now e-mails homes by the year 2020 most will be in outreach of the san franciscan with federal and state funds drying up the san francisco ethics commission is, taking an iv i of actually roll is providing housing across all levels we're working diligently for everyone to live here and mr. chair protect the housing semiand strengthen goals against evictions we're commented for housing needs for all san franciscans to learn more visit highway

>> good evening, and welcome to the san francisco board of appeals. wednesday, august 10, 2016, of the san francisco board of appeals our presiding officer is commissioner president honda and joined by vice president commissioner fung and commissioner ann lazardus and commissioner swig commissioner bobby wilson will be absent to my left is thomas owen for legal advice tonight at the controls is gary the boards legal assistants i'm cynthia goldstein the board's executive director. we're joined by representatives and table in the front is santa monica the zoning administrator for the city and representing the planning department and planning commission and senior building inspector joe duffy is representing the

department of building inspection please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other 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. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. playing fiel have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the mrimdz 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. 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 please stand now >> raise your right hand you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> okay. thank you very much. >> commissioner honda commissioners we have one housekeeping item no. 7 at 3560

jackson street the parties indicated they would to continue this to september 21st if you like we can call them up to address the board briefly on that okay. >> my name is pat and representing the client with the attorney and respectfully ask for a continuance to work until september based on new eves. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. so go the new information in the last week that the subject of the work and is variance maybe a second request of egress that allows to be be replaced without the variance we need additional time to determine what the next course of action will be so is there any public comment

on the request for a continuance. >> i noticed the neighbors they knew we would ask for this any public comment on the continuance okay. >> if you would speak into the other microphone. >> i'm margaret i live next door to increase frost the reason i'm speaking is we're going to be out of town on the 21st of september and can't appear and wanted to aspire appear so i'd like to have an alternative date. >> any other public comment? >> i'm david pile on jackson

have a procedural question will this between the two parties or are we related parties will be notified when we know what the discussion is b about this. >> the board will not notify you, you can reach out to the zoning administrator or the agent and ask more information they can and cannot do give it to you. >> does the september 28th work for everyone? >> i video no problem changing the date. >> scott sanchez planning department. i don't have any issue i'll note that it be conceivable the variance is withdrawn i'll give any cards to the adjacent

neighbors and be in communication with them as we work through the issues with the project. >> ms. cross many shy man sorry is september 28th going to work for you. >> when are you coming back from vacation. >> back on the 29. >> make sense to schedule it for the 21st and have another continuance if the matter is not withdrawn. >> that will be one option and give her the opportunity to speak now. >> if so we need if we do that we'll call an order based on the

defer. >> so i don't think we're relying willing to hold past september 28th how about september 14th. >> that's good. >> let's leave it at at the 21st. >> we'll leave it at the 21st it may not be necessary for it to be heard before the board at this point we can continue the matter and also the public can be reminded that written comments can be submitted you can submit in writing. >> scott sanchez planning department. i understand we're not oppose the date in october as well and if it is resolved and withdrawn. >> another option 19 is the first meeting we have madam

director. >> october 19th. >> that's good. >> okay. >> oh, this week sorry. >> september 21st. >> pat are you saying - >> october 26th ma'am. >> i feel like an auctioneer. >> okay. okay. >> so if we need a motion commissioners, if it is what you like to do to move it to that date. >> move this i'll move to continue this case until october 26th. >> okay. >> so the motion from the vice president to continue this case to reschedule to october 26,

2016, to give the parties time to address whether a resolution it possible commissioner ann lazarus commissioner honda commissioner bobby wilson is absent commissioner swig that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero. >> thank you so moving on back to the regular calendar item one general public comment the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction not on tonights calendar any general public comment seeing none, we will move to item 2 commissioners questions or comments. >> commissioners. >> none week mr. duffey. >> your consideration of the meeting of july 27th. >> no additions, deletions, or changes and can i have a motion. >> move to adopt the minutes.

>> any public comment on the minutes seeing none, we have a motion from commissioner adams to adopt the minutes on that motion commissioner fung commissioner honda and commissioner swig. >> okay thank you that item passes with a vote of 4 to zero moving on to item number 4 a rehearing request for the the subject property on green street the appellant requesting a rehearing sidney and nancy i never can pronounce that thank you family trust versus dbi with this decided at this time the board voted 4 to one with vice president dissenting the dwelling unit merger with the plans as exhibit to the brief dated july 14th that the site

permitted was appropriately issued a merger from 52 units lightwells horizon addition city room remold a fourth floor model suit the requester has 3 minutes. >> good evening. i'm rich elderly represent sidney and the appellants in this matter you've read the written request it was heard on july 20th with a back and forth at this time urban design maybe a little bit of the confusion maybe three or four motions to get one through as a required 4 to one vote my preserves concerns with the sponsor said they damaged the folks home and 10 yard of dirt now posed with 6 hundred yard of

dirt and the serial permitting like a shortage to withstand seismic loading this is a permanent foundation and more concern that the piers supporting the project were drilled short of initiatives for the lengthened with drought that was not reinforced with the rebar and has distance it caused further problems in an earthquake notwithstanding those concerns the board is poised to permitted the matter to go forward i think in large part from the comments from the sponsor and dbi that dbi will work out the issues and addendum i understand this is appealing to the board but our concern and position that won't happen for a couple of reasons the shoring permitted a big part

of our concern was approved over-the-counter no limitation that will not happen again even if they get a plan check we'll not be notified the staff has a lot of work and that caused - the sponsor serial permitting strategy dbi job a lot harder and this continues with the commissioners today but regardless let's make sure the folks concerns are heard and as it stands they won't be a structural engineer from it doctor working with us we've heard from him on july 20th let's make sure their heard and ask that you rehear this matter and make sure that dbi has input from the folks and dbi will not

get that and make sure the board has all the facts and dbi is investigating and move on until we hear back that case is real risks to people and structures please take the time to make sure we're in that position thank you ladies and gentlemen, thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> i'm sorry to interrupt i didn't realize this was a reuben, junius & rose case reuben, julius & rose on a project as counsel. reuben, junius & rose representation as an entity before retained the counsel the

board will not have an effect on my decision. this evening. >> good evening commissioner honda and members of the board i'm tom of reuben, junius & rose on behalf of the appellant sim michael with me is mr. michael and his family, his wife market and christopher and alex the appellant wishes a rehearing the board is district and appellant for the met the requirement and is not introduced any new facts and circumstances repeats the same inflated argument the underpinning was required that argument is wrong the technical generally and the entire team determined in their professional opinion the foundation will not think undermined that will fully

protect the foundation without underpinning it is confirmed by franklin our geotechnical expert with over 50 years of experience particularly in san francisco after considering the testimony and soliciting button the board rejected the underpinning claims the appellant was trying to raise today, the appellant claims the boards decision decision was ambiguous it was requested by the appellant plans depicting the changes are included in the brief the board stated the only issues with the sexual was moved away from the property line and the unit merger was dropped they speak to manifest injustice in his papers the only manifest injustice is

the manipulation of the michael to keep them out of their home and unviewing make the michael's for the preexisting foundation problem that exhibit shows the problem and submitted to the reques requests. >> overhead please. can i have the overhead. >> this shows that appellants foundation piers don't reach to the hard clay they bottom out in a sandy layer this serious foundation problem has existed for many years and worsens and not contributed the abuse of the city's process much end we ask the city to deny the request for a rehearing i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> thank you anything from the

departments inspector duffy no public comment on this item please step forward. >> good evening, commissioners my name is agreeing son row a across the street neighbor of michael's the michael's are genuinely friendly they've been friendly since 1993 sins i lived in my place and neighborly and made friends up and down the street i appreciate they're really gentle and friendly when i see walks - they volunteer will i without asking continually from - to

preserve any view i for example, asked can you ask tour workers not to smoke or have early conversations under my window it stopped immediately marry please don't be fooled by the gentleman and his wife 2 years ago we admittedly hit any car and caused damage i had to go to their house and ask was that they said oh, yes. i asked for their insurance they insisted i get multiple opinions and in the end i had to collect from that that was uncomfortable to ask for the money i'm angry about the waste of taxpayer dollars

for this fight that clearly is extortion i know that fighting against the neighbors this has really angryed me for the waste of time for no reason nothing more than the michael's to complete their family home and monarch move back to the neighborhood thank you for considering that you any other public comment. >> okay. seeing none commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i have a question for the building department. >> i remember last time we are going to leave this in the hands of dbi to monitor this has the appellant a question regarding you know addendum being made is the addendum subject to d b m.

>> no, this is only a building permit the site permitted the addendum is to the appealable i wasn't here so the inspector and i read the transcript but everything is in line with the policy and the site permitted is under suspensions the addendum was not submitted the appellant challenged the design during the stage of the addendum with the dbi engineer and didn't mean he didn't have an opinion but certainly if you have concerns and your neighbor be it any neighbor and any project concerns about the project that may impact our property and know that is going through dbi structural and review there is nothing to stop you from going down there and raising a flag to that that will be angle

opportunity that the appellant can use in my opinion if they so wish the complaint that was generated here i was actually one of the people that actually met them and encouraged them to file and complaint it had been done 7 or 8 inspections on the project special inspections but even with that there still welcome to make a complaint they did that that complaint was investigated by dbi and probably going to involve us taking one of the engineers into the meeting as well to try and figure out was there something done two or three years for the appellant property okay. >> thank you for clearing that up. >> i have a question a suggestion that the addendum will be dealt with over-the-counter our suggesting

no, it will be reviewed by an engineer and the representative will have an opportunity to participate. >> sometimes addendum go over-the-counter if you're going through a process with the city planning or 09 agency the drawings are right at dbi a threshold to take it out of the process and over-the-counter with that i don't think this project would be there's too much to look at over-the-counter approval i think is 60 minutes maximum so the plan checks one 15 minutes will allow them over-the-counter but this one didn't fall into that category. >> do you have a way of flagging these. >> yes. we do. >> maybe that is what we were thinking when we put 2 into the hands of gi. >> we can before the permit is issued my name will be on it and

look at this this is the one make sure that everybody is on the same page so that will be something we can do an address restriction to the permitted has to be sclaerd by the building inspection division. >> yes. i would agree with commissioner lazarus that was one of the key factors influencing the direction of our vote was you're the inspector said oh, we'll see this no problem and so i think we were all assured this will get further review and not over-the-counter but it would would the scrutiny you're saying probably will i think that will make us feel better if it moved to surely and flagged. >> that's okay the thing we

have two separate things one engineer saying everything is okay. and another engineer not okay it has to come together around the table and take someone from dbi that are bus you have this underpinning issue that hemispheres on property lines all the time so the area of influence it is technical and stuff but definitely needs astonish resolved we don't want anything disturbed at this property if it impacts this property it is a concern and as we said the address restriction can do that and being reviewed by dbi as the engineer and attorney acting on behalf of the director or deputy director and say i have problems with that in

the form with that. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i don't think we can condition anything on a motion regarding a rehearing is what - >> the suggestion was made. >> all right. >> no the hearing is at the board level now. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> wait for you. >> i'll start i didn't hear anything that would lead me to grant a new hearing and deny any manifest injustice. >> i concur. >> standard for the hearing has not been met. >> i agree. >> can i make a motion move to depend on the boos no

new evidence or manifest injustice. >> thank you on that motion if commissioner ann lazarus to deny the request commissioner fung commissioner honda. >> commissioner swig. >> that that motion carries and the request is denied move on to item 8 from item 5 appeal nancy versus the zoning administrator the property on vallejo appealing the denial on may of a minimum lot area with variances to subdivide a late lot into two substandard lots we will start with the appellant you have 7 minutes to present. >> my name is sandy present the appellant in the appeal of the denial of the variance for a

lot subdivision for lot subsection with a street address an vallejo street there are 5 elements that need to be met under planning code to grant a variance and our appellants property meets all those requirements the first one is the first finding that requires on extraordinarily circumstance exists are the property that property this lot was created in the early 19 century between 19 hundred and 1910 and basis on the fact that one of the building was constructed in 1912 we don't have the actual date the lot was created and the

buildings have existed in the current consideration for the lass last one hundred years the two buildings on the lot the localities is 20 feet wide by one and 37 plus feet long it - in the back a private all over the place that end in the back of the lot the subdivision will create two straight lots 20 feet by one and sorry i'm sorry i don't have the number here but 67 feet long and will end up with a lot of 2750 square feet that is a lot

longer than the lots on the subject lot. >> overhead please. >> this is a map of the lot there are 6 lots on this block which are smaller than the proposed split lots that will result from this particular application lot 12 and 14 and lot 12450 and the other 1367 and lot 33, 788 and lot 37, 831 not including the lots that have under gotten the condominium conversion and much smaller than the resulting lots that result

in the subdivision. >> the second finding was that there was no - that exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that the circumstances little enforcement will result in practical difficulty this particular as i stated this particular lot was created in 19 hundred before the current lot width and depth and rear yard requirements were implemented and the way it exists has nothing to do with with the current property owners and not imposing the requirements on this particular lot will result in unnecessary hardship and

findings number three retail use that the folks show it is necessary nor the preservation of endenominator for the the truth which is posed by other properties in the same class and district in this particular block as pointed out 6 lots that are smaller than the developing lot and there are several properties that have under gotten property conservations and those properties possess a substantial property not possessed as is the subject property. >> so the fourth finding requires that the folks not materially may not be detrimental to the public welfare or injures to the

vicinity this the truth is excited in the state for one hundred years the grant of this variance will not change the location of the buildings or the way the lot exists or the building exist the secondly, one of the items that the planning department pointed out this split will make etch lot eligible for the two unit condominium conversion i wanted to bring those to the commission to the boards attention that one of the building has had eviction registered against it not legible and one units occupied two a tenant and if it would require the removal of tenant that makes this particular

building ineligible for the condo bypass this issue is a non-issue in that particular case. >> the fifth finding is requires that the variance be in harmony with the general purpose of the code and not adversely effect the plan as stated before this building and configuration and use of existed for one hundred years not likely to effect- it has no effect on the general plan there is no use that is proposed contrary to that the two items that are point out pointed out one of the condominium conversion program we've addressed and the second one would be inconsistent with the existing character which is not an issue. >> thank you.

>> thank you. >> i have two questions. >> yes. >> you indicated one building was built if 1912. >> yes. >> which one the front one. >> the back one. >> when was the front building on vallejo street built. >> the owners don't know. >> the private alleys in the rear you indicated in our brief that the it has a garage in the rear building. >> no, no garage none of the units have a garage that property has from garage if i may - there is this is the front of the building. >> okay. >> as you're looking at it. >> this is the front of

building. >> let's go to the question has the nature of the private alley in the rear. >> the private alley at the back of the lot which is this is what the private alley looks like in the back and that's the back of the back building who's the alley owned by. >> we don't know. >> you don't know. >> we've not explored it since no garage and the back building is assessed to this entrance door on the front open vallejo street the assess doesn't change. >> so your lots split will require assess through the building in the front. >> no - yes, it is already assessed through the front legally. >> legally. >> thank you.

>> mr. sanchez. >> sew scott sanchez planning department. to the subject variance relatives to a variance seeking variances from the frontage and the lot width requirements will result in the creation of a lot that will have a two unit building and one on vallejo that is is at the rear i don't know this is much of a private alley a driveway for the building that is to the rear because there is driveway and there's garage access it is provided i'm unaware the access to the alley this results in a substandard lot in many ways

it configuration without the subdivision for quite some. and the applicant is seeking the variance and this is to no vote hearing and have the variance before you i didn't find it meets the requirements for the granting the variance in the brief that was submitted arguments that similar variances railroad granted in other cases first variance are not precedental and most cases are not compatible and on kearny is a through lot on kearny a different pattern not the creation of a land lot commissioner fung was noted an access issue my understanding they'll have to have an agreement to provide the access to vallejo street the arguments for the change were simply

ownership and having a different ownership structure in the application which you know when the letter was submitted with the brief no compelling hardship the building was purposed recently and held no francescaal ownership with 5 owners and based on the foreigners on the record that the primary owner the 70 percent owner lives in new york that was a letter submitted and also the names associated with that have a similar structure for the property on this street with a similar owner didn't find there was any evidence to support that justification for the creating a

substandard lot didn't meet our code compliant and it is true that having vibrations does put a restriction on future condominium conversion but not as simple as omi occurred but certainly not limited to by the appellant the front property has the ability to be condominium conversion and the tenants what about persuaded out of buildings a number of ways and the building condominium conversion that will result in a loss of rent-controlled housing as the tenant noted for some. and hardships on any of the previous owners but they're seeking in their application to create two

substandard lots and no compelling hearing and the matters they presented in their brief or oral presentation, etc. that the board may have thank you. >> was the curry street variance appealed. >> no, it was not. >> question in general mr. sanchez when can someone split a lot i kind of vague will i think that was one thousand square feet. >> the minimum lot requirement for more district a 25 hundred square feet decreased to 1750 for corner lots but there are other requirements as well and over-the-counter towards that lot size requirement has to be a portion of lot has to be 25 feet wide one issue and every property has to have a frontage on a public right-of-way so the

issues here existing with the lot existing situation break it in half the frontage issue and the addition to the lot size. >> could you clarify technical issue for me. >> sure. >> if the stars are aligned and the building is city emptying and the owner wish to condominium that the fee simple land as homeowners association land and two buildings that condominium that can occur still on lots but still two condominiums. >> you're saying in the case no lot split but at some point in the future eligible for a condominium. >> i mean the lot is not a subdivision the appellant raised

that condominiums are not subject to the lot requirements and frontage, etc. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> okay. >> any public comment on this item. >> not yet public comment first. >> hi good evening. >> my name is sam shaw live at the rear top of the property thank you for having me. i'm happy to put the face of residents the desire. >> are you a tenant there. >> yes. i am. >> i thought they said no tenants in the rear. >> yes. there is. >> there he is. >> so if so the desire to simply remodel the property as the last remaining tenant on the

property i'm concerned there is the possibility condominium conversion that, of course, would remove my apartment from the listing and wanted to come up here and for the record. >> by other public comment starting now with rebuttal. >> i'd like to make one connection the tenant is in the back building of two unit and the second correction he needed to make is that the planning department noted that the san francisco percent owner lived in new york that's not correct 5 family members got together and purchased the property the 70 owned 50 percent by nancy and 50 by her son in new york she owns 35 percent the family purchased

the property was the only way to purchase any kind of real estate in san francisco now and they want to live here and their obviously so the family to live in those apartments now the restated the only way the to back building will be eligible for a condo bypass if the tenants moves. >> voluntarily an eviction disqualified the prompt since mr. shaw said we'll not move out that florida will not be for a bypass the units remain rent-controlled units in the property owners want to regular calendar that

was built before 1979 that status didn't change so that would be a matter of time if one of the owners were to move out and put three quarters unit on out for rental we've already as we noted from there are several substandard lots on the subject lot that, you know, that i don't know how one creates one and 74 square feet lot but exists on this particular lot so this particular subdivision it is not going to bring or challenge that particular block in terms of size because it is much larger than the kearny the latest subdivision in that particular neighborhood it is occurred in

2013 and 2014 so we respectfully request the board to allow grant us this variance. >> you indicated that one of the buildings would not be having condo process available to the vibrations. >> that's the front building. >> was that elised. >> no. >> it is on owner move-in. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. didn't the materials that were submitted submitted with the brief was noted that all of the units were occupied a tenant at the rear with one of the owners and a tenant in the front with one of the owners but in the testimony

of the tenant at the rear sounds like he's the only remaining attended the building in the front has a vacancy were there was whether we received last november i don't know what led to that when you certainly our position we want them to stay as owners as residents on the property they purchased it with this configuration knowing full well, what we were buying and some cases as a generational issue someone they want to pass it on to their grandkids and supplied the property with variance recently have been denied because it will facilitate the loss of rent-controlled housing and sympathet sympathetic that argument but one of the reasons to protect the rent-controlled housing and other block lands odd shapes and

sized lots on this pro block that does 2309dz justify creating the new one one that precludes them to live and own and occupy and enjoy those unite since they've purchased them so i'm available for any questions. >> other technical question we've heard that because there was no owner move-in in the front to replace one of the tenants does that and that goes back to my question before does that permanently preempt the ability to condo those again, if the stars aligned and the tenant in the back moved out consequentially. >> my understanding that may but not a definite it depends on the date of owner move-in eviction and primarily the date

i believe but if it were to be subdivided that burden will continue at the front building and not apply to the back building which would be converted through the bypass as the normal rules provided the owner occupancy. >> so why is my reading incorrect or correct me if i am wrong i'm having a hard time seeing the point of splitting this lot. >> because i see the same things being achieved where to separate owners can own one can own each building and share in the condominium structure and share the land as the homeowners association achieve the same

thing and require no variance which i'm not necessarily i'll having a hard time but they could achieve the same thing. >> there are limits with the current condominium rules at some point in the future go through that process of once they restart the lottery that will be up to three or four units when the lottery comes back there is another option down the road potentially that will not require a variance that gets them the same goals i think that is. >> a simple land will be shared. >> right. >> although we've seen in the past certain cases that are similar to this where financing is not the same. >> got it. >> thank you.

>> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> the question here is whether the va erred or abused the segregation thought issuance of the denial of the variance. >> there is no review and look at the 5 finding whether they've been read or not. >> that's my next thing looking at the 5 points. >> .3 i believe the appellant or the variance request probably satisfies i'm not sure they satisfy the rest of - i don't think the kearny street case is necessarily compatible because it has a through lot and access

on two sides to the public street not that i might have agreed with the va at that point in time or the predecessors i'm not able to concur with the appellant that they satisfied the other four criteria. >> i have no disagreement with that. >> i concur. >> i do as well i think that, yes i concur on that. >> no further comment i'll move to deny the appeal on the basis that the 5 findings were

not met in their entirety and that the denial of the variance was appropriately done. >> thank you commissioner fung that motion to deny the appeal on the basis that the 5 finding of the planning code have not on met in their entirety and the variance was appropriate commissioner lazarus commissioner honda and commissioner swig that item passes with a vote of 4 to zero. >> and the denial is upheld. >> so moving on to item 6 appeal gang commissioner kwon verses the zoning administrator on oakdale after the appeal on

the minimum lot and area and rear yard vaurnls to merge two existing lots and subdivide to have a 3 story single-family dwelling and we'll start with the appellant who has 7 minutes to present the case. >> yep. >> good evening commissioner honda and commissioners jeremy shaw with the architects representing our client jane fong we're presenting a case about the neighborhood transition the project is in the boyfriend in an rh2 with the same block has rh1 zoning and pdr zoning across the street are warehouse lots from one to two hundred feet wide the one thing consistent is that there a gap

missing and like to fill it in the two subject lots are located on the south side of oakdale avenue in 1867 it was an ideal lot around 1913 the two subject parcels were merged and subdivided into two lots 37 by one hundred feet for 75 feet on the site there is an existing cottage from approximately 1889 a single-family home and two family unit at the 1963 to 1965 oakdale built in 1913 as you may know the b district has any mixed income the subject site is adjacent to the residential and industrial and

commercial and governmental uses the residential used are in a smaller grid and the governmental use are no distinctive lot paper in the neighborhood the proposal to revert two lots two 3 parcels by merging and subdivideing. >> lot 8, 31 feet wide that's right here. >> lot b in the admitted would be 19 and a half feet wide and 24 and a half feet wide and returning the property to 3 parcels allows the two existing building one is hyphenating and allows the in philosopher to new

dwellings coordinating is a request for a setback to establish the scope appropriate with the lots width and now and will go into the va findings so per 305 consumer price index we need to establish the 5 finding to grant the variance finding would be there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances politically to the property that don't apply to other properties in the district we submit that the proposed pattern is more in keeping with the pattern in the neighborhood the paramount pattern of development in the neighborhood is zero lot lines as you may know most of the properties on this subject block face are up to their adjacent homeowners the one gallop is with our

property building right here there is in fact, a new building going up in 1947 oakdale under construction right now across the street you'll see lots from 200 to one hundred feet wide completely separate class of use but directly across the street the property lot x will be a visible pattern that can't be dpaevend in the rest of the neighborhood the adjacent lot has lot size that are a bit larger than p than 17 to 19 feet. >> findings two, that exceptional or extraordinary circumstances enforcement to result in practical difficulty

so the subject lots contain one and 3 years old and a house built in 1989 and no additional dwelling units can be added the va in reviewing the original case look at the cottage as a single unit but really two units there are existing 4 on the site and rh2 lots nothing else can be added. >> i'm sorry you're kind of at all way move up the mike a little bit thank you. >> so the question not whether adding additional units can be done but no more - this is necessary for preservation and enjoyment of the property the variance from the minimum lot width there expand on the ability to add new housing units

the specific zoning is a source of family housing and that will augment from mother units built are oriented towards the designation and item 4 not materially detrimental to the neighborhood we find that there will be no effect on the neighbors seeing this is a building snefrtd the one two other buildings that are actually owned there was one neighbor that came out to the zoning administrator's first hearing but i think he was confused he was talking about the building he's in the southern cottage of oakdale and opted to 1947 which i don't know why he didn't appeal that. >> and finding 5 granting a variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and not

effect the general plan i've gone over in conclusion the va takes a narrow view of the establishment and not looking at the broader needs of community the benefits to the neighborhood and communities are substantial the bayview is in transition and the industrial and constitutional and governmental use this variance allows for smaller scale housing thank you. >> thank you. >> i have a question, sir. >> just looking at the aerial pictures before the department speaks. >> uh-huh. >> have windows the larger structure widows currently look like a bedroom an additional on top of that structure if you're lot is 19 feet wide i'm assuming windows on the odds of the building how will you address that in our construction.

>> you're talking about the historic cottage. >> well from both what i see from our picture i see widows around the property so if you in fill that property how will you maintain those properties. >> 19 feet. >> part of project an additional to the cottage building which would actually relocate the secondary united and create additional bedrooms with only if the total remodel of the - towards the rear and the existing building i'm unsure right now, we're not proposing any work of 1963. >> that's the big one. >> that's my question how eventually look like widows back there if their bedroom widows

you need these widows. >> that's would be my question you can think about it you'll have rebuttal thank you. >> yeah. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. so this is another variance in this case also denied that was for seeking variance from rear yard for additions of lot width and lot area and the proposal from city records there are two lots each one with a building that cantonese two unit the city records and the other one unit the proposal to add one unit to the single-family dwelling to bring up and change the lot lines a new lot in between the two buildings and putting a new

two unit building there and resulting in a total of 3 units on the lot and honestly in first reviewing it i was a bit nor in favor of the proposal it is adding housing stock to the city but the design it was well crafted design but ultimately the concern for me there was i feel they've not necessarily exercised the openings to work with the pattern of development and there is a pattern of development those are kind of the out liars on the lot but in addition originally set they were all 25 by one hundred foot lots but decided wanted a bigger building and merged two building arrest converted two lots and developed that two unit building and that was the pattern that existed for quite sometime and now ma'am, misses the potential

but felt it is forced trying to interject that and i think the appellant made a great case and did at the hearing and trust the concerns prior to the hearing and raised the issues about the 18 hundred block and the narrow lots that in and of itself even though a block away to the south that didn't have different character it is expected the bigger lot is by an alley to the rear through are 3 lots narrower two frontages because their 3 lots it is also there is a train right away that cuts through the block as well so if feel it met the same pattern that is a unique context with pdr one d a buffer across the street with large lots in an rh1 by 25 by one hundred feet lots and this

is an rh2 a buffer between the buffer district and the rh1 dissected did a lot of density and the higher traffic area and but under the code it has changed further and there can be the possibility of adding a third between in rh2 because the adu provisions the existing building envelope and depending on the lot size and they should quality through the density hearing that is one 15 hundred square feet and you can go round up and do the next highest and potentially have a conditional use authorization get to the density without changing the lot that has been thor exhausted that created and interject that

and those are the discussion at the hearing but even though this is a loss of unit going to the density for one single-family adding the second unit they are but i think certainly open to having increased density but looking at other ways to accomplish that without adding in a new lot and if there are multi unit 3 unit buildings that will work out well, certainly in a lot cases i understand it is easier to condo convert and new buildings will be built as a two unit condo but looking at modifying the existing buildings potentially brown-bag resulting in the proposal that they often thought there was other testimony at the hearing in opposition more than one person spoke in opposition talking about the traffic impacts and the character as

well not a one person speaking in opposition but seemed to be about a project that had already been approved that's my recollection of the hearing i'm available to answer any questions. >> did you write the variance letter. >> staff drafts the initial draft i had the final review and . >> it is interesting because there is a theme that runs through from our denial letter of why each the criteria is met is that being - that a narrow lot somehow effects the quality of life? >> and i didn't understand that our city and our pattern have a lot of key lots. >> the key lots are in 24 their narrowed to 20, 18 and some instances we've seen a lot of those cases

now joined how the quality of life narrower lots doesn't work. >> part of it is shoe honoring in the density without the development entering jethro a new building in the mid block and making alternatives to the existing buildings that have existed there for quite sometime and i think that that is the issue part of issues raised at the hearing about the density and the parking and the traffic and the quality of life issues. >> mr. sanchez the question i have is what's the historical clarification classification on the two buildings - they were to be historic resources but no ceqa designation i don't believe

it is listed in a historic district or landmark properties that existed. >> thank you. >> thank you. we, take public comment any public comment on item public comment please step forward. >> good evening directly on the odds of the project and nothing against any neighbors i'm completely against this project i lived on the odds for over thirty years and the majority of those property on oakdale with two stories at the most and you mentioned a 3 story unit built a couple of months ago is an eyesore and darkens

the area my sunlight will be cut off i have a new born baby she enjoys the sunlight and my children will no longer enjoy playing out in the generated and this project has an effect on any children due as to the harmful chemicals and dust and noise any property sprawl u value will diminish my sunlight into the rooms completely be blocked out and this will block any view and this project seems like a project profit and why should their profits effect my home and my way of life as a good neighbor and good citizen of the san francisco please make the right decision and reject this project. >> sir which side. >> i live directly on the

other side of this project open parlor avenue. >> have you left of right. >> if i come out of any yard it is on the other side it is east of my property behind. >> behind the street behind your backyard is there their backyard. >> oh, i see you're on the other side. >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment. okay. seeing none we'll have rebuttal from the appellant. >> okay. so commissioner honda your question about the widows here on the adjacent. >> go through our regular rebuttal i'll ask the questions. >> i'm happy to talk about we are proposing a lightwell for

all 3 stories and should let it be known the project sponsor lives there it is their bedroom windows they're planning to keep where they or are the lightwell. >> and commissioner fung to our comments i know the project is well-designed i even as va attested to tie in a 19 and a half foot building we're fitting family-sized units so i think that is why smaller lots like this and smaller gaps are important places to install as much housing we we can creates a need and as per the ceqa the existing cottage from 1889 and the class resource we've gone through the ceqa

hearings and the addition with the large front setback that is frankly why we are proposing a rear yard variance for the project and i don't catch our name the gentleman on po will i this is an rh1 district psychologist mentioned the zoning rh2 is a buffer we're proposing to keep it more in line with 3 rh2 lots and two units per building as the code will allow. >> are you done. >> oh, question. >> okay. >> are there any tenants in any of the properties at this time. >> i believe so. >> your project will definitely require the displacements of tenancy. >> yeah, the owner agreed to as i mentioned the slightly newer

building will not be touched the cottage has to tenants the owner arranged for them to be relocated. >> how long my question how long is your client owned the property at this point. >> i'm sorry. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. i don't have anything further to add i'm looking at the record one of the buildings go 1963 the date of 2013 i think the project sponsor is provide a better date i'm available to answer any questions. >> okay commissioners, the

matter is submitted. >> no, perhaps just as a point of clarification i believe mr. herrera the property is south so therefore the no matter how tall ass buildings should be the sun is not going to be effecting in terms of casting a shadow the anyone else want to start. >> i have one question for the da before we - >> sorry mr. sanchez can you have on record what is the current square footage of the larger property. >> of the building or the lot. >> the building. >> so already had 1955 oakdale the cottage that is one thousand

48 square feet. >> and the 1963 oakdale is one thousand three hundred and 93 square feet. >> that's a pretty big structure for one to us. >> yeah. and two units list as one i think that those records are not up to date but the project sponsor can provide that for you. >> okay. thank you. >> i'm sorry, go ahead. >> commissioner. >> no based on the comments some of my fellow commissioners when i stopped telling stories for historical reasons. >> only 1 o'clock in the morning. >> it is early tonight. >> so i thought i'll share

something with i was at planning i had proposed to rezone all of the lower density areas in the bayview hunters point area. >> duration the course of that process i was requesting to be sdoensz from rh1 to rh2 and during the course people brought forth different viewpoints we held a commission hearing in the bayview district and it was extremely well attend and well-designed and the issue was basically a lot of the committee

activists didn't want that change we pulled it but the reason i had proposed it at this time did the neighborhood was already starting to transition and commissioner tang a little bit not as much as it changed in the recent years but the rh zoning created a better nest egg for the owners of the property which has most of us know now has changed the method drastically in terms of that. >> and in instance i only bring up that story because the relationship to adding more housing is quite important. >> i did not buy the arguments in the denial letter that a 19

and a half lot not to sustain a liveable quality unit based on what was written here i don't know exactly had was written for the or present excuse me - at the variance hearing i find that the criteria 5 criteria have been met and support the granting of the appeal. >> i'm inclined to agree you. >> it is different it is close to me as far as my decision i'm on the fence on this because a little bit - but i'll go that

way on this as well. >> like to ask for more question of the architect if - would you remind me how large the result of you had me would you remind me how large this now addition or structure is going to be. >> the snefrtd building 2000 seven hundred. >> so 19 wide lot 2000 square feet. >> yep. >> down what. >> 3 stories. >> so the units are around about 2000 yeah. the living space is one thousand two hundred and seven hundred feet per unit

got it here somewhere somewhere. >> so the upper units is i believe 14 hundred and the lower units 6 hundred. >> and since are you done commissioner. >> what i was in the direction of the other commissioner kind of threw me a curve was there was the senator observation by the president that - okay. we'll do a lightwell the lightwells will be 3 feet lightwells. >> minimum. >> 3 by 10.

>> yeah. >> that goes 19 minus 3 to a 6 foot wide building. >> it is quite smaller. >> you're on the record you are paying the tenants to move out and allowing them to move in after the construction. >> yes. >> thank you. >> i'll make a motion to grant the appeal and to issue the variance on the basis that the criteria has been met. >> so vice president commissioner fung we'll need to make the 5 finding in order to grant this variance so i'm not sure you want to don't you want

the draft finding and add to to the brief and/or the statement in the brief or us to draft separately and bring it back to the board or something else. >> i'll adopt the finding that the project sponsor has proposed their submittal. >> okay. >> so a motion to grant the appeal and issue the variance on the basis that the 5 finding has been met and articulated in exhibit 5 of appellants brief. >> on that motion commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner honda one second. >> i commissioner swig.

>> that that item passes for with vote of 4 to zero and commissioner honda. >> there's no further business. >> because the last item on the calendar 7 was continued. >> one of the major tasks i was asked to do is water system improvement program and one

thing i looked at is about the 4.8 billion dollars wurthd of work and a lot of the work was regional. we looked at how can we make sure that we provide opportunities for san franciscan's and people in the region and so we looked at ways we can expand our local san francisco lb program. so, we thought about it and worked with general manager at the time to form an advizry committee to talk about how to include local businesses in the region. >> i was on the first committee back about 10 years ago and the job changed over time. in the beginning, we just wanted people to know about it. we wanted to attract contractors to come into the system which is a bidding system and bid on some of these projects. our

second job was to help the sfpuc to try to make themselves more user frndly. >> i like that they go out of their way, have contractors trying to teach and outreach to small businesses and lots of creative ways. help the community as well. there is so much infrastructure going on and repair, new construction that i think is helping to get construction back on its feet. >> my faiv rlt part of the committee has been that we have played a opportunity for many small businesses. [inaudible] women owned business to come in and [inaudible] sfpuc. it is a great opportunity because some are so small they have been able to grow their companies and move up and bid other

projects with the sfpuc. >> everyone i was talking about with any contractor [inaudible] and super markets and things like that and i realize the transition was on the sfpuc. he got that first job and knows about the paperwork qu schedule and still works on this type of job, but he works with general contractors that also did other things. pretty soon it is like he did that one and that one. it completely changed his business. >> my name is nancy [inaudible] the office manager and bid coordinator for [inaudible] construction. worked on