To feminist women, whether gay or straight. Valencia street at this time became known as the womens district. Sfl i met susan in 1974 a1974 in 1976. When my brother died of aids in 1990, they were the first ones at my door with a pot of homemade chicken soup. When a mutual friend of ours was diing of aids, susan sat at his bedside. In conclusion, i would like to say that i wholeheartedly support saving the 645 valencia Street Building and approve the project as is. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please, and good evening, and welcome, as well. Thank you. My name is rebecca fernandez. Im cinas wife, and im here this evening to read a letter from the gobt historical society. Dear commissioners, im writing to you today on bart of the Glbt Historical Society in support of the project proposed by dennis and susan bring at the property located at 645 valencia street, the site of the former amelias bar and more recently, the elbow room. Founded in 1985 to collect, preserve and interpret lgbtq history in Northern California and beyond, my organization maintains one of the most extensive archives of lgbtq history in the world, and also maintains one of the very few museums of lgbtq history anywhere. Additionally we and our members have been involved in protecting and commemorating billions and places of historic significance to the Lgbtq Community for many years. Amelias kazz a ski institution in the valencia neighborhood that for years was deeply identified with the laez bean community, and the building that held the bar certainly has a strong historic significance for this community. We believe it is vital that we do all we can to protect and defend all Historic Resources in San Francisco so that our stories may be preserved in the spirit of San Francisco and all its diversity may be shared with future generations. We are encouraged that the rings, who have a Long Association with the building and with amelias plan to maintain the Structural Integrity of the buildings exterior and that they will commemorate the history of the building and the neighborhood with a permanent plaque, and we are delighted with their decision to name the building striky commons, after ricky striker, a leader in San Franciscos lgbtq movement, cou cofounder of the gay games. As you know, we currently have no lesbian bars left in San Francisco. While we are deeply concerned about the loss of Affordable Housing in lgbtq places and Historic Resources in San Francisco, we are pleased with the rings willingness to work with the community to protect and commemorate to preserve this building, and reurge the board to uphold the Planning Commissions approval of the building. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other Public Comment on this issue . Okay. Seeing none, we will have rebuttal from the appellant. Thank you. Im very much prothe lgbt preservation. Why not preserve its function . Its a bar. Were closing the bar as a result of this project. The original design was also to destroy the whole thing, so im very puzzled with this ad miration. I understand family ties, because thats exactly what it was about people. When i have a mother lying in the icu, and thats going to be my neighbor, he doesnt he cant thats mr. Ring, and im sorry that im upset about that. I wish i was more composed through this. Im just i canvassed the neighborhood. These are all the neighbors that have signed up for that agreed with my statement. For the elbow room, we support a mixed use project that does not require a rear yard variance or that would include balconies that impact peoples privacy. 52 people signed that. In addition i have mission doors Neighborhood Association supporting me as well saying that the board remaining supportive, but they said granting the rear yard variance would result in untenable impacts on the fabric and character of the neighborhood, and then, lastly i also ended up sending a note to planning, so i do have community support. I do support the lgbt preservation effort. I just think there are different ways of doing that, and i think if we were to apply integrity to this process, we would all come to a solution that is meeting all of those objectives. Certain things have happened through the rear yard, through the discussion review process, which includes a proposed back room process by mr. Ring that he did not want to put in writing where he was going to override where he was going to call on the planning director, mr. Ring, to override planning outside of the process. If i had just signed this letter. I was very discancered wioncer that. I spoke to several entities about that. They advised me to not go along with that and to stick to the process, which is exactly what im doing. I trust this process, i respect this process, and i am very much sure that a reasonable outcome will be reached for both mr. Ring can have a project, and we can all as a neighborhood agree that that is a good thing. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Rebuttal from the variance holder. With respect to the tree the za correctly points out its not a protected tree. You can see that it subsumes about a quarter of the appellants yard. It is the major cause of shadow in his yard. If it was removed and we offered to do that, to take it out and replace it with a smaller tree, he could get a lot more light. It is a shade garden, in shade 96 of the time. Ficuses are weeds. They grow very quickly. Im not an arborist, so i cant speak to the radios, butoots, believe when your tree is overhanging to other properties, i believe its a common situation to remove the limbs, not that were doing that, but as you can see from this photograph, and this photograph, this tree does not come over the subject property much at all. With respect to neighbor support, i think thats wonderful that dino did go around and get neighborhood support, and many of the things in that letter have been addressed already by privacy and additional guardrails and all that were addressing of his at the time. Today, it appears that the big issue is the tree. With respect to the Mission Delores association support, they originally supported our project, but their Vice President is the dr applicant, and they reversed themselves on second letter, so what can you say about that . Do you have any questions for me . Thank you. Thank you. Anything further, mr. Teague . Just very quickly, more specifically, to answer your question, the citywide lgbtq context statement, the work began in earnest, i believe, in 2014, but it was actually adopted in march of 2016, this variance application was filed in may of 2016. Also, i just want to be clear that the Planning Department, we cant we get tree issues with some regularity. We understand that trees are amenities, and people feel very strong about their trees. If its not a protected tree class, its generally viewed more as a Property Line issues thats generally settled between neighbors because theres just very little guidance within the planning code as to their protection in situations like this, and im available with any questions you may have. We dale with some tree stuff every once in a while. Thank you. Okay, commissioners, the matters submitted. Resident architect, Vice President. You know, one of the primary elements of the five findings for variances is extenuating circumstances, and its obvious this project had extenuating circumstances. I think most of it came from staff. However, because you look at this building and its a building designed by committee, but the question is all of the points that were brought forth in terms of whether the of the five points, i find that this project does merit those findings and therefore, i will support the variance. I concur with the constraints of the historic preservation. I also agree. For housing not a criteria, but i think its another layer here. Understood. Is that your motion, Vice President . Move to deny the appeal on the basis that the findings made by the Zoning Administrator on the variance were supportable. Thank you. So the motion from the Vice President is to deny the appeal and uphold the variance on the basis that the five findings stated in the variance are supportable. On that motion, commissioner lazarus. Aye. President honda. Aye. C welcome back to the november 15, 2017 of the meeting of the San Francisco board of appeals. We are calling item number 11, appeal just 17156, Patrick Mulligan versus department of building inspection. At 259 avila street. Protesting the issuance on august 24, 2017 to donald and jocelyn pin arrested of a site permit, third story residential addition and structural work; addition includes two new rest rooms and three new bedrooms. Good evening, president honda, Vice President fung, commissioners miss lazarus, miss wilson, mr. Swig. My name is scott stewart, and ive been a continual resident of San Francisco for the last 50 years, so were starting from that point of view, so maybe with that point of view, id like to introduce historic perspective, and between the Square Footage shown in the permit form. The size of the addition has not changed between the presentation meeting and the site permit application. The side of the third floor addition is 1,080 square feet is has always been that. The reason for the different total is the preapplication form showed the existing building net Square Footage which does not include the garage. The permit application drawings use the existing gross Square Footage to capture the entire building coverage, thus, the higher number. The drawings shown at the preapplication meeting and use for the site permit application as granted are identical and theres been no increase in the scope of work. The appellant claims that the additional result will result in a building thats out of size and character of the neighborhood. The size was reviewed by the Building Department staff and the own her paid for a preapplication meeting to right lane a plan consistent with planning requirements. All suggestions made by the staff were incorporated, including a 15 foot front set back to the addition and maintaining a historical design to the front facade and parapet. As 50 of the neighboring buildings are three stories are higher. Can you turn on the overhead, please. This project shows the project site. These are adjacent residences with no set back. The residence across the street which have third story additions in the similar configuration to what were proposing in the in the proposed project. This is the appellants house at 3606 scott street, and you can see his house is flanked by three story buildings with no s setbacks. This is the rear of his house, and even to the rear he has a fourstory building, which was just recently remodelled. This diagram showed threestory buildings in the neighborhood. This is the project site. This was his site. In yellow are the three story buildings and higher, and you can see its more than 50 . The appellant claims that a Residential Rental unit will be removed by the project. That is not true. The current Property Owners have lived there since december 2nd, 1993 and have never rented to a tenant, in whole or in part. Please see the attached statements from the neighborhood and homeowners that there have been no tenants at this property. David lindsey from the Planning Department was asked to check fore a rental apartment, at the planning meeting he stated he had found no existing rental unit and no eviction would take place. The appellant claims that the building will block his morning sun. Weve conducted studies on the appellant ease property. This diagram shows existing proposed conditions at 9 00 a. M. At three different times of year. Theres sets showing existing and proposes. This is 9 00 a. M. In the spring, existing proposed 9 00 a. M. In the summer, and 9 00 a. M. In the winter. Theres a worst case scenario, this is the addition and this is the appellants house, and theres no shadows created on his property. Also, heres a photo taken at the roof of the proposed project, and as you can see, in this area, theres a lot of buildings at the height of the proposed addition, so theres already blockage horizontally at this level. The appellant claims that the midblock character will be adversely impacted by the proposed project. The proposed project is compatible with the existing midblock configuration. Theres this site plan, you look at the rear yard, we are there is no horizontal addition. The existing setback is 339. The required set back is 25 feet, and were well within whats required. Also, if you look at the midblock configuration, you can see that were were not changing the configuration rear yard pattern at all. And these all of these illustrations are in your packet, as well. The appellant also claims there will be a negative structure impact from the proposed project. The [ inaudible ] this design is complete and drawings and calculations have been prepared. As required, this design was based on the Geological Survey of the site commissioned by the owners. The owners plan to continue living at this site for the foreseeable future and desire a home that is seismically safe for them and their children. That concludeds my presentation. The project owners donald and jocelyn pinard if you have any questions, and if its permissible, id like miss pinard to give the rebuttal. Thank. Okay. Mr. Teague . Good evening again, president honda, commissioners, cory Teague Department staff. It contains a two story singlefamily home and the Building Permit under appeal approved a third story addition and minor facade changes. The building Building Permit was filed on may 15, 2013 and the initial Planning Department review resulted in design comments to set back the proposed third floor at least 15 feet from the front facade in order to be consistent with the residential Design Guidelines point the permit holder made the requested confession and the code was entirely otherwise complying. The appellant requested discretionary review of the permit on march 23rd, 2016. Planning Commission Held a dr hearing on july 8, 2016, and at that hearing an issue was raised regarding potential unauthorized dwelling unit on the ground floor. The commission continued the case to august 4th of this year and instructed staff to raemp the issue further. At the august 4e hearing indicated that while the ground floor space did meet the physical criteria to be an unauthorized dwelling unit, it did not meet the criteria that the space had been used on a separate living area. This was based on a review of all documentation, and an affidavit from the Property Owners declaring the space had never been used as a separate living area to their knowledge. The Planning Commission found the plan to be consistent with the residential guidelines and voted consistent with johnson and fung to not take discretionary review. Therefore the discretion was properly reviewed. Ill let my colleague from d 2kwd i address the appellants claims of structural proposal, but im available for my questions you may have. Thank you. Inspector duffy. Commissioners, joe duffy, dbi. Its a the permit is its a form iii approval, which mean its he approved as a site permit, and as you know, the addenda still has to come to dbi for review. I would expect its going to be reviewed under the California Building code for all those standards that we typically see, including sexual inspections, geotech report, ongoing inspections from a third party inspector, and also a dbi, so im not expecting any problems there. Weve seen these type of projects in this area of the city before, and i know the appellant is concerned about that, but the California Building code is pretty strict on these, and we have our all of our requirements, and theyre usually met and that would be my experience, any way. I have nothing further to add on this case. The Structural Design will likely be for the entire building. Correct. Under 2016, right . Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Okay. Seeing no Public Comment, then, mr. Mulligan, you have rebuttal, three minutes. Code compliant, i think 60 minutes said last week that the Millennium Tower was code compliant. Yep. Gentleman said that all of these buildings, three story buildings wanted to lead you to believe that they were all singlefamily. I walked the neighborhood on the overhead. All of them are multiunit buildings. None of them are singlefamily, other than the ones that have been increased. Truly, that gives you a better understanding of whats on that street. The homes are 1500 to 2,000 square foot. Mr. Antonini approved from 2,000 square feet up to 4700 square feet and he acted as his consultant, and he never recused himself. This is what ive had gone up next to me for the last 18 months of six days of noise and dust. The q