Transcripts For SFGTV Board Of Appeals 20220905 : comparemel

presenting before the board. corey the zoning administrator and tina tam representatives planning. matthew green with department of building inspection. arc leah gauge from mayor's office of housing and kate connor planner with planning. the board meeting guide lines are the board request you silence electronic device. no eating or drinking in the room. rules of presentation will appellates, permit hold and respondents upon given 7 minutes to present and 3 for rebuttal. people must include comments with the periods. members who are not arc fitiated with up to 3 minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. time may be limited to 2 minutes from there are a large number of speakers. our legal assistance will give 30 seconds before your time is up. 4 votes to grant an appeal or rehearing if you have a question the board schedules, mail the board staff at sfgov.org. public access is important. sfgovtv is broadcasting and live and receive public comment for each item on the upon agenda of sfgovtv is providing closed captioning. to watch the hearing go to sfgovtv cable channel 28. a link to the live stroll on the home page at sfgov.org/boa. upon comment provide by in personful, via zoom. click on the zoom link or by phone. call 669-900-6833 and enter webinar code: 881 2773 1840 ## >> sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and instructions on the b. stroll if you are watching the broadcast. to block your number dial star 67 then the initial listen for the public comment to be called and dial star 9 equals to raising your hand so we know you want to speak. you will be brought in when it is your turn. you may have to dial star 6 to unmute yourself. our assistant will provide you with 30 seconds different your time is up there it is a delay with the proceedings than what is broadcast. people call nothing reduce the volume on tv or computer otherwise well is interference. in you need technical assistance make a request in the chat function or sends an e mail to the sfgov.org the chat function cannot be used for public comments or pregnancy. we will take comment first from those present in the room. now we will swear in our affirm all those who intends to testify. any member may speak without an oath under the sunshine ordinance if you testify tonight and wish to have the board give your testimony weight raise your right hand and say, i do after. >> do you swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> i do. >> thank you. >> if you are participates and not speaking put your zoom speaker on mute. >> we're moving on to item 1. this is a special item. consideration and possible adoption. resolution makes findings to allow teleconferenced meetings under california code 5493 subsection e. is there public comment on this item. raise your hand. we need a motion to adopt. and upon vice president lopez present? >> i am. >> okay. >> great. welcome. we need a motion. >> a motion. >> i move to adopt the resolution. >> we have a motion from commissioner lemberg to adopt resolution on that motion vice president lopez? >> aye. >> commissioner trasvina. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye >> that carries 5-0 the resolution is adopted. we are moving on to item 2. general public comment. an opportunity for anyone who wants to speak not on tonight's calendar is there a member who wishes to speak on an item not on tonight's calendar. raise your hand. i don't see general public comment. item 3. commissioner comments and questions. >> commissioners. any comments or questions after i make mine? commissioner chang is leaving us after this hearing her term was up june 30th. she was kinds to stick around for a couple months. we thank you for your service. and for helping the public move through as we come to discover sometimes difficult issues. and we wish the best luck and you can try it again some time thank you. >> any further comments. mr. tras vino. >> thank you. i want to add my own personal expression of appreciation to commissioner chang we worked well together but briefly and want to say that from my perspective her dedication and professionalism and expertise served san francisco and everyone before this board served them well. thank you and i look forward to your future contributions to the city of san francisco. >> i want to thank you for your service commissioner chang and a pleasure to know you in the brief time. i hope to continue to get to know you and thank you for your service >> vice president lopez would like to speak. >> yea. like to echo the comments made by my fellow commissioners and you knowment to add we will really miss commissioner chang experience with in planning which has been key to her excellence service on the board and personally someone who often finds myself sharing commissioner chang's views, you know on the matters that come before us i will miss working with you commissioner, and thank you for your service. any public comment? i don't see public comment. >> commissioner chang would like to speak. >> i wanted thank everyone for the kinds words and it is really has been my privilege and honor to serve along sud. i learned so much from each you. and look forward to continuing developing a relationship outside the chambers and commissioner trasvina will serve the city and county of san francisco in the ways i can'ts. thank you for that. >> thank you. i will cull out is there public comment? raise your hand. >> we will move on to item 4 the adoption of the minutes before you for discussion other minutes of august 17, 2022 meeting. and commissioner lemberg reached out to make a correction on item 5 on page 2 of the minutes for that item the board voted 5-0 to deny not 4-where are we need a motion to adopt as amended by commissioner lemberg. >> commissioner tras vino. >> i would like to move the adoption of the minutes. so we are now moving on to item number 5. this is a rehearing request for appeal 22-045 property at 706 vermont street. angela king requesting a rehearing of 24-45 decideod july 27 of twoochl at that time upon a motion bypass commissioner chang the board voted 3 to 2. lopez and lemberg absent to deny the appeal andup hold the permit. description is replace roof deck and repair sky lighted. expand third floor to cover the roof deck and add 3 feet to third floor. move stair case and remove wall in the dining room. and as a preliminary matter vice president lopez and commissioner lemberg did you have the opportunity to watch the video and review the video for the hearing on july 27 of 22? yes, i did. >> thank you. >> yes, i reviewd and ready to proceed. >> we will hear from the requestor. and mrs. kim you have 3 minutes. i understand you have a presentation. so -- joo i'm angela kim we are requesting a rehearing to prevent manifest injustice based on new facts and s the evidence shows the roof decks are 2 different structures with different notice requirements and design. exhibit a. living manual and planning residential. living roofs are unoccupied roof tops include plants as a part of the officer where as the roof deck is occupiable at the highest roof surface for planning to review. plans shown a living roof at the roof top level. see exhibits b issueed permit holder. new permit or revision will be required if the living roof was changed to a roof deck and must comply with guide lines and new notice requirements. planning stated that living roof and roof decks interchangeable and the same. see exhibit c. transcript of the july 27th hearing. mrs. tammy answerediel to president swig's question that per hit holders replace any time when commissioner chang asked if there are procedural differences with a living roof and roof deck respondeds no. this material in this information tainted the board's judgment at the hearing and affects the the out exactly evidenced by president swig's statement a green deck and officer deck other same and not necessary to change 2 words. planning provides misinformation contradicting the guideline. as a result. there will be a manifest injustice if the board does not guarantee a rehearing request to correct the defective perimism living roofs and rook decks are different. physical permit states roof deck. you see in exhibit d and on the screen the planner confirmed living roof was approved at planning and dr and corrupted the data base but unable to corrupt the permit. planning and permit have [inaudible] the bhlding permit is legal document and must not list unapproved work. planning approved a living roof permit holdsers are per hitted a roof deck without design review and notice that all other residents must follow. a manifest injustice to allow a permit. >> an official record. acting [inaudible] michael green upon tuesday is easy to correct permit but require the board's 4 votes. the board is seth a president of allowing unapproved work to occur due to error. to prevent a manifest injustice we request the board grants the rehearing request. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the attorney for the permit holder. >> steve williams on behalf of the per hit horde. i put up context. that is the subject site in the middle and the will appellate [inaudible] up the hill and to the side. there is no mule facts and no new evidence and certainly no injustice. what was presented in rehearing is that misinformation, incorrect facts and the same arguments real harshed and the same requests. the state of premise for the rehear suggest wrong. the question makes the claim on page one planning and the department of building inspection have different guidelines and procedures for roof decks as for the green roofs is evidenced by the documents and they attach the living roof manual unmarked exhibits. and they attach the residential deck hand out from planning. the problem is, that these are not different publications by different departments causing a conflict for guidelines and procedures. both publications are published by planning and have the same procedure. look at page 12 and 13 and pages 11 and 13, out line the exact same procedure for application and approval of a living roof or residential deck and that is what mrs. tammy tried convey to the board at the first hearing did not provide material misinformation. the application and the procedures for approval are the same. and some instantlies either time deck may be approved over the counter and sometimes approved without installed without a building permit. look at page 12 the living officer maniel. either deck may require a 10 day notice or a 30-day notice under section 311. which is what happened with this permit. this alteration permit includes one compoenlts a living roof or green roof was held to the highest possible scrutiny for either type of deck. a 30-day notice. dr review at planning and review and alteration made as follow be an occupied residential deck. so, material misinformation. a roof deck and separate green roof approved at planning commission. no make by planning look at exhibit 1 and 2 to our submissionful further, this again this deck was reviewed, modifyd and approved as if it will be occupied. and then the modification was to move the railing back and that's on exhibit 4, which i attached the last page of the dr from planning commission. deny this question. >> time thank you. we will now hear from the planning department >> good evening am president swig and vice president lopez i'm tina tammy deputy zoning administrator. this is a request for 607 vermont heard on july 27 and the board voted 3-0 to deny the appeal. despite the belief the planning department did not provide misinformation to the board. department was clear this in addition to a new vertical addition a new green roof and spill roll stairs permit include replace am of a roof deck at the back of the property. the appellate said the planning department provide incorrect references to the board simple low because this roof deck is not the highest level of the building and should not be referred to as a roof deck. based upon this the appellate believes a new appeal hear suggest warranted. this deck the appellate is talking about has always been referred to as a roof deck in all of planning records and documents. the deck was referenced in the building permit application. in the architectal plan and dr staff support and planning dr action memo. roof deshgs at the highest surface level. they can be found in mid story portions of a building as in the case of 706 vermont street. there is a roof deck at the back and green roof at the front the plans are a company bodiesing permit applications have been clear about this. gi understands the green roof was labeled unoccupied. should the applicant wish to convert the unoccupied green roof to occupied in the further a building permit application would be required. mentioned at july 27th hearing both the planning department and the planning commission understood green roofs can be converted to occupied space in the future and can potentially impact privacy of a neighbor inform sponse the planning commission asked the recommend agsz of planning department asked for a 5 foot setback adjacent to the appellate's property. planning commission did in the place a condition to limit the green officer from converted to occupied space in the future. the department asked that the board deny the rehearing request on the base there is no manifest injustice there is in new information or different facts if suft facts and s known at the time could affect the out economist original hearing that concludes my report. happy to answer questions >> president swig has a question. >> so, the appellate raised on the screen my technology is not working for me again. there was a question i asked you related to the difference between one and another. and i think i said, are they both the same and i'm paraphrasing like to quote. and you simply. said, yea. can you say, yea again not asking for new information i don't believe there is new information i node you to elaborate -- on why they are both one in the same. or that there is no manifest injustice because they are one in the same ownership indicate there is manifest injustice but i don't think you will do that. >> thank you. what i believe i did say was from a planning code perspective and planning department review stand point we review third degree feature on this property. property labeled the feature labeled green roof as a feature that can be convert in the a roof deck in the future and can be occupied. from that stand point, we did not see them to be different it was placed the same condition on the green roof as on a roof deck. and placing a 5 foot setback is a common requirement that the planning department does for most roof decks throughout the city. i believe that there are more similarities with the green officer and a roof deck in this situation. they are located on roof top surface. they are both at the highest or mid portion of a building. they both accessible and occupied. and they would both be reviewed over the counter without neighborhood notification if in the buildable area of the lot. this green roof is locate the in the buildable area of the lot. >> thank you. >> we will hear from department of bodiesing inspection. >> good evening. i'm matthew green representing the department of building inspection tonight. permit is a site permit the green roof in question is labeled unoccupied. bobble on the site plan and roof plan. there will be further plan check review of the construction. the engineer will assume the roof deck will be occupied for engineering purposes. we will assume a 60 pounds per square not for live load. and the upon designer was need to provide the componentses of the green roof whether turf or ask slaubary or stone that will be required give approval for construction n. future the ordinancement to change the green roof to occupied this would require a revision building permit which is appealable. dbi does nottee manifest injustice or new information and rmdzed the rehearing be denied. and i'm available for questions you might have. >> is there public comments on this item. raise your hand. >> i have a question . >> this was my first meeting the original hearing. and i admitted not knowing the different with green roof and roof deck and the impoccasion of the distinctions. the material provide in the this hearing for the request was helpful. if you could clear areas of confusion. the there is prove for a deck in the rear of the building. correct? >> correct. >> and there is an approval will of a green roof and that's in the front of the building? >> toward the front at the top. >> toward the front and the concern seems the concern of mrs. kim that the green roof may turn to a roof deck? >> i believe that is her concern. >> you are stating and ensuring us tonight that the if the green roof turn in a has the characterics of a roof deck and used as a roof deck that would retire owner to come back for a permit? >> i if any they decide they want to change it that would require a new building permit. right. it is always awkward when somebody guess occupy a roof and neighbor complaining it used improperly. we will get a complaint but go out there and how can we we don't have the ability to enforce people's activities. we -- governor the bodiesing itself. so -- it is possible somebody could go up and use the roof as a deck that does not mean it is classified as an occupied deck. >> i than is. >> there suspect no assurance for mrs. kim it is in the a deck? it it is a green roof. ip understands page 4 of the living roof maniel you can have a green roof. a deck and a hybrid and a living roof can be a hybrid and could be a hybrid right now. >> correct. i don't know why the designers asked for a green roof rather than a roof deck that was their decision. we approved the plans reviewed the plans presented to us. so then my last question is the plans that you approved are green roof that can be used as a deck? >> no. it it is a green roof unoccupied green roof earlier i said it is difficult to department of bodiesing inspection to respond to complaints when something is used improper leave. when we get out there it it is not being used the way the neighbors complain about. i'm that's the reality. can you file a complaint we'll go out the next day the activity may not be taking place. we are prevents friday writing notes of violation. provided overwhelming compelling evidence used as a deck we could move forward. on our site to complaints like this we rarely can conaffirmative allegation. >> can the reason i asked the skwes because at that meeting i was the third vote toup hold the decision. and i asked and my colleagues discussed the issues of the difference with a green roof and a roof deck. and as i read the material that is presented today, for this meeting, i have a different impression than i had at the last meeting what i'm trying to determine is whether it is a difference whether that difference is a material difference such that i would say i was either not i don't want to say misinformed, i'm trying to determine if there is a difference what we discussed at the first hearing. mrs. kim's understanding the rules. and where we are today. i appreciate the answer. is there public comment to this item. raise your hand. >> i don't see hands raised. commissioners? this matter is submitted. >> commissioners. approximate let's go with mr. lopez sitting at home he will get lonely if we don't call on him. i appreciate the -- there is a lot of you know salty and precision i think you know this distinction requires. and you know after reviewing the materials is clear that the references have not been 100% precise but the end of the day, i'm inclined to align with the conclusion we have 2 different, approvals. out lined by dbi a bit ago. and the fact that the green roof -- i understand is not approved for occupancy i think that is as far as as we can take this. right? i think the board is often probabilitied with the situations of -- an appellate being concerned about improper use of the space. the upon end of the day what the department can control what we can control is what gets approved in the plans. and not necessarily the use and behavior of a permit holder. you know after construction has taken place. from what i can see based on the materials presented, you know that were does in the give right to a case of manifest injustice here. >> okay. mr. trasvina. >> thank you, president swig. i believe well is an injustice here whether manifest injustice is the measure by which we should decide this and must decide this. i now in the short time i have been here i see a great level of lack of communication between the gentlemanal agencies and members of the public and members of the planning profession. neighbors, et cetera, and there is probably a lot of miscommunication and lack of communication when we deliberate and take our actions as a board. with members of public. that's something i hope we can work to in the future. in terms of this upon item, my sense is that ficould perhaps be assured that the same process is followed whether it is a roof deck or green roof. the same level notification and that the plans that the neighbors saw were actually what is exists up there. i say the recourse for the neighbors through the commranlts process that the officer is in the used in the way that is consistents with the city's approval. if that is the case i would also say that there is the lack of manifestness in the injustices here. >> i -- this one is trick tow me. i think this case boils down to the fact that -- a well is a roof deck that was referred to in numerous locations throughout the appeal and the plans. and that is separate from the green roof. i also believe the green roof itself while it has been explained by planning department can eventually be converted into an occupiable space. >> there is not the permit in place for that and this permit the subject of the appeal does not address that. does in the make it an occupiable space. so -- the permit holder can -- you know. obviously as commissioner trasvina said and mr. green said, there is a possibility that could happen. but that space would be occupied but subject to complaint through the nov process. by the neighbors and it it is clear here the neighbors have an an eagle eye on this property. so -- ultimately the standards for rehearing request is that there was information presented or information that come to light that would have changed the opinion left week and based on viewing the july 20th hearing and the material submitted tonight i don't believe that is reached. i don't believe there is new additional information and in fact in the will appellate's brief the only information is what occurred during the july 20th hear thering is no new information or facts being presented here. i'm inclineed deny the rehearing request. why is this a motion? >> yes but i can. but we will continue. >> don't worry. giving you an opportunity to make a motion. >> i move to. deny the rehearing request because do i have to say anything more on the basis there is no new evidence or manifest injustice. >> well done. >> okay. on that motion, no, not yet. commissioner chang. >> well -- i thought -- go ahead. >> give comment. >> no worries. i think to me what is at issue here for the appellate is the way the specific area on the roof has been characterized. whether that be a green roof or a roof deck and i think that there are there does arc pore to be technical differences in procedure at times. not necessarily for this property but in certain circumstances, the planning department said proceed with a different procedure or a living roof and green roof it would helpful to make that distinction. wham is clear through planning process and the deceptionary review process, through what the commissioners opined and landsod as the upon appropriate modifications to the plan set, whether or not it is a green roof or roof deck, would not change the outcome or the process. i think that -- to the point of requiring a neighbor to comcomplain file a notice of violation for improper use. i can understand mr. green, what mr. green is try to say. akin to a building or home approved as a 3 bedroom, 1 bathroom unit and somebody used the living room as a bedroom it is difficult to enforce what the intended design is. so00 eye appreciate that nuance. i think i also appreciate commissioner trasvina's puberty to be more communicatetive. and in the future weave make it clear to acknowledge there could be procedural differences that would bring everyone on the same page. with that i am inclineed support the denial for rehearing request as well. >> thank you. i am ready to support the motion but i want to make a couple comments. first of all, the reality check raised here. somebody is going to use a roof illegally. they will use it illegally and that's where neighborhood policing come in and complaint come in and the notice of violation. we have stein. especially with roofs. the same concern for neighbors. we are hearing about party roofs. we are hearing they will go up and make noise and disturb us. and -- it has been made clear that would be illegal. 2 in the morning on saturday nights somebody does somebody illegal i will not bea am awake to see it. you will abide by the rules or not if you are not then a neighbor has to fight a complaint and that's unfortunate. the reality of the situation is that if you say no somebody will may break the law. i think there was a bigger issue. i asked the question and got an answer that was, yea. i will settled for that answer, i'm sorry. and -- it make its clear to me and i hope it is clear to the planning department and hope typeset is clear to dbi that you know, we dbi and planning go through how many permits? hundreds. and hundreds of permits and after arc while there is irrelevant an upon tendancey to assume that everybody knows as much as you do in plan and dbi and you guys know a lot. public does not know what you do. they don't have the unconscious knowledge you have with your skills of planning and skills in dbi. and sometimes -- they do need fuller intrangzs the explanations. i will naj last week when i made that question, i should not have settled for yes or yea. i should have push today and got a broader and clearer answer. which in fact was in the testimony that had already existed and therefore there is no new information this week and therefore that is the board's motion. i think that as mr. trasvina said we all node to work on our communication and not make the assumption that everybody knows what we do. we on the panel will hear tens and 20's of case the next year. many will be exactly the same. unconscious to us. because we know what happens in this type one time or another time situation and we might have assume the public know what is we and not not be clear. and i think mr. trasvina is correct. let's not assume. communicate, be clear and we are always trying to be transparent. i think that was a good discussion and just to claire foil that and make the request of planning and dbi. be clear. don't assume the public knows what you do and we will not have the issues where there will be lack of surety about one deck versus another. ive don't think there is new information there is no manifest injustice i support item if the executive director will call the roll. >> so we have a motion from commissioner lemberg to deny the request on base there is is neither new evidence. vice president lopez. >> aye >> commissioner trasvina. >> aye >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries 5-0 and the question is denied. we are moving to item 6 appeal 22-0 pooch peter poon versus department of building inspection 321, 28th avenue. to ken and he amy tseng of an alteration permit. complaint numbers. first floor add bathroom and convert playroom to bedroom, office and kitchen. add stair between first and second floor and permit 2022, 07118177 hear from the appellate first. and mr. poon, he will be speak nothing chinese and we will pause the time for his interceptor the remainder of time used by his representatives. if you could approach the interceptor come up and mr. poon. >> thank you. if you can speak in the microupon phone. [speaking chinese]microupo phone. [speaking chinese] phone. [speaking chinese] phone. [speaking chinese] phone. [speaking chinese]microphone. [speaking chinese] sgroo next we will pause the time and if the interceptor, thank you. speak in the microphone. adjust is, please. >> all right. >> hearing officers i peter poon here to object the permit not because of a personal grudge because the permit was obtained improper reason and means. her house plan was deliberately concealing the trying his house is 3 floors and deliberately draw its in 2 floors the addition was a violation of the law and other building regulations. add an entire floor to my son's bedroom on the third floor and found agsz as a one story from decades going. this building will collapse i was forced move out of the house where i live for 31 years for this reason. thank you. >> thank you. >> the remainder of the time is bryant 52 or rocky poon coming up. >> good evening. honorable commissioners. i'm rocky poon. i'm appellate peter poon's son. appellate brief 1 and twot house had no permit work between 1987 and 2018. could you speak up because of masks. don't take it off that's okay. speak a little louder than you would normally speak the mask does a great job of covering words. >> the exhibit 3 you will see mrs. tseng the owner and permit holds in 2018 obtain a permit to remodel an existing bathroom and add a bathroomom each of the second and third floor for 48 thousand dollars. before this 2018 permit, mrs. tseng performed construction w on the ground floor in the bathroom without the permit. upon 2019 and 2021 there was construction noise. we believe mrs. tseng was w under a permit there was a job card posted the truth between 20 then and 21 mrs. tseng did a store in the rear of the third floor. a deck on the property line on the side of the second floor. and -- lost track and also the lastly remodeled a second and third floor deputy and did other remodeling jobs to the house all without permit. i complained in october of 21. identifying the violation as i reiterate them here. permit demonstrated high level 65 mrs. tseng used to osh tain it she would not commrooin ply to correct the violations but lied about it and beat the system i obtain instruction from dbi concerning the application to this permit. i will show that. my family and i were forced out on december of 21 we were afraid the building would collapse on us. living cannot unit that mr. tseng refused to. repair. above all she harassed my father many times verbally and physically making noise in the night and moving garbage bin from the garage next to my father avenue bathroom bang them or leaving covers open so the smell will go in my father's room and attract rodent. jury room hello. okay. good evening honorable commissioners i'm brian fu a neighbor and one day rocky came to my house and took pictures of mr. tseng's house during the construction of the extension the pictures that i will show here show that mr. tseng is constructing the extension on the third floor above rocky's am bedroom. over head, please. and i'm right here that is the development of the extension of rocky's bedroom this scared the poon family because there are no hold downs to reenforce the old foundation to prevent from collapse and this -- area here this deck mr. tseng claims, the second floor deck work was done in 2016 to replace an existing deck that was rotting. however there was in the a deck to replace this extension are i will show in 2 pictures. show that there was never a deck there. this is a sale noticer. in 2014 and i will point top this picture that will enhance. first off -- on the backside there a floor plan you will see there is no deck in this floor plan. on the second floor. upon the photo that was on that that -- 192014 shoes here. fipoint to your attention to the topful there is no development there on that deck and no second floor deck on the right side. i will over lay that about a photo in 2021 that shows clearly the development on the third floor and the second floor deck there. you see well is an extension and post going down. you see on the second floor there is in deck but something there in 2021. these are 2 unpermitted extensions that skipped safety checks. now mr. tseng is trying to cover up this unpermitted work ooh flying for a dollar permit. and applying for another permit saying he was complying with housing complaints here that is the subject of today's appeal. >> mr. tseng's permit application does nothing to correct his illegal expansion this is to cover up his violations that can not be allowed. why is he getting an extension and by passing planning? he is side stepping proper prefers that violate the principles of safety and fairness. thank you. >> okay. thank you inform i don't see questions at this time. we'll move on to the permit holder. >> okay. commissioner lemberg? come back, please. >> sorry. i wanted to ask what and any of the speakers can answer this what happened that caused the tenants to move out of the property. what was the time line with like what conversations with the lands lord were there. what00 eye want to know more about that. >> the there was illegal construction on the third floor above their bedroom a significant safety concern to the poon family and the second floor deck that was an extension covering up light and creating a safety problem there as limp because there were bins moved garbage bins moved out and it was attracting rodents and creating a more difficult environment for the poon family. they raised the issues with the landlord. the landlord brushed it off or and started harassing the family to the point it was unbearable for them to stay >> where was the u nit located. on the first floor. if i -- give you the layout here. they were on the ground floor right here and this extension that they were make suggest up above apologize my hand is in the way, boost living your that they were occupying on the first floor. >> okay. >> thank you and one other question was the -- sale card that you showed. of the property when was that from? >> yes. that was from 2014. when it was sold. >> thank you. president swig then commissioner trasvina. >> president swig if i could raise a point of order >> go ahead. >> did not mean to interrupt. mr. poon had an interceptor and is he having the benefit hearing this matter intercepted? and does he have a right to do so under our rules. he does. and he can and he should. >> the request for interceptor was to read his statement if additional interception is needed that is fine. that was not indicated when the request was made. i don't know if it was needed or not i want to make sure he had it available if possible and desired. >> so why don't we ask mr. poon, peter poon so interceptor could come forward and speak in the microphone. s thank you for that. >> if you could ask mr. peter poon if he would like to you intercept all of these proceedings. >> okay. [speak chinese]. so. okay. mr. poon have a [inaudible] and would like his family member to help him answer. a family member to help him or you? >> he would like his family member to help him. joy guess the question is does he want you to intercept what is being said by the commissioners. sit next to him and would you intercept to him what is going on in the proceedings so that he know what is is going on as they go on. when i say something you whisper when the other mr. poon says something the other side says would you whisper what is going on and i think that will that will. >> that's fine we will need to slow it down. >> we got until 10 o'clock tonight. is that okay? >> thank you very much. assuming he wants that. >> and if he does not want that he will ask her to be quiet. >> okay. mr. poon junior. the young are mr. poon or neighbor can answer. there was reference in testimony that the with regard to the move out that there was fear that -- the building would collapse. was that a forethat was simple low created because of the pounding and the construction and the destruction or did anybody take the initiative to actually look at foundation to make an opinion that the foundation was unsafe base on the added load on the building? >> yes, i believe this they spoke with an attorney who did that had looked at the cannot premesis, that had opinions from others that the structure that the structure was not in a condition that could should be able to should sustain the additional expansion that was done. >> were those others license said engineers, inspect contractors. be clear on who the others were >> i believe they were contractors that look exclude may have been consulted with an engineer i'm not sure about the details. that question should issue directed to mr. poon's attorney. >> you may equip the interpreter to advise mr. pon to respond to that. and rebuttal. >> okay. there will be a rebuttal period after your first conversation and one more question from commissioner chang. >> apologize. in is in reference of the point of order made i wanted the parties to i wanted clarify there is no requirement the interpret or intercept if he does in the desire we wanted make sure he had the opportunity to have the interpreter. that was it. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you we are now moving on to the permit holder and mr. kenny sang is here and has his representative mr. rob wong. you have 7 minutes. >> good evening. hello commissioner i'm robert wong i'm -- i'm sorry we can't hear you very well. if you could move over. >> i'm robert wong and i serve a translator for my friends mr. kenny tseng. >> thank you. this is my this is the -- [speaking chinese]. we can't hear you. when the house was first bought the upper third floor of the house in the back ends was about 4 feet high. so basically i was just a roof deck before any modification was done. >> back inspect 1987, i guess there was the original property that was take it down special got rebuilt in 1987 from a previous owner and originally the building was 2 store high and i guess they made it in a 3 story high? >> yes. the condition was. >> and with the new foundation when it was rebuilt. >> the reason why mr. tseng built the i'm sorry. so -- what he state system that the third floor addition is an existing roof deck on top of the second floor and capable of supporting wait the existing foundational support ash counted for a roof deck the third floor roof tech in existing riings when applicant acquired the property and due to the cold and windsy conscience applicant added 3 and a half feet to the railings and enclosed it. >> mr. tseng is stating that mr. poon himself is i contractor should know whether at the time the construction was or not and know whether the foundation would support an enclosed roof deck. he did not raise an issue when the construction was going on about the roof deck but started come plaining a year after. and if they were so concerned about safety why would they not raised the issue at the time when the construction first started versus complaining a year after. >> so regarding the -- yea. the extension of the deck on the second floor, as you see clearly on the picture, it is there is a sliding door leading out to the south deck. so what mr. tseng did in 2016 was take down the broken down and -- the broken old deck and he just replace today. it was a new construction. >> yea. but it was made big are than the original. but it was not a new construction. the roof deck. i'm sorry. deck on the second floor is 7 and a half feet high. yea. so the original deck was 3-1/2 feet wide. and you see that there is a sliding door. so -- that is of sliding door was not anything new that was just put in recently. >> yea. >> so. so, based on all of that, if there was no concern arise during the construction and everything started about over a year later, i don't know what the concern they have. >> so -- so the deck on the second floor it was done it was replaced in 2016. roof deck was done in assessment of 2020. butt poon family did not raise safety concern or issues until late 2021. based on the time line here it is -- the poon family submitted a letter for all type of repair and past problems october 14 of 2021. but prior to the submitting the letter of repair and pest problem to mr. tseng, they have already file a complaints with the city a day earlier. all and all it seem like they already have a plot all along in starting up the the -- planning process. >> yea. right. in regards to the trash problem it happened the way the unit was built. the trash section for the unit because it is a 2 unit building plus the street level. so all in all it is i 3 story building. the way that the building was constructed unfortunately the trash compartment was at adjacent to the building where it is poon family live. so -- that's so -- on a weekly bases when they have to take out the trash, unfortunately passing through the poon family's door. there is nothing that was put in purposely just to annoy the family. so had mr. tseng bought unit from the previous owner the poon family took liberty and they used the trash compartment that unit for their own storage. so the previous owner they put the trash bin in the backyard. since that abstracted rodents and notices mr. tseng decided to take back the to session of the trash compartment unit and put it there instead of leaving it in the backyard other neighbors were complaining about the smell and about the flit and mosquitoes. >> thank you. >> okay. we have a few questions stay there. president swig and commissioner lemberg. >> i'm going to need your help the gentlemen doing the intercepting i need your help i will go slow and i want to make sure you make my upon points -- to the sponsor. first of all, at the board ever appeals, when we ask and strongly request that a brief be completed. was he aware that a brief which would describe his side of the story was requested? and is there reason why he did not provide a brief >> president swig. i'm sorry. we did get the brief it was sent to the spam box and sent everyone an e mail. prior to the hearing. it was posted line if it came in on monday guess what, sol. >> i understand that dbi will ask for a continuance they want to do a site visit that is an opportunity to read the brief >>. my mistake we did not get the brief. okay. in regardless of that, what i what i heard was a more of a response to yet deck is here. and some and the garbage can and things like that. but -- i did not hear the a response and testimony related to -- the permit itself. which i would read. why don't you tell him exit will ask a further question. may i clarify what permit are we talking about the construction of second and third floor? >> sorry. convert and exercise playroom and -- exercise play room to bedroom. wait a minute. we can show it on the over head. >> upon page 3 of 44. did you want alex to show the permit. >> it is fine i will read. add this from convert exercise play room and bedroom. office and kitchen. add stair connection between first and second in the. so, what -- that is what the permit is. the we have to focus on what the permit is. and -- i need his testimony as to not to refute or say, well i -- you know i built the deck 6 inches wider because i was rei was not building new. i don't need the testimony about the roadent and trash problem. that's not what we are here to talk b. what we are here to talk about is -- did he comply with the permit. my question is, did he do the construction that was on the permit. one. and did he do further construction that was not on the permit. >> and that is the root of this conversation tonight. and i'd like to you address that for him or he to address it through you. the mermitt obtained i assume you refer to the construction done on the second and third floor. so based on his statement when he got the permit for that work he did exactly what he applied for p. its -- he reel modeled the bathroom and how the application for the permit was done. there was no other construction that was done outside of the permit? >> no. >> and the top floor and the expansion of the top floor was that under that permit? >> did he have a permit to do that. the top floor as he mentioned earlier was the top floor the building was how he bought it from the previous owner he did not add the third floor. what he did was there was already an existing deck in the back of the third floor he enclosed it. >> i will ask planning that is their opinion. the final question, based on the additions to the building, which include closing in the back deck, did he use an an engineer to establish whether the building could handle the weight and handle the weight and not collapse. >> okay. there were things he did not seek the advise of a licensed engineer but seek the advice of a contractors who told him that since the officer deck is already 4 feet high adding a few more feet up and close should not have any safety hazards. >> thank you. >> because it is a new foundation when the building was rebuilding. house burn down and rebuild everything by code at the time. gi will ask plan to give us a history of the building and -- we will probably i can see this is going to another hearing at some point. >> but may be planning because when mr. sanchez was here he would go in his computer and he would go in the sdpiel each property and give us an instant history on the building which is why he spoiled us and the threshold is high for planning now. we need to get a confirmation on that. >> i will will get back to mr. lemberg >> thank you. i have 2. questions for the permit holder. first, was there any work done on the property between june 2019, the end date of the previous permit and july 11, 2022, the issue date for this current permit we hear tonight. >> can you repeat the dates. john 12, 2019 and july 11, 2022 work done on the property between those dates? >> yes the only work that was done between the 2 dates is the enclosing of the roof deck which was done september of 2020. >> thank you. my second question is, all of us commissioners are at a disadvantage neither side in this submitted the permit that is being paled. and neither side submitted that do you have a copy of the permit we are addressing tonight? >> that is part of the appeal document sent on the posted line. if you look at the very beginning when the appeal is filed, it is page 3. it is the print out from the online portal. there is no actual physical permit >> that reflects what is on the permit. >> okay. sometimes there is a slight variation this is what dbi put in their system. >> that's what i was reading. >>ir read that. i was wondering if there was any usual low we have the actual permit this we did not have here. >> anything further. >> i wanted see if they have a copy >> hand written permit. if we could see >> talking about the unit for the street level. i mean the permit for the street level, right or talking about the permit for construction that was done on the second and third floor? >> one issue in the july of this year. the one paled tonight. >> permit on appeal. >> he does have it. >> okay. it does just say that. thank you. >> okay. anything further. >> not at this time yoochl commissioner trasvina. >> thank you for your assisting mr. tseng and you are assisting all of us making sure we are understand one common story. there seems to be a discrepancy between mr. poon and his representatives description of the property and yours through mr. tseng through you. du see the photos of the second floor deck that mr. poon assistant provided? this appeared to be of that the deck the second floor deck is new. is -- is that your understanding? how do you explain your intripgz compared to his? mr. tseng said this he did not take a picture of the old deck that was up there before he replaced it. butt deck he said there was actually an old deck and that's the reason yet previous owner had a sliding door in that area leading out to the area there will be a deck. otherwise, it makes no sense to have a sliding door that you can open walk through and fall down to a grounds floor. he said he made it bigger than the original was. >> okay. thank you. you can be seated. >> we'll hear from the planning department. >> thank you. thank you. good evening. tina tammy from planning department. 331, 28th, 3 story 2 family dwelling in rh2 constructs in the 1911 altered in the 80s and likely not a historic resource. based upon the permit and plans submitted, the project is coconvert the existing exercise and playroom on grounds floor to a bedroom and kitchen and office. the permit includes a new bathroom. seeing there was no change of use the property will re main a 2 family unit building. there is no change to the existing facade no expansion of thes involve. planning staff [inaudible] the permit. at the time the permit came to planning. planning was not aware and not provided with evidence that there is planning code violation. now if there is evidence of any, we would like to have known before we enter the permit. based upon the information provided tonight including the photos shown. planning intended to open an enforcement case and investigate. we will look close low at the work of the back including any enclosement of the deck. i will go ahead and pass the presentation over to enspecter matt green so he can elaborate on inspection process. >> we have a couple questions. >> okay. this is like on top of that there was a miscommunication and did in the get that i did not get an updated brief. which was submitted. i feel like i'm noticing down the road with a bandana over my eyes and the fact i can't get a clear history on this building. so, given, i think where we will go here is that we will novelty make a decision and ask you to make a full inspection of bodiesing and fill had some history:we have aye implication, rumor but have you the fact. you should have the fact whether this building as you referenced in the 80s did sever malod and he whether a major construction. and i would like to hear some more clarity. would you please put it in your notes unless you can go on the computer now. which i don't see it, to finds out the history on this building. a more important question is, where were the poons living? because if and what was an illegal units they are not unusual in the city. so -- and folks are have been live nothing them for arc while. but i'm unclear given the permit that -- on the grounds as was for testimony on the grounds floor, where i think and may be the poons can talk about this. it is add bathroom convert exercise and play room to bedroom is that where they are living or live being above the what is the grounds floor and is referred to the first floor? i'm unclear on that. and was the unist in which they were occupying a legal unit and should this -- how many units are there in here 2 legals and one illegal in or 2 legals. do you have any insight into this? >> thank you. tina tammy again for planning. the department of building inspection state this is is a 2 unit building >> i understand this. there are lets of 2 unit with 33 families live nothing the city. that's why the ad u direction was created to give people the upon opportunity to take the illegal unitd and legalize without penalty. and but -- i would like clarification as to what do we have here? i'm clear we have a 2 unit building but a 2 unit building housing 3 separate addresses. if you could find that out in your what may be your inspection upcoming would be appreciated and so that we get -- a history? we get a clear snapshot. would you give i will ask questions kwuld get a clear snapshot of this building as the history of it. and -- how many occupiable units there are all be it there may be 2 legal and one illegal. and also my final question, may or may not be able to answer in your opinion, i understand that the owner of the building decided that he liked to close in that top floor and close in the deck, and add a few feet to it. do you require a permit to do that? >> yes. gi thought that might be the case. would you answer that question. >> yes. i absolutely. thank you. to go back. we can conanywhere with mr. poon tonight. based upon the appeal brief, page 2, it saves by december 21, poon and his family forced out of the illegal apartment. >> so, yea. my assumption and should confirm tonight. that illegal apartment he might be referring to may be on the grounds floor? that could be it. and if this is the case, if the work is to replace that apartment or the permit, and not recognize it as an unauthorized unit planning would have serious issues with that and have to investigate and work with the project applicant on procedures and next steps of how to remove it legally through a cu process. or restore a unit and legalize it as the third unit on the property. >> we have had when i first cameom to this board, 7-8 years ago. it seemed every week we had a case where a -- family was occupying an illegal unit and being complaint then was that the was that the landowner the landlord was forcing them out of the unit so they could -- do something else with it. generally, there was the excuse of l i'm moving might have brother in or might have mother in or something. but so i don't. thap does not matter what matter system if somebody is living in illegal unit, which is illegal. what are the tensions and prefers that somebody thoz go to to ask them to leave or can they ask them to leave? what refresh my memory so everyone on the panel can hear it. >> yes. of course. >> if this it is a unit not recognized bite department of building inspection. it would be considered an unauthorized unit. if this is the case, if there is work don that u nits that would result in that unit going away, in this case it sounds like it may be with connecting stairs between flowers. then the planning department would enforce on that action. and spell out the requirements, which is -- if you adopt proceed with removing the unit you node to go through a cu process. a public hearing been planning commission. or make sure you legalize that third unit on the property and properly inspected boy dbi. >> and if we later on may be jumping the gun, if later on we get to that conclusion, will your steps be to 1, gain us a history of the building. and then to determine whether there was a unit on the grounds floor occupied by potential low 30 years and then -- add vooisz vise us and advise us as to what steps may be taken here because. this may go. mae could this go furthered than just the denial of the permit. this could go to a whole bunch stuff. >> correct? >> absolutely. all that sort of investigation w that you talked about would be part of the enforcement case and process. it might take a long time before getting back here if this is something this requires a planning commission hearing. you mitt not be seeing this permit for a time. >> okay. i wanted to -- for we have a couple of commissioners that have not been here long and these are cases that even -- that even i as the senior member of panel and even before tain i don't think tin's had a case somebody has been remove friday an illegal dwelling unit. so -- i am trying to build context for my fellow commissioners, thank you very much for your testimony. >> anybody else. >> yes. >> commissioner. >> thank you. i don't have a question i want to thank you for agreeing to open an enforcement case on this property t. is necessary and appropriate. thank you. >> commissioner trasvina. >> given that we are now in a bit of a new territory than where we started this evening on this case, and there are a lot of complexities the president noted. he has been around a long time. this is now for us. it is i'm sure -- definitely new for mr. tseng and mr. poon. what type of language assistance oral or in writing does the department provide or city provide as they interact with the public and what can upon the both sides expect from the department? as you do your work >> i can speak on the part of the enforcement process. we do have translatoror. available. for mr. poon. or the applicant. we have cantonese speaking planners on staff that can help out. especially with technical aspects of the process. they have to make that request. >> why don't weep move on with dbi and public comment and rebuttal and see where this story will take us. >> sounds like a plan. we will hear from dbi. >> good evening. matthew green representing dbi i have occurrence with the permit. upons dbi received come plain in october of 21 about the structure and also illegal unit. the complaints was reassigned 3 different inspectors over time. we sent letters to the property owner asking for access to the property. i don't see record of gaining access. when the permit before you was process said the description of the work stated to comply with the complaints this is wrong should have been caught at that time you can't comply with the complaint it it is an allegation you comply with the notice of violation. we should have caught that and asked the overwhelm to provide access to the property. we would have issued a notice of violation. i don't know if there is a third unit or not if there is i say that the submitted plan was inaccurate. i would ask the board grant time for dbi to have a site visit and the experience it grant access to determine the cannot property of the you had questions there was a horizontal addition in 87 for 2 units. there is no permits for the work done in 2022 including the decks. i don't feel comfortable saying this permit was reviewd and approved proper leave. i ask for more time and i'm available for questions you may have. >> commissioner lemberg. >> do have insight why an nov was not issued for the complaintses >> yes we sent letter to the owner trying to gain access and never received response we have not gained access to the property we can't write a notice of violation unless we seat violation. >> sounds like there was an inspection in october of 2021. noted numerous place. >> i spoke to the inspector today. dmt gain access to the building it was a site visit to the front of the building. ing >> organs i was confused by that and apologize. >> thank you. >> commissioner trasvina >> i want to reiterate my request for language service for the individuals involved to the same extent i raised with mrs. tammy. >> i like to do a site visit i will bring a translator with us for that. >> thank you. president swig. is this building occupied? >> i don't know. upon >> mr. poon left i think. he left in december. i should ask the building owner. this -- aye stab in the air. now from what i heard -- from yourself from plan thanksgiving is a red hot mess. and and -- it may be unsafe? oui don't have an engineer's r. here say from a contractor it is unsafe when does when does dbi assume a building is unsafe. when do they take that step on red tag a build to prevent it from occupied until conditions are identified and remediateed compliance. we would not make that determination without gaining access to the property. if we have a complaint and suspicions or reasonable belief there was hazzard sxtsdz owner refusing access we can go to the city attorney and get a demand letter. has not upon rain top that level yet >> thank you very much. >> commissioner lemberg. >> if we were to grant the appeal tonight would dbi lose jurisdiction to do inspections on the property? >> no. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we are moving on to public comment is there anyone to provide comment on this item? raise your hand. >> i don't see public comment we will move. public comment. please, come up. i'm david poon. i know peter poon long time. he is a nice person. and i heard put the trash on in fronts of the [inaudible] breathing -- the covid-19. think about it. so how come they try to threaten him to move out. the whole thing. and hostile him -- [inaudible]. don't let them take away. that's all i say >> any further public comment? okay. we'll move on to rebuttal. we will hear from mr. poon. you will have -- time it is in the your turn yet. first from the appellate and rebuttal. mr. poon, rocky poon or brian fu you have 3 minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. just a few point in rebuttal to respond to mr. tseng. i have been a neighbor near 20 years i seen development. i seen the evolution of the block. i live one house remove friday mr. tseng's house. i'm close and see the foesose 14 my building. he said there was a sliding door. there was not. there was never a deck there. whatever fixture was closed off. and that was -- they added a sliding door after with the extension that was made. in terms of -- and clarify, yes, mr. poon family liveod the ground floor an illegal unit. and they said they don't raise this mr. tseng said the poon family did in the rathiz until a year. that is not true. the structure and condition of the unit was sdoont low asking them to improve it but it got to a point it was unbearable and they had to leave and pushed out. so -- and -- i like to point out a letter mr. 10ing wrote to mr. poon. acknowledging that they that they knew they had to obtain a permit for the w but did not. this -- over head. this was an all right sent to mr. poon dated october 2021. and i highlighted the section relevant. says. police let me what you know want to do and i will confirm with the building department to confirm if we need a permit in in regards to upon -- cabinet and fixtures in the home that need to be replaced the pictures here for that you show the work he was referring to that needed a permit. these are cabinets that -- cabinet with substantial damage. that nodes to be replace said. time >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we have a couple questions from commissioner lemberg and president swig. >> thank you. when the poon family moved out at the end of 2021 was there work on going on the property at this point in time? >> october and december of 21 >> yes , i heard that there was construction after they moved out, there was construction work continued to be done by mr. tseng. there was banging in the evening. so i believe they were working on upon and remodeling the grounds floor. i don't have visibility but i could hear it. material moving in and out and i'm assuming they are trying to fix these for inspector came in they would not let the inspector in. i saw the inspector outside and mr. 10ing was inside. combu they would not respond to if the [inaudible]. >> thank you. i don't know whether i ask you or -- mr. poon. poon family moved out you confirmd that. what was the reason the --the driving force that med them move out? what was the, something material that, i heard is they have were forced to move out. but i did not get a sense of what the force was. could be anything from haaresment by a landlord to of the landlord shutting off the water. any number of things the key word is force. and what were the conditions that forced them to leave their residents of 31 years? >> there are a combination mainly for safety. safety because the expansion the extensions made. the second floor deck extended out and covered a lot of light and moved trash bin in and the fumes collected in mr. poon's it was next to his bedroom window. that attracted roadents that got in the apartment. and mr. tseng did not address those. and for the third floor structure the extension made there they ran electric. they added that structure and it was mr. poon believed it was a not only a fire risk because of there is no inspection. it was not done properly. there are no hold downs to secure of the structure. no reenforce am. it was a safety sxrn coupled with the haaresment they received over the groers mr. tseng and the structure of the unit itself. >> okay. and are you aware might be are everargued bite other side they regardless of your good points of view, and i'm not doubting them it might be mentioned bite other side they voluntarily left. period. >> i recognize that as an argument but when it come to their safety they put this as a priority and seeing that the mr. tseng was going to refuse to do anything. they don't have the the poon family does not have the resources to and up leave and go where they can. at a moment's notice. they don't have a second home this is primary residence for so long. and -- >> i understand. i raise the issues not to question. i raise them for the referred and raise the issues for the purpose of upon dbi and planning evaluating the entire cannot situation. . so that can make a proper review and give us proper and full testimony at a later time >> thank you they would not have moved out if these were corrected. if there was a good faith effort to correct the violation and make the building safe they would not have moved out. this was a safety concern. >> thank you for those answer. >> thank you. why we'll hear from the permit holder mr. tseng and mr. wong. come up you have 3 minutes to address the board. we will pause the time when there is interception. >> mr. tseng side the rebuttal is i think this is all an accusation from the. attentive side mr. poon. because base said on the time lines of events, mr. poon's family sent mr. tseng a letter about reper ses that needed to be performed. in the so called, illegal unit and reported a pest problem this letter was dated as of october 14 of 2021. mr. tseng bought the unit in 2014. but as of october 14 that was the very first all right this mr. tseng received from mr. poon's family. and he had not received complaint prior everything he bought the unist for 7 years. >> will now -- upon receiving the letter, for repair and pest problem in october of 14 of 2021. a day earlier the poon family has file a complaint with the city about concern conscience. why would he give the letter enough time for mr. tseng to fix what issue the that needed to be repaired and fix? before sending a letter of complaint. since mr. tseng received a letter for reper se and pest problems he already alerted the termite company who came out on the next day which is october 15th. and along with the termite, pest control company on the 15th, representative from housing and dbi also show up at the property. >> the same time. so to say that no one from dbi who came out to the property it is false. mr. tseng has lived in that same unit since he acquired the property. if there is anything that the poon family needed about anything they could have come and knock on the door. >> but this seems to be a motor all along they actually open up a legal case and suing mr. tseng for x amount of money whatever the amount is. based on the time line typeset does not sounds like it is fair to file a complaint buffer submit an all right to the owner about repairs. >> thank you. time. >> thank you. a question from president swig. i have a few. we heard testimony from the department of building and mr. tseng was upon sent 2 letters. responds to a complaint. which would result in a notice of violation. mr. tseng chose not to responded to the all rights to dbi. why did mr. tseng in the reply to the letter its dbi? jop mr. tseng said bit time he received the letters from dbi the permit for the unist hoe applied for has been approved. in turn he called planning asking about the 2 letters and was add sunrised well is no node to respond once the repair is being done and the case will close those letters does not matter anymore. may be we get clarification from dbi. next question. with regard to enclosing the deck. why did he maining that we heard testimony that the ren closure is illegal. it required a permit what lead him to believe doing significant construction to raise the height of the building and do significant create another room although open end, was being be done without a permit? mr. tseng statement was because it was wind and he he saw his neighbor also building out i mean a roof deck. just to block out wind did not realize it was illegal to put up a few more feet higher. >> next question. the -- the -- the -- the -- permit it seems. removes the third unit although it is illegal unit it it is still a unit which is occupied a family in the city of san francisco for 31 years. did mr. tseng have any idea that the removal of a unit from inventory in a city where there is not enough house suggest domed to be not a legal act? heavings not aware that tick off the u nit of the market is illegal. because -- in reality. the illegal unit was part of the second, part of the same unist with the second floor. after the continuant moved out on their own he thought he was going to have back to the original plan to cleep up the illegal unit and make it part of the second unit as it was originally [inaudible]. with the attentive there for 31 years approximate in a very shamble condition thought he was going to clean it up apply for permit and make it combine it back with the second floor. upon single unit electric, water is under of the same meters. . thank you. and i'm going to ask in rebuttal that planning comment on that subject and enlighten mr. tseng. one more question. in the concern permit paled tonight it is stating there would be a stair case added from the grounds floor i assume the illegal unit the poons lived in to the main floor. does thank you very much is my understanding correct there is in the currently a stair case between the 2 levels y. correct. there is no stair case leading up to second floor they have their own entrance. how do you justify that with what you said that the 2 units were 1 in the same? of how do you justify that with the fact you just said the illegal unit and the second floor unit were one in the same >> right. water heater and gas and electric meters are shared. >> i think that -- after separate meters. >> thank you. >> you can be seat >> thank you. we will hear from planning. this evening tina tammy for planning department. planning supports dbi's request for more time. planning intebldzs to open a case. and request for a joint dbi and planning inspection on the property. we intend to confirm if there is an unauthorized or third unit on the property. if so we entends to ask the applicant to revise plans. and provide information about whether if the applicant removed that unit what the process looks like or restore this urning nit on the grounds floor. and lastly we intends to examine the permit history on the property. and identify if there is additional illegal work performed. and -- advise the applicants on next steps. >> commissioner lemberg. >> thank you. aye going to ask the same question, if we were to grant this appeal tonight would it make any difference for w this planning and dbi have to do moving forward? as far as if we grant it means the permit is revoked. would there be a difference to the work the planning department has to do? if we did this versus continuing the case. >> thank you for this question. i don't think so. weful flon pursue the items as i mentioned. regardless of what happens tonight. >> thank you. >> there was a comment made now by the sponsor that said, well, even though there was no stairway between the 2 floors it was assumed that the illegal unit and i think he used the word illegal unit and the unit above were all one and therefore because they shared the same hot water heater and the same, can you enlighten us as to why that statement is incorrect ownership correct? >> thank you. yes we all order everheard there is no connections between floors. space on the grounds floor does have inspect access. . we're not concern body whether it is one u utility billing cycle or not. that is not coming we use for determining an existing unit. but witness we make that connection you lose that distinction between the lower unit and the middle unit and that will is removal of a mcgonigling that requires a process that is defined by planning code and under section 317 and requires planning review and approval >> it is illegal to connect these to. we had this observe. for the beg your pardon of the new commissioners. you because you want to connect one unit with another and make it one and remove a unit in the process remove illegal or legal residential piece of inventory that he is illegal >> that's correct. >> upon that connection was made stairs put in without a permit. that's an i have lagsz of the planning code. >> okay. i will ask my next question. since you have breached the question of reevaluating this project and inspections. you established this really this needs a full examination from soup to nuts look at the history. see what was done when. when the building was built. but many -- changes. so -- how long -- how long would this process take? and so when we are considering whether to take the initiative to simple low deny the appeal and cast fate to the winds or retain jurisdiction of this, and hear it again after the. do your work how long might that gap of time be? thank you for this question. good one. i think it it is a tricky question. only because upon some of the outcome of our investigation and et cetera, does depend on what the applicant choses to do. if the applicant choses to remove the unit through the cu press there will be additional time. beyond our investigation work. to have that process. being done with. >> okay. if you are asking how much time planning department take to understand what is happening on the property, do the investigation and research that would not take a lot presuming we have access to the property. >> right >> again so everyone can think about this as we move to the next step of having a conversation. in the process of your study, where i think you are going to my broken crystal ball says you will finds some stuff. might -- might the applicant just simple low pull the -- permit and decide not to cancel the permit and start for zero. and what happens then? what the enforcement case open on the property we will be tracking progress on when is happenoth property. whether this permit stays or goes away. we will be conducting the investigation. we will be making conclusions and be following up with the owner about next steps. we want corrections. we want abatement not violations. >> and where is the where in the process does the retention or not of the illegal unit lie? is i will ask a 2 part question. is it planning's priority to sustain the illegal unit and get it legalized? and were um and in the process of evaluating the permit. looking out for notices of violations. looking out for the building of illegal structures on the top floor or deck. we heard a lot tonight. what is the assurance that illegal unit will sustain a residential inventory in the city and will per of that assurance be in line with public low a further permit that converts this illegal unit to an ad u? >> thank you. you know whether thap unit gets legalized or not that is up to the owner. planning department's preference and likely recommendation is to retain the unit t. is consistent with our housing policy. with a cu a need to demonstrate the desirability and necessity. if than i which is to remove it. it it is in the a decision that the planingly department it it is by the planning commission. is it your give me your wisdom on this. commissioner lemberg asked a good question deny and cast our case to the winds. should we retain jurisdiction by letting you do your study and come back and if find out how our fates were cast stot winds? what is what would be your preference and your advise. what would be your direction. to deny the appeal and let you take it from there? or retape jurisdiction through the process of postpone action tonight. >> thank you, i support dbi. dbi is asking for more time and like to work with dbi staff on finding out more information. it does in the change the fact planning department intendses to investigate this property. does in the change the fact when we finds anything this nodes to be corrected we will follow up with the property owner to fix it. >> okay. not sure how else. >> you are you answered, you would support dbi's recommendation to for us to retain jurisdiction and postpone the action tonight. that's what i heard. >> correct. >> thank you. >> commissioner trasvina has a question, mrs. tammy. >> thank you, where i was before on this and there are a lot of property owners and people in san francisco new to san francisco and now to the country. not proficient in english whether they are asian-american or russian or well tino. how is someone in property owner's shoes supposed to know about what they are oshg bliged to follow under the lu. when obligations that i have and how they are supposed to carry them out. an important duty here we are talking about the safety of the poon family and talking about illegal units and structures. hudo people finish they are not proficient in english. >> thank you for that question. yes. we have i will speak only on behalf of planning not dbi. we do have planners that staff our planning information counter. e mail or visit us in person. we are open monday-friday. 8 to 5 including lunch and have 2-3 sometimes 4 planning staff on duty to answer questions. and is translation is a chinese translation is a request we can assist with making sure there is somebody to provide that assistance. and information. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will hear from dbi. >> matthew green for dbi. dbi failed to be the investigation process here. if we have been able to gain access we could have arc void third degree situation. i apologize like the opportunity to do a site visit and my crystal ball shoes we'll write a notice of violation i will ask for access if not we will pursue city attorney to again access to the property. i think we did fail and i apologize. try to make that right for the poon family and the commission. i'm available for questions you have. i don't see question. some th matter is submitted. i suggest we follow the request of planning and the request of dbi to -- let them have more time to review this. i frankly feel a disadvantage buzz i was not able to. see a whole brief. that is our fault here but fiwould have seen the brief i happening i would have had a problem. and so i would suggest this we postpone an action on this tonight and -- let dbi and planning do their job. hopeful low they are allowed to this is important for the project sponsor, you must allow planning and dbi access to your building whether you like it or not. i know you don't. to do a study to make sure that your neighborhood is safe not only the people who may be living in your building but your neighborhood. i request that if we go in that direction. thank you. >> that would be my suggestion. the reason i asked the question about time, is this if we are going to select another date to hear this. we have an open ended answer, i don't know how much time tell take from planning. i'm not criticizing do we do go to a questions of law of the chair on in? wait for them to come become in 60 days to -- testimony us how they are doing? and assign a date. >> we should talk to baptist departments but commissioner lemberg has comments >> i have thoughts on that. air agree with president swig's suggestion that we continue hearing tonight dp my suggestion will be say later in the year to give plan and dbi a few montes to dig in this i say a november meeting is wise. i don't know what call of the chair means i defer to jewelo that. >> can the city attorney define call the chair and present the program terse on what happened when you do a call of the chair ruling. >> right. deputy city attorney. call the chair means when you continue it to a date uncertain up to the rescheduling by the chair or president. and advised in the past that should be use when there is a definite had like a trigger the case to be brought back on its own so it is not out there indefinitely. >> okay. >> the reason i bring that up is i asked specific low planning how long will this take you. she says i don't know. therefore the indefinite nature there is a >> reporter: i think the call of the chair within 60 days or a number that -- it can't hang out there forever and ever. we have to raise it at some point top make sure it is coming back >> this was the potential that could be used to bring the case back. call of the chair within a certain number of days or the condition that could bring the case back. i could -- call of the chair to finish that off if we have something is unusual citing mr. lemberg's suggestion. ntsdz. a date what we might do is a call of the chair with a revisit of the call and whatever 60 or 90 days from today would be exactly the date you --ment to have it happen. and -- if they -- come become to us in mid-september we will schedule it then we have a point in time we will revisit and ask the question how are you doing? okay. i wanted add. again i will be voting for a continuance today. if we were not voting for continuance i want to state for the record i absolutely would grant this appeal. i think that -- request we want to check with the departments if they think they could come up with a date? that would be preferred everyone is here and we can let them when they need to come back that is i deal instead of choraling everybody back in the future. check with dbi and planning? i understands you both want a joint investigation and bring an interpret or go to the board indefinite calendar. and please approach. thank you. >> i ask emsince the property owner is here if we set up a date for inspection that would be great. and set up a date to come back before you. if the property owner does in the let us in we go through a different press. get a letter from city attorney. i don't know if you have the authority to have them agree to a time or not. >> we can ask and i think we will check with planning. mrs. tam when would you secure an interpreter and then ask the property owner. >> november sounds okay to us. we can certainly arrange to have this case assigned an enforce am plan weir cantonese speaking abilities. >> okay. >> inspector green was asking the board to ask the property owner for a date a specific date for the investigation. so that he would hopeful low be there and open the door. so -- when would planning with available to do that. we are available now. should we all go. >> no. >> okay. >> it sounds like you get an interpreter and not a problem go this week. get the property owner here. mr. tseng. and mr. wong. dbi and planning would like to come to your property and take a look and do an inspection can they do that on friday? this friday. >> yes. >> yes. he has no problem with this friday y. when time would this work? 1 o'clock. 1 o'clock? planning department and dbi will be at your house on o'clock. they will bring an interpreter. and in terms of continue thanksgiving matter then. upon when would you prefer to continue it to? or president swig you want to go to the call of the chair. i think i will go with commissioner lemberg's suggestion and -- ask for continuance to november 16th. and if during this process planning or dbi finds issues that are going to get in the way of making that date then they can always make a request to calendar a further postponement. i >> november 16th. why not. >> we can call back early are y. call back earlier. postpone. let's put it on for november 16th. >> are you available on november 16th? planning and dbi available. and are the parties available on the 16th of november. going to ton november 16th are you available on that date. may come back earlier. thank you. i believe november 16th should work >> commissioners we need a motion. >> is the permit holder. >> yes. make the motion. >> november 16th works for planning however 1 p.m. on friday does not w for me. intern graduation to go to on friday. a time later in the afternoon works okay. what time. 2:30? >> mr. winning and mr. tseng is 2. . 30 on friday okay? >> yes. confirm 2. . 30 on friday. >> thank you and confirm the availability intention of the departments to have someone to speak cantonese. i speak cantonese. >> okay. commissioner lemberg you have a motion. >> i do move to continue this matter to november 16th. >> so that the planning department and building dbi do an inspection and follow up as necessary. >> okay. >> thank you. >> on commissioner lemberg's motion vice president lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner trs vina >> aye >> commissioner chang y. aye >> president swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries thank the >> may we take a 10 minute break and come back at 7:40. >> we will take a 10 minute break. returning at 7:40. >> i think we are ready. >> welcome back to the august 24, 2022 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. we are now on item 7a and b. these are appeal numbers 22-029 and 22-030 ray digiacomo 11 upon 45 polk street issuance on march 5 of 22 all right of determination occupied by mixed use with 24 units completed construction but not received a certificate of final completion. request confirm it may change from renter ownership without planning approval and determine process with 8 on site affordable units bmr units the conversion is in the prohibited by the planingly code. the conversion men approved in the project experience may sell to qualified households for affordable units in the lottery the other 4 follow the standard pricing means they will be sold to first time home buyers price set at 90% of ami. 202200093. on june first of 22 upon the motion by president swig the board voted continue to sdwrl 20 the parties could work on a resolution on july 20 of 22 upon motion by vice president conditioned august 24 so parties could continue to work on a resolution. commissioner trasvina did you have an opportunity to review the hearings for meetingos june first and july 20. >> i did. >> thank you for patience had i known the last case was long i would have move you'd earlier. >> so we are going to hear >> scott the attorney who represented the 22-030. have you 3 minutes. >> thank you. scott i represent loungea marinello. for brief background for the 2 commissioners a 54 unit building. it had upon been planned by the developer as a rental building the city did a lot row for the 8bmr. witness that was concluded the developer changed course and did not. a rental buildingment the ownership building that resulted in complicated masinations of zoning went through what happens when you have done a let real and people expecting to reason and now they want to sell that result in the an all right of [inaudible] my client felt the letter did not go far enough in favor of affordable housing. we expressed that at a hearing here. we received feedback from the board then and within back. with efforts from the developer, counsel and with mr. teg's review. luca and the developer have an agreement amends the letter of determination and so briefly i have copies of a red lined letter of determination for you to review if you like. the point of all of it line is this instead of 8 units 4 of which 90% ami and 455% ami there will be 8 units at 55% ami. one point thap challenges us for awhile what happens if no one on the lottery list qualifies at 55% ami and was our contention you open up to public at 55% ami the developer had lending and financial contrains they express third degree med that will difficult in addition we worked closely with homeownership sf and confident we will be able to find 8 folks. we have agreed that if in unlike low event there are in the 8 people on the list they can be sold at 90% ami to the general public as 90% as a studio not 1 bedroom. the point of all the red lines there are not a lot is to accomplish when i told you. mr. patterson review today approximate mir's office reviewed. >> time. >> thank you. >> and what did you is this subject to eye levelef restriction in the next sale. so is if somebody bias it at 55%, mi and want to sell it 2 years later is it restricted what are the deed restrictions. >> you need an expert to tell you the restrictions about but there are you cannot sell it at market rent this need to go through the mayor's office and approved to be sold pursuant to what the program provides. >> will not revert to market rate >> that was the purpose of working this out. >> gotta surface that second and third sale >> thank you. >> i will ask this a few times. what i mean there were -- um -- very little settle am discussions until last nime. until last night, there was a proposal by the developer i responded to that proposal in writing i copied everybody on it. this morning i circulated this to everyone else. i had not spoken to him today. my expectation he will not be in accord with this. i did my best at commissioner ching's direction to keep him arc prized. >> did you want to accept that droument he is submitting? >> i would -- with the affirmation from thes other matter parties this is the documents. >> do you want to pass it out and may be -- thank you. >> so we are all on the right page. >> would you like to show the relevant. to the point would you like to show the point that says 55% ami and then subject to -- what i was asking you about. >> >> am the change from half the fordable units made available to all of them and they will being 55 the last sentence is crossed out the 90% ami. put this on the over head everhead. >> >> that zoomed in. if this is read okay to the board. this was the section that sort of the -- conclusion of the all right that had the split of 4 and 4 and that language has been amended to make sure it is needed at 55. >> i think it is best that we -- obviously -- agrees with his own red line and i think we should ask the other appellate and mr. and the project experience. why thank you. hear from ryan patter solicit son next. i had a question where in the document is the question raised by president swig? about the extended life of the 55% requirement? i'm not sure if it it is in here or implicit under the program they are being sold. >> planning department can address temperature >> may be references it is planingly code 415.ab5. i'm guessing. and he canvilleidate that. >> okay. i would like to -- who can memorialize it in the record i would appreciate that. thank you. >> >> thank you. why commissioner brad russy you can ask the mir's office of housing the entire program this is based on is the affordable restrictions are set by the code. they did in the have to say it in this letter. >> right >> and a leah from the mayor's office of housing is here if you wanted ask her now. >> why not. it is on the table >> welcome, mrs. gauge yoochl nice to see you all. what has been stated is correct. all units created under the inclusionary affordable housing are restricted for the life of the project. so long as the building stands. additional low l is discussion on the final page of the new red line letter of determination. that directs as a final step after all units had identified buyers. that a new notice of special restrictions which is the vehicle used to deed restrict affordable units would specify the ami level the affordable level for each of the 8 units. whether they be 55% to lottery list applicants or 90% to the general public. yes, that ami level at initial sale apply for all resales. of each of the individual 8 units. >> okay. we will hear from ryan patterson. have you 3 minutes >> thank you very much. good evening. ryan patterson. commissioners my client heard your commencements the last hearing loud and clear. and we took them to heart and redoubled efforts to find a compromise. after a number of meetings and a lot of work especially overnight last 24 hours, by planning department and homeownership sf, help to report as he acid vised we and the appellate and marinello reached an agreement. commissioner this is deal pushed the determination holdser as far as they could go and new requirements 3. . 30 following the preapplication. this is a fair comp moiz it is unoccupied units for rental the code allows for sale at 90's % ami. the appeal today was air compromise when what the code allowd and set half at 90's and half at 55%. we are going further. agree to set the units 55%. and if for some reason they don't purchase all 8 units any left overs we offer at 90% to qualified boybayers that is unlikely that situation would arc rise left unsold and i believe an arrangement of homeownership sf is here and can speak if needed. the other appellate will digiacomo has not support third degree. i would not say he was not the supportive of the main thrust of the grem. we have not heard from him on this one upon given the timing negotiations and hoe is not responding it e mills today or voice mail. but he has bob a different page. but in any event i hope you see the fairness of the resolution. and i can answer that question involvements in negotiations he was involved in discussions this we had. the last e mill from him on july 31st the last i think we set contact with negotiations he said that conducted settlement discussions. appears to reached an impact. i would like to focus efforts to inneractions with the city to attempt to come up with a resolution to the matter. and goes on. we tried and i am hopeful this is acceptable to him. thank you and best wishes to commissioner chang. why thank you, i don't see questions at this time. we will hear from the planning department and we will hear from mr. digiacomo. >> good afternoon will president swig and commissioners, corey, zoning strirt for planning. begin by saying hel owe to commissioner trasvina. nice to see and you a goodbye from the board of appeals to commissioner chang. a loss and appreciate your service on the commission. and then quickly mrs. gauge addressed the resale issue for clarity that was in the addressed in this. that was not part of the request or the cent roll issues addressed it was not that is not stip laid in the letter anywhere it was not the subject of the determination but she did confirm it would be locked in deed restrict today 55%, mi. i want to take the time to thank scott for i think all of the parties involved think he was the driver of getting to where we are today. and i think it took effort from everyone. ivemented call him out and appreciate his good faith work to get where we are. which is -- the draft that he handed out to you earlier. and for brief over vow. as we discussed in the original hearing at length, the node for this determination to begin with was because we were in an unprecedented situation that the code did not address. it needed a determination for how to handle a situation and when i weighed factors i took the position of damage the property owner rights with the right of the lottery. resip gentiens and split this down the middle. and then the de feoed become from the board was that -- that was understandable but the desire was to go further. and the direction of more toward the lot row winners. and you sent us on our way for the appellates to negotiate with the property owner. happened outside of the city. but then those negotiations would filter through the city through me and mrs. gauge representing ocd to make sure what is proposed could be supported in code and procedures manual when is presented has been reviewd and acceptable under the code given the wagz and would not have objections to the board granting the appeal. i'm available for questions you may have. >> thank you. i don't see questions. >> we will hear from mr. digiacomo. the appellate for appeal 22-029. welcome. >> i'm going to set my timer i get 3 minutes. >> all right. okay. so -- you know we had our first hearing 3 months ago. and i have been to 12 or then hours of hearings factor in the planning department and board of appeal hearings. it does in the count the hours i spent i was the only person this submitted an opening brief. main issue this we discussed in the first hearing on june first was the discrimination against those who can rent versus those who can buy. and -- we hadfully months. discussions mainly amongst the other appellates. not necessarily with me. but -- the discussions have in the addressed that issue. and this is the purpose of the board of appeals really. so -- you know similar to the left hearing, where i was pushed to the side cut out of the deals and may be spoken to the day before the hearing, i did find the day of the hearing it is similar things happened again. so -- the permit hold and other attorney think that i'm only capable of renting and dumping the principles on me. i don't know what is going through their heads. i month ago i tried to spoke to the city and i reach out to core and he said have somebody call me i want to work something out. never heard from anybody from the city. so even the city was playing the same game. you know, so this is concerning. i reached out to homeownership sf i took hours of classes to learn how to get a loan. witness they found out about my finances they blue me off and i got a call from shannon, and she is like they blew you off i will get somebody to call they blew me off again i'm concerned that shannon ininstructed them to do that so she would win contract at sutter. mayor's office of housing did not learn a lot from this. i won another lottery and i was not [inaudible]. and they told me they buy and switchd and not accommodating 65% ami and i sent arc leah an e mail she did not respond. gavin newsome declares mayor's office of housing incomp tent. i wanted 3 that out there. and also >> thank you. time. >> okay. thank you. we have a question from commissioner lemberg. joy appreciate your advocacy in this case and what you are saying. i want to address your contention regarding discrimination of people who can represent versus purchase a bmr and i want to be clear. and will i certainly understand when you are talking about there. but i will say we as a body don't have the ability to change that laween if we wanted to. and when we are stuck with is the laws as they are written and that allow experiences to switch with renters and owners. fithinked make that change i might i can't so i won't. my question for you is -- have you reviewed the letter of determination and what are your thoughts about it with the caveat that the developer did manage that was in their ability to do which was switch from rental to ownership. >> i mean it is -- >> like i said, they are aware i need to rent. so -- you know i -- it is a nonstarter. the i deal solution is to offer a solution where the lottery winners choose if they want to rent or buy there are law this is allow that. where the city make changes to the local law. i detail this in my opening brief. that's my position. i said that men times for in reason it falls on deaf ears every time. >> thank you y. we'll move on to public comment. >> excuse me. was the question answered? did you see the letter? yes. >> okay. >> it >> thank you. we will move to public comment is there anyone here for public comment. raise your hand if you are on zoom. i don't see public comment. commissioner this is matter is submitted. >> okay. commissioner chang start this if you don't mind. >> sure. first, i want to second or echo commissioner lemberg's centiments about realities of what property owners are allowed to do. i can empathize with peaceful digiacomo regarding the inability to purchase. i want to acknowledge that. i think that he clearly gone a very long way to push the property owner to do the most they could in this case. and i think that it was an innovative solution and seem its will increase the fordability of the units for the let row ordinance who are eligible for purchasing such units. i'm inclineed support upon >> grant the appeal in this case and uphold the all right of determination? or amend as amended. what is this action? >> commissioners, tony brad the board if you want to adopt the resunrised letter you node to grant the appeal and find that the zoning administrator uses discretion. determining affordable levels for the unit and number that must marketed to the list developed by lottery you adopt the letter as well. >> grant the appeal and issue the determination on the condition that the letter is adopted based on the discretion. >> got it. i also want to recognize i understand va did what he could in the situation with the tough situation i want to recognize na. recognize put in a tough position and did his best to come to a happy what believed to be a reasonable solution but it sounds like you know the appellates and property owner come up with a better solution and i'm supportive of that. >> mr. lemberg. i echo commissioner chang. all the parties involved did quite a bit of work in getting to the compromise. and i think this it is about as reasonable as a compromise could have been achieved here. given the laws as they exist currently. so. for this reason i would be inclineed support commissioner chang's motion if she were to make that motion. >> mr. trasvina. >> yes. this matter before the board predates me. i echo the views now this resolution proposal is a good product of a lot of frustration at the beginning. now good collaboration and thought and pleased to support it. >> mr. lopez? yea. a few things i think for the benefit of mr. digiacomo, i really identify with your position. and you know based on the comments from the first time we heard this, you know and if it would have been my preference if we could have the lottery proceed according to the original plan that is the closest of when should happen. unfortunately, given the comment this is other commissioners made. you know this seems like the closest approximation to that we can reach. and will understand it is in the satisfying to -- you know the original plans that have been frustrated. i do think that you know moving more broadly to you think the all the parties i applaud the upon the deal that was reached. i think that it is a product of clear hard work and trying to reach closer approximation of the original plans and i want to thank you for open mindedness in reaching joint understanding. i think it is a bit awkward but prerl and because we of course, respect him and his experience and positions it is an odd place to stand to have some commentses on the lod but i think i want to express the gratitude for taking those comments in the spirit which they were intended and open to the new position. >> thank you. >> upon before we move with the vote, i'd like to also recognize this is a difficult issue. there is you know upon it is developers are not in the business of being nonprofits if they except when they are. this developer is in the and i recognize that they have to fulfill obligations to a bank and investors and et cetera . and they had a tough decision. i'm not necessarily comfortable with how they did it. that's okay. it syrup important top surface to the public that the distinction between profit and not for profit and both have business and have a place and occupy a segment of the real estate business and respected as long as they act ethically and don't break it is law. that's one thing. in this spiritive appreciate in this case this developer recognizing that there was a role serious problem has done something about it. and willing to sit down. upon listen, collaborate and -- compromise to get to will a point that 3 of the 4 parties including the city agree the further party. i'm sympathetic to the fourth per i will get to this in a moment. i appreciate their hard work. come a long way and added value to people that needed value. am now to the upon final point. when this item first came up, i i lectured strong to the developer's counsel. when it came to the distinction between member who was a low income rent and buyer. they are different. they live in different worlds. and -- so. i'm sympathetic to the second appellate. who will walk away less happy today. many renters, there is a large portion who will never ever have the opportunity to financial low to buy a piece of rolls royce. and they should not be discriminated from getting into and living in a nice piece of real estate on a rental basis. and i think this is one of the crux of our discomforts here. and i will maintain that position and move off of that position. we have an appellate who is not happy with the decision tonight from what i hear. and what i like to leave the room with tonight for the benefit of that appellate who will be unhappy with our decision is to recognize the mayor's office of housing this learning experience. and so -- i would have likeed have seen more of a hybrid and i'm not sure it would have been legal so i will not get into it. where this would be an option to have a combination of reasonal and condominium in the same building. i don't think it is legal. but i would ask the mayor's office of housing and the planning department to learn from this item tonight. and learn that -- when something like this occurs when the shifts from affordable rental to affordable konldzo purchase, that they are leaving behind some significant portion of our citizens. and those citizens must be recognized and not necessary low left out. and in the future, when this situation occurs, that if there is a let row or a statement this will be affordable rental housing in the first place that recognized and those who were early arc adopt and won a let row they will be accommodate in the a fashion. i will leave it to you. i think it is very, very important to recognize and i'm sorry this we will leave an appellate behind here. because it is tough housing is tough. ful so, with mile per hour's office of housing police look at this. considering this for your future policy decisions i think it is a great learning experience for us all. >> we have a motion on the floor. like to move it? >> yes. >> i would. >> we have a motion from commissioner chang to grant the appeal and issue the letter of determination on the condition of revise to require adoption of the changes in the letter submitted by scott at the hearing today. this motion was made on the basis of the zoning administrator affordable levels and number that must be marketed the members of the list developed by lot row. on that motion vice president lopez? >> aye. >> commissioner trs vina >> aye. >> commissioner lemberg >> aye >> president swig. >> aye >> that carries 5-0 that concludes these cases we are move to item 8. appeal 22-054 harold fish and dorothy fisher versus dbi. 1526 masonic avenue the issuance on july 25 of 22 to robert and amy one story at 15 feet in height center building rear of 1526 masonic. now dwelling unit under permit application [inaudible]. and this is permit 2020037173. we hear from the appellate's first. i will shirr my screen approximate set my timer >> i'm neil schwartz. the permit holders and at 1526 masonic an analysis establishes existing grade has been falsely raised 2-3 feet. structure is more than 16 feet above grade cannot be permitted under that law and must be reviewed for the discretionary review process motored guidance [inaudible] we "permit is not aloud upon under state law. ask it accompliceod hold until a professional site survey is complete through existing grade and arc luable height for the verified. this boa press is the only option for the public to verify the veracity of permit documents once construction disturbed the site. public has in recourse to allow the height. i'm sorry once construction begins. here this is the permit holder's property. this is until tree house structure a reference and this is the appellate's property i represent this image from the appellate's yard. it shows in blue the grade at the yard and shows retaining wall 4 foot 8 high and 5 foot high fence red listen where the grade on the other side of the fence is currently. and the green line indicates the translation of what they are showing as existing grid for the calculation of the height of the ad u higher than the retaining wall. to unraffle this puzzle, what we have done is taken am theful prior permit they had for the studio that was rejected under a dr. 3 months later they foiled a permit for the ad u they did get one for. in the prior studio the blue line indicates the appellate's actual grade. beyond the line. on the other side the red line indicates how they were showing the grade roughly accurately in that process. this drawing can dated december 21 issue 2018. 3 months later they filed the same drawing dated december 21, 2018 now shown 2 to 3 feet higher. than in the prior drawing. this section is taken different portion of the yard and the site section is in the slopeed make this believable. similarly this is the elevation across their site of the stewed dwroe project rejected by planning. when you trans lay this line across we see that what they have done is once again raised an existing grade in green taken from their drawing. raise today 2 to 3 feet and altered the rep centation of neighbor's home. in this analysis, the ad u loyal -- i indicated where that existing tree house is. in their prior studio permit here is the accurate existing grade shown accurate low at the bottom of the fence at the top of the retaining wall which would be in blue. you see the trees sit on the ground and a 6 foot 6 high fence above grade. in their building permit application, the grade now raised again. the trees have been lifted sit on to which new grade. the ease of the approximate appellate's house in the roar has been lowered to 4 the front left it was not false low lowered. is t is a drafting error? the pink indicated both of the decks of the appellate home have been false low liftd and this indicates the upon difference between where the to which fence was to where it now is. and in addition a new 6 foot high fence placed on top of the existing fence that simple low does in the exist in reality. i assume they were covered up the fact the grade was false low raised. i want to note here this is looking where the tree house is when this is the picture from the tree house looking at the yard you see the condition of a 5 foot tall fence arc lining the retaining wall. here newscast previous permit it is accurate. the fence and tree house. 3 monthses later this is where they say existing grade is leaving 18 below the rear fence and the fence which does in the exist because it would be higher than the tree house. here you have seat fence is lower. blue line indicates existing grade the green line indicates where they now claim all along the rear of their property their existing grade is. so -- the [inaudible] state in their brief september 22 ndz we complete site survoy this height requirements they read in it. hi. i structure in the building behind them in the previous project they chose existing grade 3 months later changed. because the height limit is based on existingly grade and they want to blojt building they raised 99. >> you will time in rebuttal. >> i will finish. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> stop share being or. >> yes. >> police. why we don't have questions now. thank you. we will hear from the permit holder you have 7 minutes. >> hello i'm amy, our family moves in the home over 20 years ago and began an effort to restore and min tain our home. designed by bernard maybeck our home is a few in san francisco. we are realists and understand them since 1910 the city grown and so, too have the needs. since our house was constructed learning are structures built in the block including 8 story apartment building. my husband rob and i live and w in san francisco. rob started 3 food companies the last 3 years created. am opportunity for the city and i have managed software groups the last 10 year, i mention this to reenforce how committed we are to san francisco. we have also raised our 2 children here one graduated from college and the other a college sophomore they love san francisco and want to live here. our eldest started his career earlier this year base in the san francisco. he is living with us in his childhood bedroom due to the high cost of apartment rentals this is not a unique situation with our ad u we thought we were preparing in advance for the situation not realizing it would take ulc over 2 years to obtain a permit for a state mandated ad u. because we have a small house on a large lot we have a compelling opportunity to create more housing rather than to a mansion, we want to build a detached ad u to provide multigenerational housing and san francisco ting sponsored bill 68 this is the opportunity he envisioned to ease our housing crisis. quoting if the stan fran panned everhands book enable families to support each other maintaining inspect households or allow people to age in accomplice. the many possible adult children could move when they need support starting schooling or careers. this is what we proposeed do and intended use for our ad u. in their brief the appellate references a different project this we envision in the 2018. that project was in the for housing but an artist studio and required a zoning variance grant in the 2019 the variance was granted the appellate foiled a dr during which the commission requested we examine alternative it is. we did not want to ator or home we did not pursue it and with drew the permit. since our nodes have changed. in january of 2020 state bill 68 and 881 took affect after we filed in match of 2020 a new per mist application for the ad u project we are now discussing. the state laws envisioned a stream lined permit press it took the city time to incorporate the state laws in the san front planning code. as we out lined in the brief, over 2 year and 4 months we worked carefully with planning and dbi to ensure our ad u met all requirements. we hired qualified professionals to prepare documentation including site survey. report, structure ral drawing and tiling 24 congratulationses committed to plan and dbi. upon aset cetera special the review project adhering the city's definition of an officer height is measured. which our team designed based on a site survey from a licensed professional. as well as planning staff discretion. the appellate in his their brief claim that we have chosen to do anning end run to serve their own needs. and try to subvert the system for their desires instead of following the rules. appellate statements are incorrect. we have been working diligently with the city investing time expense to adhere to the ad u regulations. planning, belling, fire and all codes. every step of the process. the result of the effort is a correct low issued permit that will allow us to continue to use our home for multigenerational needs age in accomplice and provide needed housing in san francisco. thank you and now i'd like to hand typeset to justin zuker or land use counsel. >> good evening. justin zuk upper. i will be quick for commissioner chang's last hearing thank you for your service. welcome commissioners trasvina and lemberg. pertain to the height of the mandate ad sxushgs existing grid. climb it is not code compliant. they them they are trying to pull a fast 1 that statute not case 2-1/2 year the ad u gone through plan check by plan and dbi to ensure code compliance with respect to height. prior to permit issuance. weave acknowledge there are differences in the artist studio project section from the state mandated ad u sections. upon the differences are due to indormeration of information from a site survey completed by local land surveyor. the state man dated ad u had a rigid height control no greater than 16 feat and survey required. artist studio did not and survey was not required. this state mandated ad u vetted boy plan and dbi. prior to permit issuance the issuance in accordance with the law and proper. no abuse of discretion and issuance of the state mandated permit and urge you to deny the appeal. we are availability for questions. we have a few questions president swig and commissioner lemberg. >> the obvious question is the appellate presented photos and drawings the drawings show difference inspect grade between the artist drawing and ad u drawing. second low, the photos that were presented showed that in a lack of consistencyy or a difference of representation between an existing fence and the height of the fence in the drawing and by my view may not know the grade on the new drawings can you address those issues and difference between yet grade is different in the second set and applies to the ad u permit than versus the studio drawing and why the drawing seem to represent upon something different then and there exists today. why the 24 not based on the same cest information the state mandate is the site survie by a lan suri havor that was not at hand when the artist studio was prepared the artist studio did not have the same height controls the state mandated ad u. they were able to design team used field dimensions to prepare the sections and go off that. shift to the state mandated ad u a rigid 16 foot height limit a survie required to ensure it was in code compliant. >> okay. >> we'll will now hear prosecute the planning department. >> tina tam it is a 2 story over basement single family in rh2 zoning district. designed by master architect in 1910 the property is a known historic resource. the permit is to construct a one story detached ad u structure at rear of the lot. based upon the permit and plans tell be 975 square feet and set become no les than 4 feet from the side and roar property lines. the height of the ad u will be 15 feet and 11 inches. the appellate to the north at 1524 masonic. the representative mr. neil schwartz opposed and filed a dr on a similar project in 2019. both call for the construction of a new detached dwelling in the same location in the rear yard. difference with the tw projects had you ever is as follows the previous 29 then project was smaller. 850 versus 975. but tall in height 21 feet versus 15 feet 11 inches the main difference is the previous 2919 project was discretionary, triggered a rear yard variance and subject it a dr process before planning. a planning commission hearing was held on january 23 of 2020 and the commission voted to continue not reject as the appellate stated. the item. why in contrast the current project is ministerial. meets all provisions out lined in the program. and entitleed a stream line review and approval process. by way of background to explain the change, shortly after the planning commission hearing condition the item scientist law changed. allowing for mule detaches structures in the roar yard. as long as they are no more than a thousand square feet in size. setback 4 feet from the line and measures no more than 16 feet in height it can be processed with no variance or neighborhood notification and knoche dr process. upon the based upon the appeal brief mr. swarns is concerned about the height and believe it is more than 16 feet. now based upon the review of plans submitted with the permit application. the review of the site survey and information available upon the cross section on 80.3 arc the ad u measures 15 feet 11 inches from the existing grid and does not exceed 16 feet. gifrn the importance of following the state program terse over all size, set becomes and rear and the side property lines the height of the structure, they were reviewed boy the planner and his supervisor. the manager of the ad u program for you department. department does in the believe the height of the building will be more than 16 feet. the ad u come plays with planning code. consistents with design guidelines the secretary of interior standardses hear historic resources and following the program terse of the state program. the department asked the board deny this pel and uphold the permitful that it was properly issued by the city. joy don't see questions. we will hear from dbi. >> good evening. matthew greern. the permit before you is for a 1 story detached at the roar of the lot family 26 masonic. dbi and other city agencies the permit was issued july 25 of 22. one point of the applicant submitted 2 application in match of 2020 one for a new structure and other to put an ad u. this may have been done down to the misinformation prosecute voided to the applicanted one application was rivered include the new structure. of the applicant with drew fwhon january of 20 twoop and prosecute seeded with the one permit application the permit before you is a new detached ad u. dbi mer permit tracking system should be corrected. had the field inspectors defer to the suri have provided bite professional unless a conflicting survey is provided. we would have to am come pair the 2 and see where the reality is. upon we defer to their professionalism. db ieks recommend the the appeal denied and permit upheld i'm available for questions you may have. why thank you. i don't see questions. why thank you we will move on to public comment. common here for public comment i see a hand raised. someone call in the go ahead unmute yourself. you need to press story 6. you have 3 minutes. there say caller who does not have a phone number identified. we can. welcome you have 3 minutes. >> i'm a san francisco resident and watch thanksgiving and i'm outrage whatted is going on here it is clear a wealthy person has hired lawyers and expediters raise the level of their grade. grade does not imaginically change over 3 feet. over a few months. i hope this board will ask the department say particular is all okay. take a look and see. there are picture this is shows the grade is not where they are showing it on the drawings. if this is why peep are upset about government of rich people get when they want. someone should look at the grade and determine whether this build suggest at grid or 3 feet difference. thank you. >> thank you. are you finished? >> i think he mute. i believe he is finished. why okay. is there further public comment on this matter. raise your hand. >> i don't see anyone we move to rebuttal. you have 3 minutes y. thank you, can you hear mow? >> i want to be 100% clear we embrace ad u's. it has to do with falseification of per mist documents in the prior review hearing unlike what she said the vicious was not granted it was put on hold to be left to planning. the planning commission chastised them for lack of professional standards of care in the permit documents and falsifying documents. 3 months later they have doubled down and doing the same thing this is in the falseification of permit documents. i have asked the planning department and them of for every document that they submitted asz part of this permit no pin than i rekosovoed a survey i have never seen it. i talk topside their planner the planner said no survey was required and was not submitted. no one has seen this survey. tina tam comments was just saying that they took the available information and than i are going by it. i'm presenting you clear do you meanations of the drawing and pictures this show the grade is not where they say and it has been false low raised. this is the only question. all we need to do and all we are asking for is a proper professional signed survey that is part of the documentation. i am have requested for pictures i have it wait 3 machinings to be able to see the drawings. if than i want to prowse this site survey that we have never been able to get access to. we can see whether they are lying or the site survey is lying. the pictures speak a thousand words. we are happy to have the ad u we want it built according to the rules for existing grade, currently the approved project does not meet state law. period. >> okay, thank you. >> we are getting a message in the chat that someone was roadway to provide public comment. i don't know if you want to finish you have a question for mr. schwartz. i saw your name. pop up. let mr. schwartz finish and draw public comment in between mr. schwartz. >> he is finished >> i'm happy to answer questions. mr. schwartz. you heard me address project sponsor's council on my questions related to what you represented and in drawings before and after. my first question related the drawings. and asking the same questions you did which were how did the grade raise between the first set of drawings and the second and i believe he told mow that we got a survey. and the survey changed the scope of the drawing. i asked i saw photos and it seems that the photos show a condition that is not what the second set represent. which supports your position. can you show me the photos again and -- and present again your position and because i want those photos to stay on the screen. you have them. we don't. i'm sharing my screen. would you run through this again. more than happy to. show me how that the current condition that is represented in dwrur de feoode is not the condition which is represented in the second set of drawings and then you will present your position again, and i'm going to ask counsel or what is wrong with this picture? so. i will try to answer your question. can you see my mouse moving. why yes. >> this drawing is enlarge am of the exact same thing of this. what this shows in their previous project is grade with the red line with a 6 foot 6 at the roar of their property and then a tree house. so when we -- if i were to stand here and look back toward their house and toward the appellate's house, we see something consistent. the red line equals grade. there is a 5 foot tall fence. that fence is sitting on a retaining wall you see from the appellate's sides. that's all consistently. and here you see a tree house. when we look at the new drawings, so here you are looking one direction now you turned your head 90 degrees to the left and look being all the way down the roar of their property. here you see the tree house again. so -- what they are saying is -- this -- drawing here this line here which is their fence is this fence which is 6 foot 6 high. in this drawing with the raided grade there is 18 inches. between the top of the fence and the grade. in their world. but when they have now done is they realized that if you falsify the documents on you -- somebody will notice what they did is added a new 6 foot high fence would have been 6 foot higher than the top of the property fence and would have hovered above the tree house. that fence does in the exist it is a fabrication. so their previous project corresponds to reality. this project has nothing to do with reality and again what they have done is manipulated all of the existing conscience both on the appellate's property and on their other neighbor's property to suit their needs. the trees are traz said. decks are raised. eve is lower. the deteriorates person forgot to lower the front of the house. all of this is to cover up upon and reshift elements so that they it is left noticeable. i am for the last 25 years a professor of architect. i run my own practice the founding chair of the aia's public policy and advocacy committee works with planning department it stream line design review procedures and i'm a fellow american institute of architectless the highest honor an architect can achieve. this is has problems the more the people lie and falsify their per mist documents and the more this architects are conaccompliceit in this the more we sit here for hour in a gentlemanal meeting wasting everyone's time and difficult for mow to work in san francisco. it is because i can't practice because projects like this are dumbing up the works. i want to take ape moment and clarify the variance was not granted. >> we are in q and a. >> anything else for the drawings. >> thank you, thank you for asking that. i would like at some point when. >> sponsor's attorney or project sponsor to respond to this. i like you to have photos available so we can -- so they can use them as a prop and respond to this. and also i want when planning does their rebuttal i want them to respond in how they evaluate whether something has been adjusted to suit the situation. so -- but and i thank you for your answer. will permit holder is next we will not start their time if you want to respond to president swig. joy want to give them their full time and i'd like that question, which i asked. >> okay. >> additional time will be a question. >> you like to give the rebuttal first and answer the question. we have the member of the public who wants to comment. >> i don't have a caller phone number ends in 0266. go ahead. you may need to press star 6. yes , i can hear you. >> can you hear mowch >> yes, thank you, you have 3 minutes. this is david banson, i live at 1520 masonic 2 doors down from the subject property. my childhood home i am raising 5 kids myself. since i have 3 minutes i want to get to the point which is that i did not know this project was getting reconsidered until i received a postcard in the mail. which was not the typical neighborhood notification i'm used to receiving. i did my home work. looked up visible for agenda and for the supporting documents. one of the upon supporting documents from the build upstated that there was no requirement for neighborhood notification because it does is proposed construction. building complies with the requirements set forth in subsection t6b. so, i locked that up. and the subsection for that section says, this is the roman numeral 3. only one, reading from the current sf planning website. one will be constructed attached to or constructed entirely within the living area or in the building area of the existing [inaudible]. what is proposed is a separate structure entirely across the backyard away from the existing primary [inaudible] it is not attached to it. nor is it with entirely within the living area of that property. >> therefore, this project does not fully comply with the requirements of that subsection. as a result, the permit should never have been granted the department should have never issued an approval and was never exempt from neighborhoods notification it does not comply with that subsection of the section they cited. >> lastly a minor detail i think is relevant considering the misrepresenttations from neil schwartz. when the dr for the studio came up, i wrote a letter indicating the building behind the property is 9 stories tall not 8. don't take it from me. go to google maps java and buena vista avenue and you can counsel them yourself. there are 8 stories facing west and half story that faces west on the top of the building it it 9 stories not 8. i support the [inaudible]. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the permit will holdser. representative, mr. zuker? you have 3 minute in rebuttal. >> where to start. i'm eager to address the accusations of manipulation cover up there has been none. i leave that to you suggested president swig to after the rebuttal. we have worked exhaustively with planning ensure or ad u is code compliant and arc bided by all rule and regulations for the state ad u program. many of our neighbors support our ad u project. they ask us about it at neighborhood events and walks in the neighborhood. we appreciate the written support we received from 7 neighbors live within a block who submitted public letters of support ahead of the hearing. in contrast, the appellate made baseless accusations of falseifications and including using words like cover up. i am very disappointed the neighbors make the false accusations i believe it is expression of nel bill the fact is we including our architects eslo and representative amy lee of 3s, worked with integrity every step of the process. the appellate is grasping at nothing. creating noise and making false claims. all of this is part of a classic case. for example. after we posted the sign on our house on jul. 26th 2022 informing our neighbors of the permit issuance the appellate filed an appeal without seen the plans. then the appellate submitted a brief that focussed on a prior proposed project for artist studio. that bends the truth and created noise. today, the appellate raises baseless claims we falsified existing grade. truth is this we completed a site survey by licensed professional in september of 2020. submit today to planning in november of 2020. our architects and planning relied on the site survey to ensure the ad u met the 16 foot height limitation the city scrutinized the height before permit issuance to ensure it is code compliant. indicates appellate presented is based on incorrect knowledge or -- that we didn't have a site survey that is wrong. the existing upgrade was in fact the existing grade was upon updated in the drawings based on the site survey. by a licensed surveyor in assessment of 2020 submitted to plan nothing november of 2020 the appellate until today was not aware that was the case. >> your time. >> thank you. >> you can now respond to president swig's question. >> and for they think think i would like to have our design professional emily speak. hole. i did not think i would be speaking. what is your name. emily schwartz the designer on this project. why and president swig. >> you know let mow tell you i like the project. nothing wrong with it. i like it. i like that are adding residential house to san francisco. don't get me wrong. i got one problem. i'm looking at the photos -- can we get the photos up in some fashion. i'll put them up. i look at the photos and plans and it confuses me. i'm not a sensitive to the grade guy. unless you were putting -- 40 feet of dirt up and that would be this is in the extreme. it is confusing to me. that one set of plans had graded at one level and the other set grade another level and that is -- i understand, okay, if the pictures did in the exist. then i could understand, site surveyor came in -- post the first set of plans and rectified the problem and saw that indeed grade is different and i understand that. but we have -- pictures here and sometimes pictures tell a thousand words and may be wrong. this is why i'm asking you the question. the pictures indicate that the first drawing is closer to right than the second drawing because i see that the dirt the grade is far lower, seems, again. pictures sometimes loyal. than the grade seems to be in the second set of drawings which would indicate a convenient set of drawings in might indicate. sorry. convenience cest drawings in the second pictures. >> okay. i have explanations for all of that. >> when we got this document from mr. schwartz we went through every single accusation he made. and we did finds we had 2 drafting errors. one was not. insignificant to the height of the grade and also the height of the new structure. and -- we did measure every single place that he accuses us of falsifying. and confirmed that we are -- um -- exactly from the site survey where the elevations should be. when we begant project in 2018. could i look at those. >> i'm sorry. >> sure >> when we started the project in 2018 we did our own site survey. went to the site with a tape measure. did the best we could. that projects never needed a survey. there was never an issue with the height limitation. we decided to do that ourselves and very expensive cost. to the client to have a site survey if swon not needed. that is why we did not do it. we ended up doing our own site survey. we were off. the second you see on the upper left is the section that is cut at the fence line. so you are closer to the fence in that section. and -- in the other section the section is cut fourth in the middle of the yard where the grade is higher. >> so, the fact we are comparing 2 projects that are completely different is absolutely ridiculous in my mind. we should not look at this first set of drawings and we should not be comparing the 2. we should look at is the site survey and the new set of drawings and in which case, we have checked and double checked every single eve, height, railing height of the neighbor's yard. typically, we would not do an expensive site survey of the surrounding buildings. we typically block them out. we give general social security from what we can finds. but we will survey every structure around the site we concentrate on the site and make that accurate as possible. another thing about the pictures. the lower left picture also the other draft 2 drafting errors. one i forgot to draw the eve on the very front sifted house to lineup with the eve height that is on the actual site survey. we got the locations from the surveyor. we could just eve height in our drawings. the second drafting error is that when we revised the grade, to match the site survey. the rear yard fence line i forgot to drop 2 feet. we did accurately at one point, measure the fence from the rear yard property. and i forgot to drop the fence line along with so the fence is 6 foot 6 high. and it is shown at 8 feet. i forgot to draw the 2 feet. upon difference in i hope i'm making this clear. the difference in the drawing on the left where it is showing, sorry, the left. the drawing there is that the section cut there is right at the fence line that is where the site does slope from right to left. high to low. if you cut a section here, it will look higher than if you cut it here. that is what it is and i take offense to mr. schwartz 'continual battery of our project. and that's it i hope that makes sense. >> makes sense. i had to be thorough. the final question, the photo is gone but the the fence that is drawn in that, that guess next to the tree house. that fence does not exist or what is that? that which the 6. that is right. it is a 6 foot 6 fence he has the photo right. but i don't know that the other lines are they are not lines taken from. possibly that is the sense i forgot to draw in the drawings the one on the right side where the mouse is circling that, that is that. >> a fence on top of a concrete wall. >> does it exist y. it does it is 2 feet lower than there. there are no dimension stringos this. and if it were of importance there would have been a dimension on it. it is in the thanks. can i address this we did check this and we have 9 foot 7 and a half inches if you add 5 foot and 4 foot 8 we double checked the dimension it is right on our drawings. >> thanks for addressing that. >> can i add one thing. >> if it applies to this question you may. >> okay. it is about this question i want to build the 2 drafting errors emlow mentioned are inconsequential to what we are belling what we build meets the standard ad u the drafting errors are inconsequential related to the fence and how the niche's roof eve was drawn. >> got it. i will schedule planning whether that is fair if they are inconsequential or not. i'm not doubting you i want to be thorough. >> there is a lot to been in this case. i am going to focus on one thing, that is the i heard mr. schwartz ask for or state that he did not receive a copy of the site survey. i'm wondering if the permit holders would be willing and able to share that with him and with us to i don't know to measure against doubt we have as to this. i think it would be helpful for you to see this site survey. yet the site survey is public record it is submitted to the board. it was not included in the packet i provide today to alex if you like a copy we can provide them. >> i would like to see if possible. show it on the over head as well. >> very small. >> the appellate have it? >> no. can i speak? no. this is neil schwartz. >> he said he did not receive a copyright site survey they brought it in tonight and -- so. >> i repeatedly asked for it from them and plan and repeatedly told that it does not exist. it was in the required. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we are putting it on the over head now. survey was submitted to planning and with dbi. >> more helpful if i knew how to read a site survey. i do not. it is dense but as mention today appropriated by a licensed local land surveyor they have professional obligations and i would not expect them to cut corners on behalf of us. >> thank you. >> anything further? thanks we will move on to the planning department. >> thank you. tina tam for planning department. the planning department does not believe there is falseification of the grade on the plan. the information this we locked at for the purposes offer review was based upon licensed professionals. 2 separate licensed professionals a licensed architect and left lanesed civil engineer. while a site survey is not required for planning review, one was provided planning in advanced of this hearing. and based upon this survey, contains topo graphic information there is 2 slopes that run across the property in 2 directions. a lateral and across slope. based upon what the appellate's drawing looks like from 2019 shoes the lot is flat. is not the case if you look at the site survey. there is a slope. why is this important? it is because the proposed ad u is not located on the property line it is pulled back. it is pulled back as required at least 4 feet. and for the portion that is closest to the tree house, close to 6 feet of a set become. this means the grade will not be the same if it is on the property line. so with that difference survey from another licensed engineer, we were provided, and we believe what we were provided is accurate. and -- at this time, we believe the project complies with the ad a state law and proper leave issued by the city. >> thank you. we will hear from dbi. nothing further. >> okay. >> commissioners this matter is submitted. >> okay. i will ask our resident -- planning expert to start with our comments tonight and since she departing after this. this is her last hearing i'd like to hear your thoughts, please. get the conversation started. >> thank you, president swig. i think i -- i agree with planning the planning department's assessment and based on the materials that were submitted before us there is in the a reason to believe the survey was falsified and inaccurately reflect grade. it is unfortunate there were graphing errors. i agree they were inconsequential. and you know, it is unfortunate that this can derail the conversation but reality they can and do, which is to the appellate's point of most importance we constantly cross our t's and dot our i's in this profession and it is in the easy when you deal with a lot of different surrounding contents that might not completely be jermaine to the subject project at hand. but because it impacts the built environment and so many people around us, it is really imperative we are mindsful of that. that said, i'm entirely ready to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. >> will that is a motion. that is your motion. >> yes. >> further comments. >> sure. is that your motion. >> i want to hear from other commissioners but i'm appropriateed make that motion. >> yes. >> commissioner lopez? >> yes, a quick point of information if i may ask a question mr. russy. i know that there are some you know preemption questions the state law with the ad ukase, i was hoping to get some input from you on the scope of review that is before us tonight. >> sure. deputy city attorney, your normal standards of review under section 26 of the business and tax code does not apply to this case that is a discretionary review to consider the affect on neighbors and other things like that. under the state ad u law, the permit fist than i comply with the state luthey mote the requirements discussed tonight are ministerial and the board has no discretion to deny the permit if code requirements are met. >> does that answer your question? >> yes. >> any other comments. >> mr. lopez? >> no, thank you mr. russy for there. i think with that in mind i -- my views arc line with commissioner chang's and based on hastandard of review, which is you know -- relatively narrow. i would be inclineed support this motion if made. >> thank you. why mr. trasvina. >> thank you. president swig. i will be brief, because -- i say this is one i have been struggling with you don't have, we had credentialed people on both sides of this and i'm struggling looking at the maps and the survey and reading the materials, how -- how there could be a difference of view. and mr. schwartz mentioned fellow and aia and et cetera . and i'm -- fumbling why, how could he be going out on a lim for the position of that he stated. i appreciate tina tam for providing the rational and the explanation of that the difference heights in different places of the property. the only way i reconcile it. upon given also given the center of review, i believe it was appropriately granted. i would support commissioner chang's motion. >> commissioner? >> i don't have a lot to add. i echo commissioner trasvina's comments i'm an attorney i'm struggling to keep up with this a bit. ultmittly i think what it come down to is the standard of review here and the fact that in order for us to find that it was not properly issued, woad have to be sure this was falsified. i don't think we have seen enough evidence tonight to say certainly that it was the plans were falsified. and in fact we received a pretty competent and believable story from the permit holders and as to how and why that was not the case. and so -- i, you know, i think that is where my analysisens and i would have to vote to deny the appeal on those grounds. >> executive director, would you call the vote. >> we have a motion from commissioner chang to deny the appeal and uphold the permit vice president lopez? >> aye. >> commissioner trasvina. >> aye. >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries five to 0 on the appeal that concludes the hearing. >> thank you. thank you for your service, ma'am. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. we are here today for virtual town hall regarding a officer involved shooting that occurred saturday august 6, 2022 at 18 and shotwell street. before proceeding, i like to announce to our viewing and listening audience that this town hall is being translated into spanish, and american sign language. today's presentation include details from officer involved shooting that occurred between uniformed san francisco police officers and 51 year old jose cavera. the san francisco police department we recognize that our sworn duty as law enforcement officers imposes no more solemn obligation on us then to

Related Keywords

China , California , United States , San Francisco , Chinese , American , David Poon , Neil Schwartz , Robert Wong , Tony Brad , Matthew Green , Amy Tseng , Kenny Tseng , Spoon , Tina Tammy , Ryan Patterson , Brian Fu , Angela Kim , Angela King , Gavin Newsome , Emily Schwartz , Tina Chang , Steve Williams , Peter Poon ,