>> yeah. well. >> tell me this >> okay >> good evening, and welcome to the san francisco board of appeals. wednesday, january 18, 2017, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals the presiding officer is commissioner honda and we are joined by our vice president commissioner fung and wear also joined by commissioner president ann lazarus and commissioner swig commissioner bobby wilson will be absent this earning to my left is brad the deputy city attorney and will provide information and gary the legal the board's executive director. we're joined by representatives from the city departments that

have cases before this board. and in the front row chris buck urban forestry with the public utilities commission bureaucracy of urban forestry and expect to be joined by scott sanchez the zoning administrator and here representing the planning department and planning commission and snishgs joe duffy who will be 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. have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to

submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. 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

may speak without taking do 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. >> so item one on astounded calendar is general public comment this is a chance for anyone to address the board on a matter subject matter jurisdiction not on tonight agenda any general public comment seeing none, and we'll move to item 2 which is the annual election of officers this is done every year at the time pursuant to the board's rules and commissioner president honda. >> i'll make a motion we have one member this evening we'll make a motion to continue to the cleaned to the next official

meeting. >> next week meeting january 25th okay. >> is there any public comment on item number 2? seeing none, we have a motion from the president to move this item to january 25th, 2017, to allow all board members to participate with vice president absent. >> commissioner lazarus and commissioner swig that that item passes with a vote of 3 to zero. >> and next item is 3 commissioners questions or comments anything commissioners. >> no. >> okay. then item number 4 the consideration of the minutes if january 12, 2017, a unless any additions, deletions, or changes may i a motion to accept those minutes. >> 70 any public comment on the minutes okay. seeing none a

motion from commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes on that motion commissioner fung do you want to vote on the minutes. >> yes. >> all right. thank you commissioner president honda and commissioner swig that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero i will then call item number 5 appeal 16 danish rivera versus the fluctuating bureaucracy of urban forestry on silver avenue appealing the denial of a tree removal permit one street trees with a tree with the the subject property this was heard on sexual 2016 and continued to await a ballot measure related to the financial responsibility for the trees commissioner president honda i think if you concur we'll innovative the department up

first and address the status of that legislation. >> welcome whether mr. buck good evening. >> good evening happy new year chris with the bureau of urban forestry on november 8th many or some good news the overwhelmingly support of proposition e mandated 80 percent of voters approved a charter amendment to have a city of san francisco take you will responsibility for all street trees in san francisco this will become a effective july 1st of this year so starting the new fiscal year this will mean all street trees will become the responsibility of san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry regarding the the subject property tree number two it is privately maintained that will revert to the public works tree as of july 1st, this year tree number one is the

responsibility of the public works and some outstanding sidewalk rare repair that's why that's the exciting news and had to wait until january 1st of this year to make sure that the mayor you know doesn't activate on early interpretation clause we're past january 1st proposition e is intact will become effective july 1st. >> are you finished. >> so who did 3 work we held it over for the election how does it effect the the subject property and the trees. >> maybe go to the overhead and should a visual a diagram to recap what we're looking at the the subject property tree in this case on the left tree number 2 that is the tree the subject of the hearing we denied

the request to the property owner remove the tree that's what they piloted some of the concerns understandingable as a property owner was becoming responsible for the tree and the associated sidewalks repair costs along would go pruning the tree regularly the appellant had concerns of sewer damage but unfortunately, the sewer damage will not be addressed and proposition e that will remain as an outstanding item long-term i can tell you those two trees were planted closely together their plant and 12 feet ideally 20 feet in long term hoping another 10 or 20 or thirty years out of tree long term to say a single street tree that is a consultation to the appellant that through natural causes if we need to remorseful

one of the trees not room to plant to trees that is more sustainable to have one tree there but right now in compelling reasons took to remove tree number 2 the structure is there and it is good so the department stand by our recommendation to uphold the denial and retain the tree as what's the cue since the legislation will be effect in july; right? what's the key for dpw to do the street repair and also the trimming of the canopy of the one or two of the trees. >> the canopies don't require the pruning at this time the property is setback from the sidewalk by 89 or so feet has a lot more room than the neighboring buildings we have the room of 14 feet of clearance required of the sidewalks for

pedestrians regarding the sidewalk repair we have no funding right now that to repair the sidewalk until july 1st, the taller than the time for the tree one we're looking at the next year or two to make repairs to that sidewalk. >> i mean as a property owner here in san francisco i was tagged for uneven sidewalk if it was not repaired within a certain amount of time i was fined an additional amount is that not applied to the aide sidewalks. >> it doesn't we received notices if other city department bureau maps and parking the city cites itself we're unnoticed that tree number one that is clearly maintained by the department we have not the funding to repair it all which

is example we needed proposition to pass we'd like have the funding to make the repairs considering the fact we're before you this applicant and property owner has governmental through the appeals process and public works we can certainly make that a priority starting with the new fiscal year, of course, this is all the way to the board of appeals out of reform for the property owner in the process we prioritize this instead of a year or two i'll say the first heavy half of the fiscal year we try to make the repairs acknowledging it is before you and we want to make this site and whole as possible for the property owner we can commit to. >> if we grant the appeal does the department have to take this. >> from the appeal is granted we will essentially issue a tree

removal permit to the pertaining to roach tree number 2 he will pay to remove the tree and remove the tree and the stump and pave over the location balls it is too close to the other mature tree so we'll issue a permit to the pertaining to remove and pave over and that's a weighing that with the fact it is jewel first, the liability for the tree will no longer be assigned to the property owner. >> and if we postponed action on this moving it to july post july 1st then basically by natural by virtue of the new law this becomes a mute point because automatically the tree didn't belong it that property

owner after july 1st and take if there; correct? >> the tree didn't currently have outstanding repair needs so tree number 2 the sidewalk repairs are holding not requiring pruning the owner didn't need to take action they will have to wait until july 1st a and the maintains responsibility will shift i think that is going to remain the someway in the item is continued i think we're in the same status. >> so it might be the easiest way we advertent heard from the appellant but continue this until july and then it goes away. >> the permit holder wants to remove the tree we'll be basically allow her requests to

remove the tree sorry to interrupt it was mentioned in the last hearing those trees were not planted by the city; correct? >> the trees were planted by friends of uttering for the city. >> both trees were. >> and they were planned by the property owners request to have trees there and then after 3 years revefrtd to public works so they were originally plant by the property owner maybe not the property owner about 22 years ago they were planted and looking down the line for something for us to anticipate one of the concerns brought up by the appellant is the potential for sewer damage just jeffersonly not related to this but might as well look at this for our own knowledge if

sewer damage we are to occur by pufbl owned tree after july 1st. >> still the sewer is the property owner responsibility but again not waiting to take away for informational purposes but could any property owner who is damaged by a city owned tree will they end up sue thing the . >> currently we receive the sewer damage by a property owner up until a few years ago we are that accepting and acknowledging those claims and helping to

reimburse those property owners to make repairs during the study for the urban forestry plan last year there was a lot of research by a con how other cities manage the sewer we were the only city reimbursing people for sewer the trees will damage the sewer line with a with a fault of crack then the tree will exudate that for sure and make that much worse we have a 60 are 80 years old terracotta they crack lake having a crack in the roof it starts with a kind of breach or fault with the sewer line so the last four or five years we've been denying claims for tree

root sewer damage based on those statistics with that framework people can submit a claim and it will be denied unless physically damaging the sewer line but the damage is in the fine roots they're getting to that and causing that. >> thank you, mr. buck. >> we'll hear from the appellant now. >> good evening welcome. >> you can move the mike thank you. >> okay my concern i heard what he had to say and glad he went back to the city in july in the meantime, we're having storms and branches are falling i've had to brush some of the branches from the trees there

was one that was two big i just left it there you know no more room i'm concerned what will maple what if it falls a bigger branch that a falls on someone in the meantime, they'll sue me that's my concern uaw what it's been all along and like he was saying regarding the sewer line that tree is already raising that sidewalk? how we started during the last time we had damage and i'm concerned i don't think that will be that long you know before this tree starts to have problems again and then he can't go back to the city and is you know what our tree dictated any sewer line it is a pretty tree that is a new sewer line why would i be responsible i

tried to keep the sidewalks and do any maintenance part but can't afford to clean the trees not a possibility for me i mean in and my my other question after july can they remove the tree i mean that would be the easiest way only one tree on that side on that side of street so then why would they not do that now that way we can eliminate all the problems there are branches i don't know if i can show you a branch - and overhead. >> overhead please. 3 of the branches that have fallen i've crushed 3 of them i can't keep you know taking care of why should have been a city

maintained tree that was not maintained at all i sweep the sidewalks and pick up the droppings acronym every other day especially, when that rains this is slippery someone can fall i have a lot of questions i just don't know what er where to go. >> i have a question your prepared to pay so have the tree removed. >> i'll rather pay a certain amount than have someone sue me for damages to their car and may losses the house were any family lives in i can't afford that i find that a burden that the city is causing upon me it is not fair i'm trying to do you know, i try to sweep and pick up the garbage it can't be just the owners responsibility.

>> you're aware of the scope that you will have to go through the city has indicated this is a healthy tree hail not remove it they're talking about this lasting the natural life but if you want us to grant the appeal for you to be able to take down the tree you're not only taking down the tree but have to repair the sidewalk. >> is what he's indicated. >> what i'm wondering i understand that what i'm wondering from the - you guys grant me the ability to get a removal if it falls after july 1st can they do it you know so, i mean the city what remove the tree that will be dollars. >> they could but they won't. >> okay.

>> yeah. i think i'll still like the ability to be able to remove the tree stumble that is a lot of work trying to clean the sidewalk every other day especially, when it is raining like this it is too much. >> thank you very much. >> any public comment on this item. >> okay. seeing none commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i have a question mr. buck. >> mr. buck. >> i believe you indicated that the most desirable situation would have been one tree in that area; correct? >> that's correct there the two trees are planned too close together. >> if we were to grant the appeal and the homeowner removes the tree at her own costs are they somewhat doing you a favor. >> our opinion is that the

removal of this tree right now would just be beyond being pro-active that will be like all trees are challenges management challenges it is like thrown out what we are we got the tree can drop red needles and people complain that is a problem third street have been responsible for maintaining the street trees in front of their homes for decades that's about to change all references to lawsuits will be mute as of july 1st there's no i sometimes thought a better career within a skwoft how to live and have trees in our life how to manage trees in our life an actual - i mean,

i'm an educator there are a lot of great benefits so it is a busy street i watched a young lady go through an intersection if a breeder accident you have two trees that will protect the facade of our home the trees in defense a button of the barrel in terms of the the trees their natural guardian of our true property so there is so many benefits that trees provide yeah a little bit too close together that happens we're trying to space trees out for long term sustainability it is smokeless a removal will be much too pro-active but again, i'm stating that long term the tree on the right that will be

maintained by the department will get larger again, i want to say to the property owner that all of that liability will become ours as of july 1st at no cost to them an issue did they physically feel like living with the tree and physical proximity it a burden because of scaping and other issues we feel like the two pro-active. >> mr. buck in the pictures in the brief one of the trees has i forgot split up a little bit which tree are we talking about the trespass tree on the right or the tree on the left. >> can i have the overhead, please? so we're talking about the tree on the left is the the subject property tree that is proposed for removal to the larger tree is more upright and larger the

the subject property tree on the left slightly in from the prevailing wind right now some awkwardness when you remove the the subject property tr the subject tree we'll - the trees work together as a pair that's why i'm saying let's keep the twez e trees together we'll be responsible for them on july 1st for both of them i do acknowledge i will acknowledge and we have many property throughout the mission and zero street trees in front of their home if you know from the commission grants the appeal you

know. >> and how. >> i will see the reasoning behind that i feel we have to stick to denying the requests. >> and how large a dimension for the trees and how at all will they get. >> the width will expand a good amount the width of the tree can eventually fill in the area where the the subject property tree is it will have plenty of sun and add. >> i mean dynamic. >> the tree a foot now, maybe a 12 feet canopy maybe 20 to 35 to 40 feet so if we end up with one tree it will fill in the space. >> thank you very much.

>> sure. >> i guess i'll start. >> i think at full growth those will be pretty big trees close approximate it i'll allow the the subject tree to be removed at the owner's expense that's my opinion. >> we can condition the department. >> now. >> uh-huh. >> how do you do that. >> looking th. >> my question was we condition the department.

>> brad's like what? >> that's before you on the application by the owner for a permit sounds like the department. >> can you speak into the mike sorry brad. >> sounds like the department didn't want to - >> my question. >> deny we deny - we have deny the appeal on the condition that the department takes down the tree is that the terminology. >> yes. >> when it is the responsibility for the tree. >> or now. >> do it now. >> you couldn't do it right now they haven't assumed responsibility. >> we will have to continue the case until after july one

before we can condition if we can condition it. >> well, i don't think that is fair to bring the appellant back again so i'll be supportive of granting the appeal on the basis that the trees are too close together. >> would that be your motion. >> no further comments. >> the only comment i have looks like the tree not under discussions will grow larger and the same issues will exist anyway so are going are we're going to have mr. buck they're the same species. >> beyond if you cut down one i know i'm preaching to the choir if you cut down one that

is behaving the way it is you have another that will behave the same way in the storm refuge and other stuff will fall down we are killing a tree. >> one that is too close to the other one and still one street tree. >> i don't see the benefit actually to the property owner or that the property owner will be saved one less tree to worry about but still and that remaining tree will still shed and will still have broken branches and the property owner will be out there ever two days clean power after it tree anyway. >> so why are we killing a tree would be my counter to any fellow commissioners. >> i understand it is common

sense and logic but at the same time not don't see the ultimate benefit. >> so i think the the daily or weekly care yes, but the other issues she's brought up one of the long term liability of the tree will be assumed by the department the maintenance of this tree will be assumed by the department any type of sidewalk repair is assumed only thing that stays the same the owner will be responsible for the sewer damage. >> in either case so you know. >> so why are we killing a tree. >> why are reciting - killing

a tree to from one tree to two trees whereas and with one tree the property owner still going to be out there cleaning every two days. >> the difference is the recommended distance is 20 feet those are 12 and the one tree that is to the left eventually the sewer lines are closer to the driveway that eliminates her possible sewer problems and the one tree can get a full canopy but inform trees so close that is six feet is tough. >> that's a position i'm offering another point of view. >> i have a question not sure how to address that the tomorrows to stop the second tree and creating potential problems with the sidewalk is

that still the homeowners responsibility to keep that swept and clean even though the tree belongs to the city mr. buck. >> chris buck with public works it is we refer that as minor maintenance so as pruning and sidewalk repair the comment about the sewer line i have a overhead image the the subject property tree the one closure to the appellants own sewer line and that's the only thing that i can over the commissioners in terms of the perceived or possible benefits i agree with all the feedback there is an issue living with an large tree in an area that can be a challenge but will eliminate a site closure to the sewer line and that obviously may appeal to

the property owner. >> another question while you there if we grant the appeal and give the homeowner the right to cut down the tree long a process. >> it can be quick when we receive the resulting decision we can issue the permit right away and allow the permit holder 6 months to remove the tree and arrogant a six months extension so the maximum of one why were the tree needs to be removed. >> how quickly to find someone to cut it down once we not use the full length. >> maybe a few weeks for quotes from contractors and schedule in another missouri and a half and so remove the tree and this is a stumble issue some

contractors do both and others come back a week or to later and paving over this is straightforward just get a concrete contractor to pave >> once you get a permit it is appealable. >> this is final. >> okay. >> this permit is final thank you. >> your motion still stand vice president. >> in no further discussion i'll move to grant the appeal. >> an that if you or anyone you know has information motion from the vice president to other than turn and issue the infringement on the basis the trees are planted too close together. >> commissioner lazarus commissioner honda. >> commissioner swig okay be that item passes with a vote of 4 to zero and the next item is item 6 appeal william

and linda i didn't versus the department of building inspection and the planning department approval on casper on the 2016 to nora of a site permit new 200 plus roof deck and spiral staircase and new sliding skylight and on for hearing 7 minutes to present our case. >> welcome and good evening. >> good evening my name is bill webb stony live with my wife at 1714 castro we're here as the appellants in the case of building a deck next

door our primary concerns are 3 fold the intrusiveness of this proposed deck will create you such as our the height existing to the property will be extended a loss of view as a result there is a innovation and will look into our property we are seriously concerns about the increase of potential for noise effecting our residences and we have a concern about any potential artificial lighting both of the breach of ours and the rontsz have made a number of claims but the argument the question is are the arguments of the respondents accurate and honest and fair as per their

legal construction in violation of the building code which they abated but only after they were cited by and supervisory inspector for non-compliance that is teller resist it illustrates a seriously partner the misconduct in obtaining permits and not obtaining any permits and finally the question whether the permit were honestly and fairly obtained or did the responsibility get them by subterfuge unfortunately, the appellant the demonstrateable proof it shown in in their response to the appeal sorry in 2011 there was a process where

they showed us documents and blueprints about building they remodeled this was primarily as we were told to provide a bedroom for their young daughter no time mentioned anything about a deck if we had of gotten known we say no objection to they're building a bedroom for their daughter but at claim that they didn't know they were going to build a deck is not right it has to be none builds a flat deck on the back of a how did without the tension intention of doing something in the future. >> so be light question on page one some the studs were

capped and initially perhaps premutually installed in anticipation of a permit this is inaccurate to be able to in anticipation of receiving or legally outlooking a permit if you've not filed for the permit the electrical work in construction work requires a valid permit before the work commenced not after extensive decking and the wiring to the roof so installed on page one it says that no opposition to the permit was filed during the 10 days notice during the 10 days notice period of the - sorry between july 15th and july 25th the last two pages of their response shows a copy of the letter dated

july 17th which was in the first two days of the notice that he is complaining and stating he's in opposition and as tenants we're in opposition the tenants show they made an obviously inaccurate statement there is no opposition there was direct opposition the respondent claim in neither brief at the top of page 4 from the front of the house any vertical changes are allowed to 5060 that is a red herring we're concerned with the back of the house and how high a 42 inch glass railing or any additional structures will appear it is the reality of how a new third floor will effect our privacy in the middle of the whoops in the middle of page the

respondents say access to sunlight that is important to us as a family especially at the rear the yard is shaded most of time what caused shade trees? there are on with only large tree and one small tree what do i have to do >> overhead. >> this is the respondents photograph no. across c one large tree not showing a small to memory sized lemon tree on the right hand corner of our yard the respondent state that the access to sunlight that was most for the sunlight is from the east and west the shading is dausz u caused by their own roof or potentially by the apartment building that is two hundred yards to the west or their roof

excuse me - to the east not caused by our trees. >> probably the at least honest statement in the responsibility brief states no views that we already do not have yes, from their bedroom it look into our bedroom their 10 feet on top of our bedroom they look right into us someone can see definitely into our room am i out of time. >> yes. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> okay. on the permit holders are next. >> good evening and welcome. >> whatever you're ready.

>> okay. >> are you ready. >> i'm going to speak for the first 4 minutes and my architect will speak important did rest of the time. >> thank you for your time tonight myself i my wife and i have moved into our home 12 years ago since then we stated committed to san francisco our children attend saint gabriel we've become an integral part of community for several years on top of working of time and have bill the appellant over for diner on separate occasion when we moved into our small house wisp finally able to afford it we shared our plans with the

folks the remodel followed the permitting requirements beyond the scope didn't include a roof deck we made the back of the house flat out of consideration for the neighborhoods to the north we live on a hill that slopes towards the north and the south is hard to come by have a huge tree on the appellants property that is in some of the pictures not the small lemon tree but blocks the sunlight, however, when it nora and i surveyed the project we realized the roof deck is whittier for a number of reasons the internal space will be modest and not allow for much natural light because of the orientation of the prompt second our backyard

is small and didn't get much sunlight from the nature of the hill and exhibit a is our yard i i did not gardening we have a nice view the skyline and the bay looking at to the northeast exhibit c 7 the view in the option direction of appellants residences and more importantly that will increase the access to outside sunlight we thought that would be a relatively small addition and nora thought that required an over-the-counter permit we asked the contractor to start the plans in parallel we realized we were mistaken we applied for the appropriate permit within to weeks after this we shared the plans with

our neighborhood and the appellant and their landlord and heard they are concerns my wife and i proposed concerns for the compromise but the appellant articulated no interest in taken place a solution we are proposing any ideas we've made accommodations nevertheless, including reducing the size of planned deck that is small by in the standard and exhibit b a comparison of the submission versus the concession this also eliminated the solid for rated wall on the south side of originally planned roof deck and used the glass railing to reduce this as at a significant cost and careful to minimize the impact we documented in our belief we followed the policies and the neighbors were notified

with the appellants address circled we are disappeared to read the allegation as the landlord e-mail exhibit f clearly states otherwise the other mischaracterized in the appellants brief in our belief are unfortunate we wish to make the best possible home for our family in san francisco and many of the other neighbors support us and documented in the letters of support please uphold the permit for a roof deck thank you. >> hi, my name is andy the architect for the proposed roof deck and the architect for the remodel project that been described. >> so i want to point out first of all - >> when the remodel project

the initial project was designed the reason for the flat roof were the current roof deck is promote the reason that was part of plan instead of a peaked roof to the sensitive to the downhill neighbor and lessen the impact on their natural light not designed with the idea that will be a roof deck in the nurture i future through this is a great place to put that the how's that nora and vince has is a modest 2000 square feet house the house has a ground level guest room rent-controlled unit to a business traveler when we were were approached by the roof deck i recommended they do the full footprint possible they showed those plans to the neighbors and after february they decided to scale back that is coming in

four and a half feet from the south property line the roof deck was modified to two hundred and 59 square feet was slung vince pointed out they willfully defines decided to go with the glass rail with less loss of light to the neighborhoods and as far as the privacy question we have two images one of which shows the view of the neighbors rear yard from them the master bedroom and the next image is the view like from the proposed roof deck that is looking into the same area and from my perspective not much of a difference at all what is proposed is consistent with on the roof deck both in the city

and in noah valley - i want to and here's on image that shows a red-legged frog those red areas are approved roof decks have been built i think what is proposed. >> sorry you'll have time in our rebuttal i have a question for the permit holder. >> so in the appellants brief they made an accusation that the property is airbnbed on a regular case in your belief the whole house in 2015 was airbnb exactly two times but your architect said the depends room is occasionally rented. >> we have the remodel a really nice house and an expensive place to maintain we

have this idea to experiment with renting the whole house to airbnb we did that in 2030 we do it exactly twice in the brief we rented 2 once without i want and had complaint from the the neighbors i think we mentioned in the brief we contact from vacation the folks that were there at our cost and the concession to the neighbors we never rent-controlled unit the whole house ever again and have no interest we actually will never do that again what we have, however, is a small guest room down in the garage area that is sort of a unit where our family often stays after the holidays. >> sorry to interrupt you the in question is are you currently airbnbing your property.

>> just the one guest room. >> your belief says two times how many times have you rented the guest room. >> i'm not sure. >> maybe a dozen. >> i think your brief was not clear. >> i mean. >> that's my question thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. good evening scott sanchez planning department. the the subject property with the rh2 zoning district give you a little bit of background in 2011 remodeled the permit was sought where the rear remodel was not requires a variance a neighborhood notification and the variance hearing in 2012 no, he discretionary review and no roof deck as other than stated by the permit holder the work under that permit and one restriction permit were

completed in may of 2014 the subject permit another 2014 permit was filed in june of 2014 to add the roof deck initially as proposed staff reviewed it and it needed a variance in part what was shown on the plan the firewall i guess the side property line the project no longer requires a variance under the planning code if you have a non-complying structures you can add did roof deck as long as the roof deck was on the comment the glass railing the transplant glass railing that's an important point so the code allows you to do a roof deck on the non- complying part of building that is a small roof deck through a hatch and a spiral staircase through the master bedroom so the decks you

know often they look at how they function by the access a deck that is dribble off a kitchen or does that access to a full stair those get more views through a master bedroom you'll have no guarantee but wanted to make sure that the board is aware of that this permit did go through the required 10 day notice under the planning code is not required but our policies and procedures when we as a a deck on a non-complying notice an occupant - we received comments in opposition from the owners of the appellants property and noted their tenants were opposed to it staff advised them if very a opposition go file a discretionary review no discretionary review was filed and it was approved by our

department and issues and on appeal before you and again, this is an nov hearing so everything is before you in terms of this permit application i think one in the permit holder belief this is the airbnb but the no vote hearing on the permit questions about the short-term rentals they have proper authorization for a short-term rental they got their permit in may of 2015 so early on. thank you for that but have the ability to have the short-term rentals on the property with that, it is code compliant and gone through the procedures i'm available to answer any questions. >> i have one i noticed on the plan a spiral staircase so the zika is assessable from the second year or from the first floor or both floors.

>> i believe only assessable from the second floor master bedroom up to the roof deck. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. >> inspector duffy. >> good evening commissioners joe duffy dbi the building permit under appeal was filed on the 27 of june 2014 that went through the building department after planing building department august 2016 and then it was finished on the 22 of august by a plan checker he reviewed the drawings didn't see anything that causes any brothers and sisters for the code inspector he ever building is the proper height no requirements for the for walls and the deck is pulled in the

property line the appellant appellant made a comment it is an infrastructure floor we don't consider the roof deck an extra floor there was in the brief about a permit application about the additional height those boxes are in there are for vertical and horizontal addition like stories so even though it is the height not really an issue for the case of appeal in my opinion we don't consider the roof deck an additional height per say those are a little bit of height but didn't fall under that in the building application apart from that i'm i'll be

happy to answer any questions you may have. >> the work that was done without the properly issued permit was there a notice of violation issued during that time. >> thank you, commissioner i meant to mention that the brief is cocaine that dbi did receive complaints we actually received a few complaint around july 2016 and one of the complaints i see that inspector went out there and the notes that are on the 9 of august 2016 site velocity has should say roof deck nov issued with a permit and the second of september obviously the landowners contacted the builder inspector and his comments say the roof has been removed and

the complaint we closed that case. >> yeah. >> so that's closed all taken care of and maybe got ahead of themselves sometimes those happen but one thing they took it down right away and i think restored it back to the precondition we received other complaint and went to the housing inspection and they closed the case as well no open complaints on that thank you for reminding me on that - >> now mr. duffy a deck is designed to floor. >> yes. >> versus a roof load right. >> yes. that's. >> i thought of that in the previous remodel the frame for that roof i never check those plans to see if it is designed i don't know - most people do that anyway they load up the

roof for possible expansion it is better to do it when you had a remodel as you may know. >> no two-by-fours. >> not exactly thank you. >> good having an architect on the board. >> thank you mr. duffy. >> any public comment on this item. >> please step forward. >> good evening and welcome. >> my name is richard in my brother and i own the property an castro street and 1716 castro the webb stone at castro are our tenants he reside on 1716 castro we support of opposition my

brother and i have submitted a written objection we in conjunction with the appellants strongly building the roof deck will create serious problems for both property that are not you existed that creates difficulties for the appellants specifically and myself as resident of the adjacent property the problems effecting our prompts and tenants will be significant and numerous to the degree that a roof deck sweat shirt should not be constructed with the personal privacy and the intrusiveness and noise and lighting and problems concerns for safety and hazards and conditions and uncontrollable roof assess and upper supervised deck activities the property areas related to castro were permit want to build the deck as a physically congested and tight areas the lots are set against

each in a wall to wall the backyard and rear houses are protected significantly and issues related to privacy and noise and light and general concerns caused by public assess settings with the large number of people into the roof deck that will bring parties and large crowds of people the unique good gaffe elevation from the block of castro street related to the property in question allows additional protections to privacy as presented in the opposition letter a roof deck at 1712 castro street announce with the unique downward trajectory of the lots will negatively impact the urban disturbed atmosphere and living conditions of appellants and nearby residents permit applicants have filed the

pictures that theing roof deck will not introduce any problem these castro street or 17, 16, 18 castro the pictures show the backyard rear areas bedroom windows and other non-public view windows will be in foul views from a roof deck on castro street our concern by physical explanation if filing in support of appellants in comparison to the filing by permit applicants with the weight in my board decision must go in - >> any other public comment please step forward.

>> 30 seconds, sir. >> hi my name is a my case my brother mentions any name i grew up on 1617 castro street and i went to school there in that area stained phillips catholic i taught there physical education alleges james lick middle school and mentioned they live in the neighborhood have a stake in the neighborhood well, we've been there since the 40 misses parents and father put up the christmas tree decorations and volunteered and having had young people in the neighborhood help him any mother serves on the innovatinoah vally we have a in

interest not a problem with the tenants or people in the neighborhood why now we think interest is i believe the reason is a building up decided truthfulness with vince and nora in relationship to this project they have an airbnb business not one time did they talk to us ahead of time about this business how intrusive how large it will be by the way, by the way, this if they build it addition onto property this deck they may use it for that purpose also so for the people that stay there also i firmly believed they did try to curriculum vent the permit process and when we were asked

about it they gave several answers why i believe they're less than factual with their answers that's what i believe in closing i'd like to say this i would like to say that i did approach nora at one of the meeting and said can't we x-chromesomes and workout her answer almost a quote i think big and want something big to happen this deck maybe too big for the atmosphere and the area that's how i feel about that and finally, i want to bring up something about the architect what he mentioned he used an, an airline view to state one of the points about the decks in the area i don't believe that should be loudly to be part of his argument every deck and every

home and ever area has a different character and reason to accept the deck or not accept the deck i don't believe he should be able to use a particular document. >> any public comment on this item seeing none, rebuttal starting with the appellant. >> good evening nora and vince offered us a choice between bad and worse that was not a fair choice and not equitable they did not file the recommended plans of what their supposed to do that's why they got a big red tag on their front door not fair to say they

attempted to if angle architect misses nora sheriff hennessy is an attorney has as a lawyer and architect and a from the builds don't know they need a permitted there is something seriously wrong their disingenuous from the beginning of this project and the other thing they showed a picture the trees unfortunately ,those are not did trees in our backyard those are the trees looking north in another neighbors yard to say they built this intentionally not to intrude on the neighbors to the north means they'll intrude to the neighbors to the north the neighbors wrote a letter in support happens to be the cousin of nora sheriff and

her husband not vince but leslies husband their bias in this favor he was the reality agent it sold them the house when you look at the seriously pattern of not - changing the plans this is not fair this deck should have been opted in notifying if they honestly brought it forward to not building this despite what mr. duffy has said that people do that i believe is not honest or correct. >> i believe that they always intend to do this a matter of timing if you can't get something approved try to go to an over-the-counter permit thank you. >> mr. wasteland correct. >> got a question so your

property the property that is behind you has patio decking that looks directly into your property correct i'm looking at the picture and the house behind you has. >> no, sir the property on caesar chavez may have a structure blow the fence line i can't see that we couldn't see that. >> thank you. >> i have a question did you consider filing the design dr on the project. >> did i i'm not sure i understand the question. >> a discretionary review. >> a discretionary review. >> originally in 2011? >> in 2016. >> oh, in 2016 we were led to believe when this was first filed we never got a notice my wife and i didn't get a notice

believe me from the city of san francisco sends you a notice but open it up we didn't file anything we never received a notice when the landlord rested a notice said i'll file for both of us we only filed when we realized afterward we were left out of the loop . >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> requesting my name is nora sheriff and thank you for your time this evening with my husband vince i'm the co-owner on castro street i'd like to make a few points in rebuttal first, the original

mistake was mine i thought since i'm an attorney i could read the building code and not realize our house is a non-complying structure you thought we could pull an over-the-counter permit for the deck and when we initially to with the alignment not to impact the sunlight we're close with them and didn't want to impact them. >> i don't know if ricky is mistaken but he in his e-mail to me in the planning department that is attached to our belief indicates he and his brother

received notification and he also said in his e-mail his tenants webb stone and lindsey received the notifications he said he opposed, however, when the planning department explained the discretionary review process with him clearly in the e-mail we attached to the belief they didn't packing take that opportunity to officially oppose the processing project through a discretionary review that's what i was referring to when i said in opposition because no opposition through the discretionary review process and that's the highlighted portion of the e-mail where he said i'm in receipt of the notification as my tenants are in receipt of the notification so they did have notice to the process we're simply trying to expand

our outdoor space with a roof deck the roof deck will comply points guidance we're going to use the transparent glass railing any kid's and i like to read i'd like for them to sit in the sun. >> we can't do that in our backyard it is so shady my husband likes to garden we want to have plants on the roof deck we have 6 letters of support from our neighbors attesting to our character as con rat and quiet neighbors we're not going to turn into raging partieser and regarding the airbnb we've followed every regulation. >> your time is up. >> and i have questions regarding the clear transparent

that is a nice justice it is your and regarding the airbnb so will your potential or tenants have access to the roof deck. >> no, no the bedroom in the basement does not have access to the two main floors of the house. >> i looked at the plans wanted to verify and the other question will be will be consider some type of screening along that side. >> we offered to put up bamboo or green plants but the difficulty is with the sliding hatch you know having it be continuous but more than happy to do that and be careful with the design the roof deck lighting no impact in terms of artificial lighting. >> thank you very much. >> commissioners. >> no. >> okay. thank you.

>> thank you. >> mr. sanchez anything in rebuttal. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. just on two pots in regards to the unpermitted work that was done we'll note the building permit when submitted no 2014 i noticed that the complaint filed with the planning department for the deck without permit was filed at the end of july was a few days after the notice gone out for the 10 day notice to the abutting properties but highlight the timing and following up on what the permit holder is saying about the formatting of the deck that is setback 4 feet 6 from

the property line that is shared with the appellant then the bulk of the next four and a half to 5 feet a 5 feet square roof hatch for someone to walk over and city of attorney's office to get occupy to the property line more towards the north side of that roof deck and the appellants property is to the south that will have less of an impact on shadows i want to highlight that. >> is that common i recently started so to see the hatch it opens up. >> more so my understanding that the building department allows roof hatches but people are could go this if they do

their stair penthouse that requires notice under the planning code so we see more people doing the hatches when they have the densification of non-conforming. >> that will be are variance noticed and certainly within the rear yard that needs a variance. >> how many roof decks in a year. >> it is frequent we certainly see a few at the board. >> one or two. >> one or a week i am not it is something that is more common than over the last years but i don't know the number. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> it is has been common. >> seems like every property. >> inspector duffy anything further. >> those developers. >> joe duffy dbi just on a comment by the appellant i

didn't want her to think that is okay to do work without a permit i see people we don't like it is when people duo do with work without the permit but we took appropriate action they removed the deck we closed the case fortunately it happens i don't want them to think i'm encouraging that the roof hatch are becoming they are - >> i've seen them recently. >> i've done a few inspections i imagine their expensive if their electrified tree 33 have to be electrical. >> but around the planning department. >> you was on one hand why i see them. >> thank you commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> a lot of discussion was on

procedures and process so the view take those away from the discussion as an example i don't see much to the argument from the deck had been anticipated earlier but whatnot done because of it was a - might - insider in how i view the case in light of what was stated not extensively in the brief does

this deck impact substantially the adjacent properties and the light and air by the city. >> given the size given the fact that the hatch is on the side of adjacent to the appellant i don't see that what is left over is a deck that is in terms of readily usable about one and 60 or 70 square feet at this point, i'm not prepared to support the appeal. >> nor am i. >> i concur with the vice president. >> is that your motion mr. vice president. >> move to deny the appeal. >> can we condition it so there is transparent grass to make sure. >> you'll feed to uphold the appeal. >> grant the appeal and then condition. >> would that be okay with

you. >> let me check - okay motion will be to grant the appeal and condition the permit on the basis the glass railing be transparent. >> okay. that motion from the vice president to grant the appeal issue the permit condition that the glass railing be transparent i need a basis also. >> do not. >> will have less impact on the light of the adjacent neighbors. >> the space for the motion not the condition.

>> maybe you're not understanding it. >> that's code compliant. >> that will cause an intrusion to the neighbor not the glass. >> that is code compliant okay. >> so again, this is a motion from the vice president to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition the glass railing be transparent on that motion commissioner lazarus commissioner honda. >> commissioner swig that item passes with a vote of 4 to zero thank you we'll call the next item item 7 edgar's versus the department of

building inspection with the planning department approval the property on 20th street protesting the issuance on october go 2016 to justin of a site permit with a horizontal and living level blow the level and street level no retaining wall and replace aluminum window with no wood window and repair it where indicated with bedrooms and bath and . >> can we getal couple of minutes to clear the room and please exit quieting should courtesy to the next -

>> okay. thank you for being patient with us. >> good evening and welcome. >> good evening commissioner honda and board members i'm the

owner of cottage the little cottage next to the proximately the question here and i'm here to ask you to review the site permit to take another look and listen to my concerns has to do with with size and design and excavation let me start by pointing out a mistaken calculation of the height planning code 260 a-1 c says the matter for the existing grade on the side has to be taken with the sponsors did and mark the mid drawings their lines is the area the red line takes a jump that brings the height over thirty feet limit did not line up with the drawings

yeah overhead the top floor of the addition two feet to high this is issue is very important to me because you know, i hired an expert i didn't figure this out to look at the plans by the way, or because that deviation increases the impact on any home that is all related to massing and square footage i believe that both are related no doubt the square footage of this project is big the biggest in the neighborhood much like the adjacent house to the left and the number of square footage is down from 7 thousand one hundred as presented to the neighborhood at all historic preservation hearing to now 6 house 200 i think i've not seen any changes in the plan whatever the number of the project it is

huge and no doubt the massing is large as the biggest house on 20th street and liberty street but massing is in the calendar with any project take into account the rendering here you'll see mine is the left the yellow one if you see o next to each other a big hand was raised in front of any face i'm not trying to erase that hand only shrink that and make that less glaring i'll talk about the design the rendering shosz two box will be at to the structure boxes big lots and story windows only the southern and eastern side facing

any cottage the walls are high and very close to any house 10 feet big glass boxes that will glock any privacy in front of any doorsteps a few houses up rendering with the - less glass and more wood i don't know i'm asking you to revise the permit to down sis the boxes redesign them with less glass or at least reduce glaring that will comfort any home and the intended use of third underscore is the large staircase. >> and remove the top roof deck and no roof decks in the

facility and this will have a negative effect on my privacy as a matter of fact i window will face if concerning the excavation regardless the technology and regardless of the permitting process for storing i'm worried about the excavation along any property line by the way, i don't have a basement floor and my house that was built on a slope the foundation didn't reach deep into the ground the west side of any home of the proposed excavation about create two under impound levels that means most of yard will have retaining walls i suggest to reduce the excavation to one level 25 feet to 15 feet for the fracturing and move the second

unit blow ground that will be less any new landscaping can cover any window i ask no fence be allowed that covers any windows let me conclude by in terms of never any intent to delay this project if i not i would have appealed this i i did not i i did not foil a discretionary review i could have done i was in berlin and couldn't do it from there and couldn't come back, however, i did a few things to encourage the plan i invited the person to my house to give me an inside preserve

and went to the hearing and voices any concerns even though it was an overwhelming experience i own my house and didn't have an interest in selling that i didn't take the money to silence me i came here today to look for your help to ask for a house to be built that will fit into the historic neighborhood for at the same time maintain any privacy and quality of life thank you. >> thank you very much. >> ms. edgars. >> please stay there's a question from the commissioner. >> i have a question. >> okay. >> the rendering show two windows on the side of our

cottage that faces the permit holder property. >> there is actually a third one. >> there's a third one. >> yes. >> those windows are in what room. >> the one is my living room the first one and the other one is the bedroom in the back. >> okay. >> and the middle one. >> that's a bathroom a small one i don't know. i if you see that the yellow box. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> >> good evening and welcome. >> commissioners good evening my name is justin and been seeking permits for the 20th street since i purchased the property i'm here with any partner luke and together we've

existed to start a family we love this neighborhood we know that the bar is high for a project of this type it is large we followed the steps and this project has been invested this included a walk through of the city citing we're truly sorry this project has been contention to some we've maintained very good relations with the neighbors daniel to the east and henry and others to the west neither have filed a dr we believe in time we can dom to terminate successfully and the same is true for anyone else that could choose to speak thank you for your time and i'm going to turn it over to shawn the project architect. >> it's on but won't stay in

place. >> i think you guys are familiar with the project i'll run through this quickly and if any questions address the concerns but an overview this is the site and this is the view of the rear the involuntary and our rear yard this is the 1976 survey document the facade is relatively unchanged up the hill on 20th street and down the hill on 20th street with the per set of facts that is the existing house this is 17 feet above grade and the changes to the garage door we matched what was originally there a small window in the stair landing a view the rear yard this would be a planning code compliant

rear addition with a one story pop but into the restricted this is a two-story pop out setback 3 feet from both sides we volunteering pushed the western to allow for legitimately for the west neighbors property line and to shift to have an increase of light and air to the mid block open space for the neighbor to the east we also pushed back the 2 story with conversation with the western neighbor and here's the proposed rear addition the slightly different view the same subsequence the envelope that will pop out you get the idea for the addition the top of addition been one not one inch

turn around than the appellants roof the process and outreach we started with a project review meeting that was volunteer with the planning department to establish the con stringency as to the project before we enhance design and move forward to contact the liability hill association and presented this to them and received a letter of support there was an open dialogue throughout the process and to each of the meeting you can see appellants claimed number one sis is a site plan our in light gray this is existing and this is proposed as you can see the sis of this project is very consistent with the surrounding block this is the red outline of our section and now super imposed on the adjacent projects so this is super imposed on the immediate neighborhood by 20th as you can

see that building is berlin above grade we'll have slightly large below grade this is similar project ours are smaller this is one 51 one 53 liberty this is our house in the yellow this is the existing proposed footprint will be 1300 plus square feet compared to the west neighbors that is 13 hundred 11 square feet slightly larger and the neighbor to the east those are 14 hundred plus for their footprint a smaller house to the east is that and then 3 doors down the footprint of that house is 18 hundred plus with visually no rear yard

move to the second claim regarding the height to the rear here's the rear yard retaining wall, shows an overhead rendering showing the neighbors to the east and west our property has obviously a sloping site coming up from the sidewalk and also has a cross load to cross it in conversations with the planner greg with the planning department we were advised to determine the average existing grade by averaging those two the east property line and the west property line grade to determine the average grade line the 40 foot offset to distinguish those effect the height limit a thirty feet height limit to the 10 feet

beyond the 45 percent rear yard line our structure is only 3 foot one inch beyond the 45 percent rear yard line for the thirty feet height is an casual to the thirty feet one inch you can see this and the last claim regarding the foundation we can't submit the structural drawings until the site permit is approved that said this is a standard relationship for san francisco. >> so i think that's it. >> are you finished. >> can you show us the floor plan. >> so this is the site plan and the flow plans beyond the work floor. >> the first two. >> this is the first floor.

>> can you make that a little bit bigger. >> if i can. >> i'm sorry we're old (laughter). >> me, too. >> i can't see it either. >> this is the empowering isn't it. >> this the the first floor at the top of stairs there are two stories below this one. >> i want to see the level below. >> i think this is the one

you're talking about. >> can you bellow that up a little bit. >> that's good. >> thank you. >> it is that it vice president i have a question for the architect there are several different square footage in the between the appellants and your brief so what is the actual living square footage to the property. >> it is - i belive it is 48, 80. >> that what it says in our brief your confirm that is fine with me.

>> thank you. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> good evening succumbing the subject property within an rh2 zones with the liberty hill that contribute to the the subject property it is 100 percent feet deep two dwelling units the based on the project history my understanding back in 2013 with the staff to discuss potential changes to the the subject property environmental review was submitted in 2014 with a certificate of preference and the environmental review was issued in january of 2015 and also had a hearing before the historic preservation commission on january 21st of 2015 at a

time the hpc had concerns with the project i think there were a few minor comments with the front of the building but concerned with the rare and endangered continued the item to the april 15th hearing on february 18th the ar c a subcommittee of the historic preservation commission reviewed the project went to the historic preservation commission the full commission on april 15th and unanimously approved with a certificate of preference was granted in appeal of this decision and the neighborhood notification for section 311 was performed between july and august of 2015 thirty day notification period in which someone can file an discretionary review no discretionary review requests during that time the project requires a rear yard variance which i considered at a hearing

in december of 2015 there was a public testimony in opposition to the project from the appellant concerns about how it will impact their cottage there was a variance issue for the project that discussion could be appealed but not appealed to this board we approved the site permit in march of 2016 and it was issued by the department of building inspection in october of last year, it was appealed to this board there have been extensive review and changes that were made to the project that were lead initially by the historic preservation commission it is a large project without a doubt looking at the section it can be deceiving because the architect is appropriated a good render that show us the relationship of the adjacent properties was reviewed by our preservation

staff at the scrutinize the projects and those issues were raised with them and reviewed did not ultimately raise concerns given the changes to the project felt that did comply point secretary of interior standards the guidelines we'll looking at the the preservation for the standards of district and residential design guidelines and with all those down to be compliant and rear yard variance to the first - wouldn't otherwise be allowed the extension and rear but requires that height 5 foot setback they choose to relocate with the adjacent property and not extended beyond them but to the appellants properties that's one of the factors of the

variances a lot of discussion about the height as you may know measuring health what about challenging even obtain a level lot in the up sloping lot but letter of the law sloping i believe that the staff gave guidance to properly measure that i reviewed those plans with part of variance this is a very it was correctly noted the thirty foot limit the height limit per say if the planning code a rear yard limit so this is a variable provision but that is limited to the last under the code the last 10 feet under the averaging in this case 10 feet one inch that thirty feet applies to a small portions of that that is blow the thirty feet that will be covered under the variation that was issued

the plans that were issued as part of variance. >> i feel comfortable with the application with the rear yard requirement so i'm available for any questions that the board may have. >> i've got one can you show me on the overhead of the rear yard variance that was allowed and what was given. >> oh, sure. >> the other question while you're doing that the appellants home is there too separate poems homes. >> one building at the front owe one and rear my understanding the appellant resides in the cottage similar to the last case allegations about short-term rentals living here they did appellant has properly a short-term rental permit they obtained in april of 2015. >> i understand there are challenges especially, when you have a non-conforming home in

the rear we want to see what the percentage were. >> can i have the overhead? so, i mean the variance is really to allow for this to be offset and against this adjacent property the two elements that that do be code compliant if it is centered. >> you didn't give additional usage to the rear yard no through a code compliant. >> thank you for clarifying that. >> it would be moving laterly. >> would be a foot above the thirty feet. >> it was intended to benefit the appellant is that correct? >> that's how that was represented and that's what i nodded the variance hearing a code compliant would be less

than beneficial to the appellant and maybe that's why they didn't appeal the variance it it who wouldn't benefit them and with the variance with respect to the project a d nov hearing. >> what's your feelings regarding the lack of fence that the appellant has brought up in her comments. >> i mean, i don't think o i don't have have any position on that. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> mr. sanchez, the 1976 survey this building was rated what. >> let's see - how wow, you stumbl

stumped him. >> not showing reviewed under the this. >> if you have a chance to look at that. >> and, secondly, you can you guessed what the distances is from the portion of permit holder building the main part not the pop out. >> i can give you that on rebuttal certainly thank you. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> mr. duffy. >> joe duffy dbi

the permit as you may know is a site permit so dbi will just reviewed the permit for evictal and will be reviewing it for the structural review that comes in under the. >> depend that was reviewed by the plan checker so we had it from 24 of the march until 2016 and look at it and just a good-sized project and just from my own reading the brief whether 80s projects get underway what the excavations when they get before they start what is a california civil code 832 that needs to be addressed with the adjacent pertains to the appellant will be notified that gymnasium a chance to review the

excavation and relationship erection how it impacts their property as it is really nice when we get the rendering and the brief with we can see the section and that we can see into the rear yard the excavation for the retaining walls and indeed an impact to the appellants property again, it is san francisco it is zero lot lines and needs to be addressed hopefully as the architect can address that i think he made a comment but definitely something that dbi need to be assured there will be an under pining to the adjacent property not just the appellants property but the deexcavation that is definitely something and the other thing on the windows on the property line on the cottage of the appellant those will be asked to be preserved and not in filled we

had a couple of weeks ago you'll have to weather those windows but not the case we want those preserved part of original construction on the cottage and serving a purpose no fences and i think another window in the. >> the living room and bathroom. >> could be a bedroom but looks like this is not egress window but even so we would like to keep those in possible i don't think that effects the plans of permit holder to do anything with them but just to be clear. >> other than i don't have any more comments. >> so inspector duffy if there's no fence what are you - what's the department recommendations. >> no fences between property owners we don't require a fence. >> okay.

>> you know if they want to put one up as long as they don't block the windows. >> do you know how roughly high those windows are. >> no, i don't i'm off the drawing. >> you can't read that. >> thank you, thank you. >> sure. >> mr. duffy two questions one so it was hard to tell from the floor plans the lowest level is a garage and several above is a unit and the 3 floors above that a separate units the lower unit - sort of community-based organization into the hillside i'm wondering how it gets any assess and light. >> that's a good point maybe

the architect what address that. >> have you seen the plans. >> not really. >> i have the architect. >> really approved plans that that. >> the second question a geotechnical report. >> noted to be a geotechnical report. >> was that submitted. >> not that i'm aware of but the geotechnical will be required they did a issuance of permit i'm not sure in the appellant got that but the two adjacent the timing of the appeal will tell me we did get notifying all the relevant prompts that dbi will had had notification. >> thank you can we can see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak. under public comment for this item. >> okay. >> okay. fine so if you would

please step forward whoever wants to go first and haven't filled out a speaker card that would be helpful to give to the clerk thank you. >> good evening and welcome. >> good evening thank you. i'm corey my wife and i live on 20th street adjacent to the ivy shared any concerns with justin on public record any husband attended a public hearing and voice his concerns here we go we work full-time and have a two-year-old craziness i appreciate ingrids following up and state law on top of that my husband and i bought our home four and a half years it survived the 1906 san francisco

earthquake and the fires and the neighborhood we appreciate so the history like that we know our home foundation is solid one of the major concerns with the renovation next door that the industrial of our homes foundation particularly in light of what i've heard from the gentleman understanding a 25 foot excavation is deeper than is done in homes in our area i don't what the excavation would have but to make sure this will protect the integrity of our homes foundation if this planes decreasing the depth i'll ask for that we love the current light to our backyard had will be affected we mentioned this previously to justin and the pop out was a concession we appreciate that. >> however, we will still

losses afternoon light to the backyard and obviously considerable concern for our nightclub ingrid so any additional so we'll appreciate any space inform our backyard. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> which house are you at. >> 3747, two-way street street we're directly next door in front of ingrids house there are two of us. >> next speaker, please. >> anyone else want to speak please step up. >> hi i was here on december 7th. >> you look at familiar. >> inc. happy new year to you, sir and an appeal adjacent to

any home in noah valley but i've been doing other thing over the past 3 years mr. sanchez can attest i was speaking to section 317 and during that period of time staff determined an average size of a single-family homes that will 15 hundred square feet i don't question the site permit that is here from the plans i found it on the historic preservation commission website even though it is has a major excavation i don't question the count it raise a question i've been speaking about for the past three years what is happening to the open space and the rear yard this is part of indoor i think this especially happens with excavations and walls around a lot that is happening it is just

the style that is prevalent a typical changes here's an example of a house in noah valley as you can see it is dug down and see they call that privacy fences and it really endorses the rear yard and i was concerned her home is on the edge and my other concern involves the large windows on the rear facade her home is the adjacent rear yard and privacy issue that is the project that was before you on december 7th as you can see 3 levels of massive windows and glass they're not supposed to do they changed it during the addendum

but anyway, i am one lot up and in back of this property i'm one hundred and 10 feet away she is about 10 feet away you see the impact that the light of a large window potentially most likely will have on her the house that's really it is as a member of the public i'm concerned about section 260 i read about in the belief section 260 a-1 c i don't understand that i don't think that is clarified and talking about cross sections not averaging i guess i don't know - i don't understand that and i think that needs clarification in this public hearings thank you there are copies of that section - i don't think you can't take documents can you you're welcome. >> state your name for the record. >> i'm sorry. i'm georgia

swishing i live in noah valley. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> you're welcome. >> my name is kelly live two doors down from the proposed building i'm next door to ingrid and the back of the house being built will be extending beyond the back of my house i'm a rendered and creates a experience when i currently walk into the backyard you see the apartments an guerrero and the construction in the city we have to deal and lots of you have been effected i believe the neighbor should be able to add on to their property but effecting people close by this is not a quick project that adds

to the neighborhood by delipidated how's that are abandon for 4 years someone is digging up for parking having huge windows and boxes that will be hoover into our space once the charm of our backyard i feel this is slipping a victorian with the construction cruise and people in the yard and on the streets not a corner lot if so in the middle of a historic neighborhood where love people are living please consider helping us to make that less of an imposition on folks that will effect. >> thank you. >> thanks.

>> next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners. >> good evening. >> i'm lisa here to speak on behalf of ingrid and as president of the likely elizabeth hill association i hope you all had a chance to read my second letter rejectly there were allegations of my duties at want i'd like to statement for the record in informing the residents of oversized renovations is our obligation of what is called manipulation a personal attacks they're completely out of line here and i might add the square footage of things have changed and it is still and mystery obviously no assessed to the

complete plans suddenly from 7 thousand one hundred to i don't know where are we at 6 three hundred 48 i don't know in similar fashion presenting the letter is evidence of you are approval undermines the premise of neighborhood average a letter reif the court please the statement when i e-mailed you but that was, of course, omitted from his belief we have an initial presentation most people are not listening in many spirit and the main goal the maintenance and preservation specifically that means the reasonable residential additions to maintain the scale and character on the block not the

block above or below liberty which is in back and this project does neither one including the fact with a health miss calculation given the building friendsy and proposals away from preservation towards stark modernism the stark character of our neighborhood is becoming fragile and needs to be protected and what's left out of calculations the impact on quality of life the larger oversized and glazed rear boxes that you have to see everyday are observable to anyone you know ms. edgar's didn't appeal i hope you'll scale back is this to mitigate on the historical district it creates a dangerous preebts and condition the notice

of special considerations for any fencing will block the neighbors thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> >> i'd like to submit one hundred 40 under the sunshine act. >> thank you. >> good evening and welcome. >> good evening. >> board members. >> my name is lineupscy i'm speaking to the appeal of the expansion of the residents tworth i was one of the founder or the liberty hill in the 1980s the intent of the historic preservation commission to retain the historic neighborhood in the city at the time there were no threats ever monster homes and

underground intrusions into the mall precious backyard the proposal to build and attach a concrete block two stories down and two stories up behind a humble victorian is unjudicial there is a huge december description to the cottages built on her lot in 1869 are the old guess so in the district mine is approximately 2000 square feet and the largest home on the block we referred to as the announce is next door to the planned monster under 4 thousand square feet it is the excavation is down and the building back on the lot that required a variance are permitted they'll set a danger precedent and subsidizing degrade the cherished homes

around it forecast mr. go mcbaselines project is a speculative development with a sponsor with high-end projects around town in fact, two samples we called successful commissioner mar sized expansion of historic homes the one others liberty should be questioned it was one of his own renovations the current renovation to liberty have been sited as in violation of the historic district by the historic preservation commission after all this time and all the numerous hearings we've attend about the appropriateness of his project i feel wonder why he can't call back and make them more amenable to the surrounding

neighbors and bring goodwill back to the community thank you for your time today. >> thank you. >> oh, yes. >> any other public comment. >> seeping we'll have our rebuttal starting with the appellant. >> the appellant please come forward. >> yeah. let me focus on two things here. >> the one is the i think the mistaken great calculations height calculations if you were to take or from the sponsors take a look at that and see you know where the grade line deviates from the average line i have in my belief we had

it here again, it looks even though i'm not the expert it is obvious there is a deviation between to two lines there is about a two foot difference if that can be xuktd into this i think we would be one step color to down is there any further business before this committee that big box that he's i have no idea those square feet changed so much i understand if they change a little bit but here they change in 7 thousand one hundred to now 4 thousand 8 hundred that is enormous and the plans have not changed i mean i've seen the plans after several the meetings i don't know what is happening a big project and

everybody here has confirmed that. >> it is a big project right next to my cottage and that i think should be taken into consideration they're not that many cottages none those on the block i'm the only one and have to face to face big boxes of glass that are you were asking how far away i imagine 10 feet away from any entrance door that i think should be changed i mean, i feel you know i don't want to raise this addition but i think the additions could be downsized somewhere and lots of ways to downsize i feel that we all want to live there in peace and quiet and harmony and the main thing is to down sis

this project. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> but as a note generally speaking architectural plans the reason why the photo copy has not changed they generally indicate garage spaces and other situations that is not living square footage. >> yeah. yeah. i think a big difference. >> okay. thank you. >> okay rebuttal from the permit holder. >> owner the project i wanted to address a couple of issues the fencing on the deems on her cottage i have no intention of putting up fences since this issue came up i happen to live in a two unit building in russian hill there are rear yard additions i but in

a roof deck with full support that enhances the privacy of rear yard cottages because the roof deck is not under the only place to go is to the backyard and are sort of happening out our adjacent to the bake i'm not asking her to cover them up and one of the roof decks to appreciate the views of downtown san francisco is that is looking in the opposite direction many of the privacy concerns are doable i don't have any interest under looking on her unit and her not looking at at mine and changed the programming in the rear so we don't have that problem she's a talented designer we'll have the issues with the neighborhood and jay their backyard i'm confident we can work together to do that i wanted to address that and shawn

has a couple of answers on the issues that were raised. >> so there's about the lower unit how it is backed into the lower hill the existing lower unit is 6 hundred and 85 square feet the proposed lower unit is one thousand 19 square feet this is increased in size and the existing glazing for the lower united one hundred and 95 square feet that increases because we're actually, the side of it is all opening to a side yard so there be sebe significant amounts increase not light and air to the lower unit it has within street facing window on

2-way street and one street facing window on 20th street what the roof deck there be imagines of the roof deck in the neighborhood you guys have seen roof deck there are plenty of them there. >> thank you i have a question for mr. mcbain. >> before i have a question for the architecture is there a condition in the permit to provide elevation homes monitoring. >> in terms of settlement. >> okay. >> mr. mcbain. >> so i've heard public comment that you're a developer but also heard a comment from

you directly? our pencil residence. >> under oath i'm asking you this our permanent residence. >> yes. >> okay rebuttal from the department mr. sanchez. >> scott sanchez planning department. just a few points that the commissioners raised first commissioner lazarus you asked about the lower unit that extends beyond that adjacent building that considered below grade so permitted obstruction in the rear yard but at floor didn't extend as far as it come into the rear yard i think that let's see - a question about the lower unit and the window and the project sponsor said that is lower in the ground the

size of the unit the glazing will be increasing not considered a rose of a unit under 317 and not reducing the qualifies the united their priority in the required exposure so it didn't require any loss of units under the planning code and one of the public testimony is section 317 within the landmark it is governed before i the planning code that has more stringent planning code than 317 and will be closely monitored to make sure there's not a donations i couldn't find a 1976 survey for the building that is odd but also i mean a no landmark district and will supersede any survey those are combooidz for historic preservation but given

it is a landmark district that's a more stringent. >> that was much later you're in 1985 he i believe the liberty hill district. >> 87 sorry. >> we're familiar with the liberty hypothetici believe val >> if you have any other questions talk about i do. >> a dispute over the elevation i mean a right way to do it and a not right way to do that. >> given you know all the things i can go into the calculation on the down sloping easy to take the in front

property line and carry that back an up sloping lot looking at what we count and don't count towards grade you know, i understand what their referencing the 60 in this case the issue around a retaining wall it does bans what we see lower the grade in these cases we generally look with the above grade is if we in what the appellant suggested if someone the a rvltd 3 feet is allowed that will be a new grade and the building is a take our we're trying to find a way that will address those concerns certainly works against project sponsors many off the minded this is a fairway to calculate the height provision that prevents people

from gain it nicole the defies logic if someone excavates for a patio they build up to the height provision and after the project it is excavated and now the building is non-compliant that is for the implication of law we are implementing that fairly. >> we've had a couple like that. >> my other question on the calculation of square footage seems like a standard methodology what is included. >> what didn't get included. >> do you have comments. >> the planning code has a eloquent definition thoover and over those are not have issue by fdr so not concerned with the

square footage of a building per say doesn't trigger any planning department reminded but calculations in outside wall to outside wall and excluded mechanical phase of 0 below grade parking is complex under the planning code. >> it requires to apply to areas of what is proposed but the site permit package. >> unfortunately, we didn't receive the full plans we have different depictions of floor areas but the planning code with the building code is different we try to incentivize features will i downtown uses on the underscore is not considered engross square footage area they're a lot of definitions out there thank you. >> thank you.

>> thank you mr. sanchez. >> inspector duffy. >> joe duffy dbi just on the architect did make a comment about the required light and ventilation for the lower unit in my mind someone that dbi will looking for environment chapter 12 in the planning code i thank community college so for bringing that up it is an important issue the monitoring point not something that the building code actually requires but we definitely recommend they do some data points before that he start so we see any settlement to be regulated regularly so no problems with the neighboring properties the architect didn't address the the excavation on

the section 832 of the civil code will they comply and sometimes that happens the neighbors sometimes they're forced to get their own engineer and get have them look at b.a. what it how it impacts their property it is unfair because someone is could go a project that dbi didn't encourage the property o project team to speak to the neighborhood about that and from the neighborhood have questions they'll come to dbi or consultant with an engineer sometimes the project sponsor will contemplate that or whatever there definitely needs to be a feeling that the building will be safe during the construction it is a big excavation and and the before the construction starts so we don't have problems with

undermining of adjacent foundations due to the construction. >> so inspector duffy the to your last point caught any attention because of concerns of the earlier speakers from the public we've had in the last year had a couple big ones one was in jordan park and cal hallow you know they were significant changes to the builders foundation and it was either claimed or found that there was impact on the neighbors foundation which if were a neighbor would piss me off how do we protect the woman that

spoke earlier that i'm significantly sympathetic and we've had exposure to other issues how proactively can this board add teeth can proactively this board making the findings one way or another if. >> we can condition the permit had data points of the foundation how can we sub or the that condition what should we be concerned with i want the public to hear this so we're not back here again with someone claiming that you know all sorts of bad things are happened my house e highway is falling down. >> i appreciate you're asking the questions other cases are

under construction those are revision and they z did exactly what i don't want to happen the building code chapter three 307 talks about protection of a giant property during construction and the civil code in section 8 percent 32 notification to the neighborhoods prior to the excavation to review what this excavation will and from the board wants to put that on there the building code takes care of of but you're right in the past we've had to start and the housing is done and the restriction is appealed to the board and not a good - but here this project has not started you know there is a neighbor's are right they're concerned and there is ways to do it we center

have to have ways to do it with the san francisco zero lot lines you have to take care of the neighbors property before you take care of your own i tell them that you have to increase pine maybe writing and there's ways to freeze the soil i don't know what from the board wants to put and how would you verbalize that condition. >> comply that the building code that speaks for itself. >> and condition we're going to condition. >> and verbalize it is reiterate that whatever way you want but definitely if you want to put it in there at section 832 notification needs to be part of document something like

that. >> that would be my a major concern so for me because it is a significant excavation personally i don't mind the excavation but if i'll the neighbor i'll be really very, very concerned about that excavation and . >> anyone that doesn't do that they're leaving themselves open to being in court. >> it doesn't matter where you can sue them or not if you don't want to happen in the friend if at any point it is a disaster and by the proper process but touch that it happens too many times we deal with that but prefer we're discussing that

prior to any work starting. >> i think that is an important for the developer and project sponsor and important for the neighbors to hear it as well so that he know their voting rights are protected and can be protected. >> the thing that liberty hill property the sites conditions are good and the geotech will be involved from the project team that will be, california monitoring and theirs site observation under special observations in the building code that's something we ask for in those types of project so the building code will address it under special directions as well. >> does that hill most of it rock. >> i have not been up there any recognition that is pretty good soil conditions.

>> thank you inspector duffy commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> anyone want to start. >> sure i have been quiet all night you know normally i was prepared to hate this project because i like the prevention of neighborhood preservation of my city what that was mathematic to be we see a lot of projects which stretch the envelope and in my opinion kind of stretch the envelope to the point of disfigure time i thought the property owner was responsible in the way they approached the project i love the will the it progressive and that the pop

outs are in the back in the insulting and they could have been a lot worse if you're looking at the glass half empty their cognizant of light and air was very good cognizant to shift the pop out in ways to protect the neighbor was positive but it didn't effect the facade in the front and therefore the integrity of street is very positive and you know i've heard if the da that it is right in line with the way things should be built and the variance was that was asked for was uphold not a blatant variance that again stretched that envelope to be discussed with the disfigure time so my biggest concern i've

voiced before the protection of next door neighbor so their home is not undermined in a delicate construction situation go with a high degree of excavation. >> i completely concur with scomplig i his with the neighborhood but the rear yard has esteem challenges i believe as commissioner swig said the permit holder has attempted strongly to address a lot of the facility issues at the same time i also have the same concerns that commissioning has that would be significant amount of excavation i personally will feel for comfortable from the we

conditioned the permit for additional monitor monitoring to provide regarding the engineering and excavation so the neighboring properties owners will feel comfortable working their foundation has not shifted and regarding the rear yard the permit holder has been gracious and saying he'll not put a fence and further condition that to fencing or and/or will not community-based higher than the appellants windowsill but other than i believe it is the large house but been done pretty good and being as respectful as he can with this project. >> is that a motion. >> why not make the motion.

>> so if i'm going to condition my motion i have to. >> grant the appeal. >> yeah. grant the appeal on the boos - after reviewing the project that the neighborhood conditions up the block or - don't ask me, i'm the worst. >> grants the appeal on the basis that the project meets all the requirements by condition it an additional monitoring or what - >> well, i don't of a suggestion. >> condition the property on that and as the department had suggested or said i think that

is unfair that the adjoining neighbors need to pay for other monitoring the permit holder pay for monitoring for the project in regards to the foundation i don't know what the technology terminology we need to think of this - to adhere to section 32 and provide all assurances to the neighbors of their efforts. >> so maybe to comply with section 832 i'm not sure of second part. >> the additional condition was that in the screening or fencing be no higher than

windowsill. >> in consideration for the concerns for the neighborhood. >> mr. duffy you have a suggestion. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioner fung will know the monitoring is separated from 832 and the section 832 just you want to do the monitoring for the settlement and throughout the project. >> that's required but, but i mean on projects like this they're data points and their checked regularly for any movement of properties we see that all over. >> it is a concern that is an steven excavatiextensive excava. >> but we have on this board sown the results of less care