Unit. It was created into a twobedroom unit. Shes lived in a twobedroom unit the entire time shes lived there. And the coincidences im talking about ive probably been in more homes in the Bayview District than pretty much any other person in San Francisco as a housing attorney serving the neighborhood ive never seen a third bathroom in any house in the entire neighborhood. There are no threebathroom houses in the Bayview District. And certainly it doesnt make sense to have a threebathroom and twobedroom unit for this single mother and her young daughter. It doesnt make sense. Which leaves the only logical conclusion in my mind that the Property Owner is intending to make this two short term rentals. The upstairs bedroom has been siphoned into units. The planning website reflects. The Property Owner told me this isnt planned but i have a hard time seeing any other possible reality that can occur here. No one believes in the maintaining the Affordable Housing more than i do. But in this case this isnt the hypothetical. Somebody is actually living there with her daughter. And this is potentially lowering her ability to live there in the shes lived there for the past many years. Finally im sorry. I lost my train of thought. The unit oh the lease that she signed at the request of the Property Owner was for a studio apartment which does not currently exist meaning the only possible outcome is they are planning to move her into a studio apartment. Thank you. We have a question for you. Do you have evidence that there is currently a shortterm rental operation in the upper unit . Apart from the fact that its a bunch of students living up there. Evidence of the shortterm rental would be evidence of it listing on air bnb or other sites. And you state your client signed a lease that is for a studio unit at the same address . Thats correct. Okay. And do you have the date of that lease that it was signed . I dont have a copy of the lease in front of me. June of last year. Im sorry . Can you speak into the microphone and identify yourself . My name is carhartt. My previous lease was for 700 and now its 1,750. But for a lease that doesnt exist . It says its for a studio but im occupying a twobedroom. Its for your current residence . I just wanted to understand. Its for your current rental. I dont understand how my Current Space can be labeled as a studio, which is what my lease says. Unfortunately thats not a matter that could be for us but just to understand the totality of whats before us. Is there any concern they have not offered to relocate you and have you move back into the unit . Ive been told verbally i will be and ive been told its in my lease but im not sure if it is. Has your attorney looked at your lease . Ive gone through several different people and he hasnt seen it. So you have a concern its a verbal agreement but we dont know. Okay. Thank you very much. Fill out a speaker card, please. Who else is here for Public Comment . You can approach. Good evening, everybody. Im the neighbor. Im on 1506 newcomb avenue. I speak to the integrity of the situation here right now. Someone who moved here from a third world country, i believe in america we follow laws and rules. We operate a legal airbnb and pay taxes on it. You asked a question on whether im sorry. Can you see it . This is an add from craigs list where there are three People Living in the apartment upstairs. We dont understand how they get an apartment signed signed off when none has been cleared. Its already been rented. Its a short term lease with three People Living upstairs. I find it to be extremely disgusting where we follow the law and someone next door doesnt. We were told a family is going to be moving in. We find out there are more people abusing the system rather than contributing to it. This is all i have to say. Im very angry about this. My neighbor amy is a righteous person talking about the foundation. We are also concerned about our foundation because if their house falls, we are next in line. I strongly urge the committee to please disregard the permit at this point in time. Thank you. Is there any other Public Comment . Well move onto rebuttal. Public comment sir . Okay. I live in 1544. I am the next door the next house from it. Im concerned about my foundation too. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Fill out a speaker card, please. Your name sir . Can we get your name on a speaker card . Thanks so much. Is there any other Public Comment . Okay. We are moving onto rebuttal. Well hear from appellant. I have to go back to the comment made that the studio is a master bedroom. I can see plainly here the master bedroom. And here is the area that aligns with the studio. So im very confused by their argument stating that that studio is the master bedroom because it clearly is not according to their own plans. Secondly you were asking about the excavation calculations. And on page a1 i have here if you look at all the calculations come from the existing structure the addition would be over here as would the deck so their calculations dont include that at all. With regard to the cleaning up of the house and the man in the van and that dirty laundry, anybody who bought that house would have taken care of that, cleaned up the house. But they probably wouldnt have divided it up into separate rentals as these guys plan to do. And for the concerns about my parties which i find very odd and amusing, of a statement sure theres privacy concerns. But not nearly as concerning as things we discussed here today. So i encourage you to please look at the full picture of the inconsistencies and the realities and take that into consideration. Thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from the permit holders. You have three minutes. First of all we dont do any short term rental. We have rental agreement to show its not short term rental. You will not find our rental in any short term rental website so thats not true. Never happened. Again based on assumption, no truths. And it proves its not short term rental its longterm rental, first of all. Second, i think theres a complaint saying the plan you have on hand was just submitted two days ago. So they had no time to review. I think you do review the plan we already submitted six months ago. And the plan we updated a few days ago theres only one difference. That is the down stairs, according to claimant division we need to showdown is it fair to say. So we have not downstairs. We have not changed anything on the new plan we want to do. The plan has been there since day one. That means last year of this year. When we post it outside. And that has been there. So saying that the plan that you have on your hand is there for only two days is not correct. And that mrs. Sanchez testified to that. Okay. Also we think that we are not here prepared to deal with the landlord tenant situation. Maybe whenever we need to deal with that we will deal in the future. What we are going to do right now is go to our permit to renovate the home. Thats it. Are you done sir . Two questions for you. I dont know if you both want to stay and answer. The gentleman produced an ad i couldnt see where it was from but it was indicating it was a short term rental. The person at the bottom. 4b. The person at the bottom im not sure if the gentleman is listed as the holder of that permit, if that is one of you or a member of your party or organization. Thats a previous description we were trying to rent. We erased the short term because we knew it was not appropriate. You erased that . Yes erased that. Currently we have leases that we can provide showing that we dont have short term rentals. The assertion from ms. Carhartt she was offered a lease for a studio do you care to expound upon that . You said the tenant landlord are not before the board but the integrity of the people before us, we have to understand the testimony you are giving is truthful so is it on accurate statement shes making that she has a lease for a studio apartment in her current apartment. We can check the Lease Agreement and get back to you on that. I think she doesnt remember the Lease Agreement. And we dont have the Lease Agreement with us. So i dont think we know what is in the Lease Agreement. Can i answer the question . I think the problem here is, is that the description of what youre giving your current tenant and the description that is before this body and that was submitted to the Building Department it looks like theres Monkey Business here. It looks like you are going to split the bottom floor up. Because if you had given her a lease that indicates that you have a studio apartment that you are giving her and they evidently have a copy of what you showed them what it looks like. And here all five of us are looking at wait a second. All five of us are looking at this plan here. And even myself who does building and looking at this and why are there three bathrooms . So it looks like you are going to split this up. And again we are not trying to convict you over social media or anything. And we are not doing assumptions but this body is going to make sure that does not happen. We have no plan to do that. And i dont think the Lease Agreement says studio. Okay. Thank you. Sir who lives upstairs . We have three tenants longterm lease. You have three different tenants upstairs . Yes. And you rent it out to three bedrooms . Yes. Separately. Separate. As long as theres not more than five, its not illegal. Yeah. Weve been trying to rent it to a family. But this San Francisco, really anyone can afford it so thats the reason we rent it longterm lease. Whats the total rent youre collecting for upstairs . I would say 4,000. 1,300 per room. I saw 1,500 in the exhibit. Oh did you . Okay. Why does the excavation page include the addition . That i dont know. The reason i say i dont know is we are following the code required by planning. If they come back to say we need to have that without it, they wont give us a permit or approval then well go hire an engineer to do that. The engineer will generate documents and will submit to the department. This is a site permit. When the site when after you get the site permit the next one comes with all the detail. All right. So we are following the procedure. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez. A followup to that one scott . Any questions . I have two, which is. Well try to go for my memory here. So regarding section 311 notification it is not required for adus approved under 207c6 so that change of scope, theres no reason that the correct plans couldnt or shouldnt have been submitted on day one. Shouldnt have taken an appeal to get the permit holder to submit plans that reflect whats there. Existing conditions means what is existing, not what you would like it to be. But so that is an issue. But i think its not defeating of this permit, because just the project, the scope there does not require a 311 neighborhood notification. Regards to the excavation, and i agree, that the excavation should be shown for that portion at the rear. That said, even if it goes over 49 cubic yards, its unlikely to have any serious impacts here, because its not at a land the cubic yard threshold is for additional Environmental Review when certain things exist such as hazardous soil that you could be digging up, that you can be and this is not in that area, so it wouldnt trigger that review. Its not in a landslide zone or a lot that has more than 20 percent slope. So had they been im trying to be cute and do 49 when theres actually more. I dont know it doesnt seem like doing 51 or 55 would have made a difference in the process. One comment generally is when you have a standard, people will build to the standard and thats why we get a lot of projects that come in. We have office cap allocations. And people come in at 24,999 square feet so they dont have to get an office allocation. People will build to the requirements to avoid what they think or maybe as additional process. Also looking at the plan, there is not a substantial amount of excavation here. And the plans from what they do show which doesnt show the horizontal expansion at the rear it does seem to be accurate. I mean, you can look at the section on sheet a 3. 0, you can see theres not really a significant amount of excavation. They are showing new foundation and flat. But its not an extensive amount of excavation given this is San Francisco and we have hilly terrain and we have seen projects where you see the iceburg houses and they are excavating rooms and basketball courts under the houses. Not significant excavation there. In regards to short term rental we dont have any active complaints on short term rental. But there is nothing against the law of having three people or five People Living unrelated in the home. Thats my time. If you have other questions i can answer them. Sorry. On the subject given this is our last bite at the apple because once we if we were to approve this permit tonight, thats all, folks unless it was a major change in scope. Given the fact that plans, the final plans whatever that is, were presented to you only two days ago. I received them last week. They were given to the appellant last week, i think last wednesday. And were not given to us in time for this hearing as far as a brief. And given some of the concerns that have been raised here tonight what should this body be concerned with and what should we be questioning, given the inconsistency ies that have been observed here tonight, including, for example, three bathrooms, two bedrooms and three bathrooms that if a wall was put up would make a lovely separation into an additional unit . I would say in terms of plans or floor plans that are easily manipulated to add additional units, this is not the most easily manipulated i would say. On the ground level, they would have to dissect that living space, separate the dining and living room, have on one side, an avenue door where the driveway is and then but thats not whats on the plans. The plans dont show that. So we have to go by whats on the plans not what may happen in the future. If they do that in the future if they add another unit if they do illegal work, there are remedies for that. We have to go by whats on the plans. Has the permit holder helped themselves through this process by not accurately representing the plans from the beginning . No, they have not helped themselves. And just even hearing the interactions with the tenant, theres a reason that theres not trust here. We have permits all the time in San Francisco. And there are varying levels of trust. Its based on the interactions that that happens. We have to go with whats on the plans. And while someone may have exhibited behavior thats not the most trust worthy maybe they were honest errors, maybe they werent but we have to go by whats on the plans. We cant make judgment calls on whether someone is a liar or that one day they are going to do a violation. We have to go by whats on the plans. Dbi will ensure the plans. Well get a complaint if a door pops up in the front. The separation of those the ground floor space, i think would be pretty apparent. Theres no side yards here. So theres no independent access from the rear yard as i understand it so right now theres only one entrance on the front and thats in such a way that has access to both bedrooms why are there three bathrooms if theres no rule in the planning code says you cant have two bedrooms and three baths. Is it standard . More plumbing and more fixtures than usual. I mean, i would assume that is so they can probably rent out those bedrooms. But that could still be done in compliance with the planning code. So all that being said, do you advise us, if we were to move forward and approve this permit or uphold the appellant and approve the permit with conditions, are there any other than just approving the denying the appeal, are there any conditions that you might advise to rest the fears of the appellant in the moving forward of this development . I mean in terms of issues that were raised of the foundation i would defer to joe duffy in building inspection. But in terms of a lot of the issues i heard were concerned about this is a Single Family district and there shouldnt be multiple units. The law allows that. So i dont know what condition we could do that would allay those concerns about too much density. I know this is a Single Family district an hr1 district but we have a housing crisis, and state law does allow for these accessory dwelling units and it does not have discretion there. The discretion would be including additional conditions that on the permit. So i dont see anything that needs to be done other than adopting the revised plans and if illegal work is done in the future, complaints are made, and they are brought to justice. Right. And a notice of violation and here we are again. I hate to bring up this possibility but i just am wondering what you make of the rear room not being featured in the excavation plans, if that is because the professionals say they dont need it, but i imagine they do need to remove some soil to create a foundation. Do you feel these plans are accurate and complete or do they need further revision to show that on the excavation . It is shown on the section on sheet a3. 0 a somewhat downsloping lot. So in terms of whether or not theres excavation needed by that extension it may not be required. But if we are going to be after it and thorough here, i think its very reasonable to have them submit a revised plan with that showing whether or not theres any excavation needed for that. And if it is, it goes over 49 cubic yards, we can have that discussion with our Environmental Review staff. On my initial review based on the records it wouldnt trigger additional review. On 3. 0 it shows new concrete slab for the rear addition . Correct. So there is work. But whether that slab is on grade or whether theres excavation required, they are showing on their excavation counts, which is sheet a1. 0, excavation of about. 7. So about half a foot for most of that ground floor area where the existing illegal unit is. But, you know theyre more thorough calculation there, we can review that and in the future make sure everything is properly shown on the plans. Properly, properly. Very