Joe duffy representing the please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other Electronic Devices are prohibited. Please carry on conversations out in the hallway. Permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. Have up to 3 minutes no rebuttal. To assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or Business Card to the clerk. The board welcomes your comments. There are Customer Satisfaction forms available. If you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. This meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. Dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. Thank you for your attention. Well conduct our swearing in process. If you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do after youve been sworn in or affirmed do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. Okay. Thank you so Vice President commissioner Vice President fung two housekeeping items this evening item number 5 Jennifer Creelman vs. The department of building inspection at 143 corbett avenue. The parties are requesting jointly that be moved to april 5th to allow time for Development Discussions we do need to move the item and move to approve okay. A motion from commissioner lazarus to continue this to april 5, 2017, at the request of the parties item 5 is there any Public Comment . Okay. Seeing none pathologically or then commissioner Vice President fung commissioner lazarus commissioner swig that motion carries thank you the other housekeeping storm item 7 has to do with with an alteration permit on tichlt 55 33rd avenue the appeal is withdrawn our regular calendar general Public Comment the opportunity for anyone to address the board within a jurisdiction but not on tonights calendar any general Public Comment no item 2 commissioner questions or comments anything commissioners. No thank you so item 3 the boards consideration of the minutes of february 15th 2017. Annexes on the minutes a question if i was not here it didnt seem appropriate to vote on the minutes does the City Attorney have a opinion. It is presumed if the commissioners will vote on whether or not they approve the minutes. Okay unless the only basis for being recused a conflict of interest or the permission from the other members of the body. Thank you sure it is clear. Any comments or additions to the minutes move to deposit. Thank you any Public Comment on the minutes seeing none, we have a motion from the Vice President to adopt the minutes commissioner lazarus commissioner wilson commissioner swig thank you that motion carries im just not 100 percent sure that item number 4 is happening there is a request to continue to item to the 22 of march came through my phone this moment by the parties. Both parties . Yes. Both parties. Actually, i dont know if so it both parties i cant tell from the email bear with me a moment the parties are here; right . Why not hear the next case. That would be great thank you so well hold off on item 4 item 5 rescheduled so item 6 this is appeal Alexander Fleming vs. The Zoning Administrator at 523 guerrero street. Appealing the denial on december 1st of an exposure variance to convert the ground floor of the 3 family between to a new between to a noncomplying rear yard start with the appellant the appellants agent. Thank you and unfortunately my thanks very much scott my name is iran District Attorney im the architect of record for this studio addition indeed i intend to speak quietly at 523 guerrero street we the owner rejects not being here had business in Santa Barbara sends his rejects so sorry i need to collect my thoughts that is the the subject property at is a 3 unit building with vacant storage nonused Storage Space on the ground floor as well as a garage my client decided to do a volunteerly schematic upgrade and capture the urban used Storage Space to create a new unit also lives in the building the garage is being used belongs to one of the unit not deed it is an Apartment Building so is he established out with another designer not a licensed architect who got him acquit a ways introduce the process did a good Schematic Design and took to the various Building Department dpw got preliminary approval of the streetscape plan, etc. So she wanted to make sure that all her ducks were in the right now and something in the rejected well when the, of course, the Structural Engineer was involved do do the smeefks upgrades he is, of course, unable to take responsibility for her drawings i was brought in to actually finish up the project im a licensed architect and you know she did a good job finished up the details and title 24 and did whatever else was needed and brought it into the brought my drawings into go maybe overthecounter that was what was indicated in her minutes ever her discussions with the various departments at a time she was told so i did this to get two separate permit applications on the one set of drawings because it was actually was one thing and we got partway there overthecounter and overthecounter i was youll see in exhibit b i think it show see the two the one set of drawings with one, two sets of permanent drawings he went to planning and i met with edgar who told me that you know you really should spate out the drawings do the smeefks not voluntarily do the schematics upgrade and come back and do the unit addition he said truly when you do it do it as just a unit addition with a variation she said everything about the plans were pretty much ready with the permits he said youve got everything except this minor enclosure. inaudible . Pull the microphone over. Excuse me. The the subject building unfortunately, the original designer put mudrooms in exits there which was semi transparent their exit stairs in the space that otherwise would have been a very nice 25 by 27 backyard but my project the building is relatively small relative to all the rest of the buildings and we have a substandard lot the lot well it is 90 feet deep so our lot end somewhere if looks like it is there but not somewhere back here we ended up from the front space to the back of the lot is 27s feet and this was here 17 feet well, that happens that close to being. You have a very expensive easel the width of unit is only 17 feet without the overhead thing that is 17 feet and it goes back to 17 feet so we felt that mr. Lopez said you got a good case ive seen m rebuttal time. Very good. Inspector duffy to hold anything for you. Scott sanchez planning department. Thank you for having the hearing tonight for this case so appreciate the comments and concerns by the appellant just as some background the proposal to add a between to the the subject property at that didnt feature as the unit is proposed not code compliant enclosure on a rear yard in order for the street that didnt meet the requirement of planning code so with that there are two processes that one what undertake used to be one process which was a variance process but for the past two years theres the ability to add do accessary dwelling now the division the dwelling unit allows administration review the project and allows for granting of waivers like the endorse in this case in order to quality for the waiver under the adu provisions it has to be 15 by 1 foot open area that faces on to which this qualifies for the benefit of review the ability that are added under the program that are rental unit to create we havent had the ability to do to create them to grant a zaurns 5 findings that needed to be made in this case, the acting variance in august we been faced with prestigious combed that are adding dwelling units and if an alternative pathway used to be no, but where there is an alternative path we findings those are havent met the necessarily 5 standards for granting the variance there is a code compliant path an alternative path that allows for the creation of unit without a variance thats the in case here for those reasons it is not worthy of a grant for the property in terms of the staff conversations we discussed that with the folks and current a great resource and do everything you can to understand the process that was my understanding that when he was suggesting that as an alternative and make people aware the most that are there i tell people you can point out my determination to the board of appeals not meaning it will be over turned but a good chance these days but have to make people available that are available to them so it results it was represented to him the city administrative of the Property Owner to not is age electrical unit not have the restriction for the new unit so if thats the case this is the process to go through certainly in the past no other process and variances have been looked more favorably by the way, in this case there is an alternative process one that has benefit to the city so you know with that, i i believe that mr. Thank you for your time appropriately denied the variance i reviewed the materials by the appellant i dont feel they had a strong argument about the 5 finding that are necessary to the grant of 0 variance the argument largely was based on you know that staff had told them to go through the process and therefore that was enough to justify the granting of a variance i dont see that as justification for granting a variance and certainly, if we were to tell someone if you see the board of appeals take an action like this this is not what the decision will be we reserve the right for the information at the time the Public Housing was held and i think the decision was appropriately render ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions. Just to clarify so prior to this new process if you gotten this as then a variance where you saying youll be more inclined to grant it from it didnt necessarily meet the criteria. So thats what were looking at here you know what is the handicapping of a variance and in this case there is no handicapping because there is actually a codecompliant alternated that allowed the creation of unit thats hard to make all the findings by previously if there was this was 5 years ago and you know were having because of otherwise be a quality unit to meet the endorsed requirement well be inclined to grant the evaporates no way to add to the Housing Stock within the density limits but through the processes now alternative processes i understand interest is a restriction for it being rentcontrolled housing but seeking a exemption to a code compliant so it is a fair trade off not metal detector all the code compliant but going through the accessary Dwelling Program and having it subject to rent control it is a fair trade off for not meeting all the trade requirements and commissioners. I absolutely see the point and lean towards the agreement that that is a fair trade i think well see things in the future about that because now there is an opportunity to it can illegal units and make them into legal unit unit by what you described, however, it is important in a hearing process to reask the question although i always anticipate the answer is having rent control permanently on a unit which is trying to legalize is that a handicapping is anyone going to say well, your wrong it is a handicapping to have permanent rent control on. Can i clarify one thing that is not an illegal unit. No, no, no im not characterizing that as an illegal unit unit in any way, shape, or form whether the Current Situation not an illegal unit it is strictly a variance but any unit that going for conversion and it is can permanent rent control be considered a handicapping. No. Thats the key question bureau but a hardship of rent control im not have that vein but i want to put it on the record. I have two questions any other questions first is theres 3 levels of residence use above the proposed new unit is there a combination of two of the floors to a unit. The architect can address. Secondly, this is a question of endorse most of cases on exposure related to corner lots and the apartments in terms of benefits of urban design having the building wrapping the corner versus a code compliant required a gap on one side or the other how does this differ from that. To this would be mid block it was existing legal nonconforming so not a code compliant rear yard faces on the rear yard which is not code compliant it didnt meet the requirements for the exposure after the code compliant usually it depends on the size of lot theyre better off for meeting the exposure requirement by facing the streets if youre in a corner lot my units that face on the frontage is a code compliant if so it as larger corner lot have a case theyre creating a noncompliant rear yard to the unit that a face that are noncomplaint in this case an existing structure with the adding dwelling unit and most of time i review the least half a dozens of those a week as an accessary dwelling and with the number of units up to six or seven unit added under this program per believe so i i mean it is something that people avail themselves in terms of adding to the Housing Stock but maybe i didnt answer that question. Okay. He think i would have differed a little bit in terms of how those buildings were not coming from to the exposure requirement whether the size of lot was large or small the issue of the distance from there openings to the Property Line but we can thats a separate issue in terms of the new construction but in terms of the difference between those variance requests versus this one is something that well stack on i guess. Okay. Thank you so i dont think there is any Public Comment but rebuttal from the appellant side. The backyard there the plan is to terrace that back it has wonderful exposure actually and in the paperwork that mr. Sanchez submitted his are you able to my original appeal he mentioned possibly putting the new unit in the front because with the street frontage it will meet all the requirements but one the garage is being used and two a garden apartment at street level is so much more pleasant than street level up to the street plus the garage is being used so that didnt really in our minds that you know youre not supposed to take away from the rental part of rental is the garage that was really a solution for us september 4th is when i understand the entire city became enveloped with this policy of adu unit for the whole city up into the literature i was privy to at the time of now almost a year ago about doing all of this it hfs the castro and it was for units that were was required to have a retrofit and i dont know if youve ever seen this handout but although it is dated july of 2015 and we went in may of 2016 but this was what i had on hand when i was told this i had a mixture i looked at the literature for adus in the castro a under the schematic retrofit legislation from the existing building is subject to rent control then adu and coast if you are youre adding kooufrts in july of 2015 as far i saw of 2016 a couple of weeks after my hearing with mr. Sanchez that it became a citywide thing with all that considered it seemed applyable alex lets go ahead and do it i dont advise variances lightly through everything i could see advice of the senior planner it seemed reasonable two different results. You need to wrap up. Okay mr. Sanchez. Oh, excuse me were there 3 units here before. Theres 3 flats there is a 4 Story Building the ground floor. How do you create. At the ground level it happens to be no, this building is a 4 unit. Exactly within that. Thank you Scott Sanchez planning department. I think the appellants timeline of when it became available San Francisco government Audit Oversight Commission is accurate by the time of hearing it applied to smooefks for the retrofit i think that was required in 2015 but it was an eligible process that of the variance it was heard and at the time it applied to the voluntarily upgrades so ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. This zoning allows what 3 units. Within the density that is allowed under this. So the fourth unit is without the adu process would have been in excess of the density. So the zoning is rto generally no unit limit there is a this is within the allowed limit it used to be the rh3 or rh2 before the eastern neighborhoods sdoensz to the rto. And the density is based on the site area. In the rto generally not limited by site areas if there is an rto ill double check but within the density limits of district not exceeding the density if it was they couldnt seek a variance for it it will be through the adu process at this point. The last thing that was only a stair and rear yard that make that a nonconforming rear yard. No, i think that is building itself extends into the rear yard but it is well the mudroom what she calls the mudroom otherwise she indicated that it was 27s feet from the rear Property Line to the face of this unit. I i know no dimension of the drawing. Only in response to that question. You have to come to the microphone. So on the plans there is a 17 foot rear yard which is showing here there is actually within that 17 foot rear yard there is a roof with an open stairwell well but it will have to a 25 feet rear yard but part of stairs and part of existing building will be for a compliment rear yard and if you understand that but if she removed the mudroom would that and left the stair would that then be a complying rear yard. In the stairs are not compliant. Accuses us. If youre done with the question commissioners, the matter is submitted. Commissioners. I see the Zoning Administrators argument is valid because there is an alternative and therefore there isnt a hardship and therefore the variance theres no justification for a variance and it can get down with the alternative process without a problem so therefore you know, i would deny the appeal. So i guess im differ from that a little bit in the following ways the face of this unit is compliant to the rear yard if so the planning interpretation of the overall building because of the stair portion and what they call the mudroom sticks into the rear yard therefore the whole building is noncompliant in terms of rear yard but the unit itself is compliment not firm in terms of what it looks like it does dimensionly the width of the unit in terms of what the rear yard there i guess im looking it is a process of exposure the adu process was done primarily to take care of the illegal units and bring them to code and make them part of the Housing Stock this is not an illegal unit that is under that kind of process and therefore it is not my mind the same as the example of the common ones with the rooms behind the garage and the richard or part there are thousands of them and so i disagree with actually with both sides in terms of this is a purely a process the question is it satisfy the exposure requirement so it didnt require a variance in the in the first place. I understand planning determination yeah there is a piece of building that sticks and therefore that piece creates that the entire rear yard a noncomplia noncompliant. If no now we are going getting confusing here this whole case is built on the question of a variance so were discussing a variance for not a evaporates. But if the commissioners reading is that were discussing the wrong thing because there shouldnt be a variance discussion in the first place how the case becomes well null and void how do we move away from a variance versus a nonvariance if youre position is not a variance discussion in the first place that leads to confusion for me. Not that im not dangerously with you by the way, your wisdom is very strong in this case but were not thats not the case that is in front of us. I guess im not saying that planning has been inconsistent in their determination what creates a noncompliant situation but i disagreed with the va and our discussion of where exposure variances have come before us historically theyve all been yes on corner lots but the reason they were given was that the dimension from openings in the building to the rear Property Line were not per code we gave those left and right including for highrises weve done it for three or four Story Buildings and so ive seen the differences between those exposure variance versus this one, this one conforms if you take the street line dimension from the face of unit to the rear yard. But so and so variances arguably met the criteria for a variance; right . You know my opinion of the 5 criterias i mean, you look at both of those neither the appellant nor the Department Reason made compelling cases either way. But i think this might be worth thank you think no reason for going for a variance then the appellant is only left with the accessary dwelling process respect this seems for rent control and dont get anywhere. Lets go away from that whether i feel it should have been a variance application or not lets go to the fact there is an application and the question is whether the va applied it equally in this instance versus the use. So our point was that the va failed to recognize that in fact, a variance was not that necessary and the solution was the solution also didnt require a adu because the unit was legal in the first place so no, i probably will back off from that and say i dont think that is the the department has been consistent where one piece of building sticks out beyond the required rear yard of the entire rear yard makes it nonconforming i guess my point this situation to the code. If no ill make a motion. Unless Something Else feels. I want to. Ill remind the board if this is a motion to overturn the va and grant the variance and the board needs to articulate the 5 finding. Either tonight or at a subsequent hearing but these need to be stated and need 4 votes. Yes. We do. Why not move that along ill move to grant the appeal on the basis that the va erred in his finding on the 5 findings. Okay. I i mean, we, call the roll but we need to find have those 5 finding articulated not an error standard but we need to know what the 5 findings are but. To be provided at a future date. So the motion includes the written finding at a later date. Yes. Well not b labor that. To grant the appeal and overturn the Zoning Administrator with the adoption of the finding at a later date okay. On that motion commissioner lazarus no commissioner wilson commissioner swig no okay. That motion is voted 2 for and 2 against the motion fails there is no other motion than the variance is upheld by operation of law. I can make my motion if there is to deny the appeal and that the finding of the Zoning Administrator were correct that there should not be a variance because there is an alternative facility to allow this project to move forward and that will be the audi know i used too many words but make that what you can edit. Okay. So that motion by commissioner swig to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator that the finding tacked by the Zoning Administrator are correct those encompass on that Motion Community college no commissioner lazarus commissioner wilson no again, the vote is 2 to two, that motion fails. Lets go home well move on to item 4 i got confirm this is item 4 appeal at james kelly vs. The department of building inspection. From the board is inclined well move the case to that date. So moved. That motion from commissioner lazarus any Public Comment . Seeing none, commissioner Vice President fung commissioner wilson commissioner swig okay. That motion carries that item is continued at the question of the parties Vice President. Whereon comment to make i know weve already acted on item 5 but i would request that the Building Department see if the parties there if they cant come to agreement with everything they should split off the portion are of the retaining wall if they can come to agreement with that and get that done because with all the rain on the hillside it doesnt make sense for them to stall that come on, if you have a statement. Commissioners joe duffy dbi so a few weeks we let them do the emergency work because we were aware it needed it wasnt kind of urgent we let them do some of the be work on building but theyre working on the settlement and we are involved in that as well with the Ethics Commission and a permit on that one coming as well so you i only bring this up because the continuance is april. I know. Anyway it is just yippee get our point it was i think we were aware of it and wanted to kind of resolve it. Okay. Thank you. Okay theres no further business. The meeting is. clapping. in 2013 San Francisco legislators newsom agreed to allow the reciprocate of our soft Story Buildings those building house one and 20 thousand resident a program of that collect requires extensive outreach and this continuation of that process who is here and bill graham the perfect venue so in 2014 we have the first earthquake retrofit a huge success were repeating this model what weve done it put together venues that are time professionals and contractor are financing institutions a other services that help people comply with the retrofit and as you can see the thousands of members of the public their assessing over one hundred vendors to comply with the ordinance or make improvements on their property i came to get specification information and puck h picking up information if you dont know what twaur doing i take it overwhelming. Were pleased a Critical Mass of people are keying into knowing their relents and understanding what had are the next steps to take and theyre figuring out who to talk to not only the contractor by the mustards and the architect and the Structural Engineers and getting the full picture of what options are necessary and being proacti proactive. So im very pleased to see the soft Story Buildings 99. 9 percent complies the highest of the program of this scale of the history a citywide effort high Blood Pressure in every stretch of San Francisco to understand real risks associated with earthquake and those are universally agreed on. At some point you need to gather information ill be talking to another engineer to come out and take a look at it and basically get a Second Opinion im for second and third opinions it is inspiring to see all the Property Owners that want to do the right thing and for proactively figuring out what the solutions to get them that. What is amazing to me here we are over two years of first retrofit fair and at the time we are rh2 out to contractors to help us and reaching it out to Design Professionals that soft Story Buildings is in any and people understanding how to comply now it is different an industry that springs up as a result of the their professed and gotten the costs down with lower Financing Options and these are defined and now the gene progression and have the buildings are buildings and the compliance we understand the 2020 one and 20 thousand San Franciscos 15 messenger of our population will live in a retrofit building those people buildings or lives in buildings with 5 or more residential building is soft story and wood frame and built before 1978 that house that one and 20 thousand san franciscans. San francisco is being the leader in getting in done and as you may know los angeles passed their retrofit law two months ago at the sort of taken San Franciscos lead on the one and tenth anniversary as the residents San Francisco this is a road map to the city and going to give us us plan are these to keep folks here on a disaster and steps to build a resident waterfront by 2020. This involves more than one and 80 individuals and over 60 nonprofits and other companies this is a huge plan and what are the challenges we realize that people are concerned about climatic change, Sea Level Rise and not only the affiliated hazards but things hike youre our amp infrastructure and consumed by social and other things we see this in society everyday and how we try to mitigate those are ultimately a direct result how resident we are after earthquake other issue out of the strategy of the concept after a major earthquake of keeping 95 percent of population here in San Francisco thats the single best thing to help a equitable recovery to keep people here keep people back to work and kids in school and a residents of normal after a disaster. Alliance energy in our partner undertook comprehensive bid process we interviewed a halfdozen of folks who wanted to have a part of our soft Story Buildings are ordinance so Alliance Energy project programming is a clean assess energy a special financing that is done using the taxed authority of local multiples and one of the interesting features the loan is tied to the property not the vital if an individual didnt have good credit but it is another option for people not able to comply to find another avenue the assessment is actually places on the property and the builds for in that come literally a line item on the tax bill thats how you pay off the segment and tax. 20 or thirty years is all paid up front there are advantages your property tax well it is important to give people on option and many private banks that provide loans over a are shorter term we wanted to create a longer pay back term. I think the next step for Property Owners after at the create themselves to take the plunge and quit the working downey done and have works of work done right of the right rest of the Property Owners can understand this process across the city. We need to do it. It is safety you know thats the bottom line safety. Earthquake safety a everybodys responsibility that is providing the resources that people need to get done if you want to know more of the resources as a san franciscan please visit the welcome to hamilton recreation and aquatics center. It is the only facility that has an integrated Swimming Pool and Recreation Center combined. We have to pools, the citys water slide, for little kids and those of you that are more daring and want to try the rockslide, we have a drop slide. Exercises for everybody. Hi have a great time. The ladies and guys that come, it is for the community and we really make it fun. People think it is only for those that play basketball or swim. I have been coming to the pool for a long time now. It is nice, they are sweet. In the aquatics center, they are very committed to combining for people in San Francisco. And also ensuring that they have public safety. There are a lot of different personalities that come through here and it makes it very exciting all the time. They, their family or teach their kids have a swim. Of the gem is fantastic, there is an Incredible Program going on there, both of my girls have learned to swim there. It is a fantastic place, check it out. It is an incredible indication of what bonn dollars can do with our hearts and facilities. It is as good as anything you will find out why mca. Parents come from all over. There are not too many pools that are still around, and this is onestop shopping for kids. You can bring your kid here and have a cool summer. If you want to see some of the youth and young men throughout San Francisco play some great pickup games, come wednesday night for midnight basketball. On saturdays, we have a senior lyons dance that has a great time getting exercise and a movement. We have all the music going, the generally have a good time. Whether it is awkward camp or junior guard. From more information, visit good morning and welcome to the government audit and Oversight Committee for today march the second i am the acting chair, peskin standing in for supervisor kim, and i am joined by the Committee Member and board president london breed, our clerk is miss erica major, i want to thank the folks at sfgtv for streaming this live. And madam clerk, are there any
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.