Vice president commissioner swig and tanner and santacana. Deputy City Attorney is here for legal advice this evening. At the controls is if legal clerk and legal assistant. I am the executive director. We will be joined by representative the city departments presenting before the board this evening. Scott sanchez administrator with the Planning Department and acting chief building inspector for the San Francisco department of building inspection. The boards meeting guidelines are as following. Turnoff or silence all phones or Electronic Devices to not disturb proceedings. Apple laboratories and Department Respondents are given seven minutes for the case and three minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated must include the comments within these periods. Members of the public have three minutes to address the board each. You will get a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. If you have questions about requesting a rehearing please email the staff at board of appeals at sf governor. Org. Regarding participation they are of important tan every effort is made to replicate the in person patient. Sfgovtv is streaming this hearing live and we will have ability to receive Public Comment. To watch on tv go to sfgovtv cable 78. It will be rebroadcast on friday. Go to sfgovtv. Public comment can be provided by joining the meeting by computer. Go to the website and click on the zoom link or call in by telephone. 16699006833 and enter the i id89427762015. Sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen. To block the phone number when calling dial star 67 and the phone number. Listen to the item to be called and dial star nine that is equivalent of raising your hand. You will be brought into the hearing at your turn. You will be provided a verbal warning. There is a delay between Live Streaming and internet. Therefore it is very important people calling in reduce or turnoff volume on tv or computer. If any of the participants on zoom need disability accommodation or Technical Assistance make a text or send email to board of appeals at sfgovtv. It can fought be used for Public Comment or opinions. We will swear in or affirm all of those who intend to testify. Any member may speak without taking an oath pursuant to rights. If you intend to testify at proceedings, raise your right hand and say i do after you are sworn . Or affirmed. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth . Anybody testifying tonight . I dont hear. No. Okay. Thank you. If you are not speaking please put your zoom speaker on mute. 1. General Public Comment. An opportunity for anyone to speak within the boards jurisdiction not on the calendar tonight. Let me an there anyone here for general Public Comment . If so, please raise your hand. Okay. I am not seeing any hands raised. We will move on to item 2. Commissioner comments and questions. I am going to lead off, if i may. We are on the cusp of losing one of our valued commissioners. She, i understand, is going to be before the board of supervisors next week for confirmation. If i were a betting person i would put my money on that happening. There is a chance she will join us next wednesday, we dont want to lose the opportunity to thank her for her service to this board. Your questions and comments are always so incisive, your black ground meshes with the role we as Board Members have. It is a pleasure working with you and i am somewhat dismayed you are leaving us. I know the Planning Department is lucky to have somebody of your background joining them. You were an obvious selection. Sorry you were with us so short. We suspect we will be hearing about your activities and actions at the Planning Commission. We wish you all the best. We want you to know we will miss you. Thank you, rachel, for keeping me awake during the proceedings. No. I echo commissioner lazarus, your expertise has benefited all of us. You are a loss that will provide a void which we hope to find a good replacement for you, but that will be very hard to do. You know, you have been the best person i have sat next to on a commission since i sat next to london breed. She went on to pretty good things. Thank you very much. Thank you, Vice President and commissioners. It is a pleasure to be on the board of appeals. I have learned from you and watched the ways you take matters seriously that are before us, you know, we feel the disputes and take it seriously to administer the laws and try to get people to Work Together. We are all going to be living in the city. Hopefully, harmoniously. I want to thank you all for the example you have set and i hope you have another commissioner who is better than myself. Yo. Hopefully soon. Thank you all and i hope to still be in touch with you all. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is from any Public Comment on this item . If so please raise your hand. Okay. I dont see any Public Comment. We will move to item 3. Adoption of minutes. Commissioners before you are the minutes of the september 30th, 2020 meeting. It is sad to see rachel leave. We are out of order. Was that a motion to approve. My motion to approve. Is there any Public Commission on commissioner swigs motion to approve minutes from september 30th. Please raise your hand. Okay. I dont see any hands. On commissioner wags motion. Commissioner santacana. Aye. President lazarus. Aye. Vice president honda. Aye. Commissioner tanner. Aye. That carry the 50. The minutes are adopted. We are moving on to item for. Appeal 20050. 98 broderick streetvorces zoning administrator. 704 broderick. Appealing issuance on july 22, 2020 of notice of violation and penalty. Violation of planning code due to noncompliance of planning code 317 for unauthorized dwelling section and 132f for unauthorized parking in front set back. It isnored for two family dwellings one on second and one on third and fourth floor. Ground floor was garage for packing. Illegally converted to third dwelling unit. Preexisting driveway were not removed despite removal of offstreet parking. Curb cut was provided offstreet parking. This is 2015001328. We will hear from the appellant first. We have mr. Patterson representing the apple the appe. I am ready. Good afternoon. Do you want to get sworn in . I did swear in with my camera and microphone off. I will ask if my clients are on as well. I believe they are. I can see them there. Confirm they swore in as well. I can just ask everyone to raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give is the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Patterson, you have seven minutes. Okay. Thank you, commissioners, president lazarus. I am Ryan Patterson representing the owners of the property. The key question is whether an unauthorized dwelling unit exists. The termination under appeal the va found first floor is a unauthorized dwelling unit. With all due respect theyered in this. The first floor space did not satisfy the criteria to be a udu. The first relates to fiscal characteristics of the space and asks if there is independent access to the street and importantly lack of open visual connection to another unit of the property. Here there is a connection between the first and second floors via open stairwell. Second, even if the space satisfies physical requirements for udu it must have been used as separate and district living space. The first floor udu was in existence but removed pursuant to permit in 2007. Subsequent occupants on first and second floors together. That is the first floor was not used as separate unit separate from the second floor. I will hand it over to the owners of the property for further information. Good afternoon. I am peter lin peter lynch. And this is my wife. Managers of 98 broderick llc. 50 owner of 704 broderick. One of the owners and one of the coowners is also here with us. Thank you very much for hearing our appeal. I will basically read my statement, but not to put any commissioners to sleep while i am reading it. As mr. Patterson just said, the heart of the issue in this case is that one of the three requirements for identifying the unit as unauthorized dwelling unit is not present in this case. There is no well, in order to be unauthorized dwelling unit it must meet the standard that there is no open visual connection to a residential unit on the property. In the space in question, there is an open visual connection to a residential unit. My friend and coowner will put up a picture of the stairway which appears to have been there for 100 years. There is no question that there is an open visual connection between these two floors of occupancy. I think this fact alone, as mr. Patterson explained to me, this is the necessary condition. Not like you can get two out of three. It is a udu. All three conditions must be met in order for a unit to be an unauthorized dwelling unit. Secondly, we think this two story unit is not a udu. There is no privacy for a bedroom on the upper floor of the unit. I am aware of a photo in the marketing materials prior to when we bought the building in 2016 that shows some staging in the space, including a bed in a room next to the kitchen with by fold doors. This is a room with two large openings, including a wide opening to the kitchen with no door. Providing no privacy for a bedroom. It is silly that this wases staged as a bedroom when you have your head on the kitchen floor. There is a double parlor in this upper floor of occupancy of the unit. It including some parlor doors, pocket doors that are quite beautiful. Pictures of the doors are in our appeals package. The original use of the building as Single Family home. The function in any rational way this main living floor of occupancy needs the ad joining ground level for the sleeping area. We have always treated the lower two floors of this building as one unit with one kitchen. There is an attorney in town who is working on a contingency basis representing clients on a separate matter pertaining to this property, and he is spreading false information through anyone who will listen about this property. However, despite the assertions of the attorney, two of the three Young Students who have been living at this property, natalie and candice, have submitted emails to the appeals board confirming that they have access to both floors of occupancy in the unit. I am sure the commissioners understand why this is a Crucial Point in the determination of whether this an unauthorized dwelling unit or not. Those are my comments. Thank you very much. My friend and coowner has a few comments to make unless there are other instructions for us. Thank you, peter. Hello, i am one of the owners of 704 broderick street. Last week i delivered 30 letters to my neighbors apologizing for the code violation. Jim, bill, jean and the three daughters for support and warm welcome to the broderick family. I have been a repter and resident of the San Francisco for 16 years. I am a gala tino immigrant establishing a residency. This is the highlight of my life. Thank you for your time and appeal consideration to Work Together and bring my new home up to code. Time is up. Thank you. Would you like me to submit my picture . Thank you. You will have time on rebuttal. Thank you. We will hear from the Planning Department. Thank you. Briefly before i begin thank commissioner tanner for the work at boards of appeals. As you know what is involved with the Planning Commission and you choose to do it. Thank you for doing that. You will be missed and a welcome addition to the Planning Commission. On to the matter here. What is before you is appeal of violation of 704 broderick street. Rh3 zoning and based upon the records two dwelling units. Other items there shouldnt be dispute. There have been or at least were three kitchens on the property. It is a four story building, and it originally had been used for the lower two stories one unit and upper twostories for the second unit. It does appear based on information there is an dwelling unit established on the ground floor. 134 o some of the information pointing to the facts when advertised on realtor. Com it did list as three dwelling units. Photos from those materials can show there is no connection. Nothing that we could define as open visual connection to the floor below between floors one and two. I can quickly show on that on my screen here. This is material that was included in the i hope you can see this. You are seeing now the image. Yes, the kitchen. This is the kitchen on the second floor. [please stand by] these are just some of the facts. Additionally, you know, the building was bought in 2016 t but by the l. L. C. In 2018, after the enforcement process had started, there was a coowner agreement, and the ownership changed such that the l. L. C. Retained 50 , and then, the two owners, mr. Campbell and berechea, were 25 owners. And in that, there were two units, including inlaw area. So the materials that they prepared, they are recognizing that there is a separate unit in that ground floor. There is the fact is theres certainly two legal units, but given the material that is provided, there doesnt seem to be three units, the third illegal unit being removed. They are required to pay a conditional use authorization to remove the unit. Thats one path, or they can legalize the unit. Thats the second path. And in communications leading up to this hearing, the parties, they were willing to pursue that. I think they were going to file it under protests in my conversations with mr. Patterson, but they were going to file authorization to remove the third unit from the subject property, and i understand they own multiple properties in the city and in the bay area, as well, so theres probably other places where they could add units. You know, thats certainly something that they can pursue and, you know, we would encourage them to come up with some path for compliance. Theyve wanted to continue this item further, but we dont see the benefit of that. We think that everyone deserves some resolution as to the enforcement matter here, and thats what were seeking from the board today and respectfully request that the board of appeals uphold the notice of violation and penalty. I understand, you know, part of their process, theyre very much looking to remove the unit from the building. Part of it does speak to as soon as is practicable, you can bypass the citys regular condo rules, and then, you have two years of owner occupancy, and you can condo the building, and then, it can be sold off. So some of the materials that are provided i think make it more clear than in other cases that weve seen. The appellant has argued that theres no connection between the floors, which is factually incorrect. Theres a door, and theres cabinetry in front of those doors, and that door is sufficient enough to meet the physical requirements for the code. Theres tenant evidence of occupancy on the ground floor, so thats it. Thank you for your time, im happy to answer any questions. Clerk thank you. We have a question from president lazarus. President lazarus mr. Sanchez, there was questions about illegal parking. Was that something thats a continuing concern to you . Yes, absolutely. And i think that is a violation of and i dont think the appellant necessarily disagrees with that. There is a parking in the front set back which is allowed in the planning code. They would need to seek to legalize that, and i think as part of the conversation had with their legalization option, that was part of what they were posing, as i understood it. That was still very much part of this enforcement case. Thank you for reminding me of that. President lazarus thank you. Clerk Vice President honda . Vice president honda so i dont know if i missed this in the brief. So how did this case of enforcement come about . Good question, commissioner honda. It was my understanding it originated as a neighborhood complaint because of parking conflicts in the front set back, and then, through that process, the issue of the unauthorized dwelling unit came to light. And the picture you show of the cabinet blocking the door, you mentioned that it was material from when it was sold, do you have a photo of what that Current Situation looks like . Yes, because staff did an onsite, so let me pull up that area. It is quite comparable in terms of physical location. Vice president honda milo is helping on your cases . I need all the help that i can get these days, so let me if he could just run screen share for me, that would be amazing. This should yeah. This is the photo from the staff side. Theres still the door that exists. Its open, but there is a door, and i think as we have in other cases, simply the presence of the door is enough to for it to be a separate physical separation. And so consistent with how we recognized the authorized dwelling unit it is different because the cabinetry is gone. Vice president honda they remodelled that. Yeah, there is remodelling permits for the second and third floor, but i dont think i saw any permits for the ground floor and the cabinetry, but thats something more maybe for d. B. I. Vice president honda thank you very much, mr. Sanchez. Thank you. Clerk thank you. So commissioner tanner has a question. Just building on the question about the remodelling and the site visit, are you aware, right now, if thats what it gets now is a you know, that first floor, the floor that you were just showing with the kitchen and remodel, does it now have its own private bedroom as part of the argument . Previously, there were no private bedrooms, that everything was open. Did staff report back on the remodel . I believe that was remodels now as to have the bedrooms on the main floor, but in emergency roterms of the unauthorized dwelling unit, it doesnt need to have its own bedroom. You can call it a parlor or whatever you like. It was a room that was obviously able to be slept in because they had materials that showe