Permit, the neighbor at 99 filed a dr. In february, the 2019 the Planning Commission held their public hear and vetted seck0 it not take dr and approve the project. During the remainder of 20 then and 2020 the 2 neighbors engage in civil litigation. About the easement and i believe based upon the appeal briefs there was a title and settlement in july of 22 the Building Permit issued and august 10 foiled an appeal to this permit. While the Planning Department is in spchlt project we do believe additional changes are needed to comply with the conscience out line in the the 2017 variance decision bite board of appealless. The 2017 variance decision was explicit no roof deck on the garage. Permit before you shows a garage with a roof deck and issued in error. And needs to be revise said. As for the ease am issues this is a private matter. Between the 2 neighbors and the city is in the a party to the ease am. The Planning Department dont have a role in decide whatting is okay or not okay with regards to the ease am. The project is located within the meats and bounds of property the planning reviewed the project. Under the planning code and. I explained earlierave variance was grant in the 2017 the new elevator jet in the stairs of 95 appears to be a few inches 2. 75. And will in the encroach in the area where the old elevator used to be. I understand from dbi the old elevator has been demop mommished in future should she wish to rebuild the shared elevator she can. Because the prosecute pose the project at 95 will not prevent her or limit her from doing so there will be room for both elevators. The Planning Department recommends the board grand the appeal and approve on the condition that the plans revised to show no roof deck boost garage that concludes my presentation. Thank you. President swig . So if the judgment if the judge who we are sitting here trying to intercept and do play espn that is when they used to on Johnny Carson show. See what is in the envelope. And all guess. If we are guessing wrong and the judge meant to be firm this there is no encroachment and you discoverd that information to be true, what is your feeling about your permit. You scoot the elvirtnovember 2. 75 inches in the garage. Thats the answer i was looking for. Okay. Thank you. We will hear from the d. Building inspection. I agree it is a civil issue. Upon the roof deck needs to be addressd and removed from the drawings. If the elvirtis moved we are fine with that. Thank you. We have a question from commissioner trasvina. If support without a court order there would not be a problem. Yes. Would in the impede in the stairs enough to create a problem for us. Thank you. Okay. Thank you we are moving to Public Comment. Is there anyone to provide Public Comment on this item. Raise your hand. I dont see Public Comment we will move to rebuttal. Mr. Russell you have 3 minutes. Thank you. So, once again this as my original comments the ease of making your decision simple if admit thered is encroachment and that the judgment is valid and it was placed on notice that the judgment isville sxird an existing ease am. When we recommend is you deny the permit now that have you notice of it. Revise the permit go outside the easement area it is simple. Dont make us go become to court you have knowledge of this go and give this power. At the ends of the day the city is we dont want to make you interpreters of the judgment itself. So00 autosimple solution is deny it and have nel go back and revise or go to court say we can build this within the area they have not given you legal prove they have the ability to do this. More over if the city acts to approve it knowing that it is encroach thanksgiving could trigger remember this belling permit in a discretionary permit and ceqa will be triggered. Tell go discretionary. The best solution is to denight permit as submitted tell them to revise it get it out of the easement your and we can move forward with a better solution. 2 penalty 75 inches can make a very simple solution here. At the end of the day the Building Department is in the aware of the encroach. This is where this body is here. Catch the issue. Feks the problem and so that we are satisfied, they are and would burglar their elevator in their Property Lines and outside of the easement your and we will not bother them this is a simple solution. Of go fight in the courts over and over we have been doing this for multiple years upon spent a lot of money enforcing this easement and the yes have denied that the judgment exists and held in conat the present time of court they have not followed the ease am. And the judgment and you know finally we are tired of having to justify something that exists is valid and recorded against the property. Your body the city and the ease are aware of this. Thank you. Commissioner trasvina. Just briefly i like to echo a question one of my colleagues asked early 30 evening. State the harm in addition to or other than the rule of law, et cetera and the respect of the superior courts order. What the harm of the 2. 75 inches is to your clients. In the pictures the gaut yers designed an elvirtthey wanted build within the easement your they asked the yes if he could expand upon 2 inches and to build a more feasible elevator that is can wheel chair accessible. We within back and forth the yes denied the request a shared elvirtused by both parties we are not being unreason. We dont want to do this. We gone through these acts over for years. Thats the harm. We tried to get this done with them and they have denied our request to add 2 inches to the ease am area to build it an elvirtthat is kwheel chair accessible and they deny today. The easement area is the easement and both parties node to respect it in order to be valid and us to be Good Neighbors the end of the day. Thank you. Thank you. Well hear from the permit holder. You have 3 minutes upon as an initial matter based on ms. Tam talking about the roof top revision made to the plans. It is our the plans that were submitted for the per mist had the roof of top or roof deck overnight garage they were remove exclude it is our understanding it happened and we learn third degree in the left day that apparently the prior version of the plans got stamped prove for the permit the actual plans that should have been stamped for approval have the roof of deck portion removed. There is is that. That will does not change regarding the 2. 75 inches. This is the same in both plans. I urge the board to let the permit stand the Planning Department says it should stand, issued the permit. They have gone through this year and years and we addressed all of their issues. Throughout this process and getting these plan designed and submitted so we can move forward. I will note this is a site per mist not a Building Permit yet. But the board should let the permit go forward. And deny the appeal. I did not really hear harm to the gautiers when you asked this question, commissioner. They brought up a separate issue regarding another elvirtand ease am area it is in the a passenger elevator does not give access to the unit of and so whether the schwabling over what can help there or not. I dont see how that has anything to do with 2. 75 inches the yees space for their elvirtor a millimeter of space for you know siding or upon page on their exterior wall. The court gentlemen would never intebldzed so clear had nothing to do with that issue. It had to deal with personal items policed in the ease am area. Such as i mentioned before. Thank you and i urge theful board to deny the appeal. Thank you. Why we have a question from commissioner lemberg for you. Thank you. The alternate proposal presented by appellates council regarding moving the encroach what is you and your clients opinion. It sounds feedsable but want to hear your side of this story. Thats why we have our expert architect. Every option i believe he will say has been look the at. And i mentioned earlier they have done bh they can to make this elevator fit as tightly as possible and so that it can work. Thank you. The shared elevator does not could not function for ms. Yees disability. She valid to go out of garage and inclement weather and get in an elvirtnot large enough for her to enter with a wheel chair it is in the wide november, period im sure building can confirm the accessible requirements and egress could not be met. Number 2. That elevator goes up to a landing. That guess to the front doors a step at the front door does not extend to the to which floor and does not provide accessibility to the residents the elevatorerns from the grand jury and access the will living space floors of the building. Utility tlaefl is not access the bite elevator and provides accommendation the areas based on for a disability and the use of their property to age in place. Simple. I still feel like that does in the answer my question hat point brought up by council was moving the elevator 2. 75 inches toward into the your clients property what if not that option were to be taken why would that prevent the elevator from functioning as intended. 2 inches will not make it clear for wheel chair acstlesz is in the enough space a 10 foot area minus the existing stair cases does in the leave space for elevator. Period. 2 inches did not make a difference. We look looked at it. Gi feel the premise of your argument is that the 2. 75 makes the difference. No that is the tightest we could get from the car lift that was approved for the garage. 2 car garage they put a car lift in the mechanism required clearance from that method to get out of the car. And pass the elvirtto come in the front. And up in the building. Elevator has mechanisms to be installed. Structure engaged there are clearance issues fersd that elvirtin that zone. It as much 2 minute 75 inches mack. Thank you. I dont vashg lot to add other than to make sure i put on record there are multiple e mail records with dbi staff issue planning staff and the project architect about the officer deck. Confirmation from the aushth saying yes we made revisions to courted nay with board appeals drawing we removed the roof deck the plans i have february the appeal show the roof deck though i want to make sure what we will ask for is for to you grant the appeal and issue the permit on the cannot roof deck be removed. And that would assume now in contradictary territory assume you are reading the mind of the judge of the moment and assuming the judge says can you go 2 inches into the easement. Thats what bothers me. When you said that if you knew judge. Im. Clear. Im not the architect im going to try to talk through what i think i understand your question to mean. The taim same as their before but different spin. Can i have the over head. You are saying forget the garage you are right. That was a bad oversight. And we dont like that at board of appeals when we rule in one way and plans are filed that are when we ruled on. [inaudible] the ease ams is the conversation. In the previous testimony i asked you if upon you found out the judge rule today that easement is the ease am known no intrusion you would not approve a permit. Is that what you said . And now you say you dont know that the judge did or not. But you recommend approval of the permit with intrusion of the 2 and 3 quarter inches. Im not commenting about the ease am you asked the question about what happened is there is an order that say us cannot encroach in the ease am of any inch or 21 2, what would you recommend . And my answer to you was well then if you want the elvirtto try to shift the elevator in the garage area. And if you knew clearly that activelies the judges intention that that that easement was that easement no encroachments allowed would you allow a permit to occur . Yes. It complies with the planning code in either scenario. E gotta get clarity whos jurisdiction rules here. The judges jurisdiction that the easement and any encroachment that is an expansion is in breech of the judges motion or can planning say, you know yea. We know the judge says but but we do what we want to. It sounds like a private matter. Im not a lawyer im not the lawyer for the city. I would think that the appellate who has a lawyer would go ahead and approach the city and say we have this order from the judge no easement encroachment and therefore a resunrised permit needs to be filed that shows full sleerns cloerns ever this ease am and we would issue this permit. This was what i was worried about at the beginning i asked i will get the City Attorney involved later on we will talk ourselves in circles we are missing one guy or woman here i dont know what the judge was. We are missing clarity what that judge really was rigid on and not. We are talking ourselves in circles good to hear your points of view. Thank you. Why commissioner lemberg. Thank you. Regarding the per mist holder attorneys contention it was mistaken permit submit third degree had the roof deck the withins you have have the officer deck. If the permit holders went to planning tomorrow and submitted updated plans would that negate the need for us to follow your advice and grant the appeal on that grounds . For the officer deck. Just the roof deck. Is the project experience an architect i irrelevantment that roof deck i node to have it they would need a new variance. If they submitted without the officer deck and omit the roof deck they cant the permit is suspected and matter is before the board they valid to adopt revised plans. Thank you that was my question. Sorry. Commissioner trs trasvina. Before you leave im following your conversation with president swig. And it appear it is clear you say this is a private matter between the 2 houses. And im thinking what happens after we make whatever decision we make this evening if the homeowner of the nonelevator constructors go back to court and say, this 2. 75 inches expansion is a violation of the judges court order. And the judge agrees. And issued a new order. And the attorney come become with that court order. Is that enough to convince the city that there is a problem or does it come back here . The City Attorney . Not sure i can answer that im not perhaps that is better for the City Attorney. If you chos to go ahead and approve the permit tonight that permit moves forward and they do the project team has the ability to start construction. On that project. And i i dont know how long litigation or court or judge how long that takeless. It is timing thing. Not sure. Your answer is you would if you were begin this sceario you would call the City Attorney. I would. Commissioner lopez. My minds y sorry help me examine this better from your perspective, the you know agnostic stance you are taking because this say private ease am. If this was public easement then that would change the framing and you would be commenting not just on the 4 corners of the permit but rather taking that easement encroachment in consideration. Thats correct. Thank you. Good question thank you. We will hear from department of building inspection. The one thing it is in the specifying what elevator it it is we would like to see a schematic exact low laying out the clearances that he is saying he cant achieve a quick look over the plans looks like they should bible to scoot it in without affecting anything the door on the garage is away from the clearance area. So if he wants to hang his hat on that we would like exact equipment they plan on using and clearances required. You know i think that would be reasonable. Thank you. Commissioners this matter is submitted. With your permission i like to start because i node to involve the City Attorney and i will help us a lot, i think. Mr. Givener seem this is commissioner lemberg i saw you put your ask up. So seemings like we have 3 options. We deny the appeal. I will intersect di deny the plan are not in compliance with the variance decision or nsr filed on the property. Exactly that is in the an option. Deny the appeal is in the an option. Denying it is not an option. Okay. Thank you. This takes care of one. If we approve the project. No move and uphold the appeal then we uphold the appeal with the conditions that the roof deck revert back to the plans redesigned done to reflect the variance decisions and other legalities this ms. Rosenberg just advised us. And and we dont and we dont touch the 2 and 3 quarter inches issue. In the assumption this it complies with the city statutes. However, this is with the assumption that the judge had this same points of view. It was fixed it was a wiggly thing that could have gone one way or the other. Now this we cant got other way, is the is the alternative wailed be to not make a decision this evening and request that the parties go back to their private matter and get clarity from the court and the judge as to when we having asking all night did you mean that there was no encroachment in this area or is encroachment am the inches acceptable at which point it would be easy to approve the plans related to the elevator because as planning said, find cus. It is compliant. Mr. Givener, from a legal advice stand point, should we which direction should we go. Assume that the judge was allowing some assumption of wiggle room or should we ask that we go back the parties go back to the judge and say were you was your decision it is what it is and no wiggle room . Good evening am deputy City Attorney. Hoe it to step away it took you like 2 hours. To stay away from us now we have you back. Wonderful. Im back. He had to step away julie might have mentioned that the beginning. I have been able to watch the case but i have been mr. Givener updated mow on previous advice in response to your question, commissioner swig the board could go either wave. Continue and go to the court and have the court answer the question before the board resolves this permit question. If the board were to make a decision up holing the permit and letting the experience move forward presumablely the appellates would go to court and request that the court join the permit and not let the project sponsor move forward with t. It it is a question for you what you think is better. I believe mr. Givener suggested it might be to condition before the kurt can ref solve temperature one way or the other the folks are going back to court. We mine as well continue it. Because somebody has to go back to court one way or the other somebody the say we gotta go back to court. It is board can consider the judgment. Can the Court Judgment and decide whatting to do here. If the board thinks it is clear that the permit will not one way or the other, the board could deny the appeal the judgment allows the work to be done or grant the appeal because you think the gentlemen probabilities the permit from moving forward. Consider it for sure. And if it is00 thooms we will not make a decision tonight and let them go become and get clarity on the subject this is just a clerical thing is this a call the chair because we dont know when this might come back. Or is do we just postpone the decision to a fixed date. Continue to the call the chair condition return once the parties obtained air decision from the court on the matter. Thank you for this add vice. Commissioner lemberg. I have a lot of opinions about this. I do strongly believe the court. If the appellates want their argument to succeed we need clarity from superior court on this matter. I you know i hear the Planning Departments position. I hear dbis position they have to stay neutral and understand that and understand why. That being said, i you know as commissioner swig corrected me last week, we are but a quasi judicial body if i were the judge of the superior court i might make a decision but we are not. We are limped to what we as a body are able to do. That is look what is in front of us and only what is in front of us. I think that you know if and im very certain that the will appellates dont want to hear this but i believe that if the appellates go to court to get judicial clarity on this, and receive a decision in their favor on this matter regarding the encroachment and the courts opinion on the encroachment clearly this judge specific low allowed continuing jurisdiction of this matter. And has rowelled on numerous civil condition at the present time for the nonattorneys on the panel very, very unusual. And its if the judge were to rule in the appellates favor i would be inclined to grant the appeal in totality combh cansel the permit all together. If the judge rules in the favor i go with ms. Tams suggestion and grants it only on the grounds that the roof deck be removed from the plans. I think we granting the appeal either way but a sizeable difference as far as what it would look like and i think if we did obtain judicial clarity on this matter i think i would be more comfortable making that decision. Today. Or the next time we hear this, rather. So i would be inclineed either continue to to november 30 or call of the chair i sort of understand difference between that. I think 21 2 21 2 among system time to get a judicial declaration on this. But this is an assumption. So that is my opinion on this, thank you. Commissioner lopez is next. Commissioner lopez. I want top go back to mr. Russy if you are there. Yes. I wanted go back to what you said earlier which i think was something to the affect of we can take the order into consideration and making our call tonight. My question would be a preeducation request is that can or must take into account. Part of the record in that case i think it is part of what you need to consider all of the evidence buffer the argument made by the appellate you need to consider, yes. That and Everything Else propertied by the parties. Thanks. I think with that, in mind im not sure at least if my reading like a plain english reading of the order. Im not sure how much we gain by kicking it in the future. Showing my card in terms how i interpret the facts and the the language that the finding and the substance of the order. I think you know 2. 75 inches is still and thats a clear encroachment outside of the bounds of the 3 exceptions included in the order. I think from where im sitting again we sit in a different chair that the ms. Tam does. He remains agnostic because of the upon points she out lined. If were saying we can must take the order in account, the order is clear in my mind. And yea you would i think the hypothetical that commissioner trasvina laid out where does this ends is valid. And im not sure i heard a compelling response to that. You know other than well it is only 2. 75. I did in the hear a dispute either about past disputes about the appellate. You know potentially encroaching. There is back and forth a prolonged dispute. It feels to me like allow thanksgiving to move forward as planned you know in the face of what is in my dliniated in the order we are novelty properly taking this order in account. I feel we have if you know, if weave like miss tam allowed take that in consideration i think it is clear where we should come out. Mr. Trasvina. Like to thank you president swig and associate my comments with Vice President lopez and i differ with the Planning Department but realize they are under tomorrow difficult and hes pressures on this matter. And00 eye appreciate our deputy City Attorneys last comment this we can and can take in account the court order and i would grant the appeal. You dont believe that we need to wait for the parties to go byebye to court. Are i think the gaut yers suffered enough. And the judge order woeful all read it a history of problems with the neighbors now we have them here again this this issue regarding 2 and 3 quarter inches of an expansion and encroachment. I proernlt the job of that the yes attorney has to present their side. Im not convince friday reading the order and hearing the the distinctions that the i donts councilments to make here. I dont think that begin the amount of time that and the history of this property and this ease am has here. With the Planning Department and with the courts i think enough court and litigation time has been taken up and i believe we can rule in and should rowel on this will appeal. I dont see with judge order it is so specific as to minor miniscule things on the steps. I dont see anyone read this it is all right to have a per permanent expansion. Perhaps they are special in terms of you cant do what you want with your own stairs there are limits and the easement and area are clear. I would grant the appeal. Tonight. Commissioner lemberg. I want to add a few things. I will agree with both of legal analysis to Vice President loam sxez commissioner trasvina. There is sufficient evidence on the record we could grant the appeal. That said i still want it make a case for continuing it on a procedural path and here is why. If we grant the appeal tonight, what will happen next as far as actual next steps is is that the yes will file a writ to over turn or decision and would be heard by a different judge somebody has no knowledge or input in this matter. If we will ask the appellates to bring it back to the judge who granted continuing jurisdiction over this case, it is then heard boy a judge who has made opinions on this case and who knows what is going on on this property. And i think my over all point suspect that tell go to continue on in litigation either way but it is gives the parties the chance to resolve it. I would say the right way rather than going through the writ process, which is much messier and lining low to lead to outcome i dont think would be fitting to the situation. I might add this is in the a Building Permit. This is only a site permit. So we should get it cleared up now because im sure if we dont get the stuff cloned up now then we have am a Building Permit based on when we are talking about today this. Is just im not the lawyer here im the guy has been through this. So ms. Rosenberg can you clarify if we take a vote if we are unanimous or unanimous if it is 31 whatever the motion is pass if the 22. Under lined determination is upheld that would not make sense we know the permit lawed it has officer deck. And you should take into account the fact that dbi said it is public it could you believing moved over he wants to see the plans there could be 2 base for denying one it should the roof deck is on the plans and 2 the easement may be one possibility is to continue it may be so that dbi can take a look may be shifted the commissioners believe that it is in violation of the order shiftd and resunrised plans submitted. Okay. A thought. I think that is good advice you added to the mix with regard it a continuance. Because we dont upon if we deny it is doesnt and over. Again if we cant deny the appeal that would make the inconsistent sorry. Find for the appellate they start all over. And commissioner lembergs point is probably correct. Again. Grants the appeal on 2 separate grounds the ease am found later and judge may think different low the fact that there is a roof deck would be enough to support the denial. A couple of fronts now that we postpone a decision and continue to a call the chair based on the ability of the judge to respond. When the judge respondeds then we can set that time and also in consideration of refining the view of and the. Review of dbi with regard to the task at hand. Why okay. You would want to continue it so the parties can approach the judge that issued the order to get clairerity. When this come back that will allow us the opportunity to pursue we know the deck is illegal that will have to go away if the judge rule its is you upon cant move anything that setsed up our finding on the appeal on the appeal point. Right. And okay. Society second reason the continuance dbi is has an opportunity to see if the project can be shifted outside of the easement. So i guess after that we will determine about the roof deck that has to go. But that will come in a motion related whatever information we have added the information that we already have. The point of finding the continuance. Why how much time . Ir should be call to the chair because of the we dont know what the judges calendar will be and we participate november 30 but i dont know when the judges calendar is. Why dont i call the chair when we have clear indication the judge made his or her rendering. If the appellate seeks not to seek judicial review that may not happen and call of the chair would be an echo chamber forever. I think we should put a date on it. Do november 30th i know already i have commissioner were suggestion the first place and if we get to the 15th and it is still out in the judgment world we will call the parties and postpone further that is a good idea. Okay. Confirm the parties are available on november 30th. Mr. Russell. Clarification. The permit stayed until. Yea. And just want it make sure in the judgment. You have to go back to the judge get clarity and once we get this well come back here and could be earlier than november 30 we can coordinate that if the gentlemen direction from the judge come earlier. November 30th is fine thank you. Will will you set my motion from there and vote on it. Okay. We have a motion from president swig to continue this item to november 30th so that the appellate can get clarity from the judge that issued the order ward everregarding the ease am. Did we want this burden on the appellate or permit holder . Who is petitioning the judge . I would assume the appellate would do it the other party has no reason to. Julie not to interrupt the attorney for the appellate had her hand up and. You motive want to, okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you. Emily charlie. And as the lawyer that try third degree case and negotiated the judgment and received the rulings on that i want to arc prize the commission of the state of a faris of the procedural this case. It mentioned a number of time the the court maintained jurisdiction we can seek clarity i not convinced that is accurate we have been able to go back under a specific prosecute vision of the code to seek an order of conat the present time the court did not min tain jurisdiction over this matter to offer opinion or clarity. And so i want to be forth right with the submission it is making a motion and ruling upon an assumption that the court has ordered maintenance of jurisdiction to opine over issues and questions. Thank you commissioner trasvina. Id like to move to grant the appeal. I think this has gone on too long the press we are describing is fraught with appellates attorney the uncertainty in the situation with the court. I think that if i do feel the judge handled it might the judge could assume jurisdiction quickly from the other department of superior court. I think this has gone on long enough and i would move to grant the appeal. I will with draw my motion based on that request and lets move forward with a vote on that motion. And there should be 2 basis for your motion to grant appeal. The first is on the issue of the expansion the expansion and the second on the issue dealing with the roof. We have a motion from commissioner trasvina to grant the appeal on the basis the project encoached in the easement and that the plans are not compliant with the plans approved bite board for appeal 16018 because the plans approved have a roof deck. So and therefore the permit was improperly issued. Okay. On that motion, Vice President lose. Aye. Commissioner lemberg. Aye president swig. Aye. That motion carries 4zero and appeal is grant. Thank you. We are move to the last item take a 5 minute break so i can get water. Thank you. Can we take a 5 minute break after we start and then take a fwrak. Call the items president swig needs to recuse himself. The terps and conscience and rowelos in body i have it recuse myself based on the that i have an interest in the property which happens to be next door to this property. And within 500 feet. I have to recuse myself on this item and bid my commissioners good evening and thank you very much. Why appeal 220 sick one Michelle Hunter verses planning. Thank you for we are with item 7921 baseline street to Carmel Partners of planning motion number m21158 adopting finding to regulated to an eastern neighborhood large project authorization code 20 sick opinion premesis and 3 twine for demolition of a thing foot tall warehouse and parking lot and construction of a 7 story 75 foot tall residential building containing 218 group housing. Dwelling u nitses 26 parking space, 1 bicycle Parking Spaces. Ite class 2 like parking space, 851 square feet of private usability open space 7, 570 square feet. Of common usable open space utilizing the individual requested state senserity comboens bonus is receiving waiver for dwelling unit exposure [speak very fast] rear yard setback 134 ground floor ceiling height. Off street freight loadingly spaces. This is Record Number 2021005342. We will hear from the appellate first. We have multiple people under or name they were moveed the arc tendee list. Is your cline here this evening Michelle Hunter. Yes hoe is via zoom. Sonia cona a member of the public misidentified her has the appellate i moufred her to the attendsee list. I represent Michelle Hunter. Inspect support of the resident appeal we ask the burden to refer to the materials under loig the opposition as well as statements by the member of the public. While sum row can be found in the documents rather going through every item is in the in condition formity with the plan. The first being the approval lack of analysis and attention relating to the blanken street the private street which the project wishes to have a curb cut and entrance to the building exist. And second the density waiver that the density wifr permit to to exceed the normal height limitation and freight loading and other waivers the waivers will result in block an of air and light of the exiting residential unit. Situate us the project is proposed on the lot accessible boy a large street bryant and a narrow alley lanningston a one way street half is public and other is private. And not just patriot this statute documented private streets. The only entrance to langeston the legal occur entrance is on the private part of langeston street. Plans submitted contained a survey. If you are look at the pdf form on page 41. And includes details about a number of easements i will talk about and a period of space where ownership is unknown. The survey shows a list of 8 easements all of which not exclusive. The problem we have is under what [inaudible] legal tloery the holder of one of the 8 ease ams over privately owned roads come and [inaudible] road for the entrance of their property an entrance option existed. Would be on bryant street. When this issue came up the response tht neighbors received as to why cants it be on bryant was it is against city policy we cant to it. A block next door well is a Residential Housing unit estelle that size a curb cut on bryant and seems to working out well. I think the problem north the plan nor materials or staff recommendation contains analysis regarding the easements that exist on the private street and how they relate to the project plan to increase traffic or block for construction. Or otherwise make changes to and i the staffs finings that are mandatory for general plan compliance with regards to transportation and traffic it concludes with the no mention of the easements the left 8 arc pores on the survey never in the plans i dont know this was contemplated. So you know i think it is interesting the concept of permit compliance brought up in another hearing regard to section 175 b of the municipal code requires permits that are approved to being authorized and furthermore other issues of the code. With that i will upon turn to the waivers for general bulk and density. Inside of repeating pointses submitted to the board iraqi to points out a lot of times the conversation gets condense thered is nothing we can do. Public and gentleman california code nothing can be done. In fact city does reserve the right and ability to make finding for Public Health and safety if there is an adverse impact. Am the way it is going to cross from the anywhereo privately owned street block all light boost existing unit and the impact it is going to have on accessibility on the road andent rows and traffic on that road this would support one of the adverse impact finding that would be sufficient it not grant the waiver for height and loading and for the other waivers permitted. I will yoeld my time. Thank you. Are you finished . Yea. I reserving the now minutes we have a request from commissioner lemberg. Thank you i have one point and one question. First the beginning you stated this there was a brief submitted by a member of the public that supports the appellates position. I would like you to acknowledge you did not submit a brief and provided it in full through a member of the public intentionally to circumvent board rules would you acknowledge that. I mean i would not Say Something we did was intentionally to circumvent ruleless in the course i did not submit a beef by a timely deadline and the public submitted a brief with the same points i submitted i want to apologize if that had stricken members in their own way. I clarify the appellate submitted their brief. Thank you. Michelle hunter submitted a brief and wanted submit it as a member of the public we reject today it was weaks late and passed the dead line and for you hours later received the same brief from sonia cona who misrepresented herself as the appellate they are playing games it is under handed and not fair. May be we should have rejected the brief we did consult the City Attorney and let it in the future i dont know if we would i apologize to the determination hold teris in the fair they did not have an opportunity to respond and under handd and never seen it before in my 4 and a half years here. Thank you ms. Oez rosenberg. In order to grant the appeal we show the Planning Commission committed an error or abuse of discretion i see a lot of complaintses some of which may belet legitimate but my question is how do those complaints constitute error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission . The best way i distill it use of description the findings in spchlt plan compliance. [inaudible] the statements in the staff report are reiterations of what the subject crip tear nais without contemmrigz for and private ownership. Thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from the determination holder mr. John is representing Carmel Partners. Welcome you have 7 minutes. Why thank you and good evening commissioners. Union with urban on behalf of sponsor Carmel Partners. As we discussed the appellate does in the provide a brief we are doing our best to respond to the concerns we heard. So to date. To give you background project at demo a retail and industrial building replace with 7 story residential building including 35 deed affordable units. Due to the fact the size the market rate units will be affordable to 110 to 120 ami known the missing middle that cant ford a market rate and not eligible for affordable. A special project the project consistents with eastern neighborhoods plan using the bonus law. Significant can contributions to the hosing goals emphasize in the the update to the Housing Element now in progress. By providing on sight affordable the project granted 50 density bonus and waivers and incentives. It is prosecute voiding more Affordable Housing than otherwise required by San Francisco program to get this bonus and waivers and incentives and law mandates prosecute voided in exchange for the on sight ford affordable [speaking very fast] and market rate serve a xount had that is in the able to afford housing. Move on to concerns. We heard a couple of them tonight. Garagent row on bryant. The project frontage on langeston and bryant. Way the start is we present our proposal and when it come to the street cape we enter w in with the Design Advisory Team and they direct us as to how they would like us to engage in the street scape based on city policies and so out of the gate was made clear in the application this they wanted the garage on langeston not bryant the reason the general plan acknowledges has a transit priority and that planning and othersmented the garagent row on the alley it worked out it makes for a better project we got our Community Space on bryant street it works with the project as well. Now the langeston Street Garage be improved to existing condition the commercial and industrial building ping lot the furtherest way down. Rouses the parking count from 27 down to 24 and will be limed residents cars rather than large vehicles serving the commercial building. And the project will also have on site Property Management employees that can help with conflicts. In should of the filings appellates concerned with existing buildingses blocking the street. I will make it clear the first tw 55 feet of lanningston is a public street served like any other street in the city. Beyond that does become private with easements on the Property Owners. But it is a public street along the project frontage with the exception the last 10 feet of the project. We not easement does in the allow for truck its p and sit in this street that it is not an issue that the private street creates. We worked through the press and wed with the Fire Department to ensure there is 150 foot fire lane maintained. We are adding a red zone on the frontage where parking no ping allowed no loading in order to maintain that fire zone. We worked with planning to further improve operations move passenger loading on bryant and take as much off of langeston as possible. There are narrow alys through the south of market district they have special controls in the planning code thats how not u nobodying this project is we do on alleys all the time. So00 autoproject will improve conditions along langeston and as an owner carmel resolving blocking the street they dont want blockageless from other businesses in the area. I will mention the general plan. San francisco general plan is broad has a lot of policies and courts are additional to cities interpreting their own plan you site policies that support or site policies that dont support a project when you chose not to support the project. Everyone can pick out policies on either side it say this should mean the project should not get approved. It is the citys jurisdiction to make those decisions and apply the plan policies. I will finish up saying state law restricts the ability to deny or reduce the size the housing and density law prohibitses action unless made on the record of Public Health or safety impact. The citys Environmental Review was thorough a communal plan exemption. Zero environmental impacts this has been studied by the citys staff and determination there were no impacts here. So there is no basis for reducing or denying. We should cell brit it at the moment the Planning Commission held a hearing over lack of now housing application this is penceits during a time for development in the city this is a good project encouraged by city policy and state law and request you deny this appeal. Thank you. I hear everything you say loud and clear i want to just make one point i heard your talking pinlt on the missing middle i want to confirm my understanding this mean there is is no deeply Affordable Housing built on this site at all not correct we are subject by ordinance of 21. 5. Pelf and another 3 on top for density bonus. 15s very low. 4. 5 at 85 and for you. 5 at 1 continue ami the missing middle is the market rate on the project. Sorry to make you repeat yourself. Can you translate those of units there are 35 total Affordable Housing deed restricted on site. A bit over 50 of those will be very low income and then a bit under low or mod rit. We can dot method and come back at the rebuttal to give you more okay. Im curious i dont think it is an upon groundses for anything important to this appeal when we have the upon tube to talk about Affordable Housing i take the opportunity to do so. Commissioner trasvina. We have the numbers there will be 22 at very low income. 22 unitsace very low. 7ace low and 6 at moderate one time ami. Thank you. Commissioner. Thank you. Miss campel talked about the issue of the entrance on bryant street for another building and you have stated that based on the guidance and direction of the of stats that you place today on langeston. Can you elaborate on whether the city or your studies have shown the impact of having 2 properties with entrances on bryant what that would be like for traffic. I dont have specific feedback other then and there more entranceos a transit street means more conflict between transit, pedestrians and the projectless. I will mention i know 979 bryant that project is also on a narrow street that is come leastly designed for the front door and entrance to that project to be on kate street the alley. That project is design in the a different way and kate does not have a street but the only building on the street no other access it is not the same situation. My sense is having 2 buildings with bryant entrances would be different than one. I see having wrn but in the 2. Thank you Vice President lopez . One further clarification on that question. Do you have any record or documentation of requirement for that affect . We have i dont have it with with me the letter confirmed the entrance on langeston and the as the press isity aretive that got taken care of at the beginning they wanted it there and confirm today and this goes to part of the commentss well this does in the get discussed at planning a lot worked out during the process. In response to your question that was at the very beginning of the project where this direction came from. Why got it. Why thank you. Thank you. The Planning Department. Welcome mr. Teg. Good evening Vice President lopez and commissioners Zoning Administrator for planning. No disrespect for removing my jacket im from the south and could in the take the heat. Not sure what was going on when we walked tonights i will in the repeat what the experience put out there. I think everything that they stated was accurate. Again, the project is 218 group houseings bedrooms, 26 Parking Spaces and 7 store. This was heard by planning on july 28 and voted by 51 with one absent, it approve it. The one, no was based on potential may be construction methods in the the actual issues of the project itself. And many of the issues raised in appeal were raised at Planning Commission as well and discussed there. You know these th is in the a huge project this is a large project authorize in eastern neighborhoods that is i state density bonus there are a lot of code and state law. I everim here for questions you may have on the technicality ands happy to go in the details. I want to focus on the information raised in the appeal and then the letter. You know first, we sympathize with neighbors of new, large buildings, a year construction project will be a challenge no malice aforethought what. The city does w to help moderate impacts of construction, dbi has controls on that. This approval had a condition of prove to coordinate with mta on construction traffic. The Environmental Review includes a mitigation measures required to do which include reducing construction noise and clean construction and having a construction minimalization plan. There is the city reduced impacts but they are reality of development in a dense city. There were various Environmental Concerns raised in the appeal this is in the a ceqa appeal. That Environmental Review was don and not appeal exclude mentioned there were no significant can impacts here this is not an arc typical project it is typical. Mid rise project within the soma context. To touch on the statements. The arguments made about the general plan, the project experience was true we have hundreds of goal and objectives and spread among different leaderships in the general plan and it is easy to find objectives. We are always looking on balance it is consistents with the general plan. It is true the bonus laws a state law that it is required to implement regardless of how it relates to our plan and this can creating swazs where it is not as on balance kwints consistents with the general plan as another project this is a reality of the statements debonus law. There was a mention of planning has discretion not to grant waivers but it is a high bar the health and safety issue has to be able to very clearly document what that is and what the impacts are and ghaen is a standard mid rise project that does in the have unique impactless on health and safety. The issues that was discussed a lot of the curb cut. Experience is correct. Various reasons the curb cut has to be on langeton the code requires it. And it getses at the question. The project 975 bryant approved in 2017 in 2015 the code was amended to make curb cut strategier one requirement was to get this situations like this where if you have 241as frontages you have to put it on the other. There are outs like really extreme situations but standard like tht citys position it is reason the Code Amendment was made because that was our policy. You put the traffic entrance on the side street or back street not the primary. Bryant is in our Vision Zero High Injury Network a lot of the soma streets are in the safe. So reducing conflicts along bryant is also important and then as mentioned the team not onlity aretive television is multidepartmental the planning, mta public works and the agency this is care about how our streets work with development. We had this come up if you live on an alley or side street having the entrance there may not be our favorite idea. But the kin policy of the city to put those there and the Code Amendment require its for a situation like this. That covers most of the points i heard raise instead the appeal and in the appellates comments tonights. Im happy to answer questions you may have. Skwa thank you. Commissioner lemberg this is in the a question but i just wanted to points out im a muni freak and note on the block of bryant didnt 7 and 8 there is in muni line. I understand that it is a transit prejudicial street but there is in transit on the block. And here at this block is where there is a hit in the categorization 2 to this being, to be a transit prejudicial street is a large upper category and hierarchy within that some are like really major transand i minor ones this is categorized a minor so to speak prejudicial street it still is in the code a transit prejudicial street and the level of mountef service on streets changes over time. Thank you. Sure. Vice president lopez. Yea. I think you know at this time question that before us in derms of determining whether or not there is an abuse i discretion one area for consideration often is fruitful is n another softer elements with respect to the assessment you described that any begin project you know people on opposite sides of line may be drawing on the general plan for arguments to benefit their position. And im sure you have seen you 99 your time in your chair you know all kindses of utilizization to report if a project. Westbound to the balance being act of those elements of general plan that kind of were incorporated in the assess am for this project. What can you tell us about are these were these arguments common and persuasive elements from the yes or no plan that lead to this outcome or was there anything unusual about that balancing press with this project. Ir dont think this issue to what extent or how well balanced it was a component of plannings consideration. If you take the density come ponent away it was what it was zoned for and this is part of the western soma rezone nothing 20 then. So this the use is permitted. The nature of the development is permitted. The state density bonus is result nothing additional Affordable Housing meets lots of general plan goal and objectives the trade off is additional mass. Which here results in less roar yard and more height. And if it didnt reduce the rear yard more height the state density bonus the trade off in the law says if we get this fordable housing credited you have to provide space for the bens they get in response to this. I would say from a general upon plan perspective the project is very much in line with what was envisioned for the site it is larger because of the state density bonus. Because of the density bonus, because of the lack of extraordinary variances than that the general plan beens act was in the a part of this assessment . Sure. Thank you. We are moufr to Public Comment. I see jake price has his hand raised. Go ahead. Good evening commissioners. Jake price speaking on behalf of the Housing Action coalition. I recommend upon that late i will keep it brief. To recap our project review committee endorsed 925 bryant in march of 22 and like previous speakers mentioned our committee was impressed with the prop from the project team to provide affordable and Workforce Housing. With the city facing the housing shortage projectings like this are a per of the solution. And dense wable Workforce Housing on cites near transit is exactly when San Francisco needs. The 925 brian proposal represents this. I like to note during our out reach for this project, San Francisco residence denials sent 130 letters of support and more than 10 call in the to support the project at planning we ask you considered this public support here today. I also continuing is per nan to recognize the appeal is in the based on the project itself but rather misguided idea the Planning Commission was in the doing their job when they approve third degree project. We disagree with that notion and request the board denotice this appeal and allow to proceed in adding affordable Workforce Housing to the city. We will hear from sonia cona. Go ahead. Why hi im sonia and first i justment to apologize for the misunderstanding of my name commission when i joined im not a lawyer and dont have an understanding how i represent i was spoking on behalf of this. I wanted to i had no intention of confusing anybody. Ip wanted say that. Im a resident cross from the building all of the points have been made and im not going to repeat them. Just the worn point i like to make is we have talked about the transit preference and the issues of bryant street. Just one thing to keep in mind is you mentioned the street is partial low private makes the sfwroons get on bryant so whether or not a carerns the garage from the [inaudible] on the building on bryant or 10 feet ahead would not make a difference on the safety and hazzard they will still have to go on bryant and make a turn. Is there other Public Comment. Raise your hand. Someone will you evera campbell attorney for the appellate. Did you get this link from miss campbell . I did im adam a residence denial of 311 live cross the strept from the project. So go ahead can you say your name one more time. Adam graph you have 3 minutes. I will in the again [inaudible] belabor the points that were raised lauren is representatives all of the residence denial this is live on the street. There was a comments the lawyer for the developers med they the paint the noir curb along side their frontage red and america it fire zone we lose all parking we have on the street. And i think this is a problem and that needs to be paid attention to. Just to a passing comment med and raises concerns with the limited ping we have because of of 851 grienlt the course near by. Okay. Thank you. Is there further Public Comment. Raise your hand. I dont see any more Public Comment. Ms. Campel you have 3 minutes rebuttal. Thank you. In the rebuttal i will mention that there was discussion about the concept offan likewising the conformity with the general plan and unbalanced and was in the. Your sound is in the great. Can you pause the time we have sirens going by. One moment. Reset it. Sure. I was explaining the discussion of what happened of the balance on unbalanced and totality of factors with regard it conformity with the general plan in a case like this you got a belling that is going to tougher over the next with narrow alley between it the residents would hope that the billionsed have been a bigger factor in making the determination there is a huge difference with the height and the buildings and narrow upons of the alley and regarding the alley i heard that this is in the unique. But what i have not heard compare to a similar case not u neefk 8 competing easementos a half of that alley being patriot and how it would impact a right to coom the ease for a huge influx of traffic. Those other final rebuttals and thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you we will hear from mr. Keptlin you have 3 minutes. Thank you. Om behalf of the sponsor i will be brief red zone brought up, again out of our hand this is is directed by [inaudible] and more then and there the typical we want a red zone this was the zekz of the Fire Department. Out of our hands and is for the prpts of benefiting the Public Health and fire access this is one. I want to clarify again, this is a public strept for the first tw 50 feet of the depth in lanningston street. None of the private street is accessed well is a 10 foot sliver but the vast majority of the building is long a public street like any other street. There should in the be confusion about needing to cross boundaries, thank you. Why we have a question from commissioner trasvina. Thank you. With regard not Public Comment about the usualp curb red and losing is one thing to value and appreciate the reasons for it and that youre it was in the your idea or something you could push become on to the city. Is there an acknowledge am of the impact to the other neighbors on the street and anything that has been done to address the impact tell have . I will acknowledge it certainly 2 different competing policies the city had to make a choice. Maintaining the parking on this site or providing the fire lane i would say i dont think it is planingly department am has much influence when the sudden fran Fire Department come in saying we need this as a friar line. No request this is a balance of 2 city policy this is is a very well served transit area. On the over head. A map of and it is public street we can see this here. This is bryant and this is just the public portion of the street here as the sponsor mentioned runs the length of the property until it dead ends in theings hook of property here where accessed for the property the vehicle lawyer brance and the rest is private. And condition if he wering this obviously Fire Department making determinations about red zone system outside the per view of Planning Department. The other residential buildings have their vehicle lawyer access off of there and as well this concept is not unique on this block. Now i did a quick look online it gauge what it would be looks like number of ping space give or take if they go away on that side, 8 spaces. There will be at least one to two spaces added on bryant there is a curb cut there now. For this building that will go away. There will be ping. Net may be 7 lost spaces. Over all. From the project but i dont have other specific points but im available for questions you all may have. Commissioner this is merit is submitted. And reminder the standard of review error or abuse of discretion by planning. I move to deny on the basis planning neither errored nor abused discretion. I would support the motion. The a lot of material was presented. By the neighbors or both and im comfortable with the responses this have been provided. Some are by necessity. Some are by the heard from the department about no unique impacts on health and safety. I feel that this was properly decided and does not fall in abuse of discretion or error that give rise to a motion to approve the appeal. I support the motion. Yea. I will add that im in agreement. You know i think the dwells that again due to the s of the lack of briefing you know the questions presented this evening were adequately addressed. Both bite permit holder or the determination holds and by planning and so with that, do i have a motion . Yes. We had a motion from commissioner lemberg to deny and uphold the determination the planingly commission did in the ooh bus dregz and project authorization was properly issueod that motion Vice President lopez. Aye commissioner trasvina. Aye that motion carries 3 to zer and the appeal is denyd that concludes the hearing Vice President lopez would you like to adjourn . We are adjourned. Thank you. In the bay area as a whole, thinking about environmental sustainability. We have been a leader in the country across industries in terms of what you can do and we have a learn approach. That is what allows us to be successful. Whats wonderful is you have so many people who come here and they are what i call policy innovators and whether its banning plastic bags, recycling, composting, all the Different Things that we can do to improve the environment. We really champion. We are at recycle central, a large recycle fail on San Francisco pier 96. Every day the neighborhood trucks that pick up recycling from the blue bins bring 50 o tons of bottles, cans and paper here to this facility and unload it. And inside recology, San Franciscos recycling company, they sort that into aluminum cans, glass cans, and different type of plastic. San francisco is making efforts to send Less Materials to the landfill and give more materials for recycling. Other cities are observing this and are envious of San Franciscos robust recycling program. It is good for the environment. But there is a lot of low Quality Plastics and junk plastics and candy wrappers and is difficult to recycle that. It is low quality material. In most cities that goes to landfill. Looking at the plastics industry, the oil industry is the main producer of blastics. And as we have been trying to phase out fossil fuels and the transfer stream, this is the fossil fuels and that plastic isnt recycled and goes into the waste stream and the landfill and unfortunately in the ocean. With the stairry step there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish. We can recycle again and again and again. But plastic, maybe you can recycle it once, maybe. And that, even that process it downgrades into a lower quality material. It is cheaper for the oil industry to create new plastics and so they have been producing more and more plastics so with our ab793, we have a bill that really has a goal of getting our beverage bottles to be made of more Recycled Content so by the time 2030 rolls around t recycle content in a coke bottle, pepsi bottle, water bottle, will be up to 50 which is higher thatten the percentage in the European Union and the highest percentage in the world. And that way you can actually feel confident that what youre drinking will actually become recycled. Now, our recommendation is dont use to plastic bottle to begin w but if you do, they are committing to 50 Recycled Content. The test thing we can do is vote with our consumer dollars when were shopping. If you can die something with no packaging and find loose fruits and vegetables, that is the best. Find in packaging and glass, metal and pap rer all easily recycled. We dont want plastic. We want less plastic. Awe what you we do locally is we have the program to think disposable and work one on one to provide Technical Assistance to swap out the disposable food service to reusables and we have funding available to support businesses to do that so that is a way to get them off there. And i believe now is the time we will see a lot of the Solutions Come on the market and come on the scene. And is really Logistics Company and what we offer to restaurants is reasonable containers that they can order just like they would so we came from about a pain point that a lot of customers feel which wills a lot of waste with takeout and deliver, even transitioning from styrofoam to plastic, it is still wasteful. And to dream about reusing this one to be reimplemented and cost delivery and food takeout. We didnt have throwaway culture always. Most people used to get delivered to peoples homes and then the empty milk containers were put back out when fresh milk came. Customers are so excited that we have this available in our restaurant and came back and asked and were so excited about it and rolled it out as customers gain awareness understanding what it is and how it works and how they can integrate it into their life. And they have always done it and usually that is a way of being sustainable and longterm change to what makes good Financial Sense especially as there are shipping issues and material issues and we see that will potentially be a way that we can save money as well. And so i think making that case to other restaurateurs will really help people adopt this. One restaurant we converted 2,000 packages and the impact and impact they have in the community with one switch. And we have been really encouraged to see more and more restaurants cooperate this. We are big fans of what reecology does in terms of adopting new systems and understanding why the Current System is broken. When people come to the facility, they are shocked by how much waste they see and the volume of the operations and how Much Technology we have dedicated to sort correctly and we led 25 tours and for students to reach about 1100 students. And they wanted to make change and this is sorting in the waste stream they do every single day and they can take ownership of and make a difference with. An i feel very, very fortunate that i get to represent San Francisco in the legislature and allows me to push the envelope and it is because of the people the city attracts and is because of the eco system of policy thinking that goes on in San Francisco that we are constantly seeing San Francisco leading the way. Kids know theres a lot of Environmental Issues that they are facing. And that they will be impacted by the impact of climate change. They will have the opportunity to be in charge and make change and make the decisions in the future. We are reinventing the way the planet does garbage founded in the environmental ethic and hunger to send less to landfills. This is so many wonderful things happening in San Francisco. I feel very fortunate and very humble to live here and to be part of this wonderful place. Alright thats why i love doing these things with maliah cohen. State board of equalization here. Happy early womens equality day. My name is carmen chui. Every year we brought this today for the importance of voting and importance of women equality day. For folks who may not know tomorrow august 26