>> good evening and welcome to the wednesday, november 18, 2015, meeting the san francisco board of appeals the presiding officer xhaundz and she's joined by our vice president is commissioner honda and commissioner wilson and commissioner swig and at the controls is gary the board legal assistant i'm cynthia goldstein the board's executive director we'll be joined shortly by the deputy city attorney robert ryan and we'll be joined by representatives wurjz and senior inspecting joe duffy and joined

by the department of public works bureaucracy of street use and mapping i anticipate that chris buck is an urban forestry from the department electronic 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. 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 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll 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

so prelim you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you, very much he item one general public comment an opportunity to speak on the board's jurisdiction anyone who would like to speak under item number one seeing none, item 2 commissioners questions or comments anything commissioners? okay item 3 the boards consideration of its minutes for the november 24, 2015, clirgz additions, deletions, or changes if not may i have a motion to approve. >> so moved. >> okay. thank you we have a motion from the vice president to adopt the minutes any public comment? on the minutes seeing none, we'll call the roll commissioner fung commissioner hyland's commissioner wilson

commissioner swig thank you that that motion carries 4 to zero item 4 the jurisdiction request at 26 avenue that's been withdrawn and not be heard tonight we'll move on to item 5 the appeal william cop and barbara smith sign beggar the property on protesting the issuance on april 30th to chang of an alteration permit for temporary storing this was held in 2015 and anyone for fallout consideration the matter was continued to allow times for party to allow time for the settlement i see we have council for the appellant we have anyone representing the permit holder i had a conversation with mr.

sanchez if we again center that we'll show up here he expect him that was the last directive from his i'm going to proceed without him if he comes in can tell you what part. >> is that what the board would like to do it make sense to delay that. >> we'll wait. >> call the next item okay thank you. we'll be back to say shortly. >> thank you. >> so i'm going to call item number 6 appeal tony verse the public works bureau of street use and mapping on 4 hundred owe 30 california and street and mission street on the issuance of a mobile food facility permit for the crab roles and clam

chowder and others this is the permit and . >> director i have to reuse myself. >> thank you commissioner swig excuse myself moment will i. >> i want to make sure that both parties in the room can i see from the permit holder is here great i know the department is here so, please proceed with 7 minutes. >> i'll make this brief thank you for hearing this. >> platinum par 101 ac l a i will be less than 7 minutes on this the main appeal for this is with regards to public safety where the proposed permit is

approved is in between two fire hydrants the proposed space is well within the perimeters wants 7 feet of first fire hydrant what traditionally happens on mission typically a busy street in the financial stick out we see the food trucks interpreting this or massing the perimeter parking a space two or after often two spaces before and after if this proposed permit goes through this truck will likely park in the spates that space that is due est the proposed space that will block the fire hydrant and winchester well within the 7 foot

perimeter. >> most likely wouldn't be available so i don't expect the permit holder to not do business in the spot was not available is that i live potential park in the closest i think violates the art c-3. >> and that is all i have on that. >> okay. thank you we'll hear from the permit holder. >> i'm the permit holders justin with the lobster truck i'm the owner eave heard tonys. >> can you speak closer to the

mike. >> for the fire hydrant we're supposed to be more than 7 feet away the spot we confirmed with dpw and went over a couple of spots meeting the requirements the one that did is 7 feet away as tony mentioned park is an issue there and it does involve circling like the circle waiting to get a spot wait for the vehicle that this spot to move the permit is not for going everyday so i believe it the way that as spoken with others trucks in the way i've seen it done usually involves another vehicle to secure another spot you don't end up parking down the block i think we should be

able for the most part park in the spot and comply with the 7 feet requirement. >> will you be using the same truck that was - >> yeah. we have a truck permitted with the city of san francisco so the size of the truck stays - >> yeah. it stays the same 23 feet long and i don't know that take the first right of refusal spot and goes into the second spot a little bit per vehicle code up to take up 2 spots. >> i have a question how many trucks. >> for the last truck two in the supply but not in the sfefbs do you run the truck personally.

>> no, i have staff it does. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear from the department. >> campground commissioner president lazarus and commission go with public works before i get san francisco the specific concerned give you a little bit of background on the application so the applicant accomplice for a multiple facility permit for 3 recognizes and today, there is one location at miss that is appealed after review and sending out the proper notices for the hearing public works decide to approve the permit it was submitted onion 8 slash 27, 2015 the depended moved with the approval on mission street substantially the permit was appealed and just to so we cover all the basis that were outlined

in wants appellants brief i'll go over the points and arguments the first thing two major food facilities for the lobster truck so per section 482 of dpw order the public works over may consider whether 3 or more permits for lapsing times is a valid request and it was addressed at the hearing and the recommendation for that was approval in addition the public works codes states that more than 2 anybody else foods facilities maybe approved at the same time, however, regardless of that those locations are separate i believe the 3 permits that were of concern were faith swash and i think is good so you have a

better understanding the request do a faith sandwich the food permit for a pushcart is on the sidewalk a few parking spaces down and i think the food is good is several parishes away overlapping should not be an issue the argument that the permit holder want two parking spaces is it imagining valid public works and mta both enforce the section of expelling order which states the company shall not occupy more than 2 parking spaces and the proposed space will, greater than 7 feet away from the fire hydrant so if

parking is not available they're not allowed to violate the parking code and no parish they're allowed to take two parishes the permit holder will be out of luck and the section 3 c just outlines all the requirements for pushcarts and trucks based on the review and diagrams you can look at the site plan that shows all the clearance and to reiterate if parking space is not available and if only parking space will violate the parking code the permit holder will not be allowed to park there this is issue with mta and public works i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> go ahead. >> mr. chow we've had two

appeals within this general area i think one was the pushcart and one was the truck was that the other one you showed several spaces away. >> i believe what was appealed previously i belive this is this one i think is good that one was transferred and that was an approved permit from 2012 i believe from the p k industries that's the one intuitively of the not what with the department but the one that was appealed but ultimately permitted at it location. >> by other trucks in this general area. >> currently i know one other applications for another truck this is on mission street. >> so on the one side. >> correct adjacent to what is i think is good is located. >> a question regarding the

enforcement so is there - so if the permit holder is charged what violating and getting a ticket is there a point where he gets so many tickets losses his license. >> under the permit code from the permit as violations or contribute it is up to the director discretion whether he or she wants to take action it is constituted it is a continuous violation we'll raise to the directors level. >> nothing in stone of a particular number. >> no. >> i have a question excuse me. >> didn't you put up in parking signs on the meters that indicate i know monday, wednesday, friday no parking there.

>> no, we do not those mobile trucks are not allowed to reverse parking spaces but if a prirmentsd go location is not available their out of luck. >> i'm working towards broadway and i was walking down there those meters are - >> that's the operation so public works will not issue any temporary occupancy or tow away signs how those signs are considered a special events because of amount of trucks and amount of revenue florida therefore mta identifies those are special units. >> so you don't get to park there. >> any public comment on this item?

seeing none, sir, you have 3 minutes of rebuttal if you care to use it. >> this goes ton is previous out ever lodge comment i don't find that out of luck comment to be used i guess when they say he can't park in they're proposed spot for example, on his map here the faith is good truck generally parks probably more like here every day excuse me. tuesday and thursdays. >> so with regards to that i know that the majority of times i understand this is a generaltion those trucks do take the spot as close as they can get and again, this is a conscious issue if under internal revenue a there are is a public safety issue and think

there will be when this truck parks in its not proposed spot i had several xhufkz with bret cohen of dpw enforcement of those trucks dpw will not come and toe one of the trucks occupied with the person and very railway cites them because of the lack of their knowledge in the perimeters for that the food trucks or the mobile food facilities so again, i do think it is public safety concern and he do not believe the permit should be approved any questions? >> thank you. >> mr. me. >> no rebuttal okay. mr. shaw anything further?

>> shaw with public works to emphasize our role is in progressing the permit we have to strikingly look at what is permitted and at this time we don't know where the applicant will park that becomes an enforcement issue we look at the plans submitted and going go with the code if there are safety issues it is recommended the public contact 311 so the proper function can take action. >> maybe i have a - >> as the applicant showed on the map is packing parking not in they'll assigned space what's

the citation. >> i believe he was referencing the truck in this case, the dpw can give them a violation and that violation is documented so if they try to renew their permit in the future or try to apply for other permits it is noted with tare account and if that continues we'll raise to the directors level. >> who will the public contract 311 are matt. >> so they should contact 311 they'll route to both parties dpw enforces the actual items but if a parking issue in a red zeroing zone that is an mta issue.

>> thank you for explaining that. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> go ahead i'm jump in and well, i mean the appellant is saying it's a safety issue the department verified the measurement i don't see a basis at this point. >> no i don't think you can challenge it on an eventual outlet if it keeps the permit it deals with violations down the road if they occur. >> motion. >> move to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. >> thank you commissioner fung

on that monoxide commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda and commissioner wilson commissioner swig is recused that that motion carries four to zero. >> and looks like mr. santos is joined us we'll return to item 5 it's been called you can wait for our commissions to return and step forward. >> this is item number 5. >> thank you. >> commissioner president lazarus since this item was heard we'll give the parties 3

minutes each i don't know if so is - okay. go ahead and kent for the appellant and nobody is more glad than i to see mr. santos show up the last time on september 3rd we were asking the board to revoke the permit on a steep hillside in san francisco we have the original where we live not submitted anything the settlement that was reached within i myself and is responsibility that night included a schedule which called for submitting plans for winterization and stabilization by september 16th we received those plans that have substance to them on october 23rd the appellant comments our consulate were to be back to mr.

santos we got back within 24 to 48 hours and the permit a was supposed to have been apply for by september 30th and finally issued on november 16th so things are in the air things had a habit of we would continue the matters on the condition work would start on a date so tonight we're asking to revoke the permit mr. santos will tell you the permit is issued and a construction that will go and prepayment provisions make us happier we don't want to see a project start and not finish the hillside has rapidly

deteriorated this is a picture that was taken yesterday afternoon the stabilization maps are failing apart a tree in the middle and hillside is we've been lucky with the rain not here and we don't want to count an luck we have a proposal i'll let mr. santos i will if i am the blank the folks are stage the area on monday and pray for rain and thanksgiving and their commence construction actually have shovels and dirt on in front of 28 taking 14 days to complete the plan, which i calendar as december 11th there

are others conditions that mr. santos and i needs to work out this is a private agreement outside the scope of this hearing but i'll gladly turn this over to mr. santos and mr. patrick the golden gift will be on site. >> you're. >> we've met in the hallway this work is to be finished by december 16th it would behove any clients to get the hillside

stald if that's the case then i'll ask this board it be the hearing until the earliest possible dates the work so to be finished mr. santos. >> commissioners mr. santos a structural engineer we have a permit the permit was issued on friday took a little bit of time more time we anticipated i'll tell you why dbi failed to its original permits had to be reviewed through the structural advisor commission perhaps this permit they felt would have to throw that it taken 3 months i

was successful in per skidding. >> dbi to review this permit in order to structural experience water management and drainage exercise not talking about a structural calibers but filed for the structural stability we're talking about water mettle we we have a contract and approved approved permit goes to commence the project tomorrow with 9 equipment on monday and we're making a pledge in writing we'll completing complete this effort by december 13th commissioners i have to tell you my client has nothing but the utmost respect with the neighbors and make sure that work is implemented as quickly

as possible and we'll be using the services of surveyor to make sure the money and proper controls and have the good lost on site for four different locations so commissioners, thank you for your patience we are commencing this week >> what's the status of permit that was appealed is that been voided that's part of continuous. >> you took out a new permit. >> right this is a new permit the winterization was a different permit. >> inspector duffy. >> good evening commission joe

duffy dbi just on the permit that is suspended it is for temporary shoring and we then had another permit that we issued kind of an emergency permit that installed the shoring i know you saw it on the earlier photographs now the erosion control needs to get through as quickly as possible i imagine the permit undsuspensio new increment i believe the winterization permit because i want to read out the language on that permit they're going to start working on payroll tomorrow i believe the rerecognize plan no

winterization construction of a one foot to 2 foot retaining wall within the lot and future shoring under separate priority priority that future shoring plan in the submitted later is for the permit in suspension i believe that's the simple way of mr. sharp that and the shoring plan under suspension about not work in its present form i think the best thing to do get the erosion control and bring it back could be a cancelled permit it is definitely i think there, there - the one thing i went to the site i agree with the appellant and neighbor this needs to get done as soon as possible the photos should the

work is failing that work needs to happen tomorrow. >> i think we agreed two months ago. >> yeah. i know anyway, i was not aware the hold up at dbi i would have been to step in we didn't wouldn't do the review to get it done one of the hillside that needs stabilization as soon as possible procedurally the appellant is asking forgive a continuance to appoint immediately after they finish the work on the weathertion i'm not sure that make sense procedurally because the appeal is on the temporary shore that needs to be replaced since the work that was done at the site

didn't conform to the original shore plan yep that's right. >> but procedurally it make sense just so continue this through the chair then. >> i think it's right. >> with the idea a new shoring permit is needed. >> i believe they're working on the design for the shoring permit it is mr. santos might speak to that but it has to be totally redesigned. >> from the new 0 shoring plain is 80 plan is architectural we'll handle it as a condition revolving this appeal. >> exactly we did that a number of things we could do that shoring permit is under appeal that is superintendant could be cancelled with a better permit as well and that's another option there are a

couple itch or of things or conditions on the shoring permit. >> could you explain that again commission. >> the appeal is on a temporary shoring plan, which the design of which is basically voided by the construction activities that occurred on the site it was different than the shoring plan some dpains doesn't account for the work on the site and the shoring is designed a little bit differently that's not going to come in for a while. >> why wouldn't we uphold the appeal and wipe the slate clean since they have a permit to do

the work necessary right now and then the flex permit will come in as it would come in why are we even kicking the can down the road if we. >> i agree with commissioner swig that's my thinking. >> but we lose control of the appeal i am not that's the reason why i was asking how sorry the reason i was asking. >> i think the appellant would like the boards involvements until he gets the hillside stabilized. >> i agree that with as well i was wondering with what the forward process upholding an appeal. >> leverage. >> okay. thank you. >> is there any public comment on that item. >> seeing none, commissioners,

the matter is submitted. >> it could be either way but i think it make sense to be able to make things move faster. >> i agree. >> so i would support probable continue this to the call of the chair. >> care to make a motion. >> move to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> okay. is that go until allowing time for a new shoring to be prepared is that the reason all right. commissioners commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig thank you that motion carries with a vote of 5 to zero. >> we're on to item 7 which is

appeal i want to make sure that the department is in the room is there someone if urban forestry. >> anton you need to wait mr. levine. >> i think you need to push this back any way to check. >> i think can you - you want me to do this. >> the department is not present in the room we'll previous to a water until the department is here as a respondent so sort of as the first item we'll push back a little bit. >> he's not in the hallway? >> i was texting him, too.

>> so commissioner president lazarus do you wanted me to monarch more often that is item 8 verse the zoning administrator and the property on pacific avenue protesting the issuance on september 23, 2015, of a surveillance and rear yard modification to provide a 10 wide vehicular entry on pacific avenue and an 8 foot widest pacific avenue to provide minimum rear yard sixth district with the increased sent on the 2, 3, 4 and a floors we'll start with the appellant. >> part that have i need to disclose i've hired reuben, junius & rose on a separate matter reuben, junius & rose before the board will not have

an effect on any decision today. >> good evening for the appellant this appeal seeks to modification to two variances that shouldn't have been issued but this will be injuriesus to the properties if their exists the loopholes lynch additional will be more crowded you'll hear this from long term residents because of proposed development a block light further crowds the lights and we're asking you to overturn the zoning administrator's error the modifications those administrations don't need for a various 33 variance they don't

need the criteria for a surveillance and will harm the surround properties first, the the zoning administrator. said it will not please be advised the surrounding property century sun study determines 94 percent of lynch additional is in shadow to reduce the sunset to thirty percent putting all of the additional into a shadow and zoning administrator claims no area of shadows this should strengthen an argument more open space is obviously need in fact, lynch is among the narrow it israel to the country and section 134 requires a setback over 25 of the area depending on our interpretation of we take

the lessor setback both building is setback 15 feet as opposed to the discretionary review process an exception on top of an exception to exclaim inform pattern of open block middle school mid space the zoning legislation that was passed and signed by mayor newsom requires a 20 percent setback how does make sense it inspired legislation and predata justification for going against this legislation after the fact nothing could be further from the truth the two proposed

building will tower over the area two stories again, the zoning administrator also claims the building fronting the street will be two stories and the 2 stories expression is among the street the building is one and two story structures not 4 masquerading as a 4 structure now the opponents have cleverly worked other than or around the legislation and explicitly has the assertion saying it provides the same benefits and denying the neighborhood a rare opportunity to create any speak up in the neighborhood the project will front to back injury and take the usual open space those plans eliminate the

riders rear yard setback socializing needed in the neighborhoods lynch additional is dark and crowded two more over built properties can't make the situation better by puncture for holes in the walls it doesn't make sense the city a dark and crowded and threatened by further encroachment it is a gross misrepresentation for the requirement for community furthermore they don't meet the variance the zoning administrator decision was clearly an abuse of discretion the zoning administrator is emancipation proclamation trusted to protect the planning code it requires a rear yard setback and areas that is

assessable to residents those are against the construction of a full lot makes no sense it is also, regardless of square footage numbers presented by the opposition the raeshgd is a distinct community plan that ignores and the zoning administrator based his judgment that predates the legislation it should, used as a standard it fails to meet the justification of the modifications and because it will block light crowd the block introduce out of character structures to the neighborhood the zoning administrators error should be corrected to require the minimum 15 foot setback as specified by the neighborhood legislation thank you. >> excuse me.

>> i got a question a point of clarification you used in our beginning remarks you said thirty percent of the remaining sunlight. >> yes. and eliminates by this project you'll that's correct. >> so thirty percent of the remaining 6 percent. >> thank you. any other questions. >> how do you come upon the calculation. >> that was done by our consulting contractor. >> it should about or be included in the brief if not we'll include. >> excuse me. >> the shadow study was not there. >> if you desire we'll send it to you absolutely imagine okay. thank you very much. >> we'll hear from the permit holder attorney.

>> hi good evening mbes melinda reuben, junius & rose i'm here on behalf of the harold's on pacific avenue mr. chalking and his family owning and operating small businesses over thirty years sponsors for 2 single-family homes on the retails site once complete they will occupy the pacific avenue building and continue on the ground floor the board should deny it because alcohol, tobacco & firearms variance were properly issued in the planning codes in addition the city chapter considers an appeal the board must appeal to the zoning administrator for the or use his discretion the they've met their

standards the zoning administrator issued two approvals for the project the first was a variance from garage entry loud a 10 foot entry that was a practical necessity for the sites and the patents appellants didn't oppose it the rear yard modification is this is not a variance and subject to different findings the planning code combrfrz the zoning administrator to modify or have the rear yard requirement in 3 criteria the zoning administrator determination clearly explains the experience with each of the material that includes the residential use with a compatible amount of open space on the lots in an area that is more assessable to residents this standard is clearly met and the projects will construct two new single-family homes in terms of the amount of the rear yard area the zoning administrator notes there is a discrepancy in the

codes wherewith 25 and 40 percent setback regardless of the plan that provide a open space on the site and the western elevation of the project 1364 on the monitor it shows in red areas. >> can you holds on one second our screen is flickering sorry. >> all right. so it shows in reds the areas of open space into the buildings through decks on the third level and fourth level moderately sized deck one and 20 to plus this is sheet 8, 7 a code compliant rear yard will contain 4 hundred plus depending on the standard you apply the building looks at will

provide 3 housing unit and 66 secret likewise, the code compliant in a compatible area of square feet meeting that reminded finally the open spaces that will be provided are more assessable and usable to residents than a rear yard setback they provide access to a below grade garage with a setback in the area whether not useable for the residents at the dr hearing the place of business commission discussed the rear yard setback is on-street parking and trash in the area that is less desirable than the decks the second riders finding the prop d will not impede the life enrichment committee to properties this standard a clear

mets by the building design it is important to note the projects must comply with the setback a non-variable planning code to prefer light and air following the construction adjacent to the area siding on the overheads the setback is significant no part of building expend beyond this industry this is shown by the purple line the stent of this setback is unmatched by buildings in the area the effect the tier design the garage are setback 3 feet and a second floor setback 6 feet approximately and each level is 9 and a half feet by the time you reach the fourth floor 40 feet you're setback more than 28 feet from lynch street not only will the setbacks it

will insure that the decks are vertically operated from adjacent structures this does not adversely effecting the properties the fact all the buildings in the south side of lynch spreadsheet are built ousted with no rear yard additional no space to protect the rear yards instead the separation b is by the south sidewalk so sidewalk 17 and a half feet wide and placing a renders on the monitor- - rendering on the monitor as you can see the context of the built development the red arrow showing the rear the property from lynch street the image

shows the buildings with rear yard setback what you're seeing is built outs very often for the full height of the buildings themselves so three or four stories this electricities to intimate scale of development along the additional as you can see the rear yard modification was properly issued and fully support by all the riders finding the appellant may agree but not shown in the zoning administrator reason are erroneous thank you for your time we're available for any questions. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you. good evening commissioner president lazarus and members mr. sanchez the subject property is located westbound the pacific avenue converse district the proposal

that is before you are appeals of determinations i made regarding first a variance for the garage door and second for the rear yard it is clearly articulated two separation in one letter have separate findings so the variance for the garage door has the regular finding as you can see on appeal the latter part a rear yard modification there are 3 vastly different finding the application was submitted new 2013 went through the neighborhoods and a hearing in april of 2014 at that hearing he didn't make a final decision but expressed concerns so there was neighborhood option protesting encroachment as well as the

overall height up to the height limit there were proposing other structures substantially a discretionary review was filed additional there ever continuances for a variety of reasons ultimately the planning commission and i had a jointly hearing at that hearing much discussion about the rear yard encroachment additional you know but the planning commission and myself found that was justification for the proposal as it was ross are very substandard lots 17 and a half feet wide and 20 by 60 needed deep the proposal to build a single-family dwelling above ground floor commercial and very much respect to each other we felt after much design review

adds to the neighborhood character the commission adopted a within what the 3 foot setback the first level facing lynch street and planting the strips adjacent to the driveway we reduced the size of the commercial windows facing lynch street and the notice that is standard condition but also prepolluted u excluded the commercial floor to residential uses that is a concern that was raised i feel that the required finding have been met we've outlined them, no opposition to the variance aspects the 5 findings outlined what the variance relate to the grayish garage door no issues but issues to the criteria and i'll read them again, the criteria in order to justify granting this rear yard

modification we have to find that there are residential uses in the project there are and that there is is a compatible amount of open space provided on the development more assessable to the development and in this case they're providing terraces assessable from the living level rather than having the rear yard that would be you'll have to you know go to a stairway to the rear yard and these open spaces are more directly to the residential using unions it is come applied with the second criteria sorry jumbled ahead the structure will not impede the light and air from adjacent properties some of the concerns is relayed to the project that is not within the required rear yard it is 15 feet is that is only the basement

level at the first four stories beyond that up to 40 feet in height even if the building is brought back the 15 rear yard it has an impact on the shadow as well as the exist buildings that are legally notary republic compliant with the property line in both of those cases not a greater impact here than already exists and you know part of commission concern bring that bye bye 3 feet to engage the pedestrians on the streets a bit more to soften the building at the rear none of the believes buildings on the street have that condition a way to improve that. >> that was a condition and that's been added and final criteria it will the adversely effect the just a few minutes

properties this is why it is relevant the nature the adjacent buildings this finding specifically asked to seek the building to replacement the mid block no move forward these are the just a few minutes buildings go to the rear property line and having any rear yard is a unique circumstances i understand the desire the communities have more open space and mid block but also think this is a bit unfair to can one pertaining to bear the burn for or burden for the open space for the desire community that is a property that is code compliant and i find this is to a justable application than significance amount of progress with multiple his and her and the planning commission and we'll deal with the scope of the project this is

just for the garage door entry and the rear yard improvement encroachment and the overhead project will have the building permit i'm available to answer any questions. >> how the accident calculate the height. >> so the allowable height it is a jefferson down sloping lot from the center line of the building at the front of the property and carry it back to the rear so that's how it could be calculated. >> two questions looking at the drawing the picture that was posted on the overhead so their garage is where the additional starts. >> the condition on this

approval has it is not 3 feats from the property line. >> since this property went inform discretionary review and it's been in the works for a while was the original bulk the same. >> the building has been reduced somewhat just for the penthouse and the 3 feet at the rear i mean otherwise, it is basically, the same envelope that i've seen back in are 7 with the variance hearing this is the maximum envelope certainly their complying with the access planned provision that has the greatest impact and here again not a provision bull otherwise the envelope is essentially the same as initially proposed. >> thank you. >> public comment on this

item. >> okay. seeing none then we will - okay. this is the time to hear it please step forward whoever wants to speak. >> honorable members the i live at number 70 since the times i he was 70 years old this is a narrow block longs streets 10 feet wide from curve to curve i read the city is trying to protect the israel by expending certain circumstances to hayes valley and why has the zoning administrator decided no to do the same for the israel of russian hill this project will

limit the existing sunshine why are we letting this mr. star developer build into the code which was enacted in 2007 why does the zoning administrator simply want to set the legislation aside i strongly believe that the legislation passes in 2007 by the board of supervisors and the planning department and signed by mayor gavin newsom should be adhered to you ask you deny this variance thank >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> is there any additional public comment please step forward. >> good evening board members i live at lynch street directly across from the proposed project in my property i've been there

20 years i don't understand why were we required to go through this process we're being subjected to current legislation that requires a 5 percent setback in the neighborhood why is that not been forced the developers are building a structure that will be close to 6 feet high on lynch street i left to understand it allows them to do so i'll live with the confidence but even though this will be taller than the small alley why should they can granted to build under the setback i think i don't understand how this can, allowed i still agree that something should be built but ask it have to be a building out of scale the large decks to this

additional and the decks along the area i ask you to give me allen an opportunity to present this, please deny the variance priority by the zoning administrator and ask him to come up with a better plan and take the israel residents take into account thank you apply otherssrael residents take into account thank you apply otherael residents take into account thank you apply otheael residents take into account thank you apply othe account thank you apply othersl account thank you apply others public comment. >> members thank you for your time i'm here in support of appeal that you overturn the variance for the project it is circling proposed will seriously and impact the quality of life from all the residents including mitchel and at entire neighborhood and will destroy that side of the street that charms i ask you overturn the

variance thank you very much. >> any other speakers on this item. >> sir, your the appellant you can't speak under public comment but under rebuttal if you wish. >> my name is jim burns i'm speaking on behalf of the proposed developer i own the property adjacent to the on the western side of the building on pacific pacific avenue for the last 15 years and my office is in there for the last 14 years as regards to the first part ever variance as they previous speakers noted his property is setback i had a window on the property line where the setback was in and about ten years ago, i a had a

break in had it gone out the property line they wouldn't have gotten in i have iron gates over the window to prevent that from occurring again nun none of the people have noted the two structures on that street bye bye far the worst things on that black blocking they're an eye sore in the owners are prepared to do something with that within proposition i'm in complete support because when i bought the building a number of years ago it was an eye sore i got used to it they're prepared to do something i'm all for that i know any neighbors are good people and whom i know i disagree but i replace their

opinion thaim they'll agree with me it's an eye sore and something needs to be done thank you. >> is there any additional public comment on this item. >> hi, thank you my name is karen tom, i live on pacific avenue a block and a half away from the family i ask you deny the appeal i support the development for 3 primarily reasons safety and community and reasonableness from safety from the prospective the planned as is will not allow a hole many in the lynch additional unfortunately, we have a lot of homeless in my building a secured garage we had a situation our secured garage was not working for about a week

some homeless person set camp on the top gloor and across the street a commercial building that has a setback with a big hole that's been homelessness for a long time we end up having to call to get the homelessness removed the commercial building ended up doing multiple things they have lights snuffed a sprinkler system. >> notice to deal with the situation they placed usage dumpsters in that area so no homeless can be about so the plan as it is really important homeless is a problem in our neighborhood even the park department knows that the park in my backyard a block unlawful away so we definitely want to

make sure we don't create another situation where the homeless can take camp community because it is our communities i live in that community i love being single-family homes i really tired of seeing multiply family being built on all blocks i want to make sure we keep the charm with the single-family homes here and reasonableness the family has been working for the last 2 plus years really appreciate it be tooimentd at the last hearing it was said this should goes forward i'm sure why we're still appealing i'd like to ask for your support to meet this thank you. >> thank you any public comment? if you haven't filed out a speaker card anything else.

>> you're out of order i'm sorry. >> any other public comment seen we'll start our rebuttal that starts with the appellant. >> so if we take the opposition position because go lynch additional is dark and crowded not worry about making it more dark that expends extends to the property line those structures were created in an different time under different legislation we have different standards to adhere to we object to the creation of this exception to an exception both current legislation and the planning code that is unambiguous specifics a 23 percent setback to quality for a variance a and modification why

would we allow this sxmgs to current law and the planning code what does it provide to the must not even though this area has no mid block area why not create one where will the greatest amount of community benefits the opposition claims they meet the criteria this is false the new projects will impede light to the neighborhood that is a fact the new structures is consistent with lynch additional they're much much larger and an expressed two stories didn't make a 4 story building less than a 4 story building the codes and legislation clearly require the rear yard setbacks as well assessable uses distinct needs and constructing a fully

built out lot make no sense the rear yard is distinct community need those plans you meanly ignore because the zoning administrator based his judgment on the property that predates the 2011 it should be used a standard it fails to meet any criteria for the variance or a modification because the property as proposed will block light and crowd the block and introduce out of structures for the neighborhood the zoning administrator's error to should be fixed thank you. >> i got a question. >> yes. >> we're here on the variance of rear yard as spoken by the zoning administrator. >> yes. >> the height is not the question even if the rear yard variance the building structure itself would remain at the same height do you on the shadowing

are the light you'll be losing is different. >> the shadowing might be a diversity topic and the point of argument we have with the planning code make an argument the building building. >> okay. >> other questions thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you i'll keep it brief i don't have a grateful to add to reiterate this is the rear yard modification rather than is variance issue supported by the finding in the planning code well, the appellants disagree with the design they've not shown clear area or discretion with the zoning administrator discrepancy and therefore have not met the standards

appellants concerns for getting loss of air quality to listen street are unfounded while those buildings in total will be turn around the structures they replace they're a maximize of 40 feet in height in keeping with the scale incorporate tiered setbacks on the screen the and unknown variable planning code designed to retain life enrichment committee following the construction on the narrow israel for those reasons uphold the surveillance and i'm available to answer any questions you may have. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department a couple of points we all agree that lynch is a very narrow street to clarify the width i think 10 feet curb to curb 17 and a half

feet from property line inform property line that's a narrow street the planning code does have protects for very narrow streets east and west very narrow streets and particular for the buildings logged on on the south side of the east west streets that cast shadow planning code section that is in effect since 2008 the project complies with that requirement it is not a variable provisions nothing in here in modification they're seeking in any way violates the planning code that is monetary overview meant to protect the additional so it meets that requirement and those are the main points i want to reference one final point so, yes, the pacific avenue commercial district was created formally an m c-2 zoning

district and it establishes a stringent rear yard requirement the legislation is not as well crafted and contains ininconsistent but that provide that that is not apple exception to an exception a rear yard modification it as a planning code provision that says you're in a commercial district you meet concern criteria i think that is acknowledging that a one-size-fits-all solution for rear yards explicit necessary work that well, a lot of patterns a shorts mid block like this a through lot asking the neighboring properties that is not the thing that is made up a process that a process that is explicitly loud and therefore, i think complied with the legislation for pacific avenue and with that i'm available to

answer any questions. >> the large building across the street is a very dark one is there commercial. >> on pacific. >> on the south side the street. >> think there maybe ground floor commercial that is in a higher height a 50 foot districts the bulk. >> the height of the district changes at the height of the students and that's my recollection i believe it goes up to a 50 foot district. >> was there a lot of opposition. >> i can't recall i think that is one the reasons that led to the development and in the similar communities members can speak to that. >> that building was built after. >> okay. >> i know that proposal that was generating a certain amount of angst. >> okay. >> thank you.

>> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioners. >> either the the issues of what is the rear yard modification and i'm on this going to address that i don't think the surveillance question by either the appellants or anyone else in the room - the issue of the rear yards modificati modifications is tied to the scale of the building we agree i disagree are one of the comments made in the variance excuse me. in the das determinations that the setbacks of the structure will probably allow some

additional lighted i don't think that is correct anytime you get the structure up this high with the subdivision no additional light no matter how you scope the north side of that building initially when i looked this project in the advisory committee of the setback and in the advisory committee of it was being brought forgot the scale was about there i was almost going to irrac react to it not conceptual one in the since yes, a number of buildings just a few minutes to those four stories the question that came back as i further analyzed it was whether

the da erred unfortunately, i can't say find any errors i may disagree but i don't find any errors. >> i lost agree with my fellow commissioners at the same time to the neighbors i i mean, if i lived on that block i much prefer to have an in fill of a building than a vacant hole on my street to be honest and regarding the rear yard modification i don't believe that the zoning administrator erred in his decision. >> any comments? >> move to deny the appeal on the basis that the variance and the rear yard administrations were excuse me. that the va

explicit error or abuse his discretion in issuing the surveillance and is rear yard modification. >> commissioner fung can i ask you to consider it met the 5 finding and the modification was not in error the standards were slightly different. >> that's fine. >> on the motion to deny the appeal and uphold the determinations on the basis the surveillance have been mets and the zoning administrator didn't error in granting the rear yard modification commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda's commissioner wilson and commissioner swig okay. that that motion carries with a vote of 5 to zero. >> i have not received a response from our urban forestry so commissioner singh i can call the item and hear that without

departmental presentation. >> so we're going back to item 7 appeal verse the department of public works all over the on the protest on cement 2015 of a tree removal permit if i can ask the audience to please be quiet thank you which is an approval to roam one vigilant tree and that's on for hearing thank you for your patience you have 7 anybody's. >> good evening. i'm anton levine can you could you move the my case closer to you trying to get away from me there. >> yeah. we want to help our neighbors from our tree keeps on destroying his property we have this monitor cypress tree it

invades his sewer lines and garage floor we replaced the whole garage floor and the sewer line and a few years ago later had to replace the sewer again, it is hard to go without a sewer during the holidays but they're no tars for not doing in for being invasive this showdown shouldn't be planted next to a house they're a monster the way they invades it ends up up rooting the sidewalk and now the roots extends under his house and comes out into the backyards more thirty feet deep from the tree this 19 can disrupt the

houses foundation he has to came out back the roots to stop the damage and pretty soon the tree all the roots on that side of the tree are going to be cut and that makes it unstable the tree is leaning already it is a very old large tree and inspector from the bureau of urban forestry heard it was leaning i just hope you folks help the rise for the damaging roots ii hope that paul conroy and his wife are here to plead their

case. >> you proposed to replace the cypress. >> yeah. with amassing anonymously 35 feet too. >> beautiful tree yeah. >> thank you i don't think the bureau of urban forestry allows people to plant montgomery cypress in our city and okay anyone here from the departments seeing none, we'll take public comment on this item. >> good evening, commissioners my name is algz paul conroy live next door to the montgomery cypress tree lives there thirty years and put up with the tree so for a number of years as times goes on it is more and more invasive and more dangerous and the removal that was required from the public works code i cite in my brief that

brief has the entries for the money we've spent to make the repairs and photographs to demonstrate the the damages and so i would ask you to look at that to my knowledge none has asked to remove this tree a notice posted openly on the electricity for street light poles and postcards mailed out no one is opposed to the removal of this tree i want to go quickly some points if the brief the trees roots caused exchange damage we repaired did damage and the trees root grow and cause more damage a circle going for 20 years ago years over the past 34 years the costs of repair over $21,000

the roots are sdablgdz the driveway that was replaced one and needs to be replaced we had to replace the garage slab the roots went underneath and pushed with the daevenl cracks the roots as doctor levine mentions they go under the house under the concrete slab of our house or under the ceded foundation they'll do the sanctions to our house as garage we've had to replace multiple sections of sewer line this is a serviceable sewer line had will or that will be damages the roots will continue to seek out opportunities for moisture also the tree we'll have a disclose

if we sell our highway it is such a nuisance it will effect the value the tree is hazardous the representative of the dpw at the hearing stated that the limbs are in fair condition the structure is in fair condition i'll ask who would expect when winds that limb weigh a thousand pounds over the bedrooms of our house would anyone want that to be to fair condition. >> as i said the removal is required betsd the public works code we have offered to have a replacement tree and add a tree and as i mentioned in the brief in 2000 i did a organization of tree planting with results of 20 mature strawberry trees in the

vicinity of the trees we certainly have there that and of trees in our backyard including a 40 feet redwood tree and asked for a credit as a replacement tree in conclude. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> thank you if the decision is made to keep the trees that's a message to san franciscans don't plant a tree near a sidewalk or street. >> i'm sorry you are over our time limit. >> thank you. any other speakers. >> my name is ms. silva johnson on the mathematics on this outcome reimbursement it

should be on such the lowers you get on golden gate air force that's 6 and a half or for a large and this is more percentage on large signed routine and mathematics is the adjustment of the for - and millions that is one hundred and 6 of adjustments it is more you without the 7 and a half leans it leans that put in set and

alliance supports adjustments in public departments that this is if you're on the west south side that the lighting will be no more presentable are that would cause not problems in the adjustments our repair and our damaging needs that the health department and the trees should be cut as neighbors money on repairing the trees that they should be reimbursed on this amount for the damages that repaired on the trees and the amount of pressure

that is not been received challenged that has been over and over again, this has not an sufficient amount of you know in rem brans this is our famiembra that we in the south west. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment. >> hi, i'm living at the pa

lemon paul is my husband i want to express the importance. >> sorry. >> sure. >> you're mr. conway's wife. >> i'm the tree ladies we have been through quite a bit not only a roller-coaster but an expensive one i hope you take this seriously and consider removing the tree >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment seeing none, mr. levine 3 more minutes if you have anything else to say to the board commissioners unless questions commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> very old tree. >> i agree but the appellant

and his neighbor have gone drove constitutional amount of efforts now time to get some renewal. >> motion. >> yeah. i want to add i'm sorry the department assisted not here the order was not addressing 9 and said get a matter i don't feel that trees should cost money to the citizens i'm sure i'm on board. >> i'll move to grant the appeal and to grant the permit and overturn the department and grant the permit. >> on the base and. >> commissioner, i ask to settlement you're motion with the requirement that the

requester the permit plant the trees as i've suggested. >> you want to condition it. >> i'd like to put the condition the replacement tree. >> it's accepted. >> okay. >> it's open is condition that a replacement tree be planned on the basis that - >> normally when the department approves the removal of that tree the street tree or significant tree it should be replaced with a like kind tree not like but the replacement of that tree that supplements it consistent with the codes. >> normally when there is much debate about it we have the ability to put 24 and 36 and 48 but the minimal is not a

substantial tree i did the all over the and put in one and 80 trees i think there is sufficient what was the minimum box size the department installs. >> the time is 15 gallons. >> i mean are you do you want to put specific conditions on this? >> i think it should i'm not a person that is known for the green thumb but a tree that will ultimately be of similar size not necessarily the same type which would recreate the problem. >> i am not they said they'll

be blossoming i believe magnolia but do we have to put a size on the tree or state the replacement. >> you can pick a size or species or let them decide, however, you want to do it. >> you're not really permitted to speak at this time we'll ask a question would you like to ask him. >> i'm no years old but this volume. >> one moment please we need to ask you a question. >> are you sir, are you comfortable with that the species you recommend is appropriate as a replacement tree. >> oh, yes. the flowering of magnolias is beautiful we have a spot picked out. >> so my condition would be a

flowering magnolia tree as a condition of taking the other tree down. >> how is that. >> commissioner fung. >> cemented. >> i'm hoping for a basis on the basis the current tree is causing damage to the neighboring prompt. >> substantial and potentially hazardous. >> commissioner fung how would you like it worst causing substantial damage. >> causing substantial damage a motion by commissioner fung to grant the appeal and overturn the department and issue the permit onion the condition that a flowering magnolia replacement tree be planted on that motion

commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig okay that that motion carries. >> my memory the flowering is the tree we planted to replace it a very beautiful tree and not a flowering magnolia. >> it's in the brief. >> comparable. >> okay. >> a stands corrected stand corrected so moved. >> this is a joint venture. >> this is how you get from magnolia to the duius. >> got it okay. okay that's it you're done thank you. >> okay. we'll move on commissioner president lazarus and call the last item number 9 allen verse the department of

building inspection with the planning department approval the property on 20th avenue and this is protesting the ordinances to the person of an alteration permit with the single-family dwelling living room and dining room and two car garage you have 7 minutes to present. >> i'm allen living adjacent to the proposed project on 20th avenue in the sunset district i received a notification on october 22nd, and many blue prints we immediately examined the blue prints and promptly submitted a request on appeal i'm here to present to the honorable panel our reasons for the construction of this proposed three-story structure i

live in a two single single dwelling built in 1950 this three-story structure will block our lightwell on the south side of the building and the lightwell and rooftop receiving natural sunlight the significant reduction will low any houses temperature throb leading to increased energy in your heating system without the skylights the needs for daytimes energy use will result in an increase in electrical will have a negative impact on the sustainability

we'll no longer be able to confer energy and higher costs and this is the direction of the potential size of the shadows casted during a bright sunlight it brooks significant amounts of light sources hitting our rooftop and the south side of our building we currently have in structure next to the lightwell that blocks the permit holder mentions in his briefing the additional lightwell on the three-story structure will add more light to the building can any one of you say compared to a 3 story lightwells can provide more light in addition to light source the three-story structure blocks outs significant airflow without of airglow through the program

it will promote mold and mildew and a potential health hazard if the air is only a fraction and the promoted structure exceeds the original height and size of two-story home own is 20th block has 322 homes additionally some are 2 story we only have a 3 story might want unit phleblee used this in his briefing to the proposed single story comparison not a fair comparison it is a stand alone structure zip codes as a multi family apartment built in 1925 the three story has a single-family home and the single-family homes on the 20th

block are no turn around 3 stories the proposed story dwelling unit will be analyze and will not fit the characteristic the exist 2 story single-family homes on the 20th block in his briefly he said this was a last minute no merit to do so the jurisdiction of the city and county of san francisco i'm within my legal right and following instruction to file this appeal and to my point myself and other neighbors have not received the blueprint until late and we didn't know what the details of the proposed structure therefore to assert the appeal it last minute the proposed project located in the rh1 the planning code session eastbound states the

rear yard in rh1 is straightforward 25 percent have lost - the blue prints this 3 story the depth of the building is at 85 feet and he rear yards remains with no change at 20 feats that means that the total lot is one and 5 feet and the backyard is 19 percent of lot this didn't appear to meet the rear yard requirements stated in the planning code section mr. lee stated to demolish the rear structure and replace it with a two-story structure that plan was rejected by the planning department staff but a remodel instead of a two-story now it is 3 story why didn't we have a 2 story over the garage when the city is trying in every way to

increase ava 3 story single-family home with 6 becomes and a give him can be in a medium household budget navigate over the private existing homes in the neighborhood driving up home prices making san francisco less affordable i implore the office of the board of appeals to enhancing the way of living for the residents in the sunset district open 20th avenue i'm accept an amendment to the proposed plan by a reduction of a health to a 2 story with the matching lightwells matching the current jefferson facade and maintaining a clear 25 percent

open space in the rear yard thank you. >> thank you we can hear from the permit holder now, mr. williams. >> good afternoon steve williams on above the lee family for if this attention the building on the west side of 20 after the mid sunset not the outer sunset. >> the central sunset there we go. >> may i have the overhead please. it is a regular rectangle square scared off lot in the grid it is unusually developed an historic place that exists it was developed with a very small

cottage on the rear of the lot and even smaller garage on the front of the lot but it is the lee family owned it for 15 years have proposed projects the cottage is in poor condition i went through the history the years since it was constructed in 1925 only one roofing permit in 199 six the house was built in 1925 they've or more planned to demolish the building completely and then build on the front of the lot in line with the rest of the buildings and match the existing paper of development but that plan was rejected by the planning department in 2003, this permit was filed in 2008, the lee

family have discussed that continuing with the neighbors been aware of the project that was going to be built at this time after the fire the permit languished for a long time a change in the architect and engineer now pushed forward the community outreach, etc. was done in april of 2014 the 311 notifications issued october 17, 2014, and expired more a year ago in 2014 and on no appeal was filed to the planning commission no objection has ever been raised with the lee family and no objections that i know of where sent into the department whether this permit issued in august of this year it was appealed to this board the project is i think

relatively restrained and modest for what the planning code allows in rh1 neighborhoods the fourth floor matches the neighborhood of the appellant matches his rear wall and the remaining portions of this building is held to two stories the rear yard is made larger by a resolve of part of existing building and it is an exist non-common use supposed to be thirty feet of rear yard 25 a foot of rear yard and then the massive development up front all the other buildings radio developed the third story that would under the code be built to the full extent of the lot as two doors up instead it is setback 15 feet

at the third story and the third story is more of a penthouse only 8 hundred and 50 square feet in total they've called it a mansion a number of windows along here that have had a view over a vacant lot for a long period of time things will definitely kansas change with the inseries of this building that is the source of appeal the architect and engineer are here here will questions other than that we have nothing everything else to add. >> the lightwells on the appellants house are being matched a very small let that exists at the upper floor anyway, thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> scott sanchez planning

department. >> the thing that mr. williams has summarized the issues i wanted to address just a couple of points to enforce it is within an rh1 zoning districts the exist building a legal non-compliant the proposal will reduce the volume slightly at the rear a porch entryway that will be removed otherwise the building is largely intact with the in front with a third story this 2 and in front yard and the 3 setback 50 feet from the main building wall the block is 2 story building. >> third story is come out to the setback when we have those kinds of situations we allow a

third story priority the setback as provided there was a case from 2014 that found this not to be a resource which is allowed the project to move forward there was a section 311 notice last year around this time from october 17th to november 16th no discretionary review filed at that time the project is code compliant i'll put up an aerial photograph on the overhead zoom in and so showing here outlined in blue with the structure that is located at the rear and patched garage that is the subject property the property behind it that's the appellants property so that's very small lightwell which is being reflect on the subject project they're arguing the

lightwell excuse me. and you can see the skylights the appellant mentioned that require not adding a story because the adjacent property has a skylight you know we are looking at the main light through the front and rear of the building as well as through the lightwells at the side and this we on the project complies with the deadlines and plus the neighborhood character and code compliant i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> why does planning not allow them to demolish the old structure and build something that is code compliant. >> well, part of it is under the planning code section 317 to to demolish that we have that to

where the dwelling are predicament. >> back in 2004. >> at a point i think we have section 317 and demolitions policies at this point maybe under the demolition policies i don't know all the details of the history of that from 10 years ago but maybe there were perhaps preservation concerns maybe. >> not a resource with no preservation concerns when was the last night are you finished commissioner. >> what was the last time to have the home demolished. >> it looks like the back, in fact, there was the demo permit

simulated in 2003 and cancelled in september of 2004 to 5 beyond that an application filed this one was in 2008, and not moving forward until 2014 that was when the parties were involved. >> the other question what's the cutters square footage of the you current home. >> based on it is on the plans based upon the assessors record of square feet and the project sponsor the tights showing as 16 hundred plus on the empowering. >> the council says they have the opportunities to expand the

levels to the street is if true. >> you're correct a front setback with the adjacent properties that needs to be replied they could do more at the rear. >> you have a reduced height limit on this not the full envelope they could bring out the top floor closer to the fronts. >> what's the top front the square footage. >> the just a few minutes properties is fully dimensions. >> i'll need different glasses about 10 feet one and 4 the front setback requirements. >> and this is the block i drive down evidences. >> they could side up more

because of rear they have a 25 percent rear yard requirement they're building kind of minorly non-compliant they encroach 57 feet. >> so a rear yard surveillance. >> no, not been expanded within the rear yard areao so no variance is required but further out within the rear yard but that is one of the greatest areas of mr. williams researched not building out most at the rear when they're not building above the existing structure. >> thank you for explaining that. >> thank you. >> any inspector duffy we can take public comment then.

>> i'm my english i think i'm okay i try to do the best i have a teacher that help me okay. >> overhead please. okay. >> i'm living at i'm simon i live at a second story home we hidden the project 20 avenue i'm here to speak i'm strongly obvious because use it will be block all my no sunshine and also my family can not lose all

my privacy because my bedroom might be faced on that that third story be building and at the beginning of this mr. lee walker come to high home speak to my wife in the person informed that building will be built two-story house so we agreed apparently but but i don't know why this project turned out to be 3 story we don't know nothing about that i really, really strongly object that i will only accept second story house thank you, sir. >> i have a question so you lived directly behind the

property that is - >> yes, sir. >> so what was required we call it 311 notification meaning that the city and county you'll get plans the property you've never received. >> we've never received that only one person mr. lee walker come to talk to any wife they will be built 2 story house over there we okay. we good neighbor. >> we understand. >> you never saw. >> i swear we never saw. >> they sent. >> we on vacation come back too late we go do city hall but other people protest i'm here thank you very much. >> thank you, thank you, sir. >> so all my statements are here. >> thank you, sir.

>> next speaker >> hello, i'm silva johnson and i remember occasions of east west, southeast public school that were more of listing to put 7 and a half west for east, southeast and corner which rainbows in our number of shades which put a new prospective on the view at night and just our concern that on missions that

should be you know put is not rejected should be put in a way of it dodges designations and goes as far as plan on so much and lights on affordable because of instructions or two favors stories of our centers of - set lighting to be demolished through our sun point of is been already spoken of the way that

switch in renuance of questions in in accordance to the measurement in our sexually assaulted area not been in process through our signs we've not been able to have our parts of knowledge in things we have enlightened and our first business or redeem we're in this is means you know to measure

things that we need to you know do for your freedom to - >> thank you any public comment? okay. seeing none we'll start our rebuttal 3 minutes. >> i do want to reemphasis that the appeal was filed we looked at the blue prints that was recently submit no details of the structure like the neighbors said mr. lee and his wife talking to the neighbors and talking about a change asking the board to reject this and make it a second story building they don't want our views to be blokdz and i mean the whole that block the 20th block in the sunset two-story

building 2 stories not 3 stories apartment buildings why this as huge building to be built and blocking every week's view and light we're not asking them not to build build a 2 story make that that reasonable that's all i have to say a question, sir. >> so again, because of the construction for the property to be 311 there is a notification that is sent one hundred 50 to all the surrounding neighborhood it was proof of service that includes the blue prints of the construction so 311 indicates it was sent to all the neighbors but one neighbor said he didn't get it are you saying you didn't get it. >> the blue prints. >> got october 2nd it

of this year or last year. >> this year. >> thank you. >> mr. williams. >> steve williams for the project sponsors i don't have much to add except the gentleman is over here on 21st avenue as you can see this fairly remote of the project across the backyards if anything i suppose his views looking at back at san francisco will be changed i don't see any way it could be light impacts on 21st avenue across the backyards it is relatively large 60 or 70 feet away we could a have anything to add the first we've heard none

in the neighborhoods received the 311 notification or the plan i'm not sure what blue prints he's talking about he could have received relevance the plans are not sent out he may be confused in the year you don't get the notification of plans so we urge you to move this project forward it's been a very long time and as mr. sanchez says their matching the neighborhood to the north rear wall under the planning department they could substantially thank you. >> mr. williams. >> yes. >> from the 311 will go innovations that went out last year in october any modifications to the plan set. >> no. >> so that the 36rz plan was sent out last year on the 311 notification and yes.

>> yes. from the plans changed the planning department requires a new notification at least that's the procedure thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department so the building permit itself was submitted stating that the construction was third story to what have been any changes at permit as submitted in 2008, said the construction will be 36rz in regards to the 311 unfortunately, no mention in the appellants brief concerns regarding notice i didn't hold the 311 lanlz but showing in our records having been mailed last year this is the standard practice inform discretionary review filed a similar to a 311 notice to the same radius notice

of that hearing to the public as well but this is tall all i can say i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> xhmdz commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> the it appears that the objection is mostly on the third story i thought when i read this there was a lot objections to a non-conforming site with steven coverage it appears that the existing building that was on the site is lower floor to floor

than adjacent building as well as as you can see an elevation difference the question whether this permit was issued in error i can't find a reason to say that the third story brings it up to thirty feet or less than the height limit is it's not the maximums envelope i have no basis beyond to equip to accept the permit. >> i also concur but i will to the public here that is protesting unfortunately, there was another process that you guys have skipped over the 311 and the dr process which you'll come before planning commission and you got notification of that

process that was available to you but i agree. >> just to set the record clear that is another error of discretionary review. >> move to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis this property was correct. >> on that motion a commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda. >> commissioner wilson commissioner swig that motion carries commissioner president lazarus there's no further business. .> we're adjourned