Transcripts For SFGTV Board Of Appeals 20240712

The board legal clerk, and legal assistant. Im julie rosenberg, the boards executive director. We will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that will be presenting before the board this evening. Scott sanchez, senior building inspector, and joe duffy, department of building inspection. The board requests that you turnoff all phones or Electronic Devices so that they dont disturb the proceedings. Appellants, permit holders, and respondents are each given seven minutes to present their case and a threeminute rebuttal. Time may be limited for Public Comment to two minutes if the agenda is long or there is a large number of speakers. Four votes are required to grant an appeal of a Building Permit or a section 348 on are are section 328 hearing. Regarding Public Access and participation, they are of paramount importance to the board, and every effort has been made to implement the inperson sharing process. Sfgovtv is broading and streaming this hearing broadcasting and streaming this hearing life, and we will have the ability for full Public Comment on todays agenda. To watch the meeting on t. V. , go to cable channel 78. A link to the live stream is found on the home page of our website at sfgov. Org boa, and Public Comment can be provided in two ways. One, you can join the zoom meeting by computer. Please go to our website and click on the zoom link, or you can call in by phone. Call [inaudible] sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the stream if youre watching the broadcast. If you wish to comment, dial star, nine, which is the equivalent of raising your hand to indicate you want to speak. You will have two or three minutes to speak depending on the number of speakers and the length of agenda. Please note there is a delay between the phone line and broadcast. If any if anyone needs technical assistance, you can request alec longway, the boards legal clerk or send a message to sfgov. Org. Now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note that anyone may testimony without answering, but if you wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, you will have to swear or affirm. Raise your right hand. Do you swear that everything about to say will swear or m that everything you are about to say will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . We are moving onto general Public Comment. This is anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the boards jurisdiction but is not on tonights calendar. Is there anyone here for general Public Comment . If so, please raise your hand. Okay. I dont see any hands raised, so we will move onto item number 2, commissioner comments and questions. My only comment is just a word of sympathy for folks particularly up north of us who are dealing with the glass fire. I know our thoughts are with so many people who are evacuating and those who have lost so much and those who have lost their lives. Please, just be thoughtful or individu vigilant if youre traveling around, and take measures to keep you and your loved ones safe. Commissioner swig thank you for bringing that up. I have a residence in san monthle molina maybe i dont, and i dont say that lightly. It is horribly tragic, it is horribly tragic, and you cant understand it unless youve seen it, and i really am so sad for all the people who have lost so much. So unfortunately, tomorrow, on friday, we have winds and high temperatures and low humidity, so lets pray for those people who are going to, unfortunately, suffer. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Anymore commissioner comments . Is there any Public Comment on this item . Please raise your hand. Okay. I dont see any Public Comment, so we will move onto item number 3, the adoption of the minutes. Commissioners, before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the september 23, 2020 meeting. Commissioner swig motion to approve that those minutes, please. Clerk okay. Is there any Public Comment on that motion . Okay. We have a motion from commissioner swig to adopt the minutes from september 23. On that motion [roll call] clerk okay. Thank you. That motion carries, 50, and the minutes are adopted. We are now moving onto item number 4a, 4b, and 4c. These are peappeal numbers 20057, 20058, and 20059. Subject property is 50 seward street, appealing the issuance of august 19, 2020, of a site permit, renovation and addition to a singlefamily dwelling. Addition of second residential unit, new fourth floor addition, convert existing basement and firstfloor space to habitable space, and create new unit with two new bedrooms, one new bathroom, and one new powder room. And commissioner honda, as a preliminary matter, to remind you regarding disclosure . Vice president honda i wish to disclose that i am a partner of a company that hired reuben, junius. As always, this will not have any effect on my decision. Clerk okay. With that, well welcome mr. Pincow. Mr. Pincow, well highlight you, and welcome. Thank you. Commissioner tanner, let me tell you first that i share your sentiments for our neighbors to the north. I live at 49 seward street, unit 1 across the street my fee fiancee is a physician, and we moved to San Francisco together. We are not opposed to construction. Many of our neighbors have completed extensive remodels, but none of them changed the entire look of the rows of mediterrane mediterranean revival type homes. None of them blocked light to their neighbors. The permit holders seek to build an extraordinarily high building that would have impact on the appellants. The permit holders contend that because seward street is mixed character, they can totally do what they want. I do not argue that the permit holders home needs to be identical to their neighbors, what i argue is because the r. D. G. Requires evaluating the buildings on the same block face, and because the r. D. G. Says to avoid a sudden change in the building pattern, and because the project is part of a pattern of six nearly cued cal looking twostory meditrain january revival style mediterranean revival style home. In some situations, there may be groups of buildings that have common roof lines, providing clues to what type of roof line will help tie the streetscape together. Moreover, the project would also block light to my home, which the r. D. G. Says to avoid. The permit holders says the biggest impact is the 40 minutes of new shading on my home. But their o project would resun approximately half of the direct sun light to my home, and the morning, which is the only time i or my fiancee or i are home to enjoy it. One, i pointed out that the table titled sum of front and rear facades shows [inaudible] their employ . After rechecking the documentation, we agree with there pincow that there is a typo with a documentation of one wall. Two, i point out that the certain walls and windows are not accounted for . Their reply, mr. Pincow is correct in pointing out that this was not accounted for in the vertical envelope elements calculation. Three, i pointed out that the removal of a portion of the opening of the first floor and second staircase are not even included in the demolition calculations. Their reply . It is correct that this was inadvertently omitted from the calculations. What is most peculiar is that the permit holders contend in their brief that all of these mistakes should be overlooked because aapparently, the Planning Department staff from time to time has requested to use their architect demolition calculation sheets as an example for other projects. They say as staff will confirm, the project remains in compliance with the code. I think what the permit holders mean is that they expect the Planning Department staff to just rubber stamp anything that their architect presents them with. Mr. Lum is well known to the staff at the Planning Department and has previously appeared before this board. By just especially his plans at safeguard, they are letting the fox guard the hen house. Ive shown in the permitshown, and the per h how can they now rely on the plans, knowing that errors exist . If they did not previously independently verify the democalculations, shouldnt they do so now . Their attorney submitted new drawings to this board and the Planning Department today. What will the Planning Department so . Say oh, these are from john lum, all good . The d. B. I. And Planning Department should be neutral and not give deference to the particular architect here. They should have independently verify his calculations, like i did. That includes glancing at plant plans that have been glancing at plans that have been verified, like i did. Without without proving that this project would not amount to a demolition, which is clearly appears to be, the subject permit is defective, and a demolition and a conditional use permit should be required. The prince architect for the Planning Department David Winslow asked, how is this not a demolition . This question remained open and unanswered. Thank you. Accordingly, the subject permit should be revoked. Thank you. Clerk thank you, mr. Pincow. Okay. We will hear from mr. Kenneth hillan. You have seven minutes. Okay, yeah, and ill try and have to share my screens. Good evening, members of the board. My name is kenneth hillan, and im speaking on behalf of myself and my husband, duncan robinson. As outlined in my brief, i will show that the proposed project has an unlawful front set back pursuant to planning code section 132b. Furthermore, it contravenes San Franciscos residential Design Guidelines. Dont hesitate to stop me for any clarification as we proceed, and now, im going to move to share screen, so i hope thisll work. Can you tell me if you can see my screen . Clerk yes, we can. Good. It is this extension that will be the focus of my discussion today. Under the law, planning code section 132 b applies using attive dimension of calculating the depth of the required front set back, and these are accomplished using the two proposed set backs of the two adjacent properties. 50 seward has the greatest front set back, and 4446 seward has the least set back. Its the property that projects further forward on its lot. These facts are material to todays discussion and are either disputed by the appellants or their lawyer. As highlighted here by the red arrow, all portions of the propertys front set back are not, as required by code, directly exposed laterally to 54 seward, which is the adjacent property with a greater front set back. Indeed, a significant portion of the front set back that lies adjacent to the front entrance of the property has no direct lateral exposure to 54 seward. Exposure is, instead, indirect, as direct exposure is encumbered by the direct extension of building section a. To make my point, if you were to turn right and walk directly laterally, you would literally walk into the threestory wall and would be prevented from proceeding directly towards the front set back of 54 seward. The application of the planning code section 132 b is clearly laid out in San Francisco Planning Department Zoning Administrator bulletin number 5, exhibit 3 in my brief. Quoting directly from the bulletin on the right, and highlighted in red, when the two adjacent structures have different depths, relative to the subject lot, one can extent the structure on the subject lot, into the required front set back so long as the building extension is adjacent to the structure projecting further forward on the lot, which as addressed earlier and not in dispute, is the property at 44 to 46 seward street. Sewar the San Francisco Zoning Administrator has confirmed in writing that there are no prior approved or documents interpretations regarding a situation where portions of the front set back did not have direct lateral exposure to the adjacent property with the greater front set back. Neither the z. A. Nor the Planning Department has provided any reasonable basis based on the fact why planning code 132b might not apply here nor any circumstance provided by the z. A. In any situation where it would extend beyond his remit. I can attest to carefully review planning code section 132b, and there is simply no legal basis for the z. A. s determination. The owners laura certificat certificates lawyer exposes a failure to acknowledge the regulation and provide evidence of the weakness of his rebuttal. Staffing is absolutely permitted stepping is absolutely permitted in front set backs, and let me draw the attention of the board of appeals back to figure 3, that shows how a step front set back is properly applied under planning code 132b with alternative front average set back. The front set back of the subject property, as you can see, is stepped back from the front of the adjacent building with the greater front set back, while the building set back on adjacent to the side of the building that projects further forward on the lot. Further, two adjacent structures have different decks, one can extend and also step a structure on the subject lot into the required set back, but, only provided that the following condition is met so long as the building extension is adjacent to the structure projecting further forward on the lot, which is, as is evidenced, not what is being proposed here. In conconclusion, the z. A. Either made an error in his determination or exclusive chose to exceed the Authority Vested in him. This goes well beyond the scope of the Authority Vested in his position. Clearly, the Planning Department reviewed the project and approved the permit based on improper rationale, an arbitrary and unreasonable association by the Zoning Administrator. As such, it should be rejected and removed by the board of appeals. Okay. Now, we should highlight elisa fitzgerald. Hello. You have seven minutes. Good evening. Members of the board, my name is elisa fitzgerald, and i will be speaking on behalf of myself and alexander middleman. We reside at 48 seward street, directly across the street. When 50 seward was for sale in 2015, we walked through it. The layout is indeed outdated. We would also like to tell you that two of our adjacent neighbors at 51 and 54 seward completelied renovations of their properties with no objection from us or their seward street neighbors. We are all here today because the owners chose an on Us Development plan incongruous with our neighborhood. 50 seward is already a very large building, having 3,489 square feet according to the plans. Adding a fifth story and pushing the facade 10 feet closer to seward streets curb, this project will add 1,778 square feet to the building and create a total Square Footage of 5,267 square feet. They would become the largest singlefamily resident on seward street by more than 2,000 square feet. The next largest home, 57 seward is only 3300 square feet. We use the word singlefamily loosely. We know that theyre adding a second unit. The owners state a rationalization to improve the Square Footage that would increase the citys Housing Stock, but how does keeping the housing within their own familiarly increase the citys Housing Stock . The owners had a very strong motive for permitting for a demolition. A renovation permit was their only path to increase the building size. To add up the story and increase the buildings footprint by 10 is extreme, and we believe violate the San Francisco city requirements for set back as presented. I would now like to spend some time discussing the San Francisco residential Design Guidelines in detail, and the very first paragraph of that document, titled, why do we have residential Design Guidelines, in order to maintain the visual interests of the neighborhood, it is important that the design of New Buildings and renovation of existing buildings be compatible with nearby building. A sing building out of context with its surroundings can be disruptive to the neighborhood character and if repeated often enough, to be disruptive to the city as a whole. There are a total of 34 buildings on seward street. 41 of the buildings, almost half on the whole street are of the same era and have a distinct look. Page 9 of the r. D. G. Provides the definition of visual character. It says this block face has a specific character because of the uniform height and width of the buildings on the block and comparable features such as existing entries and bays. I will show you an example of strong visual character. Im sharing my screen now. You see the six homes, photos from the front of each home. Clerk yep, we see. Thank you. So as we can see in this, the block of six houses clearly meets this definition in the r. D. G. Of strong visual character. The issued permit will break this visual pattern and character of these sister buildings. Let me show you how, by going to the next slide. The new building will not be of uniform height, will not have comparable details, and will not have consistent placement of features such as entries and completely removed vicinity mediterranean styled parapet. It fails to comply with the r. D. G. There are seven elements which break the existing pattern, shown there in numbers 1 through. Page 32 shows the r. D. G. Guidelines, respect the building entrances. Automatic of the garages in this group of six buildings, and also the other eight mediterranean buildings are on the right side of the building. Moving 50 sewards to the left side is a clear violation of this guideline. Page 35 states design and place garage entrances and doors to be comparable with the building and the surrounding area. The proposed design, which switches the entry door and garage location, is in clear violation of this guideline, as well. So how is it possible that a permit was issued for a design which so clearly violates multiple guidelines in multiple ways . Section 311c1 of the planning code states that any alterations shall be consistent are t are with the r. D. G. It clearly states existing incomparable or poorly designed buildings on the block face do not free the designer from the obligations to enhance the area through sensitive development. Would you allow a painted lady to be destroyed because the other homes are not victorian homes . Planning commission, city planners, all of whom interacts with this project architect on a regular basis, granted him permits and approved his projects on multiple basis. We respectfully request that the board grant our appeal in order to knack sure these conflicts are resolved. Clerk thank you. Okay. We will now hear from the permit holders. Mr. Tunney, did you want to start out. I believe im starting out. I believe kelley will start. Hi. Im kelley, and im speaking on behalf of our two sons, alexander and nathaniel. Weve relocated to switzerland for the next 15 months. Weve hired attorneys to represent us at this hearing because we are nine hours ahead, and we have woke unup in the middle of the night to join you. Our attorneys are tom tunney and jim reuben, from reuben, junius, and rose, and they are going to speak on behalf of us along with our architect, john lum. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Mr. Tunney, did you want to jump in at this point . Yes, thank you. Good evening, president lazarus and members of the board. Im tom tunney of reuben, juneous, and rose. As kelley described, our architect, john lum, will present the bulk of our presentation today. We appreciate this opportunity to present our project to you. I am theres been a lot said already. We cant possibly address each and every point. You probably dont want us to, but we have done so in our papers, and we are tonight going to focus on the primary allegations and are available to discuss any others. I am going to focus on the property and neighborhood background and then address two main legal questions in the projects compliance, and our architect, john lum, will present the project design and address some of the appeals code design issues, as well. You are looking now at the subject project. The address, as stated, is 50 seward street. This is the upper marketcastro neighborhood, adjacent to kite hill. The property is on a hill, down sloping from front to back. The projects across are up the hill and above the subject property. Were going to show a little bit of the neighborhood a moment here. Hang on, kwan, just a minute, if you would. The buildings across the street are located to the south of the subject property. Well discuss that further later. The Zoning District is rh2, calling for two units per lot. The project proposes two unit. The existing unit would be increased under 400 square feet, from 2100 to 2,896 feet. The new unit is 1786 square feet, and suitable for a twoperson family. The proposed height for the project is 30 feet. The existing building is not a historic resource, nor is it located in a Historic District. The neighborhood is a mix of architecture in massing and heights, so starting here at 50 is he ca seward, and then kwan, would you start to move up the street . You can see here to the right, the five additional mediterraneanstyle homes that the appellants may talked about. Some may consider them aesthetically pleasing. If you look down the street here, beyond the subject homes, you see a series of threestory buildings across the street, three stories pretty much being the norm. Turning back toward the property, you see now across the street the appellants building want to get back to street view, kwan . Great. Looking back a little bit here, you see appellants building across the street. Thats 49 seward. Thats 49 feet tall, four stories. Three units. The appellants units are on the second and third floor, and the foreground is a singlefamily home up the hill above a detached garage. Then down beyond the appellants building is a sixunit Apartment Building thats three stories. Directly adjacent to the subject property on our side of the street there is a threestory, twounit building, and then, moving further down the street, youll see primarily threestory building southside of the street, and a mix of architectural styles. There just is not a cohesive architecture to this neighborhood. Turning back to the subject property, and you can see the appellants building on the left. Now, id like to address two of the specific allegations raised by the appellants. First, the demolition calculations. The appellants first argue in their papers its not really discussed in the presentation today, but the Building Code section sites 103. A. 2 does not apply to this project. Both the Building Department and Planning Department look to planning code section 317. [inaudible] looking at the code here in this exhibit, youll see that there are two ways that a project could have a deta defa de facto or tantamount to demolition, both of which have to be exceeded for a demolition to exist. Under the first, subsection b2b, the project has to propose more than 50 of the removal of the front facade and rear facade, and 65 of the sum of all the exterior walls. In this case, the project is well below the sum of 65 of all the exterior walls, so theres no demolition under this first subsection. The second subsection requires more than 50 of both the vertical envelope elements and the horizontal elements. The project is below 50 of both of those, where only one is required, so no demolition exists under that subsection, either. With all of the projects changes made during its processing, these are changes made to address the neighbors concerns. The project talent has complied with the demolition thresholds. This, as the appellants requested, have doublechecked and been triple checked. We all know demolition calculations are complicated, and its not at all unusual for discrepancies to exist, second, id like to address the residential Design Guidelines. The appellants argue that the project is inconsistent with the Design Guidelines, but the Planning Department staff, including the residential Design Guidelines team which reviewed the project twice, once after same these appellants requested discretionary review, found that the project is consistent with the Design Guidelines. Planning commission agreed when it approved the project. The character of the neighborhood is not limited to the six mediterranean style homes. As weve shown, its very much a mixed neighborhood, mixed in not only character and design, but also massing and heights for the number of the buildings. The rdat made seven finings of consistency. Three of them are as follows, and i quote. The street is a mix of buildings that range in height from two to four stories. The high roof parapets of the adjacent existing two story buildings, along with a modest height of the proposes third story addition of the project result in a building half a story higher than its lower neighbors. This range is typically considered compatible with the buildings of the scale of the street. Its also worth noting that horizontally expanding the building to the front and massing at the rear improves the condition at the rear. Second, the proposed addition is compatible with the architectural character of the street through the use of material, stucco, and the use of window scale, pattern, and proportion that keeps with the surrounding character. And lastly, third, the roof lines of shapes parapets and over angled bays of the mediterranean style roof forms are one of the several found on this block. This is defined with a slightly projecting horizontal band, and it is not out of character with the surrounding buildings. And lastly, ill point to one more finding by the rdat addressing the end ran, and that was discussed at length in the presentations. They found that though the location of the entrance and garage has changed, the essential scale and pattern of a recessed entrance is retained. So with that, ill conclude for now and return to john lum. Im available for any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you, tom. Good afternoon, president lazarus and commissioners. This ill give you a quick project synopsis of the what we a were planning to do here. Due to the down slope lot, this house thats two additional floors below grade. Hence, it will be four stories over basement. The building sold to kelley and kyle was disclosed as a singlefamily home, and during the actual 311 process, it was discovered that the previous owner had actually removed a unit. This information was uncovered by a neighbor who reported this to planning, so actually, the original submittal that we had submitted to for the 311 notification included a second unit, and there are, planning required us to do another 30day notification, changing the description from adding a new unit to restoring and correcting the or restoring a removed unit. The proposed project restored a removed unit creating a threebedroom, 1700 square foot unit while maintaining the original rooms in the house, adding approximately 400 square feet to that unit, and that would total 2,896 square feet. Ill discuss architectural issues that have been raised by the three appellants. In regards to the democalculations, as described by tom tunney, the demolition is described three ways in San Francisco, one way by the Planning Department, and two by the planning code section 317, with the planning code governing the demolition. This information is included, of course, in your package, and he also went through the description of the two sections here. To say these calculations are confusing is an understatement. For the Planning Department, two thresholds must be met for each section before it qualifies as a demolition. I know there was a lot of discussion in the Planning Department to regularize this and try to come up with one definition of demolition, so please show the exhibit, kwan. Are you showing the demolition calculations . Okay. Here are the demolition calculations that graphically show the wall removal and demonstrate that we are well below the thresholds. Clerk im sorry, mr. Lum, we dont see the exhibit. Lets pause the time, please. Were pausing the time. Thank you so much. Im sorry to clerk no problem. Okay. You can go ahead. We see it now. Sorry. Heres an example of our demo calculations that show the wall removal and demonstrate that we are well below the thresholds. This graphic dem station has been used by planning as a clear method for demonstrating compliance. We do regret that there were some minor miscalculations on our table, and of course, we always strive for perfection, but we are architects, and were human, so we didnt capture all of the changes that were made because we literally went through five different designs for this while we modified the project. So we apologize for that. But regardless, we are still well under the demorequirements. Currently, for section 317b2b, we all under the threshold, as only 46 of the walls at foundational level are removed, which is well will he bow the 65 threshold. We are removing 40 of the vertical envelope elements which is well below the 50 threshold. The appellants and their consulting architect, arney lerner, have not presented any facts that this project is in fact a de facto demolition. In regards to the set backs could we have that diagram, kwan . So again, this is in regards to section 132 that allows for one to average the average set back of the neighboring properties. In our case, we have a very unusual situation. This part is angled, and the houses along this angle are stepped. The buildings themes follow the angle of the street, so in this case, following the code means that we take the average between the adjacent neighbors and divide that in half to get the average, which determines the front yard set back. And then, in this case, when one has an angled front Property Line, the set back falls to angle, so thats the dash line thats shown there. Instead of angling the facade, we chose to step it, and if we go towards the front yard set back, we then have to subtract the area behind the set back so that we do not gain additional Square Footage. We have filed a notice of special restrictions on the property as required by planning to prevent any further growth to the property in the front. The Planning Department have determined that the set back conforms to section 132 of the planning code. In regards to sun, and mr. Pincow expresses his concern about loss of sun light, he does not acknowledge that for a majority of the year, approximately seven months of the year, the proposed project has no effect at all. Clerk im sorry, mr. Lum, can you pause the time . President lazarus lost her connection. My apologies, everyone. Technology. Thats okay. Clerk i think she shes connecting and will let us know when she gets back on. Shes shes back, shes back. So why dont we give an extra minute, please. Thank you so much. Well resume time at six minutes. There is in regards to mr. Pincows sun light, and the early loss of sun light in desrosiers is egregious, yet he does not acknowledge that for a majority of the year, seven months of the year, the proposed project has no effect at all. It is important to understand why there is any effect at all in the summertime, because the appellants middlemanfitzgerald and also pincow is south, and the reason why is in the summer, if you look at this sun diagram, youll see in the summer, the solstice the sun is rising from a very, very shallow angle in the north, so therefore, it does 50 seward will cast a small shadow beginning at 6 00 a. M. And ending before 7 00 a. M. In the morning, due to the fact that in the summer, the sun is its actually shining from the northside. In the winter, when the sun is at its lowest in the horizon, and rises due east, there is no effect to mr. Pincow for seven months of the year. We showed them this at midoffice and gave him full access to our google docs for verification. Regarding sun light concerns on the down slope neighbors on carson, were removing portions of the rear facade, and thats all i had to say, so if you please have any questions for us regarding any of these complicated sun studies or the demolition calcs, please let me know. Clerk okay. Commissioner Vice President honda . Vice president honda, youre on mute. Vice president honda there we go. Yeah, sorry about that. The question is clerk you know what . Im so sorry. We need to take a fiveminute break at the request of one of the commissioners. Vice president honda okay. Clerk my apologies. Hold onto your question. Hold on to your question. Thank you for your patience, everyone. Okay. Well recess,. For a, b, and c the permit holder just provided their presentation and we have a question now from Vice President honda. The question was given that you found out it was a twounit midway thri your process after you submitted your plans and i saw in the brief there was something taken off the back, could you tell the difference between that plan and the plan you see before you. Yes. The original plan was a reverse plan where we had the living room and kitchen and dining room way up on the top and that was not cut back at all up there. Through this process we once discovered that there was the second unit, we also had the main unit opening on the whole floor at the entry level or street level, so it was actually much larger, the unit. After the unit was discovered and there was already a concept that we were going to restore the unit on the bottom two floors because thats basically an empty crawl space basement. So we were committed to doing that. As through the different various processes of cutting back the project, what happened then is the second floor of the maine unit became the traditional living, dining, study, and then on top became the three bedrooms for the two kids and the parents. Im sorry to interrupt you. What was the Square Footage difference between that plan and the addition of the second unit . Quantity. Let me just check with vaughan my project architect. I remember the unit being over 3,000 square feet it was 3,400 square feet. Plan a prior to adding the second unit was 3,400 square feet . There was always the second unit in the project, but in the first original submittal, the main unit was 3,400 square feet and the lower unit was i believe that would have been 1,120 square feet. Thank you. We also have a question from commissioner tanner. Thank you. I was just trying to understand in terms of the this project had been developing over a while over several design iterations that happened. Can you tell us about flipping the garage location from one side to the other. Youll have to have a new curb cut. Im just curious about that. This was discussed at the Planning Commission hearing, but the fact of the matter is its not only sloping downhill. So the current garage, the client cannot get their car into the driveway because it bottoms out and is too steep, whereas on the lefthand side its a shallower slope. From a safety standpoint they were concerned because they have two children. As young parents they have a minivan so it was better to flip the garage to the other side. There was a discussion about this being safer for the grawj to be on that side because of the opening and the turn. Arage to be on that side because of the opening and the turn. There was concerns of the blind corner there. Can you talk a little bit also about through this process what kind of communication there has been with the appellants and other neighbors or interested parties, meetings, email discussions. It also seems there are a number of adaptations not to the degree that the appellants want. They have been very thorough going around and telling people what their plans were. There was a long hiatus between the preapplication meeting because it basically took us a year planning to get back. So i think some of the apprehension from the neighbors came from the fact that there was long periods of time with nothing happening. Although we did communicate saying that nothing was happening, hey, were not able to disclose anything, we dont know whats happening with planning. There was a discussion with an adjacent neighbor. I believe that mr. Pinkou bought it unit after the preapplication meeting i believe winning, but it was disclosed to him that there was a preproposed project. During that discussion with the neighbors we had a slope roof and there was a discussion, can you lower this and minimize the impact to our view of sunlight. We did drop that roof and then along with the other requirement, could we pull back the top floor adjacent with the rear building. So there was a lot of changes. Unfortunately, the appellants have insisted that theyre not against any development, as long as as its basically within the existing volume. Unfortunately that weve been working with them to discuss if this is allowed, its almost 10 feet shorter than the actual height on it. Unfortunately, we havent been able to resolve the basic sentiment that no development should be allowed. May i also ask the question. You asked how we have engaged with the neighbors im sorry, im sorry. Commissioner tanner, is that fine . If you have a response to the question. My apologies. Go ahead. No, thank you. We held a meeting in our home before march of 2017 before we filed the papers. That was an open house and any neighbor was able to come and we recorded the feedback and included that in our submittals. We had two meetings with the neighbors because they werent able to come to the original meeting and another that lives down the street. There was a long time when the 311 notice issued and the dr if i remember the timing correctly, when we understood there would be a d. R. Hearing, we had not heard before that and mr. Pinkou did not live in his home when we had the initial meeting. We did not go down the block. Me and my son knocked on doors. We asked if they had questions about the plans, some people did and some didnt. We talked to some on carson street and on 19 street that runs along. Seward makes a triangle. When did you first engage with im sorry, its not time for a conversation [all talking at once] there are untruths being said. Its not your time to respond. Thank you. I think i get the sense that you had a lot of engagement and see that there have been revisions to the plans based on the sfooeb from your neighbors as well as the Planning Department. Feedback from your ns as well as the Planning Department. It sounds like you had a lot of feedback. In terms of constructability, i think thats one of the areas i was concerned when i looked at the numbers. Its obviously concerning to have errors. Of course were all only human, but that made me want to be sure that what we see before us are the final calculations you believe are accurate. Is that correct . Yes, i testified, yes, we triple checked them and its always concerning if you missed a section. Clearly, we were way, way under the threshold. When it comes to that and constructability and your experience, do you have concerns of the highlevel scrutiny that will be applied to this project that not one wall, window, pa parapet would require you to seek this authorization, was it constructible as planned . As we have done over 800 projects in San Francisco, im confident that the contractor used will be very aware of the situation and we will only emphasize it further about the level of scrutiny that is given to this project. So that is how most San Francisco contractors are familiar with the situation have to perform. So i cannot attest obviously because im just the architect and not the contractor, but what the Planning Commission required and the approved project, we would put that as a condition, but that is what they need to follow. Im not sure whos speaking, but its not time for an open conversation. As a general point of order for the appellant, commissioners may have questions and i may ask them questions. There is still time for commissioners to ask questions, even if none have been asked to this point. Thank you. We will hear from the Planning Department and they have 21 minutes. There are folks using the chat box which we have asked folks not to use. Theyre asking when they get to speak so were responding to them in terms of the process, theyre not making substantive comments. We do allow the chat box for assistance and not Public Comment. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you. Scott sanchez, Planning Department, the subject property at seward street. The subject building is an existing singlefamily building built in 1928 and there had been a previous legal dwelling. The building is a category c historical resource. That means it is not a historical resource. Apologies for my dog barking in the back. The historic determination was made as part of the review process for this application. The subject building is a legal lawcomplying structure that extends into the required rear yard, which is approximately 16. 5 feet and this encroaches 9. 5 feet into the rear yard. This is a substandard yard under our minimum yards. The lot is wider than typical, 28. 75 feet. It isnt a regular lot shape in that it has the front Property Line is not parallel to the rear Property Line. It has varying lot depths. On the longest about 78 feet and the shortest 57 feet. The Building Permit was submitted on april 19, 2017. Subsequently the application was submitted in july of 2017. The environmental determination was issued in march of 2018. A year later in february of 2019 the section 311 notifications started. They initially started on february 2 for a 30day notice period as it was pointed out, there had been this illegal unit issued which no one had been aware of previously, so we reissued the notice with a new start date of february 13 and end date of march 8. There are three appellants in this matter. The Planning Commission heard this matter on june 6 initially. At that hearing they continued the item and asked the project sponsor to look at addition of an accessory dwelling unit that would be a third unit on the lot. It was continued twice without hearing. The Planning Commission reviewed plans that included the 80u proposal that they initially asked for, but took action on the project to require removal of the a. D. U. They just didnt feel that the a. D. U. Worked, although it was something that the department was supportive of and was approvable of by the department, as the commission asked that the [indiscernible] be merged back into the lower swelling unit that was proposed. The Building Permit was subsequently issued in august, august 19 of this year. The three appeals that have been filed i only received one appeal brief and was not aware of the other two appeal briefs until earlier this week because they were not sent to me by the appellants. I have reviewed the materials and am prepared to respond to the issues raised in those appeals. Ill start with the front setback. The adjacent building to the south extends to the front Property Line and the adjacent building extends to the north Property Line. The building that is to the north is not parallel to the front Property Line. When this is the case under our code, the front setback is calculated based on the average depth of the buildings. So we have basically zero setback for that building to the south and goes 12 feet three inches to the setback on the north. Three a little over six feet. The code does a method of averaging. The goal and the whole purpose of this is to have a gradual transition between the buildings. This is highlighted in the residential Design Guidelines, is having a stepping between the buildings. This is a unique lot shape and with building siding that is not quite complicated by the code. But we found that it complies with the intent and the requirements of the code and this is in the zones purview, i think as the code knows. Under section 307, the code allows the administrator to make applications of the code. There have been applications made that the b. A. Was pressured into making these decisions. The pressure cant be applied to mr. Tieg. He has more problems saying no in my experience. That is an exceptional Zoning Administrator. He only makes a determination if its fair and consistent with the code. In terms of what happened with this case, i agree. I think its an appropriate and fair interpretation of the code. I will attempt with my limited technical abilities to try to share a document with a little bit of a graphic to help illustrate this. Just bear with me while i find the one i intended to show. The top is a graphic from the residential guidelines and shows the step nature. This is part and parcel of the Design Guidelines and good design is ensuring some consistency, the carrying over of the pattern from the adjacent buildings. The bottom is a graphic exactly from section 132 which shows how it is applied. Generally the mass is set next to the building that is close to the front property lots. The adjacent building comes closer to the front Property Line in relationship to the subject building with this wall setback, this building with the greater setback is to the north here. The building with the lesser setback is to the south. Now, looking at how the appellants argue the code should be applied with the massing strictly as the code says, it would have something that would be inconsistent with the residential Design Guidelines. It would have the massing closer to the property on the south, which would not have the gradual transition of the residential guidelines and the code and graphic itself. Looking on the right here, you can see the subject proposal and finding that that is more graceful and gradual with the front facade and complies with the intent of section 132. As noted by the permit holder, they have filed a notice of front setback, to make sure they dont change their minds in the future about how the code is applied. With that too, it was also reviewed by the Residential Design Team on multiple occasions and bound to comply with the residential guidelines. Context is important and its not just looking at the guidelines on this block face, but also the Properties Across the street. Its not only the immediate context, but the broader context needs to be taken into account. I would like to look at the findings from our staff report as regards to the designs. It ranges in buildings from two to four storeys. The high parapets along with the modest height of the thirdstorey height results in a height that is greater than that noted. Horizontally expanding the build at the front and at the rear improves the position at the rear. There is stuc stucco as well. This has a moderate glazing to solid materials. There are angled bays. This is one of several reforms found on this block. Although the entrance of the location and garage has changed, the scale and pattern of the recessed entry has changed. The vertical recess with the horizontal expansion to the front will change the light effect, but most of the shading will fall on the roof of the adjacent building to the north of the street. The adjacent building is deemed to be de minimus. We appreciate the appellant does highlight the inconsistencies, but the permit holder corrected these inconsistencies. I think it is obvious that the permit is a demolition permit. The second is alteration permits. There is a proposal for 50 of the sum of the front and rear facade. While the front facade is going to be removed, the significant amounts, if not most of the side walls will be retained and of course there are new openings for new windows and doors. The last method by which it can be a demolition is a major alteration which proposes 50 of the horizontal elements. While they have that front setba setback, there are also other elements significant enough such that it is not a demolition. This is not the first time these have been raised to the board. We rely on the design professionals. This is not the applicants first project in San Francisco. Hes had a few more than this. We dont have any reason to believe that the plans are inaccurate such that it will be a demolition. They are strongly advised and i know that chief inspector duffy will be able to speak to this as well. If there are unexpected conditions found, like dry rot that would not could want under section 314, then they need to make inspection aware of that to get the appropriate revision permit before the work is done. An additional layer of concern here would be that the rear is a legal noncomplying structure. Any removal and replacement in that area would trigger a variance. That would be another high level of attention that needs to be focused on the property. I would note that when we do have any kind of standard, you will have people that are well below the standard and people that close to the standard. This project is on the closer side of that for certain, but they are still within what the close allows. The commission does have the ability to adjust the numbers to reduce the amounts by up to 20 if they find what is allowed under the code is too much. The commission in more than 10 years have not done that, despite repeated calls by the public to make those changes and this has not been done. This complies with section 317 i have a Great Respect for mr. Learner and i worked with him on various projects as well. Maybe he didnt have all of the information, but at least one of the plans he showed was an elevation for the purposes of the neighborhood notice and wasnt intended to show the demolition requirement. I dont know if that was the misunderstanding or not. I think there was one issue raised as per the permit costs. Having not necessarily had people state the permit costs would be too high, usually we have people coming in with concerns that the permits dont accurately reflect the construction costs, but it seems quite reasonable and theres a lot that goes into that, that i think the chief inspector can address if he thinks its appropria appropriate. Im available for questions. Thank you. We have a question from Vice President honda and commissioner tanner. You answered one of my questions, whether you were the z. A. At the time, but maybe it was cory. Is this the max build that they could have done because they said the height and bulk was 10 feet less. Could they have built a larger project and still been compliant . There is some room on the table and they are demolishing some of the construction at the rear, so they are reducing it. The height of it is 40 feet. I think there would be another story there they could do. Considering there are exceptions with the as built or existing structure, are there any other variances given to this property . There are no variances with this project. One of the appellants had stated that theres really no room for interpretation regarding a direct lateral exposure. You did talk about that a little bit, but could you maybe further go into that . Under section 307, there is a responsibility to interpret the planning code. The planning code doesnt address every situation that could exist in San Francisco. So there are needs and necessities for having interpretations for specific circumstances in lots of situations and thats the case here. In my experience mr. Kieg is not one to rewrite the code, far from it. He would not make an interpretation that was violating the code. I believe what he had interpreted here is a fair and reasonable application of the code. They have the opposite and what the appellant proposes would have to be inconsistent with the direction and intent of the code. When we were praising mr mr. Casnor, part of the respect that people have for him is he knew the reason this was in the code. I think mr. Tieg has exercised that here, understanding why the code provision exists, and that is to stack the massing against the adjacent building and to ensure a gradual transition between the buildings. Thats what this project results in. It having the interpretation of the appellants is contrary to the intent of the code. Thank you very much. Would this interpretation be applied to similar circumstances where there was an odd corner, this building, quite frankly the front looks like a side or a back. Its an odd three garage doors and an entryway and doesnt look like a front of a build. Would it apply in similar situations or how much does this open up for other setbacks . This is a unique circumstance and it is about the adjacent property to the north which extends out further to the north of the adjacent property. When you use this alternate method of averaging, it allows you to come out further and more match the setback of that adjacent building that comes out further. Its only in very rare and unique circumstances that this would be applicable and i dont see any adverse impacts from this interpretation moving forward. Thank you. Just to go back to the calculations, one of my favorite topics this evening, can you talk a little bit about the process on this specific project if someone submits calculations and theyre wrong, who catches that . Is it the planners adding up the numbers to see where they land . Do they measure the number of walls being demolished and the linear square feet . Whats the check on the submissions from the professionals . Thank you for the question. Theres i guess a couple of poin points at which this is addressed. This should have been caught by staff before the permit was approved and the calculations didnt reflect the scope of work shown in the work. That is what staff is required to do and we instruct them, dont just take the demolition calculations at face value but to compare those to the rest of the project plans to ensure theyre consistent. Sometimes there are honest mistakes and i can say that sometimes people might try to get that passed. Even before i received the appellants brief, i noticed some consistency in the original plans of what was demolished and not and what i had in mind to ask the project sponsor. Then i saw exhibit 7 which had the corrections in it. I had a question where i highlighted those things. In addition, were you and staff able to verify the new submissions that those were accurate and corrected the errors that you found . Yes, i reviewed the new material submitted and they appear to address the issues. Maybe the next phase is the one constructed and i know the department of building inspection may give warnings to sponsors when they may be close on the demolition calculations that they need to contact e. D. I. , if something goes wrong in the field, they need to come back in and give that address, not just to go in and knock down the wall. It does happen and those people are sorry because they have an additional permission they need to obtain. This permit was submitted in 2017. Theres really little value for them to go through not having done through this at this point. They would have been done with the c. U. Had this been done intentionally. They would be very disappointed and they triggered a c. U. By not following the plans. A couple of questions on a different track. Can you talk a little bit about the design of this building, the supervisors and Planning Commissions, that if we do add Development Units that theyre separate from each other that two families and households could occupy that. How are they designed to keep a separation between the units in two households . [please stand by]. I think the historic review analysis for this building, we found it wasnt a potential resource, or it wasnt a potential district, so i dont know that there would be legitimate basis for a Historic District here, but its certainly the processes would be of contacting our historic staff. But i know our staff is limited, and it would have to be something that would be in our work plan in order to pursue, to make a more direct approach to a District Supervisor to see if they would sponsor some legislation to declare it a Historic District. But i know in order for it to happen, it has to be a Historic District. Clerk okay. We have a question from commissioner swig . Commissioner swig if you look on one part of the street, theres one block, but if you look on the side of the street that the house is located, this this would vary, it seems, both in height and massing, and in and as you look at the parapets on each of the houses, this would certainly be a deviation. Where is that Tipping Point of deviation from the neighborhood . Well, you know, staff reviewed that and those certainly were arguments that i think were made at the investigationary review hearing, as well. And in this case, the building is you know, it is a mixed block, and we did look at whole both sides of the block, so there is a set pattern. This is not a Historic District. This is not alamo square or the painted lady. I think what would make it more palatable is this is at the end of those series of building. Even that, its one story taller, and its set back, so its not something that is bound to be too out of place, and, you know, it does have a mix of buildings. The building to the south is different than the building to the north, and the building across the street is found to be different again. So its not found to be offensive or inappropriate for the design characters . Commissioner swig so your view if something is out of character with the neighborhood really is somewhat discretionary, as you just discussed. Im not arguing with you, but its an important point that was brought up by the appellants, and i want them to go away with comfort that on how it was evaluated. So my question, it really is a discretionary view from the Planning Department, and it can vary based on that discretion and consideration that it was brought up. The discretion, theres varying levels of that. Staff will have the first review, and compliance with the residential design planning. The director of the department, the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission found it to be compliant with the residential Design Guidelines. I want the board to understand that it would as well be your determination about the Design Guidelines, and were just presenting to you the staff analysis, the commission review, and so, you know, it is before the board as the ultimate decider for the city. Commissioner swig okay. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you. We will now hear from chief building inspector [inaudible]. Thank you, commissioners. Joe duffy, d. B. I. This is at 50 seward. The evaluation was 1. 870, 1,870,000, sorry. And what i heard in the appeals on the appellant on the permit holders case, one of the biggest Sticking Point is the evaluation determinations. Mr. Sanchez did outline that. We have a process that weve outlined probably in the last couple of years that this has improved greatly in my opinion. So we would get a report. The Building Inspection Division would call the architect or the owner or contractor or even the mall, and, indeed, i have spoken to mr. Nom before on other projects. Well say the addendum has been issued. You need to schedule a mandatory work inspection in order to go over the scope of demolition with your building inspector, and we also like to look at all the work thats going to be done. That has helped a lot on these types of projects because sometimes the contractor makes the demolition to the subcontractor, and theyre not as familiar with 317, and the next thing, weve got all these things that are being done that shouldnt be done, and as mr. Sanchez, thatten tiles a stop work order, and it could be 12 months of holdup. Indeed, ive seen people lose properties because of these hold ups on these types of projects. So i think thats a big warning shot for anyone doing these projects that the demolition is very important, and if you bring into the equation on this one that there was an unconformed structure in the rear, that is something, as well. If theyve got dry rot or something that they need to takedown thats ahead of the calculations, maybe thats after the start of work inspection, that may not be until you take the lath and plaster off, d. B. I. Is happy to issue an adjustment permit. We did hear a little bit about a Building Code section or demolition. That Building Code is 103. Its merely a demolition without a permit. People try to throw it on these kinds of projects. I think d. B. I. Stands with me. The permit is a legally issued permit. Its been reviewed by planning staff. Its not an unlawful demolition unless they go and exceed the scope of the demolition greatly and get into maybe an unlawful demolition process, which is not a nice process, either, to go into. But the they would have to really, really exceed the scope, and i dont think theyre anywhere close to that. I mean, if it they start to get into 70, 80 of demolition, were certainly going to look at that, and were certainly going to work with planning to find out about the process that thats agone through. I dont think its a problem yet, but i think, as i said, the problems that theyll have to conquer if theyre not watching very carefully. Just the excavation on these types of projects, id want them to be careful when they get into the structural addenda, that theyre not dealing with any lot line excavations. And the framing, etc. , would need to correlate with the demolition of the building. We dont have a architecture coming in and drawing the floor joists, ceiling joists, and that can be a problem, as well. I do think if this project is approved and the work goes ahead, theres going to be a lot of people watching it. There project will have an impact on that neighborhood if it does get the goahead, and theyre going to make sure that the work theyre doing is within the permit, and theyre respectful of the neighborhood while theyre doing that work. At this point, im available for any questions. Thank you. Clerk okay. Are there any questions at this point . Okay. Yeah. If not, if i may jump in here for a minute, id just like to remind everyone that we do have certain rules and procedures, as our executive director pointed out earlier, the chat is not to be used for any sort of comment on the proceedings, but only for technical assistance. Additionally, there are a lot of times and places in the proceedings when certain parties are permitted to speak, and once that time is expired, unless a question is specifically directed at you, please do not speak up at any other time. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Okay. We are now moving onto Public Comment for this item. If you would like to speak during Public Comment, please raise your hand. We have if youve called in, you press star, nine. Thats the equivalent of raising your hand, or if you joined by zoom, you need to okay. I do see someones hand raised. One moment. So we have a okay. Caller, theres no phone number associated, but can you hear me . Can you please go ahead . Hello . Clerk hello. Welcome. Please yes, we can hear you. You have three minutes. Thank you. I am speaking anonymously today because i live on the same block as this proposed project, but the neighbors are opposed to this change, and i believe targeting this project somewhat unfairly, but im concerned about making enemies. Im familiar with the plans for this project, and ive followed along with the progress as it progressed. Overall, i want to speak in support of the project because i think the project would be a positive addition to the neighborhood. The proposal fits with the style of many homes that are already in the broader neighborhood, even if not necessarily home to the north, and i think its a big improvement on whats there now. So i support the family in their effort to move forward with this project. Its my belief that the neighbors are targeting this project more because of the loss of some views across the street and construction rights for the project, or maybe they like the way that things are now, but none of these things should be a reason to perpetuate a project like this for a family. Theres no reason that a project can be delayed so long at such a high cost for people that are trying to move forward with a project. To me, this is an example of why construction has become so expensive in San Francisco generally because anyone can delay a project for any reason regardless if theres merit, so i do hope the board will consider this and deny these appeal and s appeals and allow the project to move forward. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Is there any more Public Comment . If youve called in, you dial star, nine, and well tell that youre able to speak. Okay. Give it another moment. Okay. I dont see any further Public Comment. We just had one commentator, so were going to move onto rebuttal. Mr. Pincow, you have three minutes. [inaudible] i have to say under oath that ive watched their car go in and out of their garage and not bottom out. Why not . Theres zero issue here, except and this is key, that switching the garage side allows them to build a larger home. What a farce. This persons demo counts and statements are to be believed, im going to show that photo that i just took so that everyone can see. Literally took that photo while others were speaking tonight. Am i still sharing the screen . I cant hear anyone yes, we can see your screen. Can you please stop sharing. Okay. Sorry about that. Mr. Duffy said he starts to look at demo counts when its a 70 to 80 demo. Thats not the standard. The standard is much lower under section 317 and what it requires. Seriously, permit holders attorney said that there isnt a cohesive character to the neighborhood. The r. D. G. Expressly concerns itself with pattern. Pattern is defined in the dictionary as a reliable sample of traits or other observable characteristics. Its also defined as a grouping. This goes beyond discretion. Discretion is looking at the facts as they appear and using discretion to come up with something reasonable, not Something Arbitrary and capricious. The perm the theres been a loot lot of back and forth tonight, but lets not lose sight of whats really happening here. A, the r. D. G. Violates the project in many ways. Some of them might hang on the Planning Departments discretion, and some of those ways clearly violate [inaudible] in the r. D. G. It requires an unprecedented determination by the c. A. We should believe that it complies . How many exceptions and improper deviations from the all law needed to be issued and why . It should be denied, and this permit should be revoked. Thank you. Clerk okay. Thank you. We have a question from Vice President honda . Vice president honda yes. Sir, you just showed a picture of the garage. Is there a reason why you didnt show above the home that youre facing . Is it because that theres a view that will be blocked . No, i literally needed to take a photo with two seconds of time to show the garage. The view is you can see the view from google maps, google earth or anything, and frankly, i really dont appreciate that assertion which the permit holders attorney made in their brief because he should know better. During the p. R. Process, the exact same assertion was made by the architect, and i immediately replied that that is not at all my concern because i know its not a valid one. Vice president honda thats a question why i asked because were not allowed to use outside sources such as google maps. Were only allowed to use the materials presented to us. It was a slight reduction in their roof so there would be less interference involved with light and shadowing on my home. I told them, even if you reduce it to what i asked you to, im still going to have a major reduction in my view. The only view ill have is downtown, so whats the difference . Vice president honda thank you. Clerk we have a question from mr. Tanner. Commissioner tanner mr. Pincow, if you could feel there has been some design adjusts made as youve dialogued with the permit holder, and what these changes might have been . It seems a change in the roof shape was made at your request . I appreciate that question, commissioner tanner. Thank you. I will admit that the permit holders did reach out, and i said lets talk, but that type of conversation was extremely selfserving. I pointed out why i think the plans violate r. D. G. They chose their plan because first, they said there was going to be an a. D. U. Then they said there wasnt an a. D. U. Required. It had nothing to do with the appellants or the neighborhood . Commissioner tanner [inaudible]. Change, i believe, in a roof line was in response to an rdac comment from 2017 or 2018. It had nothing i wasnt even a homeowner at that time. Commissioner tanner so you dont feel that theyve made any changes in response to your request then . None at all. Commissioner tanner okay. And i just wanted to make sure i understand a little bit thats actually all my questions for now. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner. Clerk okay. Thank you. So we will now here from mr. Hillan. You have three minutes for rebuttal. Yeah, thank you. And i appreciate the person who called in. Its important to have all perspectives. I think it is worth noting that 15 neighbors oppose this and submitted letters to the Planning Commission, so im actually not aware of any neighbor ever having said that they supported the project, but it could be just that people are uncomfortable coming forward, so i ladily understand that. Almost all of the houses on this so i completely understand that. Almost all of the houses on this block have been remodelled, so i understand construction. I can tell you that these people made zero changes based on what we did. We want to work with people. These are our neighbors. I just mr. Sanchez, thank you for your comments. I would like to correct one thing. You say i [inaudible] sfr the owners lawyer. The architect were certainly engaged with corey, the z. A. You can see this on november 18, but also, this very detailed letter about why it complies, and so this is i did ask if i could submit this piece. I didnt submit this, but im happy to submit this so that you can read this. Ive been engaged very actively with the z. A. If this was so straightforward, i would like to understand why does the z. A. Put the project on hold in november 2019 . These letters coming from the architect pertain to the fact that he realized that there was a problem with the front set back, and the project was put on hold. So the real issue here is, unfortunately, the front set back is not complying with code, and so it would be helpful, i think, to have a legal opinion on that. Thats really the issue. I know we heard, and i respect what the Planning Commission said, but any change to the code would be unprecedented. The z. A. Said, i have it written in writing, this is unprecedented. There has never been a case like this, so it would absolutely be precedent setting. It would be a failure to apply the code. As you noticed, there was a ringing silence on the owners attorney. The owners architect did talk about the front set back but certainly did not contradict anything in my brief, so i think thats really the essence of whats important here. This is actually an illegal front set back. It does not comply with code, and ive spent a lot of time engaging and looking at all the prior you know, looking at this, so thats really the key issue for today. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you. We will now hear from the appellants from 20059. Thank you, and i want to thank all the commissioners for their careful investigation and very insightful questions. I actually would like to share a photo of the garage within the discretionary review document prepared by the San Francisco Planning Department. You see 50 seward, the building, and this is the owners own car parked in the driveway, and as my neighbors have already testified, we have seen the other owners pull their car in and out of the driveway multiple times. Theres no gouges on the cement, and as mr. Hillan pointed out, certainly, a 90yearold building, and there was a problem, it would have been fixed a long time ago. With respect to neighbor engagement, i would say we had conversations with the owners and with the architect, but they did not resolve our issues. These plans were only changed in response to the rdat of 2019 and not to the neighbors suggestions or input. I would like to call your attention to the suggestions at the time. The initial plan submitted in 2017 shows a giant box of a building to maximum volume on the lot, and then, the plans in 2019 were cutback in response to the rdat that im displaying at this very moment. I would like, again, to return to, excuse me, the issue of the look and feel of the neighborhood during the return the owners attorneys presentation. They were showing google street view. It was a very edited version of the street. They were showing you the housed immediately adjacent to 50 seward and the mix and the less attractive end of the street. It did not show you the more attractive portion of the street, with 8 homes on one side of the street, six on the other. If we had been at city hall today and not on the phone, the person that called in would not have to identify themselves. We cannot be sure if theyre a business partner, a contractor, or relative of the owners. Public commentary is very important, and we have all identified ourselves publicly, and we would hope that other people would, as well. We appreciate your careful attention to this. Its very important. I have never been this engaged is well, and we thank you for your time to listen to us today. Clerk thank you. We will now hear from the permit holders. You have nine minutes. Mr. Tunney, whom would you like to go first . I think were going to have our architect, mr. Lum, speak first, and then, the Property Owner. Clerk okay. Thank you. I just wanted to say that theres always great concern about de facto demos, but in this case, its keeping the front portion of the three exterior walls, and were saving both existing floors, so thats why this project is achievable and its not unachievable or unrealistic to save those portions of the structure. There are some cases where you do these demo calcs, and youre removing all the floors. In this case, were not doing that. And even if there is a scintillating way to keep the roof of this house, we would have done that. But there is a way to extend the calculations so you dont ever get close to the threshold, just wanted to mention that. We also are, as i said, kay and kyle understand the seriousness of this issue, and were not going to be using a secondrate contractor who is not familiar with San Francisco and the complexities that its involved, especially because were in a city that doesnt have any side Property Lines or set backs. So these are very, very difficult situations, and we understand that, when somebody does construction. Given the scrutiny and concern for the neighbors, we are not going to be using a contractor who doesnt have a successful history in constructing a building. We did its unfortunate that theres this concern about the driveway. Kwan here will share the screen and show you three images of the driveway. And its you know, you can easily see that this is a very steep corner on the righthand side of the driveway. And in fact, the other thing that the appellants are not mentioning is that theres a power pole right directly to the edge of this steep slope, so it is problematic in regards to getting out. Kelly and kyle, when they have a fully loaded car with their children in it, it does bottom out, so theres a lot of accusations that theres not truth telling here. Its a little offensive, i think, for these neighbors who actually have a very large nonconforming building with a 30footwide curb cut to complain that this driveway is being modified to accommodate the residents of this building. So those are my comments for you, and kelly and kyle, did you want to offer anything in response to the appellants rebuttal . Sure. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in rebuttal. We just want to say that we thank everyone for the passion that they have around this issue. Part of why we want to remodel this home is because we like the neighborhood, and we like it as much as i think the appellants do, and so we do appreciate their concerns. We i know they feel that we have not taken their feedback into account. We have tried to take everyones feedback into account, and we have taken these into account and made a number of revisions. What it seems that the appellants wanted us to do was to proceed with the plans that best served our family. As long as we didnt alter the envelope, they would not oppose the project. We understand there are strong interests here, but what we thought would best fit our family and best fit the need that we have would be to make these renovations. I suspect part of the changes with the democalculations is the number of times the plans have, in fact, changes. And with respect to neighbor engagements, weve never been through this process before, and knowing what we know now, we would have done neighbor engagement much differently. But we thought by opening our home, that people who were interested, who had concerns, would come to us, and we were trying to be respectful of our neighbors and not go knocking on doors. We didnt go knocking on doors until there is a d. R. , because we didnt want to disturb people. We regret that we didnt do that before, but we thought we were being good neighbors. You did see in our package four letters of support in our neighborhood. I know that there are more letters of opposition, but we told that some folks were comfortable with us moving forward but did not want to get involved in a neighborhood dispute, which we also obviously understand. I think you also received a letter today that we received from neighbors on carson street, expressing support and thanking us for having taken into accounts the impacts to carson street and for having engaged in this and for having walked around and knocked on doors a year ago. I think if we had done this now, we would have been much better at it, but we appreciate everyones engagement, and we appreciate the opportunity to present our perspective, as well. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Did you have anyone else who would like to speak, mr. Tunney . Thats it. Thank you. Clerk okay. Thank you. We will now hear from the Planning Department. You have nine minutes. Thank you. Scott sanchez, planning first. Ill be brief i was muted there. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. Ill be brief. Couple of points. First, in response to Vice President hondas question about the allowed envelope. It says they could have one additional story and be up to the hofoot height limit, so there is additional Square Footage that would be allowed under the code. Thats not to say that that design would comply with the residential Design Guidelines, thats just what the code would allow. Second, in regard to the question about what the on hold meaning and the suspicions about that, i mean, thats not not uncommon for the Planning Department to put a project on hold while they review things x in this case, it sounds like the appellant made as to their concerns with the front set back. I dont know the timing of their communications with the Zoning Administrator, but i know that mr. Teague is very thorough in his review of the analysis. I wouldnt be surprised if he put it on hold to review the front set back and code compliance, but he did ultimately find that they complied. And i have discussed this with him since the filing of materials, and he maintained that it is an appropriate interpretation of the code, and i agree with them. Lastly, you know, i agree the appellant requested a legal interpretation or kind of questioning the Zoning Administrators authority. This is not uncommon, and we do have people who dont like a determination that comes from the Zoning Administrator, and so theyll ask, well, can the City Attorneys Office weighin on this, and any time that happens, they say planning code 307 is responsible for interpreting and enforcing the planning code. Its the Zoning Administrators code. The Zoning Administrator is accountable and accountable to this board of appeals. So it would be a question of whether this board finds this interpretation is correct. This is the process, and as a former Zoning Administrator, there is a fair process to be had, as well, at the board of appeals for these code questions to be argued and to be heard, and i trust that the board will consider all the arguments that are made here, and i believe in the process and the attorney will uphold the Zoning Administrators decision. Thank you. Im happy to answer any questions. Clerk okay. I dont see any questions. Mr. Duffy, you have nine minutes on rebuttal. Just the mention on the 70 or 80 before we took the democalcs, i we will be looking at the demo calcs before the project starts. If they exceed the scope of demolition, we normally give them a stop work order for perhaps the whole project or certainly the area where the project has occurred. So if theres any exceeding the scope of demo, its pretty typical for us to stop that, so i just want today clarify that. What i meant by that is when you get into more than 70 , 70, 80 , youre then treading into the unlawful demolition process, but again, we would work with planning on that, as well, because we are dealing with section 317, so i just wanted to clarify. That was all. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Okay. Commissioners, this matters submitted. Commissioners . Commissioner tanner if i may, i just had a question for the city attorney. Can you just clarify if members of the public are required to provide their names when providing Public Comment . Good evening, commissioners. Brad russi, deputy city attorney. No, its not required when members of the public with providing Public Comment. Commissioner tanner thank you. Commissioner swig i can start. I see this project as i see the merit in the appeal. I dont support the appeal. This we always see we see projects, i think, that sometimes stretch the envelope. Some of them go way over the envelope or way through the envelope. I think that mr. Lum has designed a project which stays within the guidelines but certainly maxes out the opportunity for the site. I had concerns about, because im just a stickler for it, about compatiblity with the neighborhood. Although there are some differences, i think it has compatiblity with the neighborhood. I think they had a challenge figuring out the garage. The garage is a worthy solution to a questionable condition. Yes, theres added bulk, but it goes down the backside, and again, its compatible with the neighborhood, so i would be willing to make a motion to deny the appeal in that the project is compliant. Clerk i did want to add, commissioner swig, that the deputy Zoning Administrator recommended that the revised demo calculations be adopted, which would mean that we would have to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition it be revised. Commissioner swig fine. Id accept that language. Clerk okay. Is that a motion, commissioner swig . Clerk yes. Vice president honda . Commissioner swig but others have to discuss this. I dont want to steam roll. Clerk Vice President honda, did you Vice President honda yeah. I think its tough for change for anybody. This particular project has gone through an immense amount of process, considering that d. R. , planning, board of appeals, several revisions through through through this process. Unfortunately, i mean, im empathetic or sympathetic with the neighbors that they dont want to have the noise and bulk directly in front of their property for sun light and light and air, but at the same time, the Property Owners have gone through this process, and its been a long process. I mean, for anyone could anyone thats gone through a remodel thats taken, at this point, a minimum of three years, and they havent even started building, which means a minimum of 12 to 16 months. I think that, at this point, there is a lot of scrutiny on this project, and that the my recommendation to the project sponsors is that they do get a very diligent contractor with experience in San Francisco so that threshold is not even close to it. I also, too, would support commissioner swig, too, to grant the appeal and reflect the demo count calcs and the timeline that was submitted. Commissioner tanner i would agree with my fellow commissioners. President lazarus as do i. Clerk okay. It looks like we have a motion from commissioner swig that we deny the appeal and issue the permit based on the democalculations presented. On that motion [roll call] clerk can we just clarify on what that motion is made the basis of that motion, that its code compliant . Commissioner swig code compliant, and the permit was issued clerk properly, right, we have that part. So im just going to retake the vote because we didnt have the basis. The motion was made on the basis that the project is code compliant. [roll call] clerk okay. That motion carries, 50, and that concludes the hearing on these particular appeals. We are now moving onto commissioner swig can we take a short break, please . Clerk sure. How long clerk we are now on item number 5. This is item 20053, Michael Murphy versus the Planning Commission. 3601 lawton street, adopting findings relates to homesf project authorization pursuant to planning code sections 206. 3 and 328 to allow an exception for the conversion of an existing Automotive Service station, demolition of all, and instruction of a new 50foot tall, five d story over basement, approximately 46,050 gross square foot mixed use building with up to 2,825 square feet of ground floor retail and 41 dwelling units. The proposal is pursuing a tier 2 homesf project authorization which permits form based density in exchange for providing 20 on sign affordable dwelling units. This is case number 2019023628 ahb, motion number 20776. Mr. Murphy, you go first. My plea is that you reject the homesf, and i have a short video for you. Are we good no, hold on. Okay. Here we go. This is the Planning Departments appeal presentation to the Planning Commission. My name is tanya singer, and im here to tell you how the Planning Department analyzes [inaudible] we are providing this presentation because at prior hearings, commissioners have expressed interest in learning more about how this traffic is analyzed and also because recently can we pause it . Is this just video or audio . Clerk mr. Murphy, we apologize, but is this a video . We can only hear audio. Vice president honda weve paused your time. We thought it was a video, but all were hearing is audio. Are you sharing your screen . Yes. Exit sharing screen, and if youre able to, you can share your whole desktop, and maybe well see it. Yeah, currently, youre not sharing your screen. Commissioner tanner is our i. T. Person. My moderate zoom skills. Yeah. Clerk theres a green button at the bottom with an arrow that says share screen. Yep. Clerk and we could also try to share it for you. Commissioner tanner there we go. You may want to start it over. He has six minutes on the time. You would like to give him more time . Clerk yeah, lets give him another minute. Okay, i dont see a picture. Okay. On how the Planning Department analyzes Hazardous Materials related impacts within the framework of the California Environmental quality act, or ceqa. We are providing this presentation because at prior hearings, commissioners have expressed interest at how this traffic is analyzed and also recently it has garnered attention in the media and by the general public. I would like to point out that our primary responsibility is to conduct a robust ceqa review and protect the Public Health within that context. The other important question that we address during Environmental Review is this is the property located on a [inaudible] dump site . We ask this question partly because we cannot issue categorical exemptions for projects on the [inaudible] list [inaudible] whether site [inaudible] depending on the history and condition of the site, as well as characteristics of the proposed project, a project may be eligible for a common sense exemption, which is a type of exemption that can be issued if if it could be stated that there is no possibility that the project would result in a significant impact. Good afternoon, president koppel and commissioners. Im lisa johnson, director of Environmental Planning, and we received direction that hazardous sites are to be included on the cortese list. We wont be issuing categorical exemptions for such sites. I think this is an important area of confusion. Thank you, miss shaner and miss gibson for the overview of the process and the state context and everything that we do. Im always in awe of our Environmental Planning team. Exhibit f, this is the sponsors presentation of the proposed Development Project at 3601 lawton street. They do indicate that they that they are going to attempt to mitigate the site. This is an extremely toxic site. Thousands and thousands and thousands of gasoline poured into the soil and into the groundwater supply, and they indicate that theyre going to negate that and as part of the mitigation, theyre going to construct a parking lot on the ground. Any project, whether its a doghouse or alhambra should not be permitted without a plan to mitigate the extensive environmental damage thats been done over the years by fuel, by gasoline spillage. I do not want children, my child, i do not want myself to live in a neighborhood thats sprayed by toxic benzene dust and construction, and i do not want to drink gasoline. At 3601 lawton street. This is a conditional use authorization. [inaudible] in regards to buildings footprint but was only 4 feet in height. Project has been reviewed by Environmental Planning staff, and on july 8, 2020, project was issued an exemption was ceqa at the collins exemption. This project was continued from the june 25, Planning Commission agenda as the project had previously received an exemption to ceqa under a categorical exemption. Project is located on a [inaudible] site, and the [inaudible] vapor contamination as part of the Environmental Review process pursuant to ceqa, and the commission received a presentation from ceqa on this last week. My executive summary. [inaudible] to reiterate, the project has received a common sense exemption to draft a motion provided to the commence, and a case report provided for this project includes the common sense exemption document. Commissioner tanner im sorry. Are you ready to make your presentation . I am. Okay. As we see what the 2017, as as you see in the upper image, the proposed design is the lower image. It was to demo an existing gas station, which is a public hazard, and remove it and clean the site and remove all the processes that will be [inaudible] california Public Health ordinance. We are not required to provide any working, but because of the concerns of the neighbors about parking, we provided a basement that we are excavating that will be part of the mitigation plan for the gas station. May i have the project sponsors presentation to the Planning Commission, and theyre working together to get this project rammed through. Okay. Thats the extent of my brief, brief presentation, a zoom within a zoom within a zoom, and im sure that im sure the commissioners will have questions. Ive reviewed over 150 responsive documents obtained through public records requests, and i have Extensive Knowledge on the entire history of this site, and the toxicity. Clerk okay, mr. Murphy, youll have time in rebuttal. Okay. Well here from the determination holder, we cant hear you. Can you hear me now. Clerk yes, thank you. You have seven minutes. Good evening, board of appeals and president lazarus. The California Environmental quality act, ceqa, common sense exemption issued by the Planning Department was adequate, accurate, and appropriate. We will ensure that any potential Hazardous Substances on the site will be remedied to safe standards for public use. [inaudible] pursuant to the sa state laws and regulations. [inaudible] and state law and regulations. The sfdph accepted and reviewed an and accepted a site model review for the project. Sfdph will continue to monitor soil intake, soil testing and remediation over the course of the construction of the project. Furthermore, as part of the permitting process, the department of building inspection must ensure that sfdph that any Hazardous Substance or any potential Hazardous Substances onsite have been removed or [inaudible] to the states standard for the proposed use. Upholding the project will alleviate their concerns that any concerns about the groundwater or soil will be addressed by the project. Therefore, the findings made by San Francisco Planning Commission, the accuracy of the project, and its accuracy under ceqa are valid and continue to be done, and we ask the board of appeals uphold the Planning Commission approval. Thank you. Clerk okay. Thank you. We have a question from Vice President honda. Vice president honda good evening. So i have a couple of questions. So one, regarding the 24 parking spaces, how are they going to be disbursed and how are you offering them . There is a t. D. M. Plan that the Planning Department is requiring us to abide to, and we are following the Planning Department on that plan. So there will be parking that is bundled to the units, and theres some other requirements that we abided to, and we sent the application to the Planning Department a long time ago. Vice president honda second question is how did you determine your bedroom count because you have one threebedroom. Out of the 27 onebedrooms, they go down to as low as 363 square feet. The counts of the bedroom units on the project, along with the unit site, was coordinated with the Planning Department. We came up with couple meetings, project meetings. We had the lady which was responsible for homesf in the Planning Department who came up with all the numbers, all the numbers [inaudible] and because planning code, and base odd that, we proceed with the numbers [inaudible]. Vice president honda thank you. Thank you. Clerk okay. We will now hear from the Planning Department. Mr. Sanchez . Thank you. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. So the subject property at 3601 lawton street. The subject lot is approximately 10,000 square feet, and under the zoning section, it has a maximum density of 13 housing units. The board of appeals review of this matter is an error or abuse of discretion standard. It has some history to this site in terms of the effect that there was a previous project approval back in december 2017 where they sought a conditional use authorization. Conditional use is required for a large lot and also conversion of gas station. The project was otherwise code compliant. 46,000 square feet, with 23 units. They were giving the two extra dwelling units because they were promoting Affordable Housing at more than 20 . A Building Permit was submitted for that project but has not advanced, and instead, a new project was submitted for review under the citys homesf ordinance, and the history of this project, which proposes 46,000 square feet total, five stories over basement, mixed use building with 41 units and 2100 square foot of ground floor commercial, they had unanimous approval at the Planning Commission on july 30 of this year. Prior to the hearing at the Planning Commission this year, a common sense exemption was issued for purposes of ceqa, not a categorical exemption. I think the board is familiar with the ceqa appeal processes. Under the admission code, the ceqa determination can be appealed been 30 days after the Planning Commission hearing to the board of supervisors. Its basically, i think, largely the same period as to board of appeals for the homesf authorization. There was no appeal made of the environmental determination. Just to haerepeat that, and a of the issues that have been stated by the appellant was in the ceqa review. It was not brought to the board of supervisors within the required 30daytime line. The project which is before you, which i will address, it is code compliant. They are able to achieve a density and onestory height Development Bonus by providing 25 Affordable Housing. That gives them up to the 41 dwell units. In response to commissioner hondas dwelling unit mix, it does comply with the code requirements for housing mix, and its to be sold unbundled. Parking is to be sold separately from the units. Thats been in the Building Code for probably more than a decade. There are no permits on file for the project, only permits for the old project, so theres still some time for review of those permits when they come in. I think this is not a new argument. These arguments and concerns raised by appellant about the environmental conditions, this is the same appellant that we had in the matter at 3945 judith street, which was another homesf project on a former gas station site that the board heard on january 9 of 2020, this year. And so in that case, there was also no ceqa appeal, and i know commissioner swig expressed very serious concerns i think that were shared by all the board. We get into great detail and applicability of the San Francisco law and the maher ordinance that requires the property go through the process with the department of Public Health. This property is enrolled in the maher program, and we know that the oversight about ensure, and the project wont proceed until the project owner has cleaned up the site per ceqa standards, and that led to the common sense exemption that was previously issued. At the hearing in january of this year, i think i went into some great detail about the ce ceqa [inaudible] and the project complies with the requirements of the homesf program, the concerns and issues raised by the appellant will be addressed through the permitting process and through the department of Public Healths application of the maher ordinance. Theyll be required permit holder will be required to comply with the ordinance, thats the law, and ensure that the site is safe. Thank you. Im available for any questions. Clerk okay. We have a question from commissioner swig, and then Vice President honda. Commissioner swig so as a graduate of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, where we had to deal with bayviewhunters point and the very toxic waste in that area, i learned that it was the hyperimportant to be sensitive to the needs of the neighbors and the concerns of the neighbors because after all is set and done and the buildings are built, the neighbors are the ones that are left with the site and left with the residual impact of the site. In that case, theres still questions, was the process just. Scott, how can the neighbors be comfortable that im not doubting this, but how can the neighbors with comfortable with the department of health, in conjunction with d. B. I. , are going to do their job and really make sure that the inspection or the process of remediation, the inspection processes, and all related activities to ensure that that site is clean, are done properly . Where are the checks and balances, especially since this is a this is a city projects, and these are city departments, so one could argue, its the wolf guarding the hen house. Could you give us assurance on what are the checks and balances, please, and how the residents of this area can get comfortable with this process, please. Thank you, commissioner swig. Excellent question. I think very similar to one that you had in january, and its important to note that this is not the final step in the process. This is more the beginning of the process because once they submit the Building Permit application, itll require department of Public Health review. Once any time a permit gets submitted on a maher site, all sorts of flags get triggered, and d. B. I. , and making sure that it gets routed to the department of Public Health. They will do their analysis and zied the plan that needs to be involved. As that permit is issued, it would then be appelable to the board of appeals within 15 days, so those issues could be raced or any other issues on raised or any other issues on the building construction. And any other issues or the d. B. I. If theyre not following the appropriate approved plans that have been made for the site, and no certificate of final completion will be issued for the building until department of Public Health signs off. Its a very important public process, and i think its important to consider that were more at the beginning of the process than at the end of the process. I hope that answers your question. Commissioner swig yeah, thats great. So the public is not going to lose control of this property, so to speak. This is not the last time that the public will be able to ask questions, apply scrutiny, etc. , etc. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you. We have a question from Vice President honda . Vice president honda so since we dont have these types of projects before this board regularly, it gives me an opportunity to ask a couple of questions regarding it. So the reason they got a higher density is the state density bonus, is that what that is . There are state density bonus programs. The homesf is more of an organic program that offers in the city over what the state offers. I dont want to make it seem like d. P. H. Is not already involved, and they have been involved and engaged since the beginning of this project. Theyre actively overseeing the site of this project, and their involvement will increase as the project moves forward. Vice president honda the 25 Affordable Housing units is that by unit count or Square Footage overall . Oh, by unit count. Vice president honda so that would account why theres a bunch of teeny little one bedrooms, 363, 364, 405, 414 . We do require equal distribution throughout the building, and a representative quality of the unit. Vice president honda i dont mean to interrupt you, but when i was looking at the floor plan of the units, you know, there was a bunch of generous one bedrooms in the high sevens, eights, and nines, and there was a bunch in a corner that just seemed that got cut in half for higher density. Its long been a concern not just for this project, but for any project. We actually designate particular units to there is equal distribution throughout the building so theyre all equal units. Every unit has code compliance exposure, open space. I dont think theres necessarily a bad unit in the building, but the affordable units are distributed through the the building and the unit type. So what youre saying is sort of s of segregating the units, and thats not allowed. Clerk okay. We have a question from commissioner tanner . Commissioner tanner i just wanted to say that commissioner honda asked my question. Clerk okay. Commissioner swig . Commissioner swig commissioners, i i just want to make one comment that, again, going back to my experience in the Redevelopment Agency question, we reached a point of questioning the sizes of units, and the distribution, and those questions are very fair, but this has been a discussion where there are which has been acknowledged, and unit sizes have reduced significantly, especially over the last five years for Affordable Housing. But its a fair question. Clerk okay. Were not taking questions now, from the parties, so right now, we are moving onto Public Comment. If youre here to provide Public Comment, if youve called in, press star, nine, so go ahead. We have our first caller. Theres no phone number, but please go ahead. Can you speak . Hello . Clerk welcome. You have three minutes. Hi, good evening, president lazarus and commissioners. My name is kayla barnes, and im calling on behalf of the San Francisco housing coalition. This environmental kill is without merit. Please reject it. Thank you. Clerk okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to provide Public Comment, please raise your hand. President star, nine if you called in. If you joined my zoom, you can click on the raise hand function next to your name. Objection. I dont see anybody raising their hand. I do see some people in attendance. Last call for Public Comment. Okay. Seeing that theres no further Public Comment, we will move onto rebuttal. Mr. Murphy, you have three minutes. I think what the Planning Department and project sponsor failed to acknowledge here is the fact that this site has had a significant, significant exposure to environmental toxin does. At one point in 2005, all of the product leaked out of one of the 12,000 gallon tanks, and that product percolated 20 feet through sand, and 30 feet through dense sand and silty matter. The exemption determination is only issued when theres no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Simply operating as a gas station since any testings been done for the prior seven years is enough to render that determination completely a asinine. The other exemption that they rely is bundled with the homesf package. Planning commission attempted to conflate my prior appeal on judah, which still is on bill at this time. No action at all with a Property Owner whos in default of his taxes and not managing the site whatsoever. That common sense exempt bundled with the ceqa determination exemption bundled with the ceqa determination, our Planning Department does not issue callical exemptions. Homesf does. So if you do decide through if you do make the decision to let this project gou through and do not go through and do not honor my request, i will take the ceqa decision, which were looking at right now, ill take it to the board of supervisors. If the board of supervisors doesnt look at it, well take it to litigation. Theres no plan, absolutely no plan to remediate anything on this site. Theyve had seven years to come up with an excavation plan. Theyve taken the tanks out on two occasions, but undernaeeat that, we will be exposed to toxicbe benzene in the dust, a we will have to drink the water. Time. Clerk okay. Mr. Murphy, thats your time. Commissioner tanner mr. Murphy, i just want to understand that your opinion is through cleanup of the site that the cleanup itself will release the materials . The process that mr. Is not chez outlined would mr. Sanchez outlined would remediate that concern. Is your concern during cleanup, the materials would be released . Well, it requires a little bit of explanation. Theres a map that shows where the cross hairs are. Ive seen what happened. On noriega street, what happened was they took the cap. Theres a onefoot asphalt and concrete cap. On noriega street, they took the cap off and let it sit there for a year, a full year. Commissioner tanner so it seems like [inaudible]. Pushing everything into the groundwater supply, and when i even approached the Building Inspection Department about this, theyre horrified. Commissioner tanner it seems like not to cut you off go ahead, im sorry. Commissioner tanner partly i lot a little bit of connection. The concern is during construction period, things can happen that would obviously be concerning, but is that thats the main period, like, the construction and the cleanup period is the period that youre concerned about . Yeah, thats correct t. Commissioner tanner yeah. If the applicant and owner had gotten together over the last seven years, taking the top soil off and taking it somewhere to be burned, and draining the groundwater, id be okay. Nobody has come up with a device yet that will take these toxic materials and transport them into a black hole. Commissioner tanner yeah, that certainly is right, that hasnt been invented. Clerk okay. Mr. Kodorski, you have two minutes. Sorry for the delay. [inaudible] in all the studies that this should be done, so we have a consultant that is on board that they are doing that, and theyre in contact with d. P. H. About, like, last week or a week ago. Mr. Murphy talks about removal of the soil, he said he would be comfortable with 500 square feet, but were removing 3,750 square yards of the site. [inaudible] we are actually excavating 12 feet almost down of the soil, and if theres anything thats going to be coming up under there, we will be mitigating it by any system like vapor barriers or anything that would d. P. H. Would require. I wish he could have approached us before so we could explain all of this to him, but we cannot do any of this prior to the approval of this permit because, you know, its a process. So we are in the process, and we are moving ahead with all the proper agencies. We would like you to know that we are doing all of that and what is an accessory to maintain the health of any inhabitan inhabitants. We want it to be successful, and healthy and safe for people to live in. Were doing all the mitigation plan, everything that mr. Murphy is asking about. [inaudible] out of any control. Were so aware of it. And as mr. Murphy mentioned, there was thousands of gallons of [inaudible] completion certificate which was issued by the department of Public Health on june 27, 2017. It showed all the little spots on the site was eliminated, and the case was closed in 2016 because there was no more issues or hazards, and its a low, low hazard case. So actually, from the beginning, its not a time, time. Clerk thank you. We have a question from Vice President honda. Vice president honda so as the appellant as asked, are you aware of any reports that indicated that one of the tanks of 12,000 gallons of fuel had leaked out . I mean because 12,000 seems quite a bit. Yeah. You know, the owner of the gas station who [inaudible] i mean, its just Vice President honda no, so the question is [inaudible] Vice President honda sir, sir, sir, sir, sir, can we stay on track here. Just youre not saying that youre not a youre saying that youre not aware that there was 12,000 gallon leaks from one of those tanks . Hes on mute. Vice president honda oh, youre on mute, sir. No, we dont have a 12,000 gallon leak, otherwise, wed be floating on a sea of oil. Vice president honda okay. Thank you. Clerk thank you. We will now hear from the Planning Department, mr. Sanchez. Thank you. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. Commissioner tanners comments are particularly important because there are toxic or Hazardous Material on the site, it will remove until the site is redeveloped and it can be cleaned by a process overseen by the department of Public Health. And under the maher ordinance, the d. P. H. Sets the process. This it be a very costly this can be a costly process, which is why a lot of the consulting project and process doesnt get done until we have a project for the site, coming up with those standards, that process, until they have an approval for the site. They review an analysis of all the requirements of d. P. H. There will be a Building Permit issue that addresses that, and that can be brought back before the board on appeal. This was a common sense exemption, not a categorical exemption. Unfortunately, the appellant did not appeal in this homesf project, while this appeal was filed timely on the homesf appeal, it was not filed timely on the ceqa appeal. That timeline was passed. I think if the appellant was to go to the board of supervisors on the ceqa appeal, they would find its not timely. This is something that we had explained at the previous hearing back in january, as i think everyone should have been well aware of the appeal requirements. Certainly, the appellant is more than welcome to take that and run through that process with the board of supervisors, but its my understanding that under the administrative code, that has passed. In regards to the judah project that was before the board in january, its my understanding that it is still under review. Thank you under process, and i think its before the Fire Department for review, and i dont think its yet been routed to Public Health. Thats a later step in the process, so there is time ahead with that. I dont know what financial straits the Property Owner may be in, but id happened to look at the permit tracking, and it does appear to be making some process through the permitting system. Im available for my questions. Thank you. Clerk commissioner tanner has a question. We dont hear you, commissioner tanner. Commissioner tanner sorry. Can you hear me now . I want to make sure that i got it right so that hopefully mr. Murphy can continue his information. Authority of the authorization process is getting authorized by Planning Commission, then creating the reneediation plan, which they would execute, and that remediation is completed before the Building Permit is approved . So the remediation plan is developed as part of the Building Permit process, but i believe once the Building Permit is issued, then all the remediation will be done under that permit issue. So if there was, in that remediation process, any irregularities, hey, something thats not wrong. It seems somewhat out of order, perhaps, would there be a call to building inspection, what would be used to alert other departments . It would be important to alert both the department of Public Health who is the lead agency overseeing the abatement measures on the site, and then also, the department of building inspection since theyre responsible ultimately for the Building Permit and ensuring that everything is compliant with Building Permit, and both of those agencies would be appropriate. And in no case would be soil be able to be remediated without these plans, and the soil would just remain there until a plan came forward to remediate those soils. Thats correct. I havent asked d. P. H. If theres something that needs to be done even if there is no project, but thats my understanding. Commissioner tanner okay. Thank you. Clerk okay. Commissioners, this matter is submitted. Commissioner swig i dont see a i am very, very concerned over the issue of contamination on this site, as i voiced on the previous case. I think im comfortable with going through the process. Im comfortable that there will be checks and balances. Im comfortable that the public will be protected by d. P. H. , and also the ongoing public scrutiny as it proceeds through the final permitting processes. That being said, im comfortable with making the motion to deny the appeal in that there was no error or abuse. President lazarus commissioners, any additional comments . Clerk Vice President honda . President lazarus Vice President honda . Clerk we cant hear you, Vice President honda. Vice president honda ive been trained by our president to use the raise the hand thing. So i dont remember the noriega coming before this body. I do remember that eugene came before this body. I believe that there will be process here, and the fact that that there is concerned public that will stay on point to make sure that our public is safe. At the same time, i do believe that, you know, density does need to be equalized throughout the city, and i dont we are not having the huge housing crunch as of recent, i think to prepare for for, you know, our future to be evenly disbursed between districts, and the sunset, proportionately has not had any density since its inception, so i would agree with commissioner swig that there was no error and abuse. Clerk commissioner tanner . Commissioner tanner i agree with my fellow commissioners that there is no error, abuse, or discretion, but likewise with commissioner swig, ensuring our departments are monitoring the Property Owners and the property. Mr. Murphy, i hope you remain vigilant, being the eyes and ears and continuing to track it. I think its great seeing these projects happening on these sites so the soil does get remediated, so we have some improvements in this area, as well as housing. Its a winwin for the city to have remediation and housing projects. I hope that the d. P. H. Is looking at this with great scrutiny and the fact that the soil is getting cleaned up, so i would support commissioner swigs motion. President lazarus okay. Are we ready for a vote, then . Clerk okay. I just also want to clarify, commissioner swig, did you want to add to your motion that the matter was properly noticed . Commissioner swig yes. Clerk so