Transcripts For SFGTV Board Of Appeals 20240711

[inaudible] clerk go our website and click on the zoom link or you can call in by telephone. Sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming the number across the screen. Listen for the Public Comment of your item to be called and dial , 9, which is the equivalent of raising your hand to speak. You will have three minutes, and our clerk will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. Please note there is a delay between what is broadcast on t. V. And on live stream or the internet. Please note that you must turn down the volume on your phone or t. V. When you make comments. The chat function cannot be used to provide Public Comment or opinions. Now we will answer in or affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note that all those present do not have to answer swear in pursuant to the sunshine ordinance, but to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, you must be sworn in. Will you please rise if you are able and raise your right hand. Do you answer that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . We will now move onto housekeeping matters. Appeal 20068 is being continued, so it will not be heard tonight. Okay. Now is the time for item 1, general Public Comment. Is there any Public Comment . Okay. Lets move onto item 2, commissioner comments and questions. I believe the board of supervisors has nominated a replacement for our body. Clerk okay. Is there any Public Comment . If so, please raise your hand. Okay. Seeing that theres no Public Comment, well move onto item 3. Adopt of minutes from the october 28, 2020 meeting. President lazarus commissioners, any questions . Commissioner swig no, id like to move to accept. Clerk okay. Is there any Public Comment on commissioner swigs motion to adopt the minutes . Okay. Since theres no Public Comment on the motion to adopt [roll call] clerk okay. So that motion carries, 40, and the minutes are adopted. We are now moving onto item number 4. This is appeal number 20061, rose feng versus the zoning administer. Subject property, 1222 funston avenue. Appealing the issuance on september 2, 2020, to woods family investments, l. P. , of a variance decision. The proposal is to demolish an existing onecar garage at the front of the subject property and construct a new fourstory, singlefamily resident. An existing twostory residential building located at the rear of the subject property is proposed to remain. Property code section 132 requires the property to maintain a front yard equivalent to 15 feet. The proposed singlefamily resident encroaches approximately 911 into the required front yard set back, providing only approximately 51 of set back and therefore a variance is required. Planning code section 134 requires the property to maintain a rear yard equivalent to 45 of the lot depth. The proposed building does not extend into the required rear yard, however, an existing second building is located entirely within the required rear yard, such a Development Scenario requires a rear yard variance. The Zoning Administrator granted the front set back and rear yard variances. So as a preliminary matter, commissioner santacana, did you have the opportunity to review the hearing and materials of the meeting which took place on october 28 . Commissioner santacana yes, i did. Clerk okay. We will hear first from the planning department. Mr. Sanchez, you have three minutes. Thank you. Scott sanchez, planning department. Thank you for the opportunity to review this further with the Zoning Administrator. I did so last week and informed him of the comments that were made by the board, and the Zoning Administrator wanted me to put before the board that he was very well aware of the concerns raised by the appellant in this matter, and you really did and he really did his best in a thoughtful approach, and that is why he did approve the condition and modify the certificate as such. They went through the first hearing, had no d. R. The first time around, but the Zoning Administrator did make changes, and those changes were made because of the concern of the appellant. The project was renoticed. Thats when the d. R. Happened, and the Planning Commission felt that those changes were also appropriate and unanimously approved the project as proposed with the revisions that were required by the Zoning Administrator. So i guess what i would add to the Zoning Administrator, i want to be clear in the context here. Im here showing the subject property on our aerial photography. This is a bit unique in terms of the subject property in that it is set so far back from the appellants property, as well. The immediately adjacent properties there to the south are set back, and this is steps in between those adjacent buildings and the other buildings that dominate the block face. Additionally, and also in regards to the height, i believe all the subject buildings on the block face are three stories tall. It has the opposite context on the other side, with four story buildings. So the Zoning Administrator took all this into account with the context of finding it is appropriate. I would like to make one clarification in my testimony to the board last week. I had stated that it may be possible operator 30 seconds. To build from the front wall forward without any set back, and that would not be possible without a variance. The front building wall is within the rear yard, so any construction forward would trigger a variance. Thank you, and im available for questions. Clerk okay. Do we have any questions . Okay. I dont see any questions at this time Vice President honda oh, sorry. I cant remember to use the raise my hand button. So mr. Sanchez, did you speak with the permit holders after our last weeks hearing . I did have a conversation. The permit holders expressed some comments on the feedback the board gave, so i did speak with them briefly after the hearing, yes. Vice president honda and at that point was there any discussion about what we were talking about last week regard to the further development of the outdoor space, meaning the decks . No, i dont believe we discussed the concerns related to the depth. We discussed the concerns to the shadow analysis or lack the there of. I gave him the feedback that the Zoning Administrator reviewed the project and supported the project as currently proposed. Clerk okay. Is there any further comment or questions . If not, well hear from the appellants representative, mr. Morris. You have three minutes. You can hear me . Clerk yes, we can hear you. Thank you. Let me share my screen. Clerk okay. We wont start the time until youre ready. Okay. Can you see that . Clerk yes, we see that. Thank you. So this is toby morris of crimmins morris architects. There are two basic options keep the cottage as we proposed and seek the front and rear relief to accommodate the new building or demolish the cottage, become code compliant with no variances, and construction two single units. The problem with this approach is we must demolish a portion of the permit holders sorry. The d. R. The appellants cottage. We are limited in this with their new onebuilding scenario, and we are aware that it is unlikely that the Planning Commission would approve the demolition of the one cottage. [inaudible] also in terms of figuring out, well, what is an appropriate size, the assessor records show that there are a third of the lots on this property are the same size as our property, 138 feet deep, have buildings 3800 to 4200 square feet. Our home is 2475 feet of liveable area, 375 square feet of garage, and 800 area feet of the cottage. We did not have time to prepare a full study, but we have had time to share some findings with you, which we sent to the appellant and board on monday. We found that winter and summer conditions remain unchanged. The winter months, when the sun is low in the southern sky, 1228 funston already shows the appellants home and gardens. Similarly, in summer, the sun is high enough in the sky that our new structure doesnt shadow the home. We found the new net shadow occurs in the spring and fall when its cast in the midafternoon, approximately 2 30 to 5 00. Happy to answer any questions or concerns about the shadow analysis. Thank you. Clerk okay. Let me see if there are any questions. Please raise your hand. Okay. I dont see any questions. I would just like to clarify, does d. B. I. Want to weighin on this case . I know last time, they only had a few comments. Mr. Duffy . Yeah, i dont believe i dont, its okay, julie. Clerk okay. Thank you. Okay. So i dont see any questions, so we will now hear from the appellant. Miss feng . Hello. Clerk thank you. Welcome. Well start you have a few documents you want to share, i understand . Yeah. I have screen shotting. Can i do it now . Clerk sure. Once you start, well start the time. You have three minutes. Can you see . Clerk yes. Okay. So the proposed building trend will significantly reduce the sun light at 1218 funston analysis. The shadow study provided by the variance owner showed that my sun will be blocked for about 2. 5 hours, from 2 30 to 5 00 p. M. When we are in the Daylight Saving time, the neighbors property received sun light from 2 30 to 5 00 p. M. Available sun light without the building will be about 3. 5 hours. It will reduce about 17 of sable sun light to available sun light to the neighbors facade and 25 of the available sun light to the facade in the spring, summer, and fall. The neighbors front yard received sun light between 12 00 p. M. To 4 00 p. M. As such, the proposed study scan will block 100 of sun light to neighbor cause facade and 60 of sun light to neighbors yard. In addition, even in wipter, when the sun is low in winter, when the sun is low in the sky, theres still some area in the neighbors yard that can receive sun light, and this area would be completely blocked by the building plan. So this building plan would take away the only sun light available to the neighbor during the winter. [inaudible] this is the proposal. And regarding the twin house, actually, this is what happened. The twin house at the rear yard [inaudible] they share the same load bearing wall and foundation. Its unthinkable to demolish one half without affecting the other. Operator 30 seconds. Thats why all the other investors of 1222 funston avenue came to us and see if we want to approve the project. We said no. Thank you. Th that is my presentation. Clerk okay. Well move onto Public Comment. Iff if youre here for Public Comment, please raise your hand. Okay. We have a question from president lazarus. President lazarus thank you. This question was raised last week, and i dont know whether to direct it to mr. Sanchez or mr. Morris, but there was some discussion as to what the shadow impact would be if the structure without the variances would be built. Is somebody able to come on that, understanding that there hasnt been any formal study done . I can show you a little on that if youre interested. Let me share my screen again. So thats why we developed this little model that sort of explains this. So the proposed project is on the left. What were calling the code compliant alternative is on the right. So in the alternative, we maintain a 45 rear yard with the building that lines up at 1222 funston. That happens to be 11 feet west of the facade at 1218 funston. So what happens is were closer to the appellant, and were casting more shadow. What happens with the sun here basically is that as the sun goes across the southern sky, in the morning, the facade of 1218 is in shadow because the sun is behind the facade. Then at noon, the sun peaks at its due south, and it goes across the sky in that gap between the buildings. So if we true this code complying alternative, we actually reduce the gap, and we reduce the period that the sun in the early afternoon p penetrates to miss fungs yard. Thats one of the reasons why i feel this is interior. Clerk okay. Thank you. Okay. We are onto Public Comment, and i see that someone has raised their hand. Mr. Iverson, you have three minutes. Please go ahead. Okay. Can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can hear you. Okay. Commissioners, thank you so much for reviewing this again. Theres a lot of work on both sides. I just think in this matter, Thomas Jefferson said it aptly, delay is preferable to error. This building could be downsized, it could still be profitable, and it could be a gem for the neighborhood, one of those raisins in the bread. I think this should be downside. I live at 1255 funston, and i see this project very well. I appreciate your consideration, but the down sizing of this bulky huge structure is not a major problem. I dont see why some sort of down size project option has not been presented. Its just amazing to me. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you. Is there any other Public Comment . If so, please raise your hand. Okay. I dont see any other Public Comments, so commissioners, this matters submitted. President lazarus commissioners, somebody want to lead this off . Commissioner swig and honda, y you, i believe, had the most comments. Commissioner honda . Vice president honda yeah, i had a question for the appellants architect. At the last hearing, i was at the point where you are getting exceptions and variances, and the rules for that are pretty stringent. I dont have a problem with the building as it sits, but i think since the project is already benefiting from variances and exceptions, that an n. S. R. Be taken so that theres no additional deck since youve got four stories now. How do you feel about that . Are you voluntarily willing to submit to that . We have absolutely no issues with that. Vice president honda okay. Thank you, mr. Morris. President lazarus commissioner swig . Commissioner swig sure. Thank you, mr. Sanchez, for giving me some context on the location of that of the project because last week, we didnt see what was across the street. Also, two houses on the other side, but you showed an aerial and some houses down the street, which looked like they had stairs into the sidewalk as much as the proposed project. It changed my view. I still think the project is not in total keeping with the rest of the neighborhood but however, by seeing what was across the street, theres less clash. Im going to withdraw, but i do support commissioner honda on the n. S. R. Of the deck issue. President lazarus i was going to say, i understand the sentiment behind the hesitation and the n. S. R. , but as we discussed last week [inaudible] and i guess i lean more towards letting the process play out because they really shouldnt be doing those things any way, and if they were to get started for some reason, the neighbors certainly have the power to go to the Building Department or the planning department, so im quite ambivalent about the n. S. R. Commissioner santacana yeah. Im also ambivalent about the n. S. R. For the same reasons that was laid out, so i dont know how you want to do that. Vice president honda my motion was to allow the appeal, uphold the n. S. R. , and let there be no deck on the property in perpetuity. And thats fine with me. Vice president honda that would be my motion. Clerk okay. So the motion would be commissioner swig sorry, julie. Clerk sorry. Commissioner swig and if that were to go toto, for example, the only difference would be no n. S. R. Clerk correct. The underlying determination would be current law. Commissioner swig okay. I just wanted to make it clear to everybody. Clerk okay. We have a motion from Vice President honda to grant the appeal and issue the motion to require the Property Owner to file an n. S. R. To prevent the addition of any decks. And did you want to say last week, you talked about further expansion. You didnt just limit it to decks. You said prevent the addition of any decks or prevent the expansion of the building envelope. Vice president honda no, because i think the expansion would trigger the 311 notification. Clerk okay. On the expansion of any decks. And on what basis is this motion being made . Vice president honda that the property has already benefited from exceptions and variances, and this would stop this this would clerk this would address some privacy concerns . Vice president honda youre so good at making my motions. Clerk and the planning code section 13. 05c . This may be a dumb question, but whats the process for lifting the restriction if they ever want to lift the restriction . Clerk i think mr. Sanchez can weigh in on what it takes to lift an n. S. R. To undo a condition of approval thats since become a condition of approval, you have to go back to the body that imposed it. So i think the process would be if someone were to come in for a Building Permit, and says, they want to build a deck, and the deck cant be build, they would have to go to the board of appeals, and they would have the ability to approve it, modify it, or deny it. Those conditions can only be undone by the board, but thats the process. Clerk thank you. And i guess it would be additional to future boards of appeals, supervisor honda or excuse me, Vice President honda ive already promoted y you promotion or demotion . Vice president honda i dont know which it would be. [please stand by] we are now moving on to the next item. Item number 5. Robin joy versus Department Building inspection. Appealing issuance on september 24th of a site permit. New 185 square foot roof deck over an existing flat roof. This is permit number 20119103235399. Well hear from the appellant first. I believe mr. Patterson is here on behalf of the appellant. He is. This is robin joy. Im also here. Welcome. Thank you very much. Im robin joy. The property in question is 486 duncan street. Its uniquely positioned to my home, perpendicular. I will share my screen so i can share it. I hope to share my screen. Thats not my screen but its probably close enough. So thank you. The screen that is being shown shows the property in question, which is versus my property. Brian, is this your screen . Yes, those are my slides. Ivy street going to show mine. This is the property in question. I think the roof deck is actually not exactly whats circled there. Bottom line is, the property in question runs perpendicular to my home. The roof deck would have a direct view into the entire living room area of my home. The result of this advantage point, the proposed roof deck would have an exceptional, extraordinary impact on my privacy. Im requesting an appeal of that roof deck permit. 486 duncan is on a very large lot and it has a big backyard for outdoor enjoyment. The owners created a beautiful backyard space, which is wonderful it provides plenty of open pace for the current and future owners to enjoy. My home is a small lot. Its very close proximity to back of 486 duncan street. Which is even closer because of noncompliance doesnt have the setback. Anyone who is sitting or standing on the roof of 486 duncan street can see directly into the primary living area of my home. If you have the brief that was submitted, youll see there are two photos taken from the roof of 486 duncan with a basic camera phone and looking in my home. Anyone on that roof deck, would have that exact roof into the primary Living Spaces of my home. The original roof 8 486 duncan d not have a deck. The photos appeal that was submitted that showed that the noncompliance structure was demolished and rebuilt. This makes it seem even more there should not be a deck there. If that was required, i could live with a smaller deck and not extending beyond the setback line at the north. Again, i believe there shouldnt be a deck on top of an illegal structure. With that, lie tick i like to turn it over to ryan patterson. Good evening. Ryne patterson, city appellant. I want to start by saying that there are significant privacy impacts which is motivating my client here to protect her privacy. Theres also permitting and legal issue involved. On top of the privacy impact, theres unrelying issue. Legallinlegally underlying. Its to build a deck on top of a structure thats on the setback line. If we could please go to slide one . Im happy to share my screen. The permitholder will tell you that the structure in rear has been there since 1906 at least. If you look at the map on the left and compare to satellite photo on the right, you can see that river yard structure has been expanded at some point. More importantly, the current owner demolished and rebuilt the structure without proper permits. The permitholders said it was permitted under 2019 permit. Theres nothing in the permit description actually authorizing this work. If you take a look at that, it refers to space underneath, refers to adding dormers, plumbing work. Theres nothing about replacing that river yard structure. As you can see from the photos that follow, this was the prior structure and then as it started to demolish it and then finally, the last slide, you can see they replaced virtually especially looking at this deck, which extends back into the river yard setback line in a way thats significantly impacts msr neighbors. I will very briefly share my screen to show the satellite photo that i believe ms. Joy was trying to show you few minutes this is project site here. The way this is stacked up with the other neighbors perpendicularly that deck runs along the rear of the neighbors home. If you standing out on the deck, youre looking into the neighbors homes. Especially the appellants home its a significant privacy intrusion. I appreciate your consideration and well be happy to answer questions. We have a question from Vice President honda. Vice president honda i guess were not going to see you for two cases. The second case got withdrawn. Sorry to disappoint. Vice y in particular, regarding the deck, your brief says that it was 180 something yards. I read that really, because they negotiated with the next door neighbor, it will reduced to 99. That was misstatement in the brief. The number was wrong. It was reduced as Planning Commission Planning Commission posted additional reductions to extraordinary unusual circumstances. Vice president honda was there any conversation between your client and the permit holders. It indicated they work with your client. Is that so . I could defer to ms. Joy to answer that question. Im newer to the case after the Vice President honda ms. Joy , when the neighbors were planning this, did they have open discussion with you and did they make that reduction for the benefit of you . No. We have been talking prior to this hearing and have gotten perhaps a little closer but prior to the review, we have not come to an arrangement. Vice president honda when you were on earlier, said a smaller deck. You dont consider 99 square feet a smaller deck . What size deck would you consider smaller deck . As i mentioned going to the rear set backline, feels reasonable to me, which is just under 4 feet. In order to have that 12 feet from my Property Line to the edge of the deck will be a 12foot setback or make it a 7foot deck. Roughly. Vice president honda i noticed in the aerial shot, you have a deck. How large is the deck that you have on the back of your property . I dont know the exact measurements. I think it was in the other brief. I trust their rough estimate. I havent measured it. Vice president honda let me get to that page. It looks like from what i can see that it extends probably three quarters of the width of your building . Its a reminder, i have very minimal backyard. That is my primary outdoor space. In the way its constructed, it doesnt look into i can see it into their backyard, but i cant see into their house. I can see backyards but i cant see end to anyones house. We will now hear from the permitholder. Welcome. You have seven minutes. Thank you again for your time. Let me share our screen. Well pause the time while you get your presentation. Ill just jump into it. My question is whether or not the deck is permittable. Ill start off with comments that applied by robin earlier. We did reach out on june 4th to try reach an agreement. Property was originally built in 9 11 06 and we proposed building the deck on existing structure from all intended purposes, original to the home. It was approved in october 2019 by the planning department. You can see the yellow with the original 180 square feet. We went prior to june 4th and reduced it by 54 to 99 square feet which is 11 feet by 9 feet. We did discuss it with the appellant. We did not come to a compromise. This is not something agreeable from her standpoint. We worked with at neighbor to our east. We proposed a privacy wall prior to the d. R. Hearing. Then basically, it was 60 vote with minor modifications that brought the final dimensions down to 95 square feet. You can see here in the pink. That was approved by planning on september 22nd. This just shows aerial view. Everything in the dark are all the neighboring decks. You can see from property 486 duncan and thats relative side to the deck and other neighbors around us. The appellants claim, its going to be a large disruption to the neighborhood. We find that unconfounded, our deck is no larger than most cases and smaller than surrounding decks. The structure was built and nearly 120 years opposed to the appellants property i think in 2005. That was a decision that the person who built that made to create a bank of windows and it was mentioned by the board that privacy was not concerned to be mitigated. Were not the only ones who can see in her house and shes not the only one who can see in our property. Commissioner honda you asked about the size of the deck. This is the view of the deck. Which is approximately 168 square feet. The concern this is a large party deck that will have large social gathering, we dont see that the case. This is off the third floor bedroom and not off primary living space. We feel this is modest and size relative to her deck as well as the surrounding deck. To ryans concern about the whether this is legal structure or not. We did everything to our knowledge, above board with the proper permits. We had the proper d. B. I. Inspections every step and all the work was compliant with the permit required by d. B. I. Inspections. The question of whether this was a work being done without permits. The d. B. I. Inspector said is not valid. This has been going on for its been a large project and weve been doing this for a year with various complaints predominantly from the appellant. We like to be amendable. This has not been a very nice, Work Experience for our crew. Who was there being video taped constantly and creating a very unsettling space. This structure was to the home and to the best of our knowledge has not been touched since 1906. This deck needs guidelines and no reduction of light the deck did not obstruct views. Even though the appellant had a small yard, there were no requirements saying you cant have a small modest deck. This deck was approved by Planning Commission on june 4th, met all the guidelines which was relative to the location. In conclusion, we feel this is a proposal thats 95 square feet for Single Family home. Its very much keeping with all the surrounding homes on our block. We did address appellants concerns, maybe not enough on her view point, we did reduce the size by 54 . Thiwe did everything [indiscernible] we tried to preserve some of San Francisco architectural history. Thank you very much. We do have a question from Vice President honda. Vice president honda who did your brief . It was really well done. Are you in the industry . I did. Thank you. Vice president honda how long have you folks been there . Since june 2019. The question how long we been there . Vice president honda other thing is that, when project had discretionary review and the reduction of decks was determined and you mentioned voluntary, can you plain that more . Yes. We had proposed to robin reduce the size of the deck in advance of our d. R. Hearing. Over email, we made some proposals and suggestions but we were not able to reach an agreement. That is where we proactively made that request. We worked with the neighbor at 480 duncan and then we moved to the d. R. Hearing because of the primary concern from robin. Vice president honda i know that it was slightly discussed, if approved, are you planning to do any screening or privacy . We have discussed with the appellant putting a nonattached privacy screen. It will not be something we can attach permanently due to the building code. We are agreeable to that making sure its pleasing from both sides. We dont want a horrible wall but we like to be more happy to create something thats pleasant to look at from both sides. Vice president honda welcome to our world. [laughter] especially well covid. Vice president honda thank you. We will now hear from the planning department. Thank you subject property 486 duncan, yard requirement of 45 lot deck. In this case its about 50 wide in foot and 4 inches. Building encroaches about 7. 4 of the yard. I think the board is familiar what they call the 12foot pop out. Under section 136, you can encroach by up to 12 feet, provided that if its one story, you can be full lot with. If its two stories, it has to be set back five feet. The extent of the rear portion of the building being noncompliant is related to that fact it doesnt apply to that pop out. Would like quite few issues raise and try to address those. One issue that was raised in the appellants brief is whether or not the structure as it is or had been was legal. It appears to be in that concurrent configuration. Just you can slide it over here and see kind of more current structure and then slide it over and you can see this is 1937. This is important to note about the relationship with these adjacent properties including the appellants property. These are all sub standard law from about 28. 5 feet wide about 50foot deep. Just happen to search our map to see whether or not theres been variance cases on these properties. Every single one of these and maybe at least four properties there had variance cases including the appellants property which was a demolition of construction in 2003 where they saw rear yard variances. Part of the rear yard variance was the deck that exist there today which encroaches within 6 feet of that Property Line. Part of the issue here, planning department, we dont have any problems with the deck as currently proposed. Lot of the issues and concerns related to privacy are in part because of the noncompliance structures that which the appellant has. They have get a variance to go close to that Property Line. Thats not so say it couldnt be approved through screen and other measures. Just to show the context there and that is very important. More concerning to the department is the allegation and the photographs of the demolition and reconstruction of that portion of the building at the rear. Thats the work that was shown that would require a variance. Unless it were to be made compliant which will be at the 12foot pop out. They encroach about 7 feet into the rear yard. That extended another five feet further. They would have to have 5foot setback. Its worth noting, the deck and how it is currently located is actually within what the buildable area will be for the lot. The deck is not on a noncompliant portion. Both of those were to be set back 5 feet, then you have code compliance project. I did look at the previously approved permits and as well as the plan. They showed also remain and does appear that the roof had changed, the roof gotten little bit higher as well but the roof form previously been substandard, which has a bit of a really is i valley in it. The concern is the accuracy of the plan that showed the work that was done of the variance. Those are concerns that we have. In terms of how do we resolve this, that is up to the board. What we would look at here will be continuing with an option. They can continue it out and discuss alternatives. They can come back with cocompliant making those cutbacks that i mentioned. Or they could go ahead and seek the variance but theres an issue here with the apparent demolition of the reconstruction of the noncomplying building that needs to be addressed. The board can deny the permit. The board may disagree with the findings of our department as i relay them to you. We think there are flaws here with the permit and we have demolition and reconstruction of a noncompliant building. Im available for any questions. We have a question from commissioner swig. Commissioner swig thank you. You anticipated my question. You gave the answer. My question was what do you do with this building that was built potentially illegally. You confirmed it was built in noncompliant and not legal fashion. Its pretty much done now. With that, whether it was done maliciously or not. I dont think it was done i think it was just done. It was a good idea. What you do you do with it now . You go back and they can file for a variance or they can tear it down and redo it. Id kind of be upset about that. Whats the resolution here . Whats the best resolution mr. Sanchez . Its for the Property Owner what path they like to pursue. Whether they want to make code changes or go through the variance process. Theres the option. I dont know all the details of the Property Ownership. I in understand i understanding, this is a building intended for resale. I dont think necessarily going to be their home. I think its maybe a development project. Certainly timing is always important. That will be a factor i think the Property Owner will need to decide how they want to proceed here. Commissioner swig making it comply without going for a variance. Which might take a long time. Making a compliant from construction standpoint, youre taking off approximately how many feet on both sides . Its probably a 7foot by 5foot notch on the side opposite of appellant. Then a smaller notch on the side facing the appellant. I think its about 4foot 1. Let me try to share these. These are the ones this shows a larger deck. Im showing you ones that went out to notification. This is the original proposal before subsequent changes. It will be cutting back this area here. [dog barking] awkward design. Something from the property other than to consider. Commissioner swig we suddenly shifted from a deck discussion into a far more serious incredible discussion. The appeal and appellants information brought new information to the city that has implications on this project. Thank you. Vice president honda has a question. Vice president honda just for clarification, i saw this coming in the brief. Had they left most of the structure there and rebuilt it, there will not be an issue. Because they demoed it, that became the issue. Z thi this is noncomplying structure. You have maintained the building there and things like that are okay. Once you start removing walls and rebuilding walls of a noncomplying structure, that means the variance. Thats what we saw in those photos there. The roof is gone and walls are gone and its been reframed. That is what is getting us in the variance. Vice president honda thank you. President lazarus has a question . President lazarus i will wait. Well hear from the Department Building inspection. Welcome. Good evening commissioners. The permit itself, its usually not an issue for d. B. I. Roof decks are pretty common. What is probably i like to thank mr. Sanchez [indiscernible] i think the photographs that were displayed showing the new framing on this part, its currently not shown on any approved plan issued previously by d. B. I. Thats a concern because it looks like we have stopped there. Looks like our building inspector said everything was fine. What i heard tonight, obviously the permitholders can speak to it, if we have a situation where our inspectors missed something and it wasnt on the plan, we would need to revisit that. We should have been paying little bit more attention in my opinion. I hope im wrong by saying that. Thats reading between the lines here. We might to look at that and have review of the plans again. I already brought up to the senior building inspectors. It dont happen. These rear things are tough. Lot of times they are undersized. They have been there for many years. Its probably sometimes people get their [indiscernible]. They went down the path of june last year remodeling two bathrooms. In august they had notice of violation. They got a demo permit for the interior demo then they got another permit for now we got a roof deck. Because of the appeal, looks like weve uncovered something here. Building inspection point of view, we doubt theyll need to hoolook at this again. I see few issues for building inspection. Its never good when its near end of the project. We did issue notice of violation. That was back in august 2019. They did respond. We were getting complaints. Im not sure it never reached my level that wecomplaint as an error. Its definitely one that we need to take another look at. Im available for questions. We have a question from commissioner swig. Commissioner swig where youre going with this mr. Duffey, youre kind of recommending that we not do anything tonight, have you review it. Seem like scott is in the same boat. Would that be your recommendation . Yes, just from the photographs that we were shown with the new framing, i like to look at all of the drawings to see where that framing to be replaced. Mr. Sanchez doesnt seem to see it on the plans. I like to meet the contractor and see what happened and get a better look at it. Bit more time will be probably better for everybody i think. Commissioner swig this is probably unintended serial permitting. This what happens when theres constant change orders whether its intended or not. It gets in serial permitting. Thats right. In addition to that, unfortunately, we did have inspector looked at one of them that was probably inexperienced. I dont know. Im not blaming anyone here. Just consequence of several permits. Just to give us another look at it, i think it would be better. Commissioner swig thank you very much. Thank you. We are now moving on to Public Comment. Is there anyone present to provide Public Comment, please raise your hand . If you called in, dial star 9 and we know that you want to speak. I see theres a caller but no raised hand. Go ahead, caller. You can start speaking now. Thank you for that. I live about five houses down from the property. I lived here since 1986. I was in that house very close to robins house as i wrote in the little email i sent to you, which is i in the packet. What happened tonight is classically unfortunate. Robin just doesnt want that deck next to her. The property is for sale. Its on all the websites. The thing i find interesting in the plan to show with the ads, they have that room as an office, not a bedroom where the deck supposed to be off. I dont know, its really unfortunate. They did really nice job. Its beautiful. There were lot of problems with the construction including breaking a gas line. They didnt call 888, whatever you supposed to call. Thats water under the bridge. The main thing now, the deck is an impingement. Its unfortunate thing to be right out of robins house. I know how close those lots are. I been in those houses. They are close. Its all very unfortunate. Its too bad they didnt reduce the deck even there was never deck there. Robins house was done by someone else, i lived there. The guy did it as an illegal demolition and he had to go to Planning Commission. Its not on robin. Its on the guy who did it who she bought the house from. Good luck, everyone take care. Be safe. Vice president honda, did you have a question for that caller . Vice president honda i did but she hung up the phone already. Is there any other Public Comment for this item . Please raise your hand. I dont see any further Public Comment at this point. We will move on to rebuttal. I want to make clear that robin has not tried to stop the project. We did not file any of the d. B. I. Complaints. I think that was probably other neighbors. We didnt file complaint with planning. Our concern is that the deck is right next to robins home and because of the way they are aligned next to each other, perpendicularly, that deck fakes right into the window. If the board is interested in upholding the permit removing the deck, thats okay with us. The other issue that were talking about with the demolition is under a different permit that it sounds like the departments will be looking at. We will be interested in working with the project sponsor as they work through that issue. I want to make clear, the problem here is the deck is right next to my clients window. If that deck is eliminated, were okay with the permit remaining in effective. If the board is keeping suspended, you work out the other issues with the other permits. I dont think we have dog in that fight. I want to make clear that difference with this deck versus other property decks is the alignment of the properties. Perpendicularly. I can share my screen to show on the map how that works. If you see here, this is the this is the project site here. Its stacked up right next to the neighbors. The deck is right next to robins windows, looking into both floors. Ill ask robin, if you like to make any final comments. I will save the rest of the time for you. Just to reiterate, im not trying to get this project stopped entirety. Although, it has been more challenging to work with the Property Owner because they dont live there. That has been challenging. I have never found filed complaints. My issue asking them not to put this roof deck up. My issue is with the roof deck and impact on my privacy. Thats what im asking you to deny. I do know that many others in the neighborhood would also appreciate that as well as there were 13 other people who emailed in for the discretionary review who lived in all very close proximity to the home. Vice president honda i got a question for either you or counsel patterson. The alignment of the deck, lot faces, we have houses in all sizes. The reason why theres that close alignment suspect because of the benefit of the variance and exception that was given to your clients. As explained by scott sanchez. It wasnt to me. It was to perhaps the person Vice President honda no offense here, you have a substandard lot because its shorter and smaller. When they rebuilt it whether its you or the prior owner, youre the one thats benefiting from that. The deck looking in at close proximity, if your house was code compliant it will be much further back. I would add, to answer that question, commissioner, the variance has something to do with the proximity. Its size and alignment of the lots themselves. Even without a variance, they will be in close proximity in an unusual way. Putting a deck here has unusual privacy impact. Thank you. We will now hear from the permit holders. Mr. And mrs. Reese. Thank you, weve done on this project has been to code, trying to meet all the standards. The building in question, the top, weve shored up the entire structure as weve developed which is on the plans to build a foundation for the bottom. The top was repaired, like our contractor went through the process, went through the inspections. This is the first of were hearing of this being an issue. Thats pretty much where we stand ton that. It it was not something that was intended or intentionally done. Just going back to the deck, there were complaints filed. Its definitelial situation where were all in an open environment, were all on top of each other. I dont want people looking in my house at night. We accept that and understand thats just price to pay for living in such a wonderful place. That kind of where we stand with that. Just to conclude, it was mentioned earlier, the house is completely finished in terms of the construction. We would really respectfully ask if there are additional reviews that be taken into consideration because it is completely finished. I think some of the suggestions in terms of the changes obviously would be significant for us as the owner. It is actively listed for sale. We would ask that be taken into consideration, thank you. We have a question from Vice President honda. Vice president honda good evening. As i was reading the brief, i felt this as a potential large issue for you guys. Were you aware were not aware of by taking that room down, would require a lot more process. Er you not aware . Are you using an architect and engineer . Yes. We have a designer we work with and our contractor works here in the city. Vice president honda i dont know how my other Board Members feel. The appellant at this point is willing to let this go if the deck goes away. What are your thoughts . The process here Going Forward and this board requires you to, which more than likely is going to happen here, to meet with the department, youre looking at lot more process here. If you were to remove the deck, are you fine with that . In light of this new information, i guess we would say yes. We request how small deck thats Vice President honda that was not the question. At this point, im going to ask my fellow commissioners can see where the process is. The construction without the proper permit and the demolishing of the structure is kind of serious at this point. That was my question. Thank you. We do have a question from commissioner swig. Commissioner swig i feel really bad for you guys. This is an unfortunate situation. Are you aware, in fact, that the plans mr. Sanchez showed and the reality of what was built for you are two completely Different Things . I dont understand what regards are they two completely Different Things . Commissioner swig im going to ask mr. Sanchez to confirm whether my line of questioning is correct. What i saw mr. Sanchez show was plans that showed setbacks which were compliant. What im led to understand and what i reviewed in the brief, the plans that mr. Sanchez showed, were the plans that were approved, are one thing and what was built is a different thing that has caused your building to be noncompliant and therefore is not a pretty site. You understand that either because this is now been shown to everybody and as a noncompliant building. You understand the result of this may be that you will have a choice to file for a variance or potentially to redo that structure and make it to the level of make to the [indiscernible] do you understand that . Yes. Based on the plan, they do match the plan, the space, setbacks from the existing Property Line. I donwhats in question whetheo of something. We were not aware that it was truly demoed. Leading up to our contractor and then Building Department to do the proper inspection. Once those questions cleared, weve been thinking of that. Its a serious issue now. Commissioner swig im going to ask mr. Sanchez, if you would please tell me whether im barking up the wrong tree or not on my view what you showed us. Thank you very much. I showed the plans that i shared the the deck i originally proposed. The previously approved plans and permits, i think there were two from 2019, dealt with Additional Border windows. All of those plans showed that second story, which was portion of it noncompliant. Showed that there was no changes. What we saw from the photos, that wasnt the case. At some point, effectively removed. It shouldnt have been anywhere at that level. Its not as though they didnt expand areas where they shouldnt have like encroachment. The work was all done within the existing envelope which the appellant said not legal. You can see that in the photos. That was raised up about 6 inches or so. You can see the butterfly roof. You can see the french doors that had that attic level. If they can go to the reconstruction, that showed the framing, its now a shadow roof. You can see where the seal is of that french door thats at [indiscernible] that was all to remain in the permit. It has french doors to the open deck, no railing on the deck there. Thats where this permit comes in. Put a deck on that area. French dos were there before. Its still odd. I dont have much further to add. Im available for any questions president lazarus mr. Sanche z, the permit for the deck, i guess i was to clarify what i thought Vice President honda say, if remove the deck entirely, this will be moot. That, i dont think is what youre saying. The underlying issues with the building regardless whether a deck was added. That is all determination. If the board disagreed with that, the board can make that finding part of this process. That will be hard to make and we have to treat all projects the same whether mistakes were made here or not. It will be our position that many come in compliance and see the variance and modify the project. Thats the departments position. I think its time for the Property Owners to decide how they want to resolve it. President lazarus at this juncture, if we were to approve the permit for the deck, theres still issues now that has been raised with your department and inspector duffys department, that have to be addressed regardless . If anything that we do, can be brought back. Board of appeals in these matters. If the board has a finding that you dont think that was any work done beyond the scope of permit, i guess the board can make the findings who rely on the board if the board made that determination. I dont think that can be made. President lazarus the permit in front of us is for the deck. Im trying to make a distinction between the permit thats appealed now, which is related to the deck and the issues that youve raised which are with the larger construction project. Am i accurate . Youre correct. If the board decide to reconsider this deck and we dont like it and we dont want it at all. The board can do that. Absent any determination by the board as to whether or not this thing was reconstructed benefit of permit. President lazarus okay, i think im clear. Thank you. Vice president honda i have that recorded about being superior. Im going to play that at the beginning of every hearing. Just so you know. In all seriousness, this brought up a huge issue. I noticed that going through the brief. What does that process look like as far as the variance . In regards to the process moving forward, if they were to pursue the variance, they would need to go through that process, which would if its exactly placement and theres no increase in the volume, no notice will be required. Under the code exact placement doesnt trigger 311 notice. If theres any increase in the area, 311 notice will be requirerequire. If they modify so the variance isnt require and theres no otherwise increase in the discrepancy, thats something potentially approvable, not only without the variance but without notice. They will be using the envelope. Vice president honda more than likely, it could be appealed, 311, they will go through the discretionary review process . You saw in the last case, the process starts any number of outcomes are possible. Theres a new notice t could be a new d. R. From a new party. Vice president honda thank you very much. Whether we approve the deck or not, the process of the variance is going to take place no matter what with the city departments. Scott, if we go ahead and approve this deck, were approving the deck that cant be built anyway because you just discovered the underlying building is noncompliant. Vice president honda think we should continue. Commissioner swig why bother go anywhere either deny the uphold the appeal and deny the permit. Its not going to get built anyway or just continue it and let you all come back in couple of weeks with your path to success for all parties. I think those two outcomes are proper. Commissioner swig what will be your recommendation . I plan to continue it. I can inspect further and its something new information for d. B. I. Also the property inner has opportunity to consider other options. Commissioner swig in consideration of where the option is to file for a variance and giving consideration that this building is for sale, how long would it take to go through the process of filing for a variance and getting it approve under the best circumstance . Six months. I think that is at least two years. Commissioner swig if we go in the direction of getting used more times to discuss this, its without of the important things for the permitholder to understand that direction going to automatically add six months to a year versus another direction which might be more efficient. You all can probably work that out if we continue it. At least we have time before a sale occurred. We have another case recently where right after the sale, we found out that the variance was required. Kind of last minute, variance issue was found and work done without proper permit. Commissioner swig that sounds pretty familiar to me. It does happen unfortunately. Were on to the rebuttal portion for the planning department. Mr. Sanchez, you have nothing further . Nothing further to add. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Duffy, you have anything further to add . Just sort o to the issue aga. We got a complaint an 28th of may 2020. Next action was 23rd octobe october 2020 saying original scope of work is on the approved plan. The project was lot further off. Mr. Sanchez say, we dealt with some of these in the past and they are horrible because there was for sale sign on the building. These people want to sell the building. Were going to say, show us the plans. Im looking at a photograph that showing all the framing. If its not on the plan, next step is a violation. Even though its all covered up already and its been inspected, its inspected in error in my opinion. It will be a notice of violation in all likelihood with Building Permit and planning approval. Its only fair that we do that, if you dont do that, one of the people that had to do that before they did the work and had to go through variance before the project even started. I interviewed the contractor and see lot of the times they are looking at photographs here, look likes there was one of those old rare porches. Vice president honda joe, youre going to talk to the permit holders. How much time . We can get out there next week. I already brought it up to the Senior Inspector today. Vice president honda what does your staff level looks like now. Are you 50 back to the Building Inspection Department . Not quite 25 yet. [indiscernible] theres a plan review and stuff like that. Theyre working on. Vice president honda i heard that new over the counter in march being heard. With plans. We have emergency Building Permit process where someone will buy [indiscernible] Vice President honda thank you. Thank you. Commissioners this matter is submitted. President lazarus theres some sentiment for continuance. I move the recommendation of both d. B. I. And planning. I would move for a continuance so this can be sorted out and best possible path for completion of this project can be identified and put in front of us for application. Vice president honda i think we need timelines we are going to continue toe see how it goes. So that the permitholder understands. Unfortunately, you came here for a deck issue and all this got uncovered. At this point, we dont have the power youre going to sort that out with the department. They are there to work for you and work with you and tray to make it as quick and painless and possibility. Were looking at minimum of six months i would imagine. How long do you think you guys would need to to be able to meet with the department and make some type of decision . I dont know what they are. I feel it will be to make conforming. Youre going to have to meet with the department. We are open to meeting as soon as poll. We want to be able to get to a resolution. I dont know if it is an option to go back and because we also want to be sensitive to time. If its an option to go back and remove the deck Vice President honda if we approve that, what will happen, the departments has been made aware of potentially work that was done that was not permitted. From the pictures, i would agree with that. Mr. Sanchez, how soon will you guys be able to meet with them . We could meet next week. I will explain. Vice president honda , i want top make sure their designer or permitholder is clear what they are doing. The property is for sale. Its going to be soon vacant in San Francisco during a difficult time very. When do you think it will be a good time for them to come back . Should we call a chair or a date . It can be december hearing deign. It looks to me like december 9th. I was going to suggest december 9th. Commissioner swig she pointed out, we were here to discuss a deck. Might as well provide my feedback on that. Theres construction of doors leading out to a rock. I would recommend as part of the review, is to set back the deck away from the Property Line even further. Make it large enough to be legal as mr. Sanchez pointed out, you have doors but you dont have anything to protect yourself if they were to work out my communication to the permitholder to make the deck smaller, setback to preserve the privacy of the appellant but make it large initiative enough. Wi you still have doors that have been in installed. Commissioner swig do you think thats enough time to we need to. Were going to work on this project for some time now. President lazarus what we want clarity on what are the aspects of the structure that are outside of compliance . I think they can reach out to you. Im sure they will make themselves available. Mr. Sanchez and his department as well as the inspector duffy and his department. I make a motion to continue this to december 9th so that the permitholder and the departments can get together and decide on what they are going to do. Okay. We have a motion from Vice President honda to continue this matter to december 9th so that the permitholder can Work Together on options in light of the newfound information regar regarding the fact that they may have potentially illegally built on that motion [roll call vote]. That motion carries 40. That complete the hearing. We are adjourned. See you in two weeks. Take care. Good afternoon, welcome to election day november 3rd, regular meeting of the board of supervisors. Madam clerk, can you call the roll. Clerk thank you, mr. President. [roll call] clerk mr. President , all members are present. President yee ok. Thank you. Please place your righthand on your heart. Would you please join me in the pledge of of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I would like to acknowledge the staff of sfg. Are there any communications . Clerk yes, during the covid19 health emergency, the board recognizes that Public Access to City Services is essential and certainly more acute during this time so we hope members of the public will take advantage of the following opportunities. We have a short version today. Were happy to receive your written communication and sports hands if you are using the u. S. Mail address the envelope and San Francisco board of supervisors and room 244 city hall, San Francisco california, 94102. If you would like to send an email, send it to capital, os at fg gov. Org and you can access the livestream by going to www. Sfgovtv. Org and you with watch the proceedings on your television by utilizing channel 26. Just be aware theres a signal delay so when you are ready and can make your public testimony use your cell phone and turn down your television and you can both listen to the proceedings and make sure Public Comment from your cell phone and so the telephone number is television and streaming on our website 415 6550001. When you hear the prompt, enter the meeting i. D. Number which is 146 443 9293 and press pound twice and you can join the readings as a listener. Listen carefully for the prompt. You have been unmuted and then you are able to just begin speaking to make your comments. All right. Just a little bit of information about content on the agenda that is eligible for Public Comment. There are two public hearings. These are both appeals of sfmta covid19. Appeal from Environmental Review and that is item 1821 and items 2225 that is proposed mta covid19 muni rail service adjust commentses and parking changes appeal, another statutory