Transcripts For SFGTV Board Of Appeals 20240712

The board this evening. Scott sanchez and joseph duffy acting chief building inspector with the San Francisco department of building inspection. The Board Meeting guidelines are as follows. The board requests you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices. Apellants, permit holders and Department Respondents are each given 7 minutes to present case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated must include their comments within the 7 or 3 minute period. They have up to 3 minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal if they are nonmembers. Our legal clerk will give you a verbal warning 30 seconds before the time is up. Four votes are required to grant your appeal or modify your determination. If you have questions about requesting a rehearing, board rules or hearing schedules email board staff at board of appeals at sf gov. Org. Public participation is of paramount importance to the board and every effort has been made to replicate the in person hearing process. Sf gov tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and well have the ability to receive Public Comments it for each item on todays agenda. To wave it on tv go to cable channel 38. It will be rebroadcast on fridays on channel 26. A link for the live stream is at sf gov. Org boa. Public comment can be provided in two ways one you can join the zoom meeting by computer. Go to our website and click on the zoom link or you can call in by telephone. 669 9006833. And enter the webinar id85973566623. Sf gov tv is broadcasting and access is across the screen. To block your phone number dial star 67 then the phone number. I willsen for the Public Comment portion of the item to be called and dial star 9 the equivalent of raising your hand so we know you want to speak. Will you brought into the hearing with it is your turn. Our legal clerk will provide you with a warning 30 seconds before your time is up you will have 3 minutes. There is that delay between the live proceedings and when its broadcast on live stream and tv and internet. Its important that people calling in reduce or turn off the volume on their tvs or computers otherwise there is interference with the meeting. If any participants on zoom need a disability accommodation or Technical Assistance you can make a request on the chat function to Katy Sullivan the legal assistant or send an email to board of appeals at sf gov. Org. The chat function cannot be used to provide Public Comment or opinions. Now we will swear in or firm all those that intend to testify. Any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance. If you wish the word to give your evidentiary weight, raise your land and say i do after you are sworn in. So those testifying. Do you swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing, but the truth . Yes. Hello . Yes. Okay. I see some. If you are participant and youre not speaking please put your zoom speaker on mute so we are now moving onto item number one. Which is general Public Comment. This is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the boards jurisdiction that is not on tonights calendar. And, is there any member of the public who wish to speak on an item not on tonights calendar. I see someone raising their hand. Mr. Iverson are you here for general. I thought you were here for the 12 22 matter. I guess i made a mistake i just wanted to raise my hand that i testify to tell the truth, the whole truth. Wonderful. Thank you. Thats all im a neighbor. Thank you well call on you when its time. Is there anyone here for Public Comment. Please raise your hand. General Public Comment. Okay i dont see anybody so were going to move onto item number 2, commissioner comments or questions . Commissioners. I will have to say goodbye again later on. We congratulate her on getting a unanimous, 110. 110 for supervisors world record. Congratulations. Thank you. Im very excited aboutinning the Planning Commission, but i will say im very very sad to leave the board of appeals and as i said, to commissioner this week, i have learned so much from this commission on how to conduct myself, how to treat people with respect and like human beings even though were in a big fancy chamber just really connecting with the folks. I want to thank you off for being great examples of what it means to serve on a commission and its really going to be sad not to be with you guys every wednesday night, but i know you will have a new commissioner soon hopefully who will make you forget who i am, but hopefully not too much forgetfulness and hopefully i will see you around San Francisco. You will not be forgotten. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . If so please raise your hand. Any Public Comment . Okay i dont see any hands raised so we will move onto item number 3 the adoption of minutes. Commissioners are the minutes of the october 21st 2020 meeting. Any additions, changes, . Yob corrections, is there any Public Comment to accept the minutes . Please raise your hand. I dont see any Public Comment so on the motion to adopt the minutes president lazarus . Aye. Commissioner tanner . Aye. Okay so that motion carries 40 and the minutes are adopted. We are moving to item number 4. Rose feng, Zoning Administrator appealing the issue of septembes Family Investments lp of variance decision. The proposal to demolish an existing one car garage and construct a new four story Single Family residence. An existing two story residential building located at the rear of the subject property is proposed to remain. Planning code section 132 requires the property to maintain a front yard equivalent to 15 feet, the proposed Single Family residence encroaches approximately 9 feet 11 inches into the required front yard set back. Providing only approximately 5 feet 1inch set back therefore a variance is required. Section is 34 requires them to have a 45 . The proposed building does not extend into the required yard, however an existing second building is located entirely within the required rear yard. Such development requires a rear yard variance. They granted the front set back. This is Record Number 2018, we will hear from the appellant first. Thank you. Welcome. You have 7 minutes. Okay. Can i share my screen now . Yes. And we wont start the time until your document is showing. Do you see my document . No i dont. I see a file folder. Maybe if you click oh. I dont see its black. Okay. Now we see a picture. Where . Of the sidewalk. No you can see the picture now . Not now. It flashed on then off. Would you like some assistance . Okay now i see it. Now you see it right . Correct. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Well start your time now. Thank you. Okay. The building front set back diminishes from the required 15 feet to 5 feet 1inch. Therefore the land cape and premire section 132 kept be matched. When we look at this picture, this is the sidewalk view in front of winston avenue. And the front Property Lines was under the fence. When we look at the picture, provided by the variance holder, he purposely moved the Property Line to the sidewalk. The sidewalk is 15 feet 7 inches and his purpose is to mislead the general public and his purpose is that in his simulation here, he purposely move our front fence to the back. Now he after the construction he want to share that here is the real Property Line. This is not true. He moved the Property Line to the sidewalk. Because the location of the front Property Line is the start point of the division making, and now it look like we need to do the investigation regarding where should be the front Property Line. So, the division for the front yard set back is not [indiscernible]. And now according to the variant requirement and this section 134c3 at least 45 of total is required at the rear of subject lot. Clearly the proposed building plan and the subject property does not meet this requirement. And also, it was significantly reduced to the neighboring house at 1208 winston avenue. The 1208 winston avenue window it faced west directly. In the morning, the sunshines from the south. So the sunshines on the house at 1222 winston avenue, but not the neighboring house at 1208 winston. The sunlight comes from the southwest and then enters the 1208 winston house through the front windows between 2 00 p. M. To 5 30 p. M. The newly planned building at the subject property will be located at the southwest of the 1208 winston house and will cover its sunlight southwest sunlight approach so the southwest will be very much blocked from 1218 winston housing. The open space will shrink too much by the planned building. The consequence is that there will be much less sunlight to the 1208 winston house and the building will cost, will cost [indiscernible] in the front yard of 1208 winston avenue. So there are deficiencies of the proposed building plan, the division of front set back is not [indiscernible] because the plan is misleading. The subject property space shrinks too much, shrinks too much this will be the newly planned building in front of the tree. Since the open space will shrink too much it is blocking the sunlight to its neighboring house at the rear and the only sunlight to its neighbors front yard private open space. And the last thing is that the windows on this are adjacent wall this windows the challenge the owners, the 1208 winston avenue owners [indiscernible] the similar building to the [indiscernible] one. Eventually for this plan the owner at 1208 winston avenue will not or wont be able to build a similar building like the panda one. This is not fair. According to ab009 according to ab009, the opening should be located entirely above any ajoining roof or at least 6 feet laterally beyond any wall of an ajoining building. This is the our neighbors building which exactly shows what ab09 place and last thing is that it appear to be no input from the fire marshal about a necessary egress [indiscernible] to the immediate rear of its proposed building. This may create safety issue. So my conclusion is that the plan needs to be revised and the building should rebuild within the code. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have you concluded your presentation is there anyone else speaking on your behalf . Yeah i concluded. Okay thank you ms. Feng. We will now hear from i believe, let me see we have a hand raised one moment commissioner tanner has a question. Yes. Thank you ms. Feng i just wanted to confirm are you the resident of the ajoining unit to the cottage thats in the rear yard of this subjects property . I live 1218 winston avenue with my parents. Are you or your parents the owner of that property or do you rent that property from someone else . No my parents is the owner. They are the owner. Okay there was a part of the permit holders brief that said part of your parents home is on the property of the adjacent parcel. Are you familiar with that . Do you agree with that . I think this is a history i didnt do the investigation. Im not familiar with that. Okay. No thats no problem. Just to make sure i understand part of your concerns are certainly that you want to make sure that the new home proposed doesnt encroach on the sidewalk, and also that it might have imping on your sunlight. Were any shadow studies formed or did you request any shadow studies related to the building . I dont know how to do that request. The issue is not like the new building will encroach the sidewalk. It can, do the minor encroachment they can get a permit to do that. The thing that i saw the balance holder move the Property Line move to the sidewalk which i dont think its, he can do that. You think the Property Line was not depicted in the right location . Yes. The Property Line should be under the front fence. I see okay great. Thank you for clarifying that. Okay. Thank you so much maam i appreciate your testimony. Thats all. Okay thank you. We will now hear from a representative for the variance holder, i believe mr. Woods will be speaking first. If you have 7 minutes mr. Woods. Actually im going to speak on behalf of the Property Owner. Oh, okay. So this is mr. [ inaudible ] im sorry. I cant hear you. You froze up. Oh. Can you start the time over please and if you wouldnt mind starting over please. The time is restarted. Thank you. Okay. So can you see my screen . Yes. You want me to maximize it or does that not matter . No its fine we see it. Thank you. So, commissioners i would be happy to address some of the comments that just came up. I will use my rebuttal time for that. So i will start in here. So, good afternoon commissioners. Im tony morris with morris architect representing the appeal of variances. On july 23, 2020 the Planning Commissioner filed by the current appellant approved this project approving the variances. And rear yard. We asked the board reject the same appeal. First a little history. The project submitted in 2018 remains the same. The demolition of a existing single car detached garage in the front. The construction of the new Single Family home in its place. The existing nonconforming cottage at the back of the lot which is a twin of and connected to the cottage owned by the apellant at 1218 is to be preserved. It is found to be ineligible for the california register and not a contributor to any Historic District however the owner decided to keep it as an affordable rental unit. In december 2019, after several rounds of [indiscernible] the height and depth of the building, the proposal was heard for the variances. This is the site plan at that time. Ms. Feng voiced concerns. I reached out, but she did not want to reach to meet. No dr was filed. An abundance of caution and to reinforce variance signing number 4 that the proposal will not be materially injeerous to the neighbors. Approach the project sponsor, and requested that we reduce the height further and shift the building further away from the appellant lot. We were flabbergasted by this request coming subsequent to the expiration with no dr filed. We decided to accommodate the department however upon renoticing the supervised project the fengs filed through dr. The dr was heard in july and recognized an extraordinary of thes we had taken to create a new unit while minimizing the impacts on the appellant. The project received unanimous support with the commissioners. The front yard set back variance for 132, due to the huge front by averaging a required front set back is close to the maximum 15 feet. They supported pushing the building 51 from the front Property Line in order to open up the midblock open space for the benefit of the cottages. That reduction of the front set back required a variance. Rear yard variance section 34 a rear yard set back exceeds the lot depth. Per the 1986 interpretation of section 134, a limit 25 of equivalent area or 30 feet is required between two structures on a lot. Our proposal fell short by 30 minutes and required a variance. In terms of the five findings for the variances the case is clear the extraordinary circumstance is the presence of an existing nonconforming cottage in the rear yard, which reduces the developable area for the second unit on this lot. Both front and rear provide forlogical development that preserve the right for a second unit consistent with the general plan and minimize the effect on the neighbors. I would like to address the appellants concern. First appellant is concerned about the front cut back variance and negatively impacting the public good. This is certainly no not the case. No portion of the proposal encroached on the 15foot deep sidewalk. Not the front stairs nor the driveway. If you look at this drawing you can see that the dashed red line is somewhat forward of the house. His house is about 16 and a half feet back from the curb, and the sidewalk is legally 15 feet. So that is what explains ms. Fengs concerns. Its not the Property Line is not right up against the fence. So in fact we proposed to move the economisting nonconforming encroachment which will restore the sidewalk in front of this property. By contrast the appellants property has an identical approach 15foot walk and the appellant regularly blocks the sidewalk and defies the state law for public safety. Second the appellant claims that landscape through section 132 cant be met. Those requirements are for the land on your own property. So, no were not planting the sidewalk, but yes we are planting there our front set back. Regarding the rear variance, the appellant claims the proposed project will significantly reduce sunlight to her cottage at 12 18 and says the front lawn area will become dark tunnel after the planned building. There is no denying that there will be some increased shadows on the appellants property subsequent of the proposed second unit. It is south of the property and will cast some shadow on 1218 during the months when sun is low. As is seen here. Can you see that the building at 1228 is already casting significant shadow on it. The project and residential guidelines accept as it is stated concerned and provide for reasonable light to midblock cottages. In this case a new structure will be 27 feet, 30 seconds. And they will continue to join deep yard and open to the sky. The front set back and variances are a substantial property right enjoyed by others in the neighborhood namely two units on the lot. We tried to find that sweet spot with enough for a reasonable unit, but respecting our neighbors and those with the development patterns. The variance will do just that and provide for superior site planning. Thats time. Thank you mr. Morris. We have a question from Vice President honda. Yes. You touched on the shadowing did you do a shadow report . No we didnt. There is no denying that this is going to cast shadow. This is private property. Its not park property. But no we did not. I mean so it, was there a specific reason why because in your testimony a few seconds ago you said its going to cast some shadow. Some is a verb. So i kind of want to know it would be nice to know exactly how much shadow its casting. Right. Well, we, i made mr. Sanchez can speak to this, but we were not request to provide a shadow study. So, it never came up between your clients and your firm . That is correct. Okay. And is this, an Investment Property or someone moving into the property as far as its a developer moving in or is this for a spec . We dont know. I think he may be developing it to spec, but i dont know for sure. Hes been renting the cottage. And, last question is when you did your neighborhood notification, when you did what interaction did you have with the neighbors . We had the initial application meeting there were about three people there. Then there was no significant issues raised at thatzn4 meeti. Then we did its variance notification and the three letter notification and we learned about concerns by ms. Feng and mr. Iverson then they also came to the variance hearing and expressed concern. We reached out to them as i mentioned afterward. And we were told by ms. Feng that her parents were not available and not interested couldnt meet. So that was pretty much that. We offered to we had two native mandarin speakers in this firm so we offered to meet with ms. Feng if that would help. I think the long short of it is that our communication has not been extensive and it hasnt been great and basically, she has not wanted to communicate and thats a part of the problem from my end is that im trying to educate her as to the planning code and where the set backs are and those issues and she is [indiscernible] so we havent been able to. Did she bring up that shadow situation in the beginning or was this a new she has used those words that it will become a tunnel. Shes used those words before. So you knew that in the beginning why didnt you perform a shadow study . Well, shadow study is not required for private property. Thats not the question i asked you sir. I asked if you knew that was an issue with the ajoining Property Owner, and that was a concern why wouldnt you at that point, address that concern . Again it wasnt raised. I just asked you if she asked that prior you said she did. The shadow study no it was not. I asked if she brought up the question you said yes and then i asked why didnt you perform it and you said she did not ask the question. Right. She did ask the question you said it woulshe said it would b. At that point if she said it would be a tunnel at that point why did you not perform a shadow study. I think that basically, any home that is built in this location is going to be cast a shadow its on the south side of a very deep front yard. So this is basic geometry. Even as 1228 cast a shadow on 1222 and 1218 so will this new home. It will. Then the second person mr. Iverson what were his concerns and how did you address them . He would like to see a smaller building. He would like to see no variances. So were there any concessions made for the concerns that he had . No. No. Okay. Thank you. Uhhuh. We have a question from commissioner tanner. One question for you sir what is the overall Square Footage of this new home thats going to be built . So the cottage is 815 square feet and the new home is 3700 square feet. Okay and the cottage is currently rented to a tenant you said . Okay i think commissioner honda or Vice President honda asked most of my questioning. Yup thats it thank you. Okay thank you. We will now hear from the Planning Department mr. Sanchez. Thank you. [indiscernible] contains an existing legal structure that is located in the required rear yard which contains its legal family dwelling. But is before you as a variance application or variance decision letter that is seeking about the front and rear yard variance. The history here is that in november of 2018, both the variance and environmental application were submitted in december of 2018, related Building Permit application was submitted. Since july 2019, the environmental determination was issued for the project finding that the existing building on the loot is not a Historic Resource between november and december of 2019, the section 311 notification was performed during the time when the variance hearing occurred in december of 2019 and the administrator heard concerns raised by the appellant in this case and subsequent to that hearing, did require modifications be made to the project notably that the building be set further to the front so there is greater separation between the buildings on the lot which would be beneficial to the appellant in this case and also the height of the building by approximately 6 inches. Also to the benefit of the appellant in this case. Those changes did require a new neighborhood identification so a revised modified section 311 was performed between february and march. No discretionary view had been filed on the original design which was actually more adverse to the appellant, they did file a dro the second time and they did have a hearing for the Planning Commission earlier this year in july. Now that hearing the Planning Commission voted unanimously not to take discretionary and in september this year, [indiscernible] appealed to you and obviously that is before you now. I think as the project sponsor was alluding, the development on the central quad where you have not only the structure on the subject property, but also an existing legal noncomplying structure on the adjacents property in this case the appellant property. Any development is going to be a bit of a challenge. The code does allow for two dwelling units. A cocompliant rear yard would be just a slightly larger rear yard getting to the 30 feet at 25 between the two buildings as the project sponsor noted. The apellant has cited concerns related to front set back and concerns about encroachment not only to the front set back, but most notably into the public right of way. That would be a concern that the department would share as well. We generally dont want to encourage encroachment from the public right of way thats more of a last resort and circumstances where you would have topography or other issues, but the relationship of the building to the sidewalk in my review of the plans and the survey that was submitted with the plans i did not see any encroachment into the public right away all of the work does contain on the Property Lines and would not be subject to that encroachment. It can be challenging when many are right at the front Property Line in San Francisco. In this case the buildings are set back from the front Property Lines and thats where you see those stoops the steps coming on some of the adjacent properties to the south and, but it does appear that everything, every work that all of the work that is proposed is actually on the subject lot. And i think, in relation to the concerns that we have concerns that have been raised is that most notably and i think is the concerns of the impact on the appellant property. We have taken that into account and have gotten required changes to the project. Its unavoidable to have any kind of impact when you have such a substandard condition as exists on the appellants property. It can be very challenging to propose any kind of development you know, there are other they could fill the cottage, [indiscernible], but you know, under some cases, we have the front of the rear building is actually maybe within the buildable area in some cases people build their noncomplying rear structure for their forward and thats allowed. I dont know exactly if thats the case here if thats where their rearyardlines up. But, sometimes that does happen. Its a challenging situation, thats why we have residential lines. Thats why we have the dr process. Thats why we have Residential Design Team and the Planning Commission to review this and the Planning Commission did review this and fined ewe nonunanimous mousily there was no adverse impact with the appellants property. With that the request that they uphold this variance letter. This is the last action in this case. There will be subsequently the Building Permit that would be required and issued. Which would have the entire project contained im available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. We have a questions from commissioner swig, Vice President and lazarus and commissioner tanner. Is that everybody . Everybody wants to talk too you tonight. He emailed his question in actually. [laughter] scott, how does this fulfill the part of the variance that says this fits into the rest of the neighborhood . This structure, this architecture everything about it doesnt fit at all into the rest of the neighborhood. Unless i need to shine up my glasses. Can you tell me how that fits into the requirements for variance . Its unique in that the subject property and the appellant property are really the only two that are substantially set back. They are located at the rear Property Line. Most buildings are set to the front. And the property sponsor noted i think it was 1228 which is to the south of the subject property, is actually has more of an adverse impact on the subject property, than the proposed building will have on the appellants property. Because of the relationship. Its shorter the building is shorter than the adjacent building south of the subject property. It does have it be closer to the front Property Line, there is different, which is kind of the rough envelope. You lack any creativity as to the design then you have the actual design characteristics and the design of the building may be different or more modern than some of the existing buildings in the immediate vicinity, but in reviewing this the Planning Commission found unanimously that it was extraordinary circumstances that would justify any changes and they found it did comply with the residential design guidelines. So the mapping is similar to the adjacent buildings. The design may be a little bit different its not out of context with the adjacent buildings and perhaps we further discuss the design details. Yeah i get, i think i got a shine up my glasses or you got to shine up yours because if i look at and i wish i had that the photo that was shown to us earlier that shows the neighboring buildings because you have the roof style of the adjacent buildings are different, the obviously the set back of the adjacent buildings all the way down the block are different, this building, and im not saying if i like the architecture or not because my taste is all in my mouth, but i can clearly say when it comes to the roof line, when it comes to the general shape, when it comes to the set back and et cetera, et cetera, this building, pays no reference from my point of view, to the buildings that i see adjacent to it, and obviously, you know one of our policies is we dont go out and physically survey these blocks, but im reasonably familiar wh the neighborhood. And i just dont see how it meets the criteria of building in harmony, context or whatever with the rest of the buildings in the neighborhood. I was just wondering how that how that snuck by. But maybe i got to shine my glasses up. Thank you. I would note sometimes, i tend it take my glasses off to see better myself. Maybe im getting old. So in terms of the roof planning it is a flat roof line so the roof form, were dealing with a variety of gables or [indiscernible] it does have additional story that is set back so, i could see that may be what youre preferring to the lines. I think the adjacent buildings do have corn as. This building doesnt have that kind of detail. One more thing we look at is the general relationships of the not looking at the [indiscernible] to the transparent and in this case this is not a full glass facade, but adjacent facade that are mostly solid with small windows. I think thats where our Design Professionals were looking at and seeing how this fit into the context and finding that it did. We have a question from Vice President honda. So mr. Sanchez, i mean, are there any other four Story Properties on that, on that block . Um i dont have that information in front of me. In terms of this is not four stories. The main facade, the top story is set back and i will correct my question are there any three stories with a four story set back on that block . I dont have that information, but we often would allow that and when there is the set back. Then, at 3700 square feet is that the maximum Square Footage that could be built here . We dont have that there are limitations. There is no maximum Square Footage for development in residential districts its based upon the visible area the buildable envelope. They are seeking a variance so the Square Footage there by that is allowed for the project would be greater than a code compliant. So what would be the allowed Square Footage . It wouldnt have that information. I mean you could have you could excavate out and have more Square Footage under ground so its not really a question of Square Footage its a question of the set backs so the set backs are what they are seeking the variance from so there sured be a 30foot separation between the two buildings between the subject building, and the existing building. And let me pull up the details from the decision letter which should note some of those requirements. 30foot rear yard requirement and i believe a 15foot front set back requirement and their encroaching 9 feet 11 inches into the front yard set back. So i think they are 32 inches required rear yard and almost 1t set back. And that was when it was 25 i believe its 30 now correct . [indiscernible] increase from 25 to 30 . I believe the 25 between two buildings on the same lot remains the same. Okay and last question, considering that both properties have you know, noncomplying home thats in back of the house, and by putting a large building and this appears to be very large and i usually am not the one that mentions that when they come before this body, but it does appear quite large. Considering that its going to create a pretty large shadow and a hardship on that property and then, the building administrators still elected to give a variance on this . I olympian thats what im trying to figure out. Because its a 3700 square feet if they complied with what was code compliant, they would still have a really large house and yes there would still be an impact to the neighbor, but theres a huge impact and yet the Zoning Administrator is giving a variance to create a larger impact. So in terms of the code compliant addition would be to the existing building and the site plan, as i mentioned before, [indiscernible] of the subject building is probably within the buildable area. So under the code they could build all the way not all the way to the front, but they could build substantially to the front of the lot. And that would have much more of an impact on the adjacent property and wouldnt require a variance. So i think this is one of the issues here that the challenge is that is faced and. They had a hearing and could the consternation of the public here as they expressed the administrator said we dont think the project as designed is quite right and had it set further to the front which did you know, exacerbate that need for the front set back variance. But, that has reduces the impact on the central property and lowering the height. Looking at site plan is eliminating because it shows while the adjacent the central property and the adjacent property are set back all the way, and the properties to the south are set back from the front as well, the building to the north to the appellant property is very set to the front set back. The front set back is, i think is the variance is appropriate and doesnt have any impact on the appellant property. Most of the impact is from probably the rear yard variance. But also, alternative it could have even more impact. This 19uq the challenge of noncomplying structures and we do our best. You do such a great job. Thank you. Thank you. I would just like to remind everyone to not use the chat function to share information its for Technical Assistance only. Thank you. We now have a question from president lazarus. Thank you. I think that this might have been somewhat answered just now, but if you start with the assumption that 3700 square feet is a good sized house, are there ways to kind of shrink that that then have less of an impact . I am not sure im phrasing that very well. But mr. Sanchez do you sort of get the drift of what im asking and is that the question you just answered . We stay away from the Square Footage because you can have huge developments under ground massive Square Footage so we try to stay away from the Square Footage. This building is maximizing the envelope in terms of what is allowed and they are seeking a variance. So is it a large home, yes i would say it is a larger than what the code would allow. They are needing a variance for this. But the fact is the code it is complicated with these situations because they could have still a very large home and not need a variance. Okay that is the drift where you were going okay. All right thank you. Commissioner tanner has a question. Not to beat a dead horse to the stick, but to followup on the size of the home question, one of my questions would be why not just shrink the home rear location by 30 inches, so that it does have that compliance rear yard space between the forward home and the cottage in the rear . Was that considered by the Zoning Administrator as an option . I think the Zoning Administrator yes, i think that would have been something that was considered by the Zoning Administrator they could have said were not going to grant the rear yard variance you need to have that 30 feet, but the Zoning Administrator gave some thought that the encroachment that they were providing was appropriated wouldnt have an adverse impact on the neighbor. Of course this is a hearing and this matter is fully before the on both of the variance matters so if the board felt differently that would be within their purview. In regards to the set back in the front the set back is now reduced to 5 feet and 1 inches is that correct . I think so yes. Do you have a sense we have talked about the site plan, part of me is wanting to hopefully have the benefit for the appellant to also understand some of dot dynamics in terms of the set back of the Neighboring Properties do you have a sense of how deep their set backs are . It seemed like some are very close to the Property Line if not at the Property Line. Based upon the plan submitted with the project, the property to the north of the appellant property is set back about 1 foot 9 from their front set back. The property to the south of the subject property 1228funston is set back 13 feet. So pretty big difference between the two properties. And then in terms of the set back does the set back include the stairway or the driveway . Or are those fully within the private property . Those dimensions i stated were to the Main Building wall. To the property to the north of the appellant property they have a bay window that extends over the Property Line, but 19 is to the Main Building while the 13foot on the 1228funston is to the Main Building while they have stairs that encroach. If you look at the subjects property and the proposed development do the staircases and driveway for that property extend into the public right of way or are they fully on the private property . The plans that i have just show the im looking at 1228 funston and their stairs are on their property fully. And then the property at 1216 funston i dont have that level of information before me. But for the property that specific property today . The proposal is on their property or on the encroaches into the public right of way. The proposal is completely within their stairs, their first step of the stairs is on their property. Okay. Great. So theres no concern about it encroaching the public right of way. And the rear cottage do you know, do you know if it is subject to rent control or would be under current laws . To the boast of my knowledge if there has been Single Family dwellings are exempt from rent control. I want to say. Yeah. And i think that does depend on when they have occupied the property. If they have any preexisting tenants that have occupied it since the 80s or 90s. Yeah. And may trigger by depending on what happens in the statewide election what we do locally. Do you know if when this other unit is added, would that be considered a Single Family home still or would it be considered a multifamily property . I mean i dont know what how they are going to develop it. My guess and they would do this as a condo so the new building would be added as a condo and they would two separate parcells so there would be no rent control. But my suspicion is the new building wouldnt have any rent control its a separate structure. That its not going to have any rent control either way. Yeah. I think im more concerned about the cottage having rent control. Im just wondering what assurances we would have that that would happen. It sounds like right now we dont have any other than the will of the owner to rent it at an affordable rate. Then for the, sorry part of the issue with the variance is we dont have a lot of these scenarios. Where we have the homes set back so far back onto the property, but at the same time i thought that the i think its the applicant might have mentioned there that there rdt guidelines about midblock cottages and so is in really a unique situation or its unique, but common enough that we have a sense of how we treat them in San Francisco and, if so, how much does this fall in line with other variances weve issued for Similar Properties that are at the rear of the property. Its common enough where and we had it both ways we have a building at the front and a building at the rear and we have buildings at the rear and people are adding a building at the front. So either way weve had this scenario countless times so its not an unknown. And also to the concerns raised about egress and fire issues, this is a common enough i scenao where this is developpal an devd can be code compliant. This is the struggle how big is that building in front. Its large, but can be allowed. What is the best way to develop on this site. Often weve done two separate buildings with a courtyard in between. Because its a pretty typical pattern of development. Rather than having like a much larger building in the rear be extanneddeexpanded to the front. People will come in for a project like this and have a separate building on the lot. Could not be demolished and building a twin. It couldnt be demolished without a variance, but it could be remodeled within the existing envelope. If there were demolition you are getting into the possibility of the variance for reconstructing. And then lastly, just kind of going back to the sidewalk that was a chief issue for the appellant, when we measure that sidewalk, and the sidewalk we go to the curb, take out a tape measure, measure 15 feet and there starts the private Property Line is that an accurate way to describe that . Yes. Obviously you need a surveyor. Measuring from the curb to the Property Line not from some other unknown. And that 15 feet should measure another 5 feet back and thats where she could expect the stairs and other things is that correct . Or 5 feet back is where that new building would be located. 5 feet back is where the face of that building would be. I think they have a bay window and they have stairs. The stairs they are proposing come and that first step is at the Property Line. Great so some protrusions its 5 feet 1 inches back from the Property Line. Okay great thank you very much. Mr. Sanchez this did come before the commission for dr do you know whether there was discussion of any particular aspect before the unanimously agreed not to take dr . I softened the materials the appellant had raised familiar concerns, but the language about the tunnel and the concerns about the light were in their dr application. So im assuming that was considered by the commission and of course there was a full hearing where they had the ability to have arguments before not to take any dr. Okay thank you. Okay thank you mr. Sanchez. I understand mr. Duffy is here. Did dbr want to weigh in on this case . No we dont have anything. Nope. Okay thank you. So we will move onto Public Comment. I believe we have our first commenter is jim iverson. Mr. Iverson. Yes can you hear me . Yes. Is it okay . Yes please go ahead you have three minutes. Thank you very much. I would like to thank you all for your efforts here and listening and considering and questioning. I have lived here at 1216 more than 30 years, i have been a member of the associations here for about ten years, i know how much work this is and i really like the neighborhood charm. And this charm is not enhanced by this bulky building. No alternative was everpresented which would be, which would be discernible to the average person. Without variances. A smaller building, take off that top level. I think thats a reasonable request. So this is not a tremendous neighborhood outreach. I live at 1216 i was never really considered a outreachible person. And i like these kind of meetings. Im not familiar with the zoom as you folks are, and i appreciate your patience, but this building is too big. There was a confusing presentation between the drafting, the lines on the paper, the sketches and the photos. I dont know why that happened with professional architects in charge of this. And i think we should delay this. Overall critique there should be why cant we have Something Like the voters guide. The voters guide has each proposition that San Francisco must vote on, pros and cons and actual Public Access to arguments such as mine or roses. Who did a great job. Its a difficult situation i understand that, but this destroys the interesting charm and something charming in this challenging era could be built. I really believe that. And it hasnt been tried. So these decisions that you have to make are difficult, and i wish you would delay this to further consideration. The original meeting happened after that long long presentation of the lights and the noise and all of that issue more than an hour, 7 and a half hours of testimony and then finally this 1222 was proposed and i was given less than a minute to talk. It just wasnt a complete i didnt get a sense that we were able to grasp all of this and so i think we should delay this. 30 seconds. And i think that you asked some Great Questions here and i dont think the answers are easy, but you think you should deny the variances and lets see what we can come up with a smaller building, even two units at 1500 feet each would be better than this 3700 monstrosity which does not fit in the neighborhood. It does not. So i guess thats it im sure i can think of other things. Thats time. We have a question from Vice President honda. The question is that the projectsponsor architect reached out to talk about the project and said you did not meet with them. Is that true . At that time i was not here. I cannot represent the coowner to speak to the response alone, right. Then the seconded think the email conversation with morris. She is not honest. That is why i stopped talking to her. What do you base that assumption on . Not assumption. It is what really happened. In email she said the apartments we didnt have objection for the plan. In the email i sent back i said who tell you we have no objection to the plan . Then when he moved forward and he said, you said you have no objection to the plan so i move forward. He is playing the game. That is why i stopped talking to him. Thank you. That is all my questions. Thank you. After that exchange, i dont know when that you curred. You had no communication with the property developer. He is not honest. I want to confirm. When is the last time you had communication with him. Last time last year or beginning of this year. I for got. It should be the end of last year, december. You havent talked with him up to the Planning Commission hearing . No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from mr. Woods. That is me, right . Thats correct. You have three minutes. I am going to share the screen again. We did address this. It is easy to provide access to the back cottage. It will be an independent cottage with independent access under the other building. I think it will function independently. Also, we talked. We mentioned the Property Line windows. Those are by nsr. It is the Property Owner, appellant now or later can expand over these windows. I tried to express the hardship that the cottage creates. We have a survey about a foot of the appellants cottage is on the subject property. The owner decided at the beginning it was not going to be truthful to try to demolish the cottage. If we had demolished the cottage which was not historic. We so have had a larger more conventional structure. It is true the cottage creates a impediment to the mid lot open space. Mr. Isons property has 70 lot cover from the front as mr. Sanchez explained 1 foot nine inches back 80 some feet. He has comparable Square Footage in his building that we are proposing in these two buildings. The problem we have we are trying to do what we can to provide light and air access to both of these cottages and honor them. They will have dwelling unit appropriate dwelling unit exposure at 27. 5 feet. We originally proposed 25 feet which would have met the exposure. The Planning Department felt that was not enough. We are trying to find the right spot, and because we are being squeezed at the back, we need that extra storage. There is a four Story Building across the street. We need the benchmark of the building to the south of us. We are three stories and set back 15 feet. Then, you know, i apologize if she feels the communication was difficult. I felt it was too because i couldnt understand. Not the misunderstand her. That is time. We have question from commissioner tanner then Vice President honda. Mr. Moore ris, i am not an architect. I am less concerned about the design of the building. There are different styles that each have their own charm. I can understand the concerns and make room of diversity of architectural design. What i am concerned about is the overall size of the home. I understand it is complete. I am curious when you got the feedback of the 25 feet of courtyard was not sufficient. Did you consider just getting rid of that extra 30 inches to not meet a rear yard variance or the same type of discretion for the building . What kind of concerns did that raise maybe if you were to decrease that size of that building by 30 inches that you expressed . I think i explained we went through two round of review before the variance hearing. When we got the variance hearing the va was inclined to support but take it under advisement. He had opposition in the room by both people on the call today. He went as far to instruct them how to file the dr. That is the 311 expired and no dr filed. We were surprised. Just to make sure i understand. At that point that was when you reduced to 27. 5 feet . No. 25 feet . 25 feet. Then that happened you had to renotice and subsequent and it was reduced from 25 feet or the courtyard was expanded from 25 to 27. 5 feet at that time . No basically the va through the project planner same to us to say we are not comfortable with this. These are the options. You can shift the building towards the street. We would like to see you bring it down. We did those things. The front setback. We are comfortable with meeting the third point between mr. Iverson and the southern profit. You landed where the stairs are at the Property Line and the building is pushed forward. As far as the plans you are not the Property Owner. Tour willing is there other plans to convert to two condos or sell the properties . Do you have knowledge what plans are for the property . I dont know. Is your client on the line today to answer that client . No. Thank you. Do you have knowledge of the rental rate of that cottage in the rear . I dont. Thank you. Question from Vice President honda. The question is you mentioned that you brought the height down. How much did you bring the height down to . I think from the beginning to where we ended up it came down two or three feet. I believe that is all my questions. Thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from the Planning Department. Mr. Sanchez you have three minutes. I have given her all she has got. I appreciate the boards vigorous questioning. I am available to answer any questions the board has. Okay. Do we have any questions for mr . I dont see any. I have two questions. For the benefit of those who have given testimony tonight, for the 311 notice. Mr. Iverson described the notice he expected to have. The project of this scope there would have been a preapplication meeting to the abutting properties before the permits were submitted. Upon the section 311 neighborhood notification, 30day notice. Second was shorter because it was noticed. Would that have been received by mail . Within 150 feet of the subject property and including a copy of the plans. For the Property Line when the discussion is had and i think the architect addressed this. There is a special restriction noting in the future they may have to cover or have other accommodations made for the windows, is that correct . That is the Building Department not planning. Those are allowed with restrictions and they could go away in the future if someone else decides to construct a building that abuts the Property Line. Not a permanent right. Thank you. I am confirming mr. Duffy does not want to weigh in during rebuttal, is that correct . The windows is correct. If you got Property Line windows subject you give up the rights when you give them in. You cant object. Thank you. Question from commissioner swigs. Mr. Sanchez, scott, i am still and i hate to i dont generally beat a dead horse. I am not comfortable. I believe in my own neighborhood in the marina there is a beautiful architectural house which i believe is on alhambra. Did you do that modern house alhambra and somewhere on beach. It is the same lines. It is modern. It is quite striking and completely out of character with the neighborhood, yet because and the neighborhood is mostly stucco front. I will look in the morning. I am trying to prove the point that i am not against the design. I think it is a beautiful structure. Why is it beautiful . Because it fits into the context of the neighborhood. The masses is similar to the structure next to it, which is what would be typical marina 1927 approximately construction, much like my own house, and the height matches the next door. There was an attempt to match to reflect the roofline of the next door and the rest of the block. This house feels like a mansion, you know. I hate to press it but you know when is a house if this house isnt out of scope with the rest of the street and rest of the neighborhood, when is a house out of scope . If this house was smaller and the set back on the stairs were not out looking even though legally they may be legal, they look intheressive into the intrusive into the sidewalk. When is a house why is this house not out of character with the neighborhood . I cant get over it. I am sorry. I dont often press this point. This is bugging me. There is probably an example by the same architect three blocks away and it is quite george us because they maintain the context. This is a similarlooking house. It is a mansion compared to the rest of the neighborhood. I need an explanation. I am having a hard time. One of the issues. The buildings of a certain vintage. This is not a Historic District. There is no requirement to mimic those elements if you are in a Historic District you might find the features of the district and they would be included in part of any construction on this lot. There is no such requirement for that in this location. There is a bit more freedom and flexibility. It is creativity of the architect to be on display. This is an issue where we get some people will sign the design is a subjective matter. It is completely appropriate and some people find it is offensi offensive. In terms of the Planning Commission they felt this design was appropriate and within context. Not to say we cant have differing opinions like you are expressing now. I want to make it very clear. We are getting into dangerous territory. My taste is in my mouth. This is not about the design. This is about massing and putting an elephant. I am over stating. An elephant next to a bunch of mice. This is what it feels like. It just for me. This is in the variance it must be in if context with the rest of the neighborhood. That would fulfill that level of variance. The massing on this not the design. Stay away from that. The massing. The way the stair comes out, the way that it is pushed forward. It is not in character with the neighborhood. Therefore why should it pass the variance simply for that reason. Not the design but the way it is pushed forward, the way the staircase by comparison, roofline. All of that stuff. Why is this in character with the rest of the neighborhood . Sorry for pushing it. It is bugging me. I appreciate the vigorous questions. I wouldnt come to the board of appeals if i didnt appreciate the tough questions. It is similar to the entry. That is a characteristic that is very much all of these properties have that similar entry. It does project further out to the front than the adjacent properties. There is only about half of the distance to the front Property Line of the adjacent believe to the south. The height adjacent building to the south. It is the same as the building to the south. Maybe it raises an issue there is the parapet for the roof deck on the stop story. That is set back substantially. If that parapet were opened i would address the concerns. It is set closer to the front but that building to the north of the mall. That is one foot, less than two feet from the front Property Line. It is transitional property and can come further to the front. It is a flat roof to the adjacent building to the Main Building wall is the same height. There is that top story, penthouse which is taller set back from the Main Building wall. The raised entry and steps are the same as adjacent property. That is the same as our design staff would make. Question from commissioner tanner. Help me understand the sizing of the tone. That is what is concerning me. It needs a variance and yet the size was not reduced or perhaps it was reduced in height but not overall depth of the building. More just how that impacts the neighborhood, the affordability in the city. We have large homes. The only controls the planning code has on size other than the variances is the heath and the overall buildable envelope of the home. No restrictions how big one family home can be, is that correct . Yes, all based on the envelope. This is de novo hearing. In you feel it should not be granted that is within the boards hands this evening. Question from president lazarus. Along those same lines. I believe you said that without the variances they would have the opportunity to build an even larger building on the buildable envelope. Am i correct . We havent analyzed any such proposal but it does appear based on the location of the rear building and relationship to where the setback would be for the rear yard they could push off closer to the front. I dont know the size exactly. That would have more impact on the property than the proposal here which is new building to the front. There is a court to match that open space on their lot. We havent analyzed that. I am basing this on my review from the plans. The alternative that could result in a large building, not larger but a large building. It would not require variances . Right the front edge of the rear building is within the buildable area. They can push the wall forward not all the way to the front Property Line. They need open area on the lot but they could certainly build that out. Given it is no, sir a Historic Resource they wouldnt be required to maintain the facade on that building. Thank you. Vice president honda. Our president brought up a good question. If they pushed up the believe would they push forward the new structure, wouldnt the courtyard get larger . Yes, the Zoning Administrator requested it pushed forward so the courtyard got larger by the action of the Zoning Administrator. I am sorry. I am confused. If we make them go code complaint. The building might get larger because they could push it forward. 25 rear yard when there is two buildings on the lot. If they were to modify the exist building to make it larger. Basically we are saying if they tore down the structure that is currently on the property and built the larger structure. Well that would be one thing that could happen. That is 317 and authorization. It wouldnt require traditional authorization to hold that rear structure and build forward. That could be done without a variance. Basically building on that home. Front addition, basically. Like a crestwood where we have a smaller house and they would go forward with that house which would be more conforming. You would have a larger front yard set back and the home would be at the rear of the property . More conforming in terms of not using a variance but also have more impact on the property. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Commissioners this matter is submitted. Commissioners who would like to start . Several of you had a lot of questions. Go ahead Vice President honda. You go first since this is your last night. We have the same comments. You speak first. We will see if it is the same comments tonight. I am an advocate for having more housing in the city. I think listening to the Zoning Administrator explain what is alternative would have been, this proposal does maintain more housing. I do find that it is the project sponsor has made several adjustments based on our staff recommendation. I am glad to see staff taking a close look at this property. I would support the variances. I am open to also what my fellow commissioners have to say. Your last night and we are not going to agree. I think the findings for the variance that there is no special exception and it did not meet all five findings. I think as far as the architecture that is a different deal. You are getting a very large home and yet besides the home you are asking for a variance. I dont feel that criteria has been met. If my fellow commissioners, and as we know that the Planning Commission this wases de novo hearing so we critique them and we get to do that to our fellow members in a couple weeks. I dont support it. I think they should be code complaint. If fellow members go forward with this, i think that since they have maxed out the envelope and its Development Project more than likely we should add nsr on that if possible no rear deck, front decks so that building envelope does not increase in size. That would be my input. To be honest, you know, i just feel that when you are moving into a neighborhood and you are affecting other people you should work with them and try to present as much information so that, you know, you are trying at the end of the day no one is going to be superhappy. To me the shadow study should have been done if that was a major concern of the ad joining Property Owners. Mr. Sanchez, i cant pull up the material fast enough. With the granting of variances, arent there all kinds of automatic restrictions on other changes to be made . Yes, there are standard conditions of approval adopted as part of the variance and i can share those with the board if you would like. To address commissioner hondas questions about restrictions would those be necessary . It is up to the board when the conditions are sufficient. One of the conditions is condition number two which is any future physical expansion even in the buildable area shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator to determine if it is compatible with the existing neighborhood character and scale, to determine there would be a significant or extraordinary impact it would require notice to affected Property Owners or new variance sought and justified. That is already required if that is adequate to the board. I think the board knows. When the board put the condition in for that to be undubis by bringing it back before the board in the future depending on how that condition or what the condition requires. That is an additional layer on the board. Thank you. Since i have the mic, i will add that i would support commissioner tanners position. Mr. Sanchez would that include adding decks . That would not be Square Footage, correct . It sounded like a shaker. My wife is cooking. I forgot what you asked. Looking at the plans, i see a lot of blank space that looks like builders have gotten smart right now where they dont apply the decks up front and apply in the agenda or change that since that is over the counter permit at this point. Unless the neighbors are on top of it. The concern is that there is already a max build on the property. Traditionally from lincoln to irving is the oldest homes in the sunset. The oldest bar is the shamrock a couple blocks away. There is currently a fourth floor deck on the front and rear. The flat portion of the roof area is further forward which all appears to be within the required sunset deck and under the code you are allo allowed tt a deck within the required front setback as long as it has an open railing. It would trigger the 10 day notice to the abutting properties or if the concern is about a deck above the fourth floor, that depending on the access. If they needed it. If the board would have concerns about the questions the concern about the deck. The front setback that would trigger a notice to adjacent properties if it is a billion dollarsable area above o oil buildable area above the fourth floor. It seems there would be maxing that out. Then although this brings additional housing, we dont know what they are going to do to the back once they get the front done. That is an issue as well, right . Okay. Thank you. Commissioner swig. Scott, you said the magic word. The word is scale. You said it in the context of the neighborhood. I think that is the word i was looking for is the scale of this building. It feels out of context with the neighborhood and that would breach one of the requirements of filing for a variance. Where i am attorney torn, ift do this variance, they are going to build the building anyway and it will probably intrude further back to the property and cause further compromise to the appellant, and my intent here is not to cause harm to the appellant or cause more shadows. I am very bothered. I have frank f un g talking to me in the back of my mind. He would never allow this variance. It is accommodation more than. This is what is begging me bugging me. This is compromising the neighborhood and scale and scope. There is no need for this. No hardship for this. It is simply accommodation to the developer and the scale and scope is an intrusion on the neighborhood, i believe. Therefore, i dont think it passes muster as variance. I think if frank were on the commission he would agree. He is not so i can tell you that he might. That is bugging me. I am communicating to my fellow commissioners while somebody is conjuring the need to make a motion on this. Is there a motion or further discussion . Commissioner tanner . Well, i dont know how the motion would be made. I would welcome Vice President honda to make it. I support hes idea of nsr. I show concerns about the scale of the building and reduce it by the 30 inches. I dont know that really creates the benefits that are being sought. I dont know that that is a fair use of the city processes, quite frankly. I do support the idea of ensuring to our ability about the building envelope and attachments and amenities with what is presented and dont grow any larger. Would you like to put that in a motion . Am i amending . It is a variance. Met with conditions on the project . What are we actually . You would grant the appeal and then condition it that there be nsr in perpetuity on the property so there is no roof deck or no decks added. Is that correct . Other than what is presented before us today. I think we would be revising it. We would need four votes to revise it for nsr. Mr. Sanchez did point out that there cant be future expansion under condition two. There will be Building Permits issued. I would like to get it knocked off in the beginning. We will need four votes for that because that would be granting an appeal and revising the variance. If we dont get the four votes . Upheld by operation of law, the variance. Or we can vote to continue. If there is only two votes then the missing it would be continued to the next meeting. That is not recommendedded. We are losing commissioner tanner. We dont know when we will get another commissioner. I will try the motion to see if we get four votes. Sorry. Here is the problem. I dont support this variance. This is about math. If i vote against you and then the project moves forward with the variance, is that correct, julie . I dont know. It depends on the amount of votes you get. If you have votes supporting you. You need four votes. Everyone needs to vote to grant the appeal. If you dont get those votes, then either the appeal will be denied or upheld by operation of law. We dont have the votes to stop it. Putting the best thing forward that everyone is with, i am supportive. Since this is her last night before the bad board we get to overturn later, i would support that. Other than that, you know, let it go forward, get another bite at the apple. I think nsrs need to take place. They are maxing out the bulk already at this point. My fear is once they get approved that is an ad denda to slap on last minute. I dont think that is possible to do it that way. I would appreciate Scott Sanchez or joe duffy weighing in on that as something to pursue. I thought you said they need to come back for authorization to construct anything of that nature. In terms of addition, yes. Any changes they would make like adding the stair penthouse or increasing volume of the building would trigger new notice which would open up for another discussionnary review. I dont think they will do that at this point. I was speaking specifically regarding decks at this point. What they could add without notice to adjacent property would be deck on top of the fourth floor that has a hatch. And the front of the property, right . The front of the property within the front setback would require if they did vote on that and you voted not to take discretionary review. Frank left us as well. He is contaminated. Can we take a stab at a motion to see where it goes, please. I will venture such a motion to see what happens. I would move that we will grant the appeal and amend the variance to add a notice of special restrictions preventing the addition of any roof deck or any decks or further expansion of the building envelope. Does that sound right . Yes. On what basis is this motion made . On the basis that this will meet the five conditions of granting a variance. It will meet the five findi findings under 305c . That is what i said, yes. We have a motion from commissioner tanner to grant the appeal and issue the variance on the condition revised to require that the Property Owner file an nsr preventing the addition of any roof decks or further expansion of the building envelope on the property on the basis that the project meets the five findings under 305c. On that motion president lazarus. No. Vice president honda. Aye. Commissioner swig. I have a question. Motion is going to fail because she needs four votes. It doesnt matter which way you vote. No. Right now she only has two votes and she needs four. Even if you vote with her there will only be three votes. Then no. So the motion fails. Is there a new motion on the table . I may being a motion to continue this item for further discussion between the Planning Department, the appellant and the project sponsor on the basis that i dont feel it meets the criteria for the findings. I support that. You dont believe it needs five findings. Can you articulate which findings are not met. Rear yard variance. I will supplement be with the scale and scope of the neighborhood. For the five findings for the rear yard variance. Commissioner honda so the parties are clear. Which particular findings are not met for that variance . That the 30 inches that it exceeds in the required rear yard. I am not 100 sure. Findings one through five, which particular finding. Let me pull that up. We are continuing it. It would be helpful for the parties to know. Let me get the updates. It would be number two for the rear yard. My understanding and maybe i am wrong. If they did have 30 inches less of depth. There is no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to require the variance. It fails finding two for the rear yard variance. What about the front setback variance . I am fine with the setback. That is very common and typical. Commissioner swig. I was asking dale to indulge me to add it doesnt meet five which is the neighborhood. That is exactly what i said. I will accept five, too. Mr. Sanchez would like to say something. I understand this is de novo on the variance to continue. What is expected of the department as part of the continuance . By making the motion i dont feel that it meets that criteria and that further discussion either specifically the Department Reconsider that extra 30 inches that has been given to them. Okay. Were you there at the time of the decision . No, i was not. Thank you. How much time . That depends on the department and the project sponsor. How much time they would need. I can discuss with the Zoning Administrator tomorrow as to whether he would reconsider the action on the variance, specifically rear yard variance and require greater separation. I could report back. We would do it as other ram report to the bolder oral report to the board at the next hearing. Great. Next week is that enough time . That works for the department. I would discuss with the Zoning Administrator tomorrow and before the next hearing. I think Vice President honda wanted appellant and project sponsor to be involved. At which point i am sure the Zoning Administrator right now as we have the hearing. I think probably the best thing is for scott anchor ret and for. Extending further would be pointless. Two weeks depending on scott. Project sponsor has time to respond. Two weeks is realistic if there are other folks involved. That is fine. I dont believe there is a meeting in two weeks. November 18th is the meeting after november 4th. I am not going to be here. Just trying to be thoughtful what the project sponsor might need if there is a response. Maybe we should ask the project sponsor if he would be prepared to move forward next week. Mr. Woods. Mr. Moore ris, sorry. We can move quickly, absolutely. I am confused about what you want our input from. My impression is that the da and the current da will have a conversation about whether the variance is affordable then come back to say . Is that what you are talking about . Yes. We are happy to have that conversation. I have a question about process following that. Probably a question for mr. Sanchez. What happens next . The variance is approved, through the process, appealed to us. Now we are kicking it back. What happens next . The final action on the variance upholding, denying or modifying, the Building Permit would be approved accordingly and sent to department of building inspections. I didnt make it clear. If you and mr. Tieg come up with a modification does there have to be another 311 notice . That is what i a. M i i will get. If the decision is made then you know on hold pending before this body then the board would need to invoke that change. My question for the executive director to refresh my memory. With a vacancy on the vote is it three votes out of four . No, we need four votes. Thank you. I guess we should be clear. If this is continued we could continue it, mr. Moore ris, you are prepared to meet next week . Yes. There is no telling what kind of agreement if any there will be on your suggestions, Vice President honda. I guess you just want them to have a further conservatio convn before the board. The whole projector the 30 inches in the week . I believe Vice President honda wants to continue it. His concern for about the rear yard variance. Anything further, president lazarus or from the commissioners . Julie, one correction. Only three votes are needed to overturn a decision when there is a vacancy on the board. Really. Sorry. That is what the charter provides. Thank you. It has been awhile. Okay. Three votes. The situation may not change next week. We will see. We will hopefully have commissioner santacana to weigh in. We have a motion from Vice President honda to continue this matter to november 4th so that the Zoning Administrator can reevaluate the findings for the rear yard variance and take into consideration the encroachment, is that correct, commissioner honda . Thats correct. On that motion to continue it, president lazarus. No. Commissioner tanner. Yes. Commissioner swig. Yes. So that motion carries 30. This matter is continued to next week. It was 31. This matter is continued to next week. We didnt verify whether if appellant is available. Ms. Fang. We are continuing to next week. Confirming that you are available. She is muted. We cant hear you, ms. Fang. Yes, i agree. We will send out an invitation and see you next week. Okay. Thank you. At 5 00. I understand that the Planning Department will not submit anything in writing in advance. Okay. Thank you very much. This is continued. I will suggest a five minute break. A very quick one. We will be back in five minutes. Clerk all right. Welcome back to the october 28, 2020 meeting of the San Francisco board of appeals. We are now moving onto item number 5a and 5b, appeals 2055 and 2065 and 20066. Permit to document and legalize the lower level deck at the rear yard, build retaining walls at rear yard. This is permit 201812067622, and appeal number 2066 is at 440 molimo drive, appealing the issuance on september 2, 2020, to charmaineturetice and kurt mccull Charmaine Curtis and kurt mccolloch of an alteration permit, revision to application number 201806192350, infill south light well at second floor against blank wall of adjacent building to expand kitchen. And we will hear from the appellant, mrs. Soliman. Since you have two matters, you will have 14 minutes. [inaudible] and i just want to make sure that the project is done in a safe manner. As i watched the previous hearing, i would appreciate to get to to get my refund for all the costs since d. B. I. Admit [inaudible] add more load to it. And also, i would like to show you the street, and i will. So my main concern is they are planning to clerk we dont see the trees, miss soliman. Miss soliman, we dont see the trees you want to share. Can you stop the time, please . Okay. Now we see it. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Miss soliman, we cant hear you. [inaudible] clerk no, we just lost your screen. Do you want us to share the document . Operator i paused time. Clerk okay. Miss soliman, we saw your screen before. If youre having problems, we can share your documents for you. Commissioner tanner i think something may be wrong with her Internet Connection. I think it may be frozen. Operator yeah, her bandwidth is low. Clerk maybe we could have her call in, and we can share the documents. Operator you want me to give her a call . Clerk sure, yes, please. Towards the trees . Clerk okay. Miss soliman, we cannot see the screen. You cannot see the screen . Clerk we can share for you. You want to call in . Alec is going to call you right now. Operator yeah, hold on. You dont see the screen . Clerk yes, we see your screen but your Internet Connection is not good. We cant understand you. Alec is going to call you now, and maybe we can get your testimony by phone. [inaudible] okay. Clerk bear with us. Al i believe shes going to be calling in, and then, we will share the documents. Thank you for your patience, everyone. Alec, did you talk to her . No. Operator im calling her right now. Operator shes going to try to call in, and well try that. Clerk okay. Great. [inaudible] clerk alec, another way is for you to call her and hold it up to the screen. Lets give it one more try. She seems to be entering the numbers. Operator i think shes clerk okay. Here she is. Miss soliman, you can turnoff your computer and talk on the phone or turn the volume down on your computer. So miss soliman, put the phone up to your ear and start talking. Operator shes muted now. Clerk okay. Okay. I think we have you. Miss soliman, please turnoff the volume on your computer. Oh, okay. Okay. Sorry about that. Clerk okay. Great. We can hear you now, and we can have miss sullivan share your documents if you tell us what you want to have shared wait. Miss soliman, can you get out of the computer, please . Oh, yeah, sure, sure, sure. Okay. I got out of the computer. Clerk okay. Thank you. So you can just tell us what you want us to share, and well be prepared for you, and were starting the time over. Operator shes still sharing. Do you want me to remain that . Clerk yes. I thought miss soliman is sharing now. Thats me, katie. Operator okay. So i would like to show the tree Protection Zone, and i would like to show the drawing. And you can see from the drawing, they are going to have a wall. You can see by the drawing i have one tree in the way. Clerk okay. Miss soliman, can you turnoff your computer. Operator yeah, ive stopped the time. President lazarus we can still hear her. Commissioner tanner so maam, if we can still hear you on the phone from your computer, its going to cause an echo. I said mute zoom, but maybe i need to do something else. Clerk okay. Its better now. Im not hearing the echo. Operator im resuming time. Okay. Thank you so much. If you look at where theyre planning to have the tree, its right next to the Property Line. I have a few trees right there, and theyre all mature. And im concerned with can you move it to the tree Protection Zone . Hello . Clerk yes, she just moved it. The basic tree anatomy . Well, theres one that says which the root is and how far the root can go. And also, there is another one where it says how you can create the tree Protection Zone. And based on this, if you build anything in this area, this can damage the tree, so it has to be it has to be far from the Property Line because there is the root there. So this is my main concern, and i will let my engineer speak after that, and i can speak later if i have time, but yeah, or in rebuttal, so i will let my engineer speak now. Clerk im sorry. You would like what . Can you hear me . Yeah, this is way hum young, Structural Engineer for this project, you know, on behalf of miss soliman. Can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can. Thank you. Welcome. Okay. So basically, you know, this house, you know, i recently attended a previous hearing and also had, like, a report about this. So right now, we on august 21, d. B. I. Engineer miss lu sent a letter to mr. [inaudible], investigating a crack. So the engineer, miss lu, agree with me. Said this is what he writes. I dont know how to share my screen, but any way, he says it makes sense to issue a corrective notice to the owner and to 440 molimo drive to repair the crack prior to the renovation and in addition, as the crack may propagate during construction, exacerbate being the issue. So my point is and ive inspected hundreds of foundations around the bay area. This crack happens to be at the rear yard next to my clients property, so its visible even from our side. We dont have access to the property of the project, but we can see the crack from our house. So we have reason for doubt and suspicions that could there be more cracks along the Property Line next to our foundation . So we would like to request, you know, d. B. I. And allow us to inspect the foundation to see if theres any more cracks of concern. Thats number one. Number two, we would like to review, you know, the detail how theyre going to repair the crack. If its just epoxy and not seal, its not acceptable, so we would like the right to do a peer review about how theyre going to fix the foundation. Number three, our foundation is on the higher side, on the bottom of our foundation is like 2 feet above their foundation. So during their Construction Activity, we would like to have access to inspect, you know, our foundation to make sure that our foundation is not undermined because of the Construction Activity on the project. So particularly, thats the three requests. And based on the finding of the d. B. I. Engineer, and we would like to, as a condition for d. B. I. , to issue the permit to the publication to allow us access and to inspect the foundation, review the details how to repair the foundation. And also, during the construction, we want to make sure that their activity is not undermining our foundation here. Thats all. Hello . Clerk hello, thank you. Is miss soliman, do you have anything else to add . You do have some time left. Yes, i would like to add something. How many minutes i have left . Clerk alec . 7 30. 7 30. 7 30 . Okay. So i went to previous appeal, and i saw the 571 myra, he was able to get all his refunds, so i think i would like to get all my refunds because, again, d. B. I. Engineer admit [inaudible], and also all identified engineer admit it except for mr. Goza. And also with regard to the tree, i am concerned with anything next to it, so i will proceed as long as i know the meaning of anything by the wall. [inaudible] and i just want to say i really supported this project from the beginning when my neighbors told me about it. I didnt object to it until i knew from numerous professionals that this could affect the Structural Integrity of my house. I have tried to communicate with my neighbor, and i believe that communication is the best communication, and communication is crucial for the success of any project, but [inaudible] regarding urgent critical concerns, and its documented by california licensed instructal engineer. And i have already spent thousands of dollars for any engineer to protect my home, and i proceed to get the refunds for previous and future, and also being on a higher elevation, thats more crucial as my engineer mentioned . And i and i also had to contact another engineer, and he thinks that mr. Ryan is right for everything he says, and changing the foundation is the best solution because the foundation is cracked. If they try to fix it, it can help, but the best solution would be is to is to is to have a new foundation that can support that load, especially that we are in earthquake country, and there is an earthquake state. They are a lot of earthquake [inaudible] around us, and we are in danger. And also, i believe that covid19 is more prevalent in pollution, and trees absorb that pollution, and we really need it more than ever now. And also, the cost of the environment is huge, yes. And and for the tree Protection Zone, you can do [inaudible] and you can know how much it is. And one of the tree is really tall, so this is how they [inaudible] the tree locatipron zone, yeah. And regarding the electrical, that the owner mention it, i i did not [inaudible] this complaint. I appreciate if they provide evidence about this because i did not complain about this electric, so yeah, i did not [inaudible] this complaint. And i had consulted several arborists and experts regarding leaving any leaves or branches in the garden, and they had said it was good. Im just asking the city to protect my home and my tree from any damage . I would appreciate that, and clerk thank you. Are you finished, miss soliman . I just want to mention the vertical crack is one of the most dangerous cracks according to engineers website. Would you be able to show the picture of the crack . Clerk i think right now youre just giving your presentation. Oh, okay. Clerk so were not having a questionanswer time, so are you finished . No, i was just hoping i could get the picture of the crack that i sent operator the pictures up. Its up . Okay. Okay. So you can see vertical or diagonal crack is number two. So this is what the engineer, mr. Yu, he mentioned this in the report, its vertical and diagonal, and according to the engineers report, this is one of the most dangerous crack. So i just want to mention that, and and there is about one small tree next to the fence, and i am concerned about the tree because it sits next to the fence, if they goi. If they going to do any kind of wall, i appreciate they dont touch the roots because the root can make the tree more danger, and it can the tree can die as a result of that. And i think im almost 14 minutes now, so far. Thank you so much. Thank you. Clerk okay. Thank you. We do have a question from commissioner tanner. Commissioner tanner thank you. Missi miss soliman, you claim that you were supportive of the project since they told you about it. There was in their brief a timeline of a d. R. Being filed against one of their first projects for the addition in september 2018. Was that a d. R. That you filed, discretionary review request that you filed . Yes, because they dont want to communicate with me, and i let them know about the [inaudible]. Commissioner tanner okay. So when you say you have been supportive, you have been, for the last two years, filing appeals against the project. What did your support look like in the beginning . Well, i didnt know about the Structural Integrity cracks. I didnt know about that, im a layperson. I didnt know about that. But when i knew about that, i tried to communicate to make sure that it was safe, and i spend thousands of dollars with regards to that. Commissioner tanner and whats your communication been with the project sponsor . It was email, and i think they want me to email the architect, so i did email the architect. [inaudible] commissioner tanner to discuss the matters that youre concerned about . Well, i did offer the architect to come over to my home to see the crack, and they didnt they didnt respond to me. Commissioner tanner have you had any meetings with the project sponsor, your neighbor, or with their agent . Just emails only . It was mostly emails, yeah, yeah. Commissioner tanner and for the tree, they provided a photo of a tree in your rear yard that didnt seem to be quite at the Property Line. Is there an additional tree that youre concerned about . Yeah. I have a tree, but for some reason, i believe i send it today, but they didnt took the whole picture, they took half of it. I didnt know why, but i can email it im sorry . Commissioner tanner i know you cant see the screen because of technical difficulties. I know theres a smaller tree other the Property Line. Is there another tree on the Property Line, as well . Well, theres two trees on the Property Line. One large one and one small one. Commissioner tanner is it two trees or three trees . Two very small trees and one mature tree. Commissioner tanner okay. Thank you. Clerk okay. Thank you. We will now hear from the permit holders, miss curtis and mr. Mcculloch or did you want your architect to speak . Okay. Thank you. You have 14 minutes. Okay. We wont take 14 minutes. So im sorry. Let me get my remarks in front of me. Im sorry. Clerk well start when youre ready. Okay. Good evening, president lazarus, Vice President honda, commissioners, and staff of the boards of appeals. My name is Charmaine Curtis, and next to me is my husband, kurt mcculloch. We moved into this house a little over three years ago after years of living in a condo with our twin daughters. When we moved here, our daughters attended the Elementary School around the corner, and they were in third grade when we started the process of obtaining a permit for a small addition to add a third bedroom to accommodate our family. Theyre now in sixth grade, and there is still no addition. I went into this chapter and verse in the brief we submitted, but it bears repeating in some rising here. We have been through one discretionary review starting in this all started in before june 2018. When we submitted the permit, we did the 311 notice and conferred with the client at this time. We went through one discretionary review and a petition, a request for rehearing of the appeal, nine complaints to the Building Department, countless calls made to staff of the Building Department almost on a daily basis to complain about us and our project. Two complaints filed with the state engineering licensing board trying to revoke the license of our Structural Engineer. The appellant is attempting to use the appeal of these two permits for relatively Small Projects as a way to relitigate the appeal she filed and was denied for the addition. In spite of multiple unanimous denials by the Planning Commission and by this board, inspite of ample evidence to the contrary, and in spite of additional permits and work by the Building Department to try to satisfy appellants insatiable concerns, appellant tries to derail a small addition that wont even be visible from the street and that no one else in the neighborhood has objected to. We have several letters from neighbors who are in support of the project and recognize that we are good neighbors. In the brief that we provided, we do not respond to the claims of climate change, deforestation, the cracks that have been discussed at length, or any other concerns that have no bearing on the permits that are the subject of these appeals. We also do not respond to claims appellant raised in previous appeals as that appeal has been heard, reconsidered, and rejected. Rather, we focus on the appeals of the two permits at hand. One for a small expansion of our kitchen into a light well on the other side, and the other of a cutting back of a deck that was the subject of nine complaints filed on our property, along with building some retaining walls to replace a fence that is fall over at the Property Line that was built by previous owners. With respect to the retaining wall that will damage roots of mature trees on her property, i present evidence that not only is this improbable, its impossible as there are only dead branches, not trees on her property. The photograph that she shows is a small bush, a shrub on the other side of the fence that is also not near a retaining wall, and our architect is on the call, on zoom, and can explain what is further happening there. The only reason we are Going Forward with installing these retaining walls is because of the complaint that was filed on the deck that we have to cutback now, and we thought why dont we simply put a retaining wall where this fence is falling over to solve the problem once and for all, a problem that we did not create. For the 40 square foot kitchen expansion, building inspection required us to prepare a full geotechnical report. The report further confirms that the Foundation Work related to the addition and kitchen expansion involves only minor excavation nowhere near appellants foundation and will not, quote, unquote, impact slope stability at the site or in the surrounding area. In conconclusion, we ask that you dismiss these appeals without condition so we can at least make this house that we bought three years finally work for our family. This is nothing but a long range of harassment that is harming our family and harming our property value. And with respect to these cracks that have been spoken of at length by a Structural Engineer that the appellant can obviously afford to pay for, we obtained a Building Permit to repair the cracks, to fix them according to our Structural Engineers recommendation and the Building Departments approval. That has been dealt with, it is not a subject of these appeals, and it is not fair to allow someone to reopen an appeal on two small permits, to reopen all of the issues that she brought up and was previously denied on for other permits. This is extremely harmful to our family. Clerk thank you. Did you want to have your architect speak, i believe, miss curtis . Troy, i think youre there. Yes, im here. Good evening, commissioners. Troy [inaudible], the architect thats been working with charmaine for a number of years now, and i think you can hear the frustration in her voice. Its certainly been a long process for everyone. So im here to answer any questions. I think the drawings and the permits are clear. Having walked around that backyard, i do sense that there may be a shrub, and i dont have a clear picture of a tree. I went through my photos and dont see it. So im happy to answer questions. I know we have the Structural Engineer here, we have a geotech engineer on the line just in case there were any questions. I dont anticipate that there would be, but please ask. Clerk okay. Thank you. Have you concluded your presentation . You can present more in rebuttal. Okay. We will now hear from the Planning Department. Scott sanchez. Thank you. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. I think more of the appeal that we had last year had more of the planningrelated aspects to it, and i think we heard mooney of these arguments last year about the cracks and things. One of the issues that was raised about the tree, there was nothing in the San Francisco municipal code which would require a tree Protection Plan for this tree. Under the municipal code as implemented through the public works ordinance, that only applies to street trees, significant trees, which are treed that are planted on the property that have a portion of the trunk within 10 feet and also meet certain other size requirements or landmark trees, and the tree or the shrub or whatever it may be in the rear yard would not meet any of those standards, so a tree Protection Plan would not be required here under the code. Everything here seems to be code compliant, and we dont have any issues with that. Thank you. Clerk thank you, mr. Sanchez. We will now hear from the department of building inspection, mr. Duffy. Good evening, commissioners. Joe duffy from d. B. I. The two Building Permits that are under appeal tonight, the first one ill readout is a revision to permit application. Permit applied on 16 december 2019, issued on 8 september 2020. It was reviewed by planning, building, mechanical plan check, and eventually Central Permit Bureau issued it. It got suspended on the 22nd of september, two days after issuance. The next permit is the permit to document and legalize a low level deck on rear yard. The permit was filed on the 6th of december 2018 and issued on the 8th of september 2020. Its it looks like it was it looks like it was sitting for a long time and didnt really move too fast, but eventually, it came out at the same time that this other permit and the i think youve read the brief and seen the details on that, and i dont have any problem with both permits the way that theyve been approved and issued by d. B. I. Obviously, there are issues in the brief regarding the famous cracks in the foundation that we heard at last years appeal and that the Commission Voted to uphold the permit. And immediately as a matter of fact, the day after that appeal, you know, the cracks were raised, and i had known about the cracks, as well, but i thought better that id follow up with our engineers. I didnt think it was enough for anything to overturn that permit, and theres cracks in a lot of existing buildings in San Francisco. We see it all the time, and these were minor cracks. I contacted i set up a meeting with our d. B. I. Engineering staff, and we set up with cyril hughes. Cyril is one of our top engineers, and there was a follow up meeting with cyril and the engineers. I thought id let the engineers figure it out, and it was agreed that the cracks would be filled. And syrup wanted some additional stuff, like a geotech letter actually, i have it beside me. They would be retaining the services of a geotech engineer for a site visit and [inaudible] additionally, they would be filing an additional permit for the [inaudible] and seismic hazards checklist and geotechnical review and conformance letter from geotech engineer. So that was the that was the result of the followup site inspection. Again, it was done after the last appeal, and, you know, it was always going to be addressed. And those eventually so in between the appeal and this appeal, we actually d. B. I. Issued a Building Permit, and that permit got issued on the on the 29th of september 2019, about a month after the meeting that we had at the site. [inaudible] referencing the appeal permits [inaudible] per two cracks at northwest corner of foundation with two part epoxy based [inaudible] per manufacturing instructions. And that permit was issued on the 22 of january 2020. That permit was not appealed, and we didnt hear anything until this latest appeal. So there is a permit in place that affects the cracks, and theyre going to put some epoxy in there. Frankly, itll work very well. I read the engineering reports, and mr. Hughes is a pretty renowned geotechnical engineer. I read his letter, as well. I dont think theres any undermining thats going to take place. I assume the architect can confirm that, but theres no undermining of the property. I did hear that mr. Yum asking for access to the site. I cant authorize access for somebody elses property. I dont have that control, and i dont know where that thats kind of a legal thing. His access to drawings, he can always contact our Records Management division. Obviously, can covid, d. B. I. Is not open to the public, but Records Management division will said up a meeting for somebody to review the plans. I know a Records Management division has been working with the public to help maintain that very important service. So if he wants to look at drawings, hes more than welcome to contact the neighbor and ask, and we can set that up. I believe that the appellant tried to do that and wasnt given enough time or apparently thats what shes stated, i believe, in an email. The appellant also mentioned 571 [inaudible] way. It was well over a year ago. We had an appeal on that case, and that was actually a completely different scenario. That was a situation where someone got a permit, and then, they excavated right next to their neighbors foundation. It was maybe a tenfoot vertical cut. They had to get a fixit permit, and that permit was subsequently appealed by the neighbor, and rightly so. He had concerns at that time, and the excavation was already done. He was out a lot of money on engineers because of that excavation. So i mentioned that at the hearing at that time that i thought that it was only prudent that the neighbors should speak to each other about reimbursements. The appellant in this case has been emailing me, asking me to authorize d. B. I. To do a reimbursement. We dont do that, and what i would say to the appellant is, and i believe i had this conversation probably about 1. 5 years ago, that homeowners if you own a property in San Francisco, and somebody is doing work next to you, you can hire an engineer to make sure that everything is done right. Most properties are worth over 1 million. If you want to protect your interests, you can do that, and thats fine. She did that, and she now wants the money back. Thats not a d. B. I. Issue. I want to make it clear tonight, that d. B. I. Will not be reimbursing the appellant in this case for engineering costs. She could have trusted the engineers for the project, but again, that could be a civil issue. If they want to take that up in some other forum, they can go ahead. I dont think theres anything else to add. The project will go ahead. I did speak to the architect about the sequence of the work, and obviously, they did say that the repair of the crack can happen any time. I suppose they want to lineup a contractor and get everything set up and do it together. The repair of the crack, it would be good to do that sooner, obviously, before the framing would start on the addition and the work thats going to take place. But im available for questions, and at that point, i think thats where its at. Anything else that i have missed, ill speak about it in rebuttal. Thank you. Clerk we have a question from president lazarus. President lazarus thank you, mr. Duffy. I just want to make it clear that the two permits being appealed tonight have nothing to do with repairing the Foundation Work that you said was appealed a while ago. That is a separate permit that is not being appealed this evening. Youve got it correct. One of the permits is for work in the rear yard. The other permit is for the permit holders had their permit for the addition. Then they decided to do some work on the other side of the property for the infill, but its all going to be done in one project under the permit four permits. But that the cracks were raised at the peal the previous peal, a at the appeal the previous appeal. If its brought up on an appeal, youll constantly hear me say that we can deal with that as a d. B. I. Issue. President lazarus okay. Its not really connected to it, but it will be addressed under the scope of work thats going to be done on these separate permits. President lazarus okay. Thank you. Clerk thank you. We have a question from Vice President honda. Vice president honda okay. So Senior Inspector duffy i love saying that youve been to the property at this point . Yes. Myself and engineer cyril were at the property in 2019. Vice president honda theres an abundance of pictures of that property in our brief, and it looks like theyve had some remodelling under permits at that property, as well, is that correct . Vice president honda you mean the you mean the appellants property . Vice president honda correct. I dont think so, no. Vice president honda okay. I was looking at the pictures, and it looked like work it been done, and i noticed the windows. I didnt notice that. Clerk okay. So we are moving onto Public Comment. Is there anyone here who would like to provide Public Comment, please raise your hand. If you called in on the phone, you can press star, nine, and thats the equivalent of raising your hand. Okay. I dont see anyone raising their hand. If you need help, you can send a chat. Okay. I dont believe we have any Public Comment on this matter, so we will be moving onto rebuttal. Miss soliman, you have six minutes. Miss soliman . Operator i believe shes muted. Clerk okay. Bear with us. Miss soliman . Okay. Here she is [inaudible] clerk we can hear you. Thank you so much. So mr. Duffy told me to talk to the engineer, but he didnt want to communicate with me. The architect, i emailed him several times about the structural cracks. I called d. B. I. , and i second them the [inaudible] so they can take care of this issue. They did nothing until i have to pay for an engineer, and i have two letters documented from two registered california professional engineers that said that those cracks are dangerous, those cracks can get bigger, and d. B. I. Engineers approved them. So i had tried to communicate with them. They dont want to communicate with me, and this is from day one. I feel like this is abuse to me, that i have to do all of that, and in the end, they tell me to talk to the engineer. They are refusing to talk to me. I did civil law with the engineer, because if they go through with the cracks, it can cause disaster, the cracks. I did my judicial review with the cracks and the engineers. Regarding the three, there is California Civil Court [inaudible] on the land of one owner belongs to him or her exclusively, even if the root or branch grow into neighbors property. So those tree are belonging to me and the root belonging to me. So if they are going to do any excavating, it will damage my tree. Again, i have been accused over and over and over, and they didnt provide any evidence, and this is just the way they can win. And they refuse to talk to me. They refuse to have any communications, so i i dont know. Why mr. Duffy tell me to talk to the engineer. They dont want to have any communication with me. I emailed them regarding the [inaudible] crack. They dont want to respond to me. So i [inaudible] you know, its just im asking the simplest question. I need to know [inaudible] crack, and the only time that d. B. I. Engineers came over is after i did two hearings. I never wanted to two haerpear, i wanted to have Good Relationship with my neighbor. Only after i did three hearings, the d. B. I. Admitted it. And their engineer, hes the one thats been involved in lots of litigation, and hes the one that was saying that its okay to live in the [inaudible] how do i trust him . How do i trust him he can do work for [inaudible] hes saying that. Hes saying that people [inaudible] which is really unsafe. I read in the superior court of california regarding that. The only reason i search is hes the only one that [inaudible] even the d. B. I. Engineer, so im asking im asking for fairness. If the neighbor next door dont want to communicate, i just want to protect my home. I want to protect [inaudible] issue because this can be a disaster if earthquake happen or other things, so and how many minutes i have already . Operator two minutes. Okay. And i already thank the board of appeals for your time and listening to me. Again, i have no intention to do this with them. I even had a Good Relationship with the neighbors until i was told that this can affect my home from professionals. But the owners told me about the project, and i even told her, yes, if you need any help, i will do it for you. I even have a picture of the [inaudible] if she wants, i can show it. The owner told me about this, and i said yes. If you need any help, i would be happy to help you. Again, the only reason that im objecting is i want to make sure that its safe and its approved by everyone, so by all the engineers except mr. [inaudible]. And i wondering if the geotech knows about [inaudible] i have this question for him, if he can answer me. Again, i dont have the [inaudible] i cant see what youre talking about, so i apologize for that, and and three of the best things i think we can have, trees, and i think we need trees now more than ever to clean the air as the fires come worse. And covid19 is more prevalent in construction, and the cost to the environment is huge. And again, i hope we can have peace with the neighbors because if we work together, it will be better. I hope they can have communication with me and resolve the issue and make me feel have peace of mind about my tree and my home. I would appreciate if they do this and move on so we can help each other. Operator thats time. Time is up. Clerk okay. We have a question from commissioner tanner and Vice President honda. Commissioner tanner miss soliman, you said you only emailed the neighbors and their architect. Mr. Duffy said he attended a site meeting with you where you and your engineer was present. Did you attend that . That meeting only included the city, you did not meet with the neighbors at that time . No, just them. Commissioner tanner and have you made any assertions that the light well infill, that that is going to damage your foundation . I havent seen any evidence of that in your brief. Well, there is more Square Footage. They are adding more Square Footage. Commissioner tanner mr. Yang, is that your testimony, that this infill is going to challenge the foundation . Is that what you testified to. [inaudible] commissioner tanner in reference to a different permit or a different subject . Yeah. That was a different one. I just reviewed the light well recently. We just got it last week. Commissioner tanner okay. So you havent opined on that. My question, what seems to me to be pretty clear, there is no evidence thats been submitted thats the subject of the light well or the retaining wall or the challenging of those items in relation to your home. Is that correct . The only thing ive heard [inaudible] commissioner tanner is that the retaining wall may damage some tree roots, which we heard from mr. Sanchez do not fall under the citys policies under the t. P. P. Program, but i have not heard any evidence that the light well or the retaining wall will damage your foundation, and it doesnt sound like youve presented any evidence that he has reviewed them. He reviewed them. Commissioner tanner so mr. Yang, have you reviewed them or have you prepared a report that is not the subject of this appeal . I did not prepare any recently. Commissioner tanner okay. So is your testimony that this kitchen well infill will pose challenges for the foundation . No, i told him [inaudible] for this meeting, that light well, if its on the opposite side of the Property Line, should not have any impact on the foundation. But she clarified that, thats correct. Commissioner tanner okay. And for the fence and the retaining wall and the deck, is there any issue is there . Will that construction pose any challenge to your clients property or foundation . You know, because myself is a Structural Engineer, im not a soils or geotech engineer. From a structural point of view, i dont think it has any impact on the house. Commissioner tanner okay. Thank you, mr. Yang. I have no further questions. Clerk okay. That looks like thats all the questions. At this point, well move onto miss curtis. You have six minutes. I dont think were going to need six minutes. You know, we dont have anything else to say, i dont think, unless kurt wants to say something. You know, i dont know how to respond to a concern about something that has no basis in fact or reality. We have a Structural Engineer, we have an architect, we have a engine geotechnical engineer, all of whom are licensed professionals, all of whose work has been reviewed by the Building Department to try to address some of the appellants concerns, and theres simply nothing we can do to address concerns that weve already addressed. And so, you know, we really dont know we dont know, and we dont believe that we should have to do anything more. We have spent a lot of money on this. We are we have endured at least a couple of years of delay, and so i we can address rational concerns. We cant address irrational concerns, and kurt, i dont know if you want to add anything in the next few minutes. I was going to say, i think we have early in the process, we were very commu communicative with the appellant about our house. Early on, she shared with us that she didnt want us to do the project because she doesnt like construction noise, to which we expressed our sympathies, however, we shared that we werent willing to not to the project on the basis of that concern. And since then, from that moment forward, which, you know, we were very polite but didnt give her what she wanted in that moment, she has issued a campaign of appeal after appeal after appeal, many of which are spurious, including tonights appeal. I just feel that the presentation that weve been uncommunicative or bad neighbors is really just not true, so thought id put that out there. Clerk okay. Thank you. We have a question from commissioner tanner. Commissioner tanner thank you, miss curtis. And since you have so many wonderful licensed professionals on your zoom call tonight, i wonder if we might hear from them for just a moment, what their role is in the project, and if they feel that the light well or deck project will have any impact on the neighboring property . I believe that might be mr. Shield, perhaps, and go ahead. Yeah, this is craig shields with rockford engineers, and im the [inaudible] with the stability letter that was requested. [inaudible] far away from the Property Line. It will have no impact. There will be no undermining. Dimensional spreadfooting on good soil. Theres no possible way that it would have any impact, and as far as the retaining wall [inaudible] its obviously, it would not impact the house because its behind the house, i cant really speak to the tree issue. Commissioner tanner thats okay. Thats not your issue. Yeah. Commissioner tanner okay. And mr. Ruda. Yeah, derek ruda, Structural Engineer. The work that is being done here will have absolutely no impact on the neighbors foundation. Commissioner tanner okay. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Okay. We will now hear from the Planning Department. Mr. Sanchez . Thank you. Nothing to add. I dont see any value to the appellants case. Clerk okay. Mr. Duffy . Commissioners, i dont have too much to add. Just in these cases, i have no problem with a neighbor being concerned with a project. Its pretty typical in San Francisco, and its pretty typical what we hear on this board, but i just think its been played out. The last hearing, there was a dispute between the engineers, saying that one engineer thought it had to be fixed, but the oth thought it didnt have to be fixed, but mr. Yang said it was dangerous. I actually erred on the side of caution, and mr. Yu has asked for a little bit hughes has asked for what we normally ask for, a Structural Engineer and geotechnical report. Once they get going, if they fix the cracks, we can look at that and sign off on that permit. Weve got the special inspection letters. When the project issic at thatting place, therell be ongoing inspections from the record architect, from d. B. I. Inspectors. Im not anticipating anything. Im sure theyll have a discussion before they start the work, well offer to monitor if theres any settlements. To me, if this was a whole new building, we would monitor that, but Something Like that, i dont think we would. Someone can go in and take picture of the walls for fear of something, thats typical, as well. I would encourage the appellant to happen if thats the way they want to go. Again, thats not something that d. B. I. Can let people do. Thats just something between people and somebody saying hey, im doing a project, and if theres something on your property that you see, let me know immediately. Thats something that we deal with with zero lot lines in San Francisco. And some of this work that youre seeing here was done by the previous owner. There was no complaints at that time on that work, and, you know, there was work done on this property in 2013, a kitchen and bathroom remodel. There was no complaint on that, either. So, again, i look forward to them moving forward with the project and trying to get it done, and i would encourage that everyone gets along here. Thats all ive got to say. Thank you. Clerk thank you. So commissioners, these two appeals are submitted. This matter is submitted. President lazarus i believe we ultimately need two motions. Unless commissioner tanner would really like to have the last word, i would be prepared to make those motions, but im happy to defer to you. Commissioner tanner im fine to have you make the motions, president lazarus. President lazarus okay. Well start with the first permit, and i would move that the appeal be denied on the basis that the permit was properly issued. Clerk okay. And for the record, this is appeal 20065, the authorization permit to legalize the lower level deck at the rear yard and build retaining walls at the rear yard. So on that motion [roll call] clerk okay. So that motion carries 40, and we will now move onto the next appeal. President lazarus all right, come on, commissioner tanner, one last motion. Commissioner tanner all right. I would move that we would deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. Clerk okay. And this is appeal number 20066. On that motion [roll call] clerk okay. So that motion carries 40, and the appeals are denied. So thank you. That concludes the hearing. Commissioner swig and well see you next week . Clerk yeah. Im sorry, president lazarus, youre on mute. We didnt hear you. President lazarus i wanted to wish a fond farewell to commissioner tanner and declare us adjourned. Commissioner tanner thank you very much, and thank you very much to the board staff. You guys are great. Ill miss you all. Clerk thank you. Thank you very much. Bye. President lazarus see the rest of you next week. Commissioner swig thanks. Bye. Hi. Im chris manners, and youre watching to coping with covid19. Well, were down to the wire before the president ial election, so heres some tips to help you vote safely during this pandemic. By now, all californians who are registered to vote should have received your ballot to vote by mail. It must be post marked by election day, november 3, so be sure to check collect times if you wait to mail it until election day. If youre concerned that your ballot wont make it in time through the post, the next option is to drop off your ballot at San Franciscos voting center, which has been set up outside of the bill graham auditorium on grove street. You can either walk up to hand off your ballot, or you can use the drivethru election. Therell be a ballot drop off location at each of the citys libraries. Consider going early in the day, when it should be less busy. From october 28 through election day, any registered voter unable to drop off their own ballot may authorize somebody else to do so. To authorize somebodys to return your vote by mail ballot, make sure you complete the additional section on your ballot return envelope. If youre picking up or dropping off any ballots, wear a mask and use Hand Sanitizer after touching any surfaces. If you wish to drop it off in person, vis person, if you wish to vote in person, visit the bill graham center. You can avoid lines and save time by preparing your ballots in advance and going to the polling place during offpeak hours. If youre planning on filling out your ballot at the voting center, consider bringing some wipes to clean surfaces and Hand Sanitizer to use after you vote. For those who are planning to vote on election day, consider going to your polling place at offpeak time dos, such as midmorning, because it might reduce wait time. And finally, once you get home, wash your hands. Heres a quick recap. And thats it for this episode. For good morning. The meeting will come to order. Welcome to the october 29, special meeting of government audit and oversight. I am the chair of the committee joined by vice chair and Committee Member haney. Thank you to the clerk and i would like to thank sfgovtv for staffing this meeting. Mr. Clerk, do you have any announcements. To protect the public, Board Members and City Employees the board of supervisors legislative chamber and Committee Room are closed. This is taken pursuant to all various local, state