Birmingham, acting chief building inspector with department of building inspection. The board request you turn off or silens phones and Electronic Device said to not disturb proceedings. No eating or drinking thin hearing room. The boards rules appellate s permit holders and respondents are given 7 minutes for their case and 4 minutes of rebuttal. Must include the comments. Members not affiliated have up to 3 minutes each and no rebuttal. Time may be limited to 2 mntss if the agenda is long or large number of speakers. You will have a verbal warning 30 seconds before the time is up. Four votes are needed to grant appeal. The board rules or hearing schedules email board staff at boardofappeals sfgov. Or g. Sfgovtv iscasting and streaming live and have the ability to receive Public Comment. Sfgovtv is providing closed captioning for the meeting. Go to sfgovtv. A link to the live stream is found on the home page at sfgov. Org. Public comment could be provided in person, zoom, go to the website and click on zoom link under hearings or three, telephone. Call 16699006683. Enter 841 [speaker speaking too fast] to block your phone number when calling dial star 67 then the phone number. Listen to the Public Comment portion for your item to be called and dial star 9 which is equivalent of raising your hand so we know you want to speak. You will be brought into the hear tg when it is your turn. You may have to dial star 6 to unmute. You will have 2 to 3 minutes depending on the length of the agenda and volume of speakers. Our legal assistant will provide with a verbal warning 30 seconds before the time is up. Dollar is delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcasts. Therefore it is very important people calling in reduce or turn off the volume of tv or computers otherwise there is interference. Any participants need disability accommodation or Technical Assistance make request in the chat function indiscernible or send email to board of appeals sfgov. Org. The chat can not be used to provide Public Comment or opinions. Please note well take Public Comment first from those physicallyprint present in the hearing room. Well swear in all those who intend to testify. Any member may be permitted to speakif you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimonydo you swear affirm testimony is truth whole truth and nothing but the truth . Thank you. If you are participant and not speaking please put your zoom speaker on mute. Commissioners, we have one housekeeping item. The appellate for item 5 at 1345 ellis street requested this matter continue to september 6. The determination holder agreed to the request. We would need a motion and ill call for commissioners, motion . I move to continue item number 5 until our september 6 calendar. Okay, any Public Comment on this item . Please raise your hand. I dont see any Public Comment, so on that motion, Vice President lopez, aye. Commissioner trasvina, aye. We are moving to item 1, general Public Comment. This is a opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on the matter within the boards jurisdiction but not on tonights calendar. I see one hand raised in zoom. The phone number ending in 5936. Please go ahead. This is for eileen please go ahead. Eileen boken following up on last weeks hearing indiscernible the appeal based on 4 tower design, however the Zoning Administrator the quite part outloud. The lot size is too small for a tower design. Also, both the project sponsor and the indiscernible use ceqa as the rational for the appeal, even though the law has been overtly hostile to ceqa for many years. Am i missing something here . In addition, 2700 slope directly across the street is 2700 45 avenue. This is the site of the united irish cultural center, known as uicc. At the july 27 hearing at the Planning Commission, the uicc project was approved. One of the main concerns was creation of a special use district. Concerns were that if uicc project was designated as a special use district, that would set a precedent. After the Public Comment was closed, a commissioner asked staff if the uicc project would effect the 2700 slope deliberation or result in a precedent. Staff deflected and replied the special use district is limited to the subject lot. Since there was no followup questions by any commissioners, since the question of setting a pres dant was not answered, this created the perception it would create a precedent and if designated a special use district, would this add another layer of complexity to already controversial project . Both project sponsors share the same law firm for land use issues and finally, the conditional use authorization for the uicc project had exemption as well as Floor Area Ratio and rear year exemption. Thank you. Thank you. President swig, did you want toi see your name up. Is there other Public Comment . I dont see further Public Comment. One last call. Please raise your hand. On july 12, this board had Public Comment for mr. Joshua clip related to the followup of the appropriate followup by the department of public works on a couple of mandates that accompanied findings by this board in the past. Im making this comment for the publics information and to call the publics attention to mr. Clips letter and then what fallowed from dpw. That is the purpose, or else this would be formally calendared for today. So, this is not discussion, it is just ai want to make sure the public is aware of this item. Our sensitivity as a board is that, when this commission has the finding and there are special circumstances attached to that finding, which require an action that we want to make sure that theres follow up on the action. This is any action, this is not restricted to the items in question. Mr. Clip was concerned that dpw did not follow up on these items and soin a diligence fashion this commission called the city attention of dpw, and asked dpw to make a formal response which they did in the form of Public Comment and want to call to the public attention that dpw created a document which is now available for the public to read in response to mr. Clips item and i also like to thank the dpw for their swift and thorough response to mr. Clips letter. And thats it. Okay. Commissioner trasvina. Thank you for that update president swig. It is good to know that the department has responded and it is available to the public. I want to inquire if i could about a another letter the board wrote with regard to the matter on treat. We wrote to supervisor ronen and various city agencies and i wonder er whether we have received response . It is a ongoing item through many departments and we did not ask for response, but it was advisory that went out to just about every department in the city because everybody has a piece of that pie, and we are leaving it to the Supervisors Office to coordinate a effort with their constituency to followup on that item since it is out of our jurisdiction. Thank you very much. Thank you. We will now move to item 2, commissioner comments and questions. Commissioners, comments, questions . Seeing none, lets move on. Sorry. Couple of things. One, i have noticed a uptick in Public Participation in board of appeals meetings lately and want to thank the general public for that. I think it contributes to our Decision Making process and allows us to really hear whats going on, because often whats before us is only the papers that have been submitted and what people argue in front of us, but Public Comment is a excellent opportunity and any different type of case to hear whats often really at stake in some of these appeals, so first i want to thank the general public, everyone hear tonight and at future meetings for that. Second of all, i wanted to publicly assert an opinion and this is just my opinion, and that opinion is and i ask this board leaders to consider this at minimum that i personally am not a big fan of limiting Public Comment to one minute. I think it is not enough time. I understand that it makes our jobs lengthier and more challenging often times, but i read article s all the time about various public bodies throughout california and elsewhere limiting Public Comment to 1 minute per speaker and i dont like it. I think limiting to 2 minutes, which is within the board rules and generally okay if it prevents a 9 hour meeting, but which it often does, but i just wanted to assert my opinion on that and for consideration. Thank you. Duly noted and thank you for the comment. Very important and very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Please raise your hand. I dont see anyokay, can you please approach the microphone . Im sorry, can youwe cant hear you. indiscernible im sorry, can you speak into the microphone . It isnt a question and answer time. It is time to give Public Comment. Well i thinkthere is a treat item on the agenda for today. You didnt take it . No. Thats gothe tree item . Treat. Sorry. Okay. It is fine. Okay. Thank you very much for the question. Thank you. Okay. I dont see any Public Comment for item 2 so well move on to item number 3. The adoption of the minutes. Commissioner, before you discussion and adoption are minutes of the july 26, 2023 meeting. Commissioner lemberg and travina. indiscernible if there isnt, ill take a motion. Move the approval of the minutes with the amendment. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this motion to adopt the minutes as amended . I dont see any, so on the motion Vice President lopez, aye. [roll call] motion carries 50 and are minutes are adopted as amended. Moving to item 4, 20036, 28612865 san bruno avenue. Appealing the issuance on april 30, 2020, to yin kwan tam family trust, of a notice of violation the violations pertain to excessive demolition of an existing mixed use two dwelling units over ground floor commercial building and unpermitted deviations to the approved Architectural Design this item has been continued and rescheduled several times. The parties have come to agreement and like to grant the appeal and amind the timeline to respond and they submitted proposed language which they like the board to adopt. Did any of the parties want to speak on this . It is not necessary. Okay. Okay, please. Good evening president swig and commissioners. Ryan patterson on behalf of the Property Owners. Thank you to board staff and Zoning Administrator for working with us, trying very hard to get this resolved. Three dimensional puzzle and glad it is resolved, hopefully this part of it. Happy to answer any questions. I think they would be happy to as well. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner truvina. Thank you and pleased to hear there is a proposed agreement for consideration. I think it would help for the public at least or two sentence description of the departments position and what we are approving. Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you. Corey teeg Zoning Administrator for the plan department. Just briefly, this has been a bit of an ordeal, but in 2019 and 2020 two adjacent properties owned by the same owner were determined to be in violation for doing work beyond scope and creating unauthorized dwelling units. That lead to extended process of enforcement and working with the Property Owner. The City Attorney took action and there was a settlement there. That all lead to finally this year the Planning Commission granted conditional use authorization for to basically bring that entire property into a new legal state and part of the conditions of approval had specific actions with specific timelines and so what we are asking the board to do here is amend the notice of violation not to overturn it or dispute there was a violation but to update the timeline to respond section to be in sync and reference the conditional use authorization adopted so that is all consistent. Can you summarize or paraphrase what the resolution was . What the compromise was or was there any compromise . Dont know if compromise is fair way to explain it. Ultimately what happened is thethere is a total of 6 buildings collectively in these buildings, something on the range of 19 unauthorized dwelling units had been created in a collective development that should have been 12 units. It was more. It was more31. The specific nov today was for one of the buildings and what was ultimately worked beyond scope that was essentially work in a attempt to create unauthorized units and de facto demo and this is captured into one larger approval. Ultimately the Planning Commission granted a conditional use authorization to essentially bring the property back to what it was basically. All the units that had been originally approved for, which is a total of 12, and then some other physical requirements. The conditions of approval have more to do with the timelines around the permits necessary to submit and have approved and do the work to bring it all into a legal state. So there will be 12 units as there were originally . Correct. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Motion . Any Public Comment on this item before the motion . Please raise your hand. I dont see any Public Comment, so commissionersmatter submitted. Do i have a motion at the recommendation of the Planning Department and settlement with both parties . Not sure im ready to make a motion, just because im reading the email mrs. Rosenberg sent earlier today. It looks like the motion should be to amendgrant the appeal to amend the notice of violation to reference timelines, but im not super clear what those timelines are. There was a pdf attached inside the email. We could put it up on the screen. That would be helpful. Yeah, hold on. I apparently didnt scroll far enough down. That is what the parties like the board to adopt. Thank you, alex. It is page i believe 6 of thei thinkmaybe thats a better copy. Thank you. I think it is page 6 i believe of the nov. They are just changingcan you zoom so we can see the whole page and what the title is . Go out, please. So we can see the top. Lets see the top. Timeline to respond beginning on page 6. They want to cross out that information and add in red. If you could zoom in on the red, that would help commissioner lemberg. Thank you. This is very helpful. Do i need to read the whole thing into the record . No. You can basically just say grant the appeal issue of nov revised to require adoption of the indiscernible that is exactly what ill say. Okay, i wont say it again. On that motion [roll call] that motion carries 50. The appeal is granted with that condition. So, we are now moving item 5 ill announce again that was continued to september 6. This is the appeal number 23031, 1345 ellis street. If you came in late rkts that item has been continued. So, we are moving to item 6. 23030, bruce and deborah macleod. Department of belding inspection, respondent Planning Department approval. 144 25th avenue. Appealing the issuance on june 9, 2023, to frank bellizi, of an alteration permit the project generally consists of replacement of the existing first floor deck and expanding the deck to the rearyard setback line; addition of a roof deck above the second Bedroom Office floor, accessed via four new doors from the third floor office . This is permit 2023 02 02 1229 and well hear from the appellate first. The appellates. Welcome, you have 7 minutes. Thank you. Thank you for hearing this problematic situation. If this isnt the poster child for the Design Review process for residential guidelines, i dont know what is. This should be overturned. Are you going toit is not up there. We see it. You all see it. Okay. This is the invasion of privacy that they would like to submit us to by having this deck and stairs which ride a foot above our 6 foot fence on the Property Line and extended back 12 feet so that we would need to wear street clothes inside our house all the time. So they can use their deck. We have proposed several options of putting opaque glass 6 foot on the side of their north side of their deck. They refused. We suggested increasing the height of the fence so they could push fewer stairs back behind the wall, and they dont want to do that. They have in the brief they mentioned all these meetings we had, we had 2 and a half meetings and a dinner and the dinner was lobster cakes flown from the east coast with French Campaign and two days opened the permit from the city having been granted. It said it is first floor deck extension. It is not. We didnt know it had been applied for. They had talked about sharing plans with us. They talkedthe dinner was to show us the plans, never saw the plans. They talked about termite repair, replacing a deck, and adding upper deck, but saw no plans. We did not see plans from them until their brief was filed. We asked frank straight out at the end of this third meeting half way and he said he had them inside but he wouldnt go into get them, they were a matter of public record. The three meetings2 and a half meetings we had with them, we were trying to convey to them the privacy issue. Go ahead and start putting up these things. This is what it would look like. We have a plate glass wall at the east end of our house. They would like you to think by reading their brief that it is only a stairwell that would be exposed and that the tree, which is huge and leafy would provide us all the privacy we would need.