Commissioning commissioner wilson will be absent to my left is brad the deputy City Attorney and prides the board with any legal advice and at the controls gary and im Cynthia Goldstein the boards executive director. And joined by sacramento the city Zoning Administrator and representing the Planning Commission and Planning Department devices are prohibited. Out in the hallway. Permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated 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. Speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. 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. Please note any of the members may speak without taking if youre going to testify please standard youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. Okay. Thank you commissioner president honda this is is a housekeeping item four on tonight calendar regarding a Building Permit on twin peaks board of that case has been withdrawn and not heard this evening. Regarding item number one that is general Public Comment this is the opportunity for anyone who wants to address the board on a matter within the jurisdiction that is an item not on tonight calendar any general Public Comment tonight okay. Seeing none move to item 2 commissioners questions or comments and still crying being at last nights warriors game other than that im okay. Item 3 the consideration of the minutes of the Board Meeting of the october 19, 2016, additions, deletions, or changes can i have a motion . To accept the minutes. So moved. The motion from commissioner lazarus any Public Comment on the minutes. Seeing none, then on that motion from commissioner lazarus commissioner fung commissioner president honda commissioner swig 0 e thank you that item passes with a vote of 4 to zero commissioner wilson absent well take our item 5 appeal carmen versus the Zoning Administrator on richardson avenue protest protesting the issuance of a rear yard variance constrict a 3 floor and roof deck for the rear yard of a singlefamily dwelling and well start with the appellant. Good evening and welcome. I guess you didnt release i ordered a private hearing this evening. Yes. This is so rare actually. I feel like im at the end of the welcome reuben, junius rose i need to make a disclosure. I wish to disclose ive hired reuben, julius rose on a on a project of my own the handling the board will not have an effect on my decision. This evening. Thank you, commissioners Ryan Patterson on behalf of the appellant an appeal to construct a third floor on top of a 2 story in the marina my client owns the adjacent property directly to the north at the 2547 to 49 cellist nut street and owns the rental property on Chestnut Street renderings and were here because the variance that was granted will have a terrible impact on the properties destroying an existing bedroom as you may know the board of appeals has wide discretion in hearing the deliberations with the power and the board thinks that vaurnsz are not to be granted whether when there is a harding park on the property that is hardship variance law and other things not met including that is a qualifying hardship that makes the variance necessary not the run of mill normal circumstance with a small lot and someone needs the lots in order to develop it, it is a small lot but created by others predecessor in fact, the owners predecessor used to own both properties the appellants property to the north. Can i have the overhead . This is the the subject property and the appellants home here this is lot 12 and this is lot 12 a and the history is in 1940 after a road was cut to the Golden Gate Bridge these lots were divided but not until after the the subject property u subject structure was built one owned the lot and built the existing appellants property long before in 1939, 1940 built the structure after that was dub after the same owner that happened to design this property that owner decided to split the walk intentionally creating the sub standard conditions for both properties this tina separation between the two now they were allowed to do this because the Building Department imposed a asking 40 permit to construct this property theres a restriction and on the overhead you see it note on the permit to construct mr. Boskovich will talk about that requiring the separation is between the properties so the applicant comes here to destroy that decoration was the condition of constructing their house this is the old adage ask for a cookie instead of a crone im happy to address that ill mention the variance are holder counsel pointed out one thing that super seated didnt talk about a legal citation i can give us other citations pointed out one citations is inplausible to this situation ill ask her to say a word or two thank you. Someone reminded me, you cant fight city hall yet here he am asking for an appeal thank you for your time my name is carmen ive lived on 2547 Chestnut Street lived here my whole life and own rental unit on cellist nut the building next door to my home in 40 years ive never formally opposed anything any of my neighbors wanted to do by that project will effect any home and the two homes of high neighbors the addition of a third floor to a roof deck walls in my two properties filling in the small setback brings Richard Southern closure to my building only a few feet between the building and and setback notch that separates that richardson from my home and the neighbors building those buildings are tight like puzzles pieces were able to live side to side because 68 richardson a 2 Story Building by upholding your deoperating us of privacy and the quiet enjoyment of all our bedrooms on the back all of this so 68 richardson a building that defies city code can have a hot tube and fire pit so i ask you to take a look at this project and overturn this variance decision thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners ill be very quick the 1939 code when this Main Building was built here basically said do you want you want to do when they got a permit to build the permit application referenced the housing act required a 4 feet separation and 8 feet separation to two building it is in the brief verbatim to the housing act from that window to the bedroom to the average of that preschools no such if they in fill that puzzle were effecting this permit when they permitting this building it was on the same lot and if you read the description on the application it calls out separation from one building and the other building both the buildings are tried together to this notch you remove the notch our opening up that window and have to revisit that issue. Thank you okay. We can hear from the variance holder. Welcome. Good evening commissioner president honda and commissioners david silver had an on behalf of the Carter Family can i have the overhead . Sfgov just to orient everyone to the site this is richardson right here this is congest nhestnut over h pink dot it the carters property quite a way from the property this is a 5 thousand square feet property with two houses lot line to local 104 line 100 percent coverage were over here 6 hundred and 18 square feet 5 thousand, 6 hundred and 18 youll notice that every house loan richardson is 3 stories including our adjacent youll notice all the houses along chestnut 3 stories now their chief complainant as i understood their testimony is about a window this is the window this window is on the second story of the rear of the sdelz property youll notice up still yesterday it had bars across it, it is also inoperable on the lot line and had the shades drawn 100 percent of the time it is my opinion that theyre raising this to try to over turn the variance there is no, no impact the window is not used for light and air it gets plenty of light from the south and west and continue to get it same light after the addition is built ill mention those workers who were hired by mrs. Diesel to tear down the bars yesterday didnt give any, no, sir, to the caterers this is their stairway no notice. The lot depth 80 is 25 feet the average lot depth is one hundred an irregular parcel severely undersized their crammed and like to stay in the city and have a family only the two of them with such a small footprint of 6 hundred feet with another story to provide an extra bedroom or two have their kids and stay where they are hoping well chief that. Now the Zoning Administrator as we know has great lad it is the duty to exercise his discretion to deverbiage from the rear yard requirements he deems it appropriate hes experienced his Board Discretion appropriately in the face of reasons ive explained the 3 stories will be consistent with every other house on the block of richardson and also with chestnut no impact on the window as i showed you and the deck on the on top of roof is intended to provide a little bit of open space for the carters they have no rear yard the only ones on the block with no rear yard so hopefully with that deck they can benefit from a little bit of outdoor space and ill remark that the architect for the carters made a change to the project as requested by the Zoning Administrator and we will ask that you uphold the variance thank you. Thank you good afternoon Scott SanchezPlanning Department. The the subject property on richardson within an rh3 district that allows up to 3 unit and the lot as known is substandard 25 wide by it is generous a large section that is sliced out of it when they created richardson to create assess to the Golden Gate Bridge this relates to a proposal to expand the existing building as stated the singlefamily dwelling has within bedroom one vertical addition it provides a roof deck and given the size of lot very little open space and little habitable space that provides more ample space for families living on the the subject property as well as the open space on the roof it relate to a Building Permit application that was submitted at the end of 2014 it does trigger a variance the variance application was filled the hearing to be held earlier on february 24th the original scheme was the stairs while stills interior to projection more to the adjacent pertaining to the north we received comments from the neighbor to the north with concerns of the impact on their property as is applicant look at a scene to look at it is within the footprint and provided the project to keep it within the footprint of the building on the ground level to the the subject property and in terms of history of the lot yes i mean this was created it was legally created it was created at some point between 1940 and 46 it appears on 1946 block that is important because 1946 minimum lot requirement so after that time it could be only created with a variance but it was lawfully created has the legal singlefamily dwelling on the the subject property in terms of the hardship there is a hardship with regards to the lot and the appellant augusts it is something while not of the applicant making of the predecessors making section 305 whether or not it is a hardship created by them this is not the case and it following the logic of the appellant none will find a hardship because someone responsible for the creation of the lot at some point in time and always a predecessor that created the situation that is there today with the appellants argument youll not be able to define that or reject that notation if you find the 55 unit have been met they made the changes responded to the concerns we had the level of this this is 1re78d above at the level it is developed a substantial separation within the buildings the main issue is the interpretation of the notch and how it may impact that window it is not going closer to the footprint at the hearing the concerns that were raised by the neighbor in regards the impacts on the windows that are quite a bit further away towards the chestnut frontage of the property but still have the project sponsor we issued the decision letter by january 27th and it is appealed there is as i mentioned the permit application the section 317 was noticed and that is the states not heard by the placing not that im aware of it is scheduled at this point those are the main points that i wanted to raise from for the boards consideration. And ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. So do i go ahead. No, go ahead. Mr. Sanchez you stated that the changes you required made them keeping it within the existing footprint but filling in the notch is expanding beyond the footprint. The notch is only the second story the ground level thank you. I understand theyre intending to fill from the notch above the first building. Thats correct. On the rear yard is 45 percent. 45 for that and 15 feet or 25 percent whither is greater. The impact on the window is not significant. Because it is maintaining a separation the initial proposal there say, i think about a 3 and a half 3 foot 3 separation within the Property Line and the subject this wall that is maintained the previous proposal so you get to build within that area in terms of the stairs that connected the 2 story to the proposed 3 story had them keep it within the footprint and not expand beyond the footprint of the existing building. That didnt change from the current time. Right for the project a weve heard. Commissioner swig. So ill concerned about the owner of hardship and hardship goes both ways im a homeowner and have bought and sold a couple of homes in any life one of the things when i buy a home you do Due Diligence and do cc rs and add ones to previous permits and Something Like that. Buy our house Fort Richardson but looking at to the Chestnut Street neighbors they bought their homes probably could have dont know wasnt there but if it was me would have looked at and saw that house was closed and feeling comfortable i was protected by a permit when the house was built so i go ahead and buy the house so is there not a hardship created when someone who has owned a house for a period of time whether or not one or four judges doesnt matter bought the house because a permit was in place to say that will not move further from this what is the argument and the issue of hardship with regards to appreciation owner and current owner again if i buy the house on richardson i look at the cc rs i look at previous permits i see on the previous permit it says i know there as restriction here so if i go ahead and decide to do this im creating the hardship for myself it seems is that right where am i going wrong. We can blame this whoever built this in 1940. It was wrong in the in the first place. On chestnut. I live 5 blocks away. On chestnut is not compliant and the window of the Property Line is noncompliant they bought that knowing that was adjacent to the building in regards to 68 richardson a special refresh my recollection no setting back must be a setback no planning restriction not a setback requirement of any planning approval that was part of Building Permit approval for the Building Permit itself this so thats not the things that of enforced by any planning regulations it is subject to change this will have to be reviewed by the department of building inspection and if it causes an impact that needs to be addressed at that stage of the process it didnt appear to be in violation of any Building Permit requirements as now i believe those requirements exist theyve superseded by current requirements not that im aware of that will prevent the subject proposal into moving forward. Im bother by something you just said because it undermines it seems to nine things that go on here on occasion we have found the project sponsor tagged on something a tag on something is in perpetuity you have it ive seen it in our brief imperpetuity ones you build it forgot about coming back and asking again so it was what you just said you kind of dismissed a ruling any ruling we make is contact dismissed because you choose to. With regards to something as a permit. From the laws change in this case, the requirements no longer exists cant enforce a requirement that no longer exists and that will enforce the perpetuity weve been presented with i mean part of it is to the property who guess buying if no bead restrictions talking about what the requirements are and the Building Permit allows them to do this i mean it is a sargent issue in the variance. Due to the change in the law and the codes that the 3 feet or that 3 foot setback that was required in 1946 was dismissed for or. Least. An 8 foot spraegs is no longer required thats my understanding. Are you finished. Yeah. That was along the lines so mr. Boskovich showed a documents on the overhead indicating that there was some type of special restrictions in the past lots of restrictions you knew current la