Tenant. We are going to fulfill whatever agreement we did with the tenant. We are not thinking of doing any unlawful things. I dont think there is a landlordtenant situation. This is a situation where we want to work with the city to be granted permits to enhance the property. We have been following all the guidelines and all the rules and regulations. We know that we can have an access into the property. Because all the homes in this district are available to add one extra dwelling to the property per ordinance 1917 and this puts San Francisco in compliance with californias state law. So we made some changes on the plan. They addressed that we were missing something on the lower level. We corrected that. We think that we are in compliance with all the rules and regulations to expand the property and make a good property. We even when we paint the property we tried to match to the opera house that is like two blocks away. You have pictures. I think the property looks beautiful now compared how it was before. We dont understand why all this opposition from the neighbors, when now probably the value of the properties has raised with this property looking better now and with less problems with the neighborhood because there is no People Living on the street. There were two cars that were parked in front of the property. One was on the driveway and one was on the sidewalk. These two cars were parked there for more than one year. This was not an issue for the neighbor at that time. Why suddenly it is an issue right now that we are renovating the property . Its just because of privacy concerns i think. They are trying to bring a landlordtenancy issue that doesnt exist. We are in a good situation with our tenant. We have done some agreements with them and we are going to fulfill those agreements. The present is that we are following guidelines and we are going through the guidelines and thats how we were granted a permit. I dont know why things that may have occurred on the future or not is a concern right now. Are you done . I want to add just a few words. When we bought the property we found someone lived downstairses. Its an illegal unit and we went to the city and asked for guidance. The suggestion from the city was to legalize. You do your plan and submit it and review. You become compliant with the code and legalize it. Thats how you deal with tenants in an illegal unit. We didnt create this illegal unit. I talked to the tenant probably four weeks ago. She said that was created probably 15 years ago even before her mother bought the property. We didnt create the problem. We inherited it. My recommendation is we need to legalize it and that is exactly what we do. Thank you. I got a question sir. We know that if you have an illegal unit the city requires you to legalize it unless its physically impossible to do. So youre creating one a. D. U. And one living space above . Downstairs. Okay. And currently as your brief indicates that you inherited a tenant. So youve been going through the rent board as far as the relocation goes . No we didnt. We never tried to move them out. There was a settlement. In the settlement we settle with the one on the first floor. At the time we asked the other side council, can we have the settlement include the tenant downstairs. The answer is no. The opposing counsel said he only represents first floor, not downstairses. So we never negotiate for them to move out. Youve never asked them to move out . No never. So evidently the place is remodelled. So the top floor living level, is vacant now . The first floor is occupied. On the top floor is. Yes. That is relocated now. So youre going to relocate the tenant for the lower section and remodel that . Only when we start the renovation on the downstairs then we will start to relocate them to other place. That was the plan. Thank you. I have a few questions. There was an assertion that there was a studio drawing that the appellant presented as something that you had shown to the tenant. Is that an accurate representation of what you showed to your current tenant in the downstairsed . The drawing we submitted to the city means its part of the design the studio there is part of our plan. I guess what i understood whether this continued to produce accurate plans. Is that an office and the Planning Department has plans for us. What i want to understand what troubles me the most of the assertions that youve made some of them im not as concerned about, is this idea that youre untruthful in your representation of what you plan to do. It is an r3 building but to submit plans for a twobedroom threebathroom a. D. U. And that not be accurate to what you are trying to do is troubling to me. Is that in fact what you did show to your tenant as a proposal for what you want to do. And it matched our plans. Those new plans . Well see those later, scott . I guess ill just say truthfulness and honesty is the best way to come to this board. So any untruthfulness and dishonesty would not be looked favourably upon. The other renovations you have permits on . Yes. And as far as the excavation, did you do the soils report . How did you determine the amount of soil that would need to be excavated for the proposed renovation . Although theyre done by professional as well not a professional in excavation. So we hired a professional so an engineer provided that required cubic amount. The soil report structural report whatever report the city requires we do and thatsing the reason we got this drawing. Structure drawings are not part of this permit. So you havent been there. We dont have details of that construction yet. Clerk can you fill out speaker cards. Whatever the city require us to do we will do. Clerk your time has elapsed. I want to make sure youre clear now. Your plan right now for the downstairs a. D. U. The plan is for it to be a studio or a twobed, threebath which is it . The plan we submitted to the city no my question is right now do you intend to make the a. D. U. A studio or a twobedroom a. D. U. , which one . Its a twobedroom. Part of it looked like the drawing. I dont call that as a studio. I call that as a master bedroom. Thats a twobedroom. Thats a piece of the puzzle that wasnt part of the twobedroom. Scott, clear this up. Would the board of appeals be interested in plans . No not at all. I have many copies here. You come prepared. You must have been a boy scout. Not at all. This permit was submitted last september. It also includes a horizontal rear addition. The property was an rh zoning district. This provision was actually in the appeal processes surrounding this and recently amended to give expedited appeal review as well as no rehearing request and also very strict standards and how it was under review. So actually for the person of this permit that provides the a. D. U. Under section 207, the Planning Department doesnt have the ability to deny that. If it meets all the requirements there is no discretion. They do have as part of the horizontal expansion, the expansion of the dwelling unit upstairs. That is something susceptible to discretion. The permit was noticed around section 311 for pretty much the month of january. Their 30 days expired in early february 2019. There were no discretionary views filed. This was brought to our attention more recently by the appeal of this permit and appreciate the appellants brief and showing there was an existing legal unit there. We did find given that is the case that needs to be shown on the plans and that wasnt. So we did have the permit holder submit resized plans. We received those last week. Theyre also there before you in your hands. They were also submitted to the appellant. We reviewed these to be submitted with the planning code. They dont need to file under a planning provision. They can legalize with this. We are obligated to approve this permit if it meets the requirements of the planning code. Theyve gone through the a. D. U. Process and theres been some issues raised about the existing tenant but that is a separate issue from our view of the a. D. U. I was concerned and confused when i saw the overhead of a studio unit and i appreciate the board for getting clarity on that. As i understand the appellants argument and even what the permitholders initial response it sounded like a third a. D. U. Unit. That would be a different case here. What is before you on the plans shows two separate units, the a. D. U. Under the state law on the ground floor and the existing unit on the second floor having been expanded. I did look at the permit history. There is an existing permit to make interior modifications to the upper unit that was issued that has not been completed. So im assuming this would tier off of that permit and they would have have an expanded unit that is in the process of being remodelled. In order to move forward the Planning Department requests that you grant the appeal and base it on the plans that show the unauthorized dwelling unit which the permit holder has shown on the plans and submitted to us the required affidavit stating that they have an unauthorized dwelling unit on the property. Under the planning code of 317 they couldnt remove that unit. They would be very clearly required to legalize that. That is this permit. This permit corrects the violation. It complies with state law and local law and would respectfully request that the board grant the appeal and condition it on the revised plans. I credit all this to gold old exsupervisor david chu. State law requires if it meets the requirements of the state law that we require that we cant say no to it. Tus does it have the parking requirement . Parking is no longer required anywhere in San Francisco except for mortuaries. Thats great. That answers that. As far as kind of understanding these plans are not stamped or dated and i dont know if thats normal. Weve seen this. When they come in for revisions they may have the same date as the original plans. We would ask the board to use the plans that have the date accepted. As far as the excavation it may be more of a question for the building. I think it does the second or third page. It would go on needing more reports. They were required and the licensed professionals are required to be truthful and honest and accurate in all of their findings. If that is not found to be the case there are additional requirements that are required. They are subject to all of the requirements, but i would refer to the senior building inspector. Last question. Is this the permit that also by expanding the lower level expands the upper level. And is that included here or is that a separate permit . One permit would cover the expansion of both the ground floor and the upper floor. There was only one permit i could see which was as a remodel. Thank you. Are you serious, the only people requiring parking is a mortuary . And it was increased. Oh my god theyre dead. Thank you. Clerk we will now hear from the department of building inspection. The permit under appeal on the first and second level new high deck, new bath second bedroom. Two bedrooms three baths. It was reviewed by planning. This is a site permit building d. P. W. P. U. C. , back to planning again and finally issued on the 20th of june and suspended on the 2nd of july. Just hearing from the appellants. Their concerns about the foundation the excavation are valid. We talk about them all the time. Obviously this is a site permit. The excavation on this structural work is going to be shown on the addenda. The permit issuance would need to be on the permit lines. I cant tell how far theyre going but if it does below the level of the bottom of the Neighbors Foundation theyre going to have to bring that into consideration. It could mean underpinning or geotechnical report if it means the ground is solid enough. It does also carried under california civil code 832 where they have to notify the neighbor ten days prior to excavation to have their engineer look at it. Both engineers can look at it or they can pop their engineer into the project who can talk to that or contact the department to deal with that. Im actually dealing this week about cases that i dealt with months ago with the board of appeals. Now theyre starting work. Were dealing with the addenda and the neighbors concerns about the depth of the excavation. Thats all ahead of them. As mr. Sanchez said, we need to put our faith in the contractors. If theyre going down below the Neighbors Foundation, they better do it the best way. They better need exceed the foundation. Theres a lot of steps that they have to take if this permit is approved and we look forward to them doing that. Im available for questions. Lucky its not sacramento street. Clerk i have one question if you could explain for the appellants knowledge. How would they be abreast of the plans . Could they go down to d. B. I. And review the files . Yeah they could do that. The department realizes that these excavations on property lines, theyre on that sort of subject, but its okay for them to contact the plan checker and come down. I dont like to suggest that they need an engineer. The d. B. I. Have engineers but if they feel they need some, theyre welcome to hire their own engineer. During review theyre allowed to ask questions. If someones not getting back to them, theyre allowed to voice their concerns. I did hear someone we know these things, the Building Code does provide for that and rightly so. If theyve got any questions, reach out to d. B. I. And well do the best to answer them. Clerk thank you. Given the fact that subject property is 1907 i mean what the foundation on that is is i mean yeah, its coming out. Theres a new Foundation Going in. In the past weve if there is underpinning we can have it marked so the permit holders feel comfortable. They talked about a lot of things but hear anything about their intent to handle it. It looks like theyre going a little bit deeper than when they are at the minute. If the new foundation is coming out, it might get below. Normally a contract would try to determine that before they start because its not something you would want to be in the middle of. They probably know that already. Is the Current Foundation on reinforced masonry . There is no structural drawings but i think it is. Thank you, joe. Maybe i should address this to mr. Sanchez, but ill address it to you and you can pass it on to mr. Sanchez and address it in rebuttal. But you said the whole 311 notice process has been disregarded and or undermined by virtue of the fact that we just got plans today. They werent even done in time for the briefs to be filed. So how could there be a satisfactory 311 notice process with discussion back and pingponging back and forth to arrive at a compromise or a consensus . I know mr. Sanchez will address this and the changes that are proposed may not fall under it. Ill let the Planning Department answer that. Ill let mr. Shan ches answer that. I asked you so he could prepare for rebuttal. I really hate coincidences and one of the coincidences is on page a1. 0, which is the excavation accounts. Isnt it a coincidence that these total 39 cubic yards that fall just under the level that would trigger a greater study . These are the coincidences that drive me nuts. Okay. You and me both. Is it true that this is our last bite at the apple with regard to this appeal because when we approve or not this site permit or if we approve this site permit then the next phase is addendum and we dont get to see the addendum and we never its out of our hands. Is that correct . That is correct. I think the comment by mr. Sanchez and you can of course ask them for anything the calculation of the excavation, showing how they arrived at 49 cubic yards. The 50 is obviously a Planning Department requirement. Whatever theyre kicking out from a structural and a d. B. I. Point of view its not really ours as opposed to the 50 kicks in some planning stuff. Youre right, it could be the boards last unless we cause them to get a revision permit, then it would be appealable but the addenda is not appealable. What also bugs me here is you popped right up and responded to commissioners questions with regard to unreinforced masonry foundation. You were assuredly confident in your statement that its probably going to result in a new foundation. So new foundations i dont think theyre reflected in here. And therefore they couldnt be reflected in the investigation counts. A new foundation is going to mean more excavation. Certainly that would lead to a commonsense assumption that it will be more than 49 cubic yards. The problem that i have with this is if the project sponsor is even close to being responsible as a developer and responsible for understanding renovating a house in San Francisco thats 1907, then very quickly they would make the same observations that you have made and that is that were going to have to do a new foundation here and the excavations are going to be probably pretty severe and go beyond 49 feet. Thats whats bothering me. Whats your thoughts on the subject . Without seeing the structural drawings i assume they are doing a new foundation. There are ways to keep the Old Foundation. My understanding is youre adding onto the building youre excavating below. Its an older foundation. Whether the Building Code kicks in or not most people do it. It makes sense to do it. There are ways where you could keep the Old Foundation and they could take out a section underneath the Old Foundation on very small sections and pour it. Put this type of project here i assume its going to be a new foundation. Thats an assumption. The people who have the permit are the people to watch or ask. In the spirit of our concern that it might require a new foundation and in the spirit of our concern that it might go over 49 cubic feet can we condition approval of this permit on also including a study that would have been triggered by it being over 49 cubic feet . I think you can ask for anything you want, but i definitely want mr. Sanchez to address that. He can prepare for that. Its a Planning Department requirement. 50 cubic yards Means Nothing to me. Mr. Sanchez is the expert on that. Just one thing on this building as well. I did check. There was a lot of complaints from the previous owners about maintenance issues. The guy in the van, i read about that and stuff like that. It looks like the new owners thats yesterdays news i think. Yeah. I usually state that. Thank you. Clerk is there any Public Comment on this item . How many people are here for Public Comment. Okay. You can appr