>> good evening and welcome to the july 25, 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of

appeals. board president frank fung will be the president tonight. coming up the stairwell there is city attorney brad russy who will be providing the board with any needed legal advice. i'm julie rosenberg, the board's executive director. we will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board tonight. scott sanchez, zoning administrator representing the planning department and planning commission. i do believe joseph duffy will be here, and we have chris buck, urban forester with the department of public works, bureau of urban forestry. the board requests that you turn or silence or all phones and electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. please carrie on conversations in the hallway. the board's rules of

presentations are as follows. each side is given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebutt tall. pima fillated with these parties must present their comments within this period. members who are not afillated with the parties have three minutes to address the board. to assist the board in preparation of the minutes. you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card to board staff when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments. we are located at 1650 mission street, room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgov tv, cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 p.m. on channel

76. now we will swear in or affirm all those who wish to testify. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand if you are able, and say "i do" or "i affirm" after you are sworn. okay. we will now move onto item number one. this is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but that is not on tonight's calendar. is there any public comment this evening?

general public comment? no. okay. we'll move onto item number two, commissioner comments and questions. >> yes, please. it seems as over the last couple of months that we've had quite a few items related to food trucks and push cards, etcetera. it also seems that there's a level of frustration sometimes with regard to the interpretation of the food truck legislation and that those statutes which pertain, and there has been seemingly a lot of ambiguity with issues like underserved areas and other items which have caused this body to delve into

interpretation of what should be clear legislation. so i would recommend that we have a -- a session with regard to discussing the food truck legislation or getting some clarification with the end goal being possibly a letter to the board of supervisors that say we humbly recommend that you review the food truck legislation and update is since it's been a couple of years since it's last been upgraded. >> clerk: okay. thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, we will move on before you is item three, adoption of the minutes. before you are the minutes of the july 3, 2018 board meeting. >> vice president fung: any corrections or additions? if not, is there a motion to accept?

>> so moved. >> okay. we have a motion by commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes. is there any comment on that motion? okay. [roll call] >> clerk: okay. that motion carries, the minutes are adopted. we will now move onto item number four. this is a jurisdiction request for the subject property at 2900 vallejo street, and the parties have requested a continuance. i can read for the record the ann and kristof bertran. [agenda item read]

>> clerk: and since they have requested a continuance to august 15, we do need a motion and a vote in order to move that. >> so moved. >> okay. so we have a motion by president fung to move that to august 15. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. it's moved. backtracking, is there any public comment on that motion to move it to august 15? thank you. so we will now move onto item number five. this is appeal number 18-076, brad susthiem versus san francisco public works, the bureau of urban forestry. the property is 1639 --

[inaudible] >> -- to remove one street tree with a replacement javt to the subject property. this is public works order number 187809, and i understand the parties have reached a settlement or do we want to proceed with the normal appeal times? >> chris buck with san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. both parties have reached an agreement but perhaps we'd both need at least three minutes or so to still just present our findings to you for your approval? is that -- >> clerk: is that a sufficient amount of time for the appellant? okay. and then, it will also be open to public comment. so -- >> correct.

>> if you're going to speak, you need to come forward. >> one question to verify if there's an agreement, it's still open to public comment. my sense is we'd still have public comment. absolutely. >> yes. >> clerk: since you're allotted seven minutes, i would suggest you just keep with that. you don't have to use the full seven minutes, but in the event you go over three minutes, you don't have to stop, so --

>> umm -- >> you can identify yourself for the record. >> i'm brad suskin. this is my wife. as chris mentioned, we have come to an agreement. he's been out to the site and seen that the tree is not an appropriate tree to be under the high voltage lines that it's under. it's a tall growth tree. we have proposed to plant a new tree that's more suitable to be under a high voltage line. we've also, as part of a larger remodel, proposed adding landscaping to our front yard. currently, it's an concrete. in addition, have proposed a permeable driveway, sidewalk planter beds, and for the tree,

a 48-inch box, whatever the city recommends. as to the proposed garage, we applied for a site permit in may of last year. planning approved the addition of the new two-car garage to go to 311 notification. that notification, 30-day window, went forward. there was no objection from any neighbors at that time. we believe we're going to make this a better situation, and as we've discussed with chris, the city, and urban forestry has the opportunity for a homeowner to pay for a better overall situation. we'd hoped that that, in the first hearing, would be sufficient. we do have some additional personal matters we'd like to address that i will let my wife discuss. >> hi. michelle peterson, owner and future resident at 1641 grove. what i wanted to address with the court which i should have

at our last hearing but i didn't because i didn't think i should have, what i would like to add is that we would have an accessibility need in our home. my son was born with a disability. he's had corrective surgery. he's had ten so far on his feet, his hips, and his hands. every time he has surgery, he has to be in a wheelchair for months. so the denial of the removal of the tree, i -- you know, i need to be able to pull him in and out of the house, a driveway, or i'm faced with potentially parking blocks away in the rain, at night, or having to double park in front of the house and loading him in and out of the car in the middle of the street, which is dangerous and illegal. so that's just something that i wanted to go on record. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. mr. buck?

>> good evening, commissioners, chris buck san francisco public works, bureau of urban forestry. the application was denied at the staff level and again denied at the departmental level because the tree itself is relatively healthy ask sustainable if you take away the issue of installing a garage or driveway. as you know, we often have tree in proposed driveway garage conflicts. it's generally been pretty rare for trees to be fully protected in an application to install a garage or driveway ultimately denied. after department of san francisco public works denied the request for a departmental hearing, once it was appealed, we do increasingly try to reach out to the appellant and see how much ground we can cover before the hearing. a key reason for the site visit was to truly verify if there's a replacement location on-site, which has been a sticking point

for us. in the past, if the tree's not replantable, we tend to err on the side of asking you to remove a tree for a garage, or if it's just a tree that should be worked around, an outstanding tree that we feel as a department we wouldn't want to see removed even if it's to install a garage or driveway. so that's a little general background about the tree is self-. the species is a brisbane box. tall, fast growing tree, citizenshipcal citizenshipcally -- typically with a single trunk. it's very vertical. the top growth will suppress lateral growth. now it's located beneath high voltage and low voltage line. we would never initiate the removal of a tree that it's below high voltage lines, but

knowing that it's coming before you, we'd be willing to say that is this an outstanding tree that should remain? to be fair, we're always talking about right tree, right place. we certainly depth want to come before you that say yes, this is a tree that we should deny and then have the arborist come before you and say hey, that's one of the tallest growing trees. this is a case that we're willing to reverse and compromise on this case. we did verify that there is room between the gas and water line for a 48 inch size box replacement tree. it's typically the largest size that can be planted. in addition to that, the applicant and the appellant is definitely interested in installing additional landscaping on the sidewalk, so we'd require that a sidewalk landscaping permit be submitted to install additional landscaping, so we'd have both a 48-inch box sized tree, and then a larger opening for

sidewalk landscaping. those are the key reasons that we felt that we would concede on this one. again, wrong tree, wrong place. and i have a couple of photos. we'll go to the overhead just to show the site and the tree, if we could go to overhead. again, the tree is a brisbane box, and this red arrow shows the subject tree. there's a little bit of shine there. and it's in a row of other trees of similar size, so there is some canopy presence. the property to the left is not the subject property, it's the property to the left or to the east. there's both a street tree and a large eucalyptus tree on the set back. in terms of visual impact, it's

not as bad as we've seen when we're before you with similar cases. again, this is a side-view of the tree with the overhead lines, and there's both low voltage and high voltage lines. this is a view straight on from across the street. the replacement tree would be opposite the doorway. there's a water line to the left of the stairway and a gas line, but there is enough space to replace a 48-inch box replacement tree. so when we had those concessions agreed to, we did exchange e-mails saying these would be the conditions for our approval. i asked our superintendent if we should still prepare a brief, but she said if both parties are willing to come before you with that agreement. one things in the resulting decision, we did note that the appellant had begun construction without first obtaining a tree removal permit. planning typically refers an

applicant to bureau of urban forestry to obtain a tree removal permit first. this agreement did appear that

the owner began construction without proper permits, so we

did put that there into the record. in terms of our decision, it definitely factors in. i mean, i wouldn't push you to make a recommendation on this. it's something, i don't know if it's a matter of a continuance or if it's a matter of placing those conditions on the permit, but clearly, it's really something for planning to address. we really try to keep our hat -- our urban forestry hat on and not act as a planner and let those professionals do their job. >> okay. thank you, mr. buck. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> can i ask a question of -- does any of the department, planning or building, have any information on this, by chance? sorry. i know this was not -- you were not prepared for this, inspector duffy. >> go ahead, commissioner honda. >> so in this brief, which i probably didn't go through because it doesn't indicate your department, it indicates there are quite a few notice of violations and that work was started and performed without

benefit, including a substantial excavation that apparently has damaged the neighbor's foundation according to the brief. do you have any information on that? >> i did look it up before. just by chance, i did review that. we did have a couple of permits in 2017 -- that were issued in 2017. we revoked them in 2018, in april. there is a permit filed for horizontal addition, and then we have a notice of violation, a stop work order, so i believe it all adds up to them getting ahead of themselves. they definitely got ahead of themselves, so that's as much information as i have on it. the permit is currently going through review, and it's been routed back to the planning department probably because of the april 25 notice of violation and the revocation of the permits on the 27th of april by d.b.i., so i do know that it's -- they are trying to fix it, but there is a stop work order on the project.

>> 'cause according to the brief as i read, there is substantial excavation done at the property, which is -- >> yeah. >> and so what is the excavation on that -- on that stand? >> well, it's under -- the project's stopped at the minute, but like i said, they got ahead of themselves on the project. they pulled smaller permits, and then, they got going on the big scope without having the permit issued. that's what i read from that. i can read the notice of violation. >> no, i read that. thank you. >> undermining the neighbor foundation, displacement of soil, pressure treated employ wood on neighbor's foundation. all of that is going to have to be addressed. you're right. it's definitely part of the violation, and it needs to be addressed, and they're probably in the process of doing that with the filing permit, geoeffect will permit so it's currently on hold. >> thank you.

>> yep. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. don't have a lot of additional information on the enforcement case. we did receive one back in april. i think it was the referral from the department of building inspection. the building is a known historic resource and think the complaint alleges that excessive amounts of the building were removed and reconstructed, which i'd say is particularly disappointing in this case, because the contractor was involved in the case that we had on 950 lombard street, which resulted in a supplement with the city of $450,000 for illegal demolition work, so our staff will be investigating the work here and will be working with the city attorney's office as appropriate and determining a resulting case. >> okay. may i ask a question, please, mr. sanchez. so are we putting the chicken -- the egg before the

chicken or the chicken before the egg? we're approving a moving of a tree permit, but -- and the reason we're being asked to move the tree is because of the garage. >> if i understand correct, mr. buck's condition would include a condition that they have to obtain those permits first so that if they don't -- if they aren't able to obtain those permits to allow that construction -- >> so that clarification -- i just wanted that clarification. so it's all going to flow in order so that we're not going to tear down a tree and then find out that a garage isn't going to get done. >> that's my understanding. >> and just because of recent actions in other commissions, i believe several other projects were required to restore back. do you think that that potentially is an option here? >> i -- i don't know all the details of their request. i mean, they may have requests that merit the garage addition. >> you know, this is a position where we have a tree permit.

>> yeah. >> in front of us, okay? >> okay. >> thank you. >> clerk: is there any public comment on this item? okay. >> hello. joe bollinger, lives next door. i'll be brief, as you've read the brief provides by the neighborhood. today, the actions have led to the following actions. multiple notices of violation have been issued, as you discussed. 1647, the adjacent property, my property, also received a notice of violation as it sustained significant damage to its foundation on the north end and currently stands to sustain signature damage to the south.

at this time, all the permits have been revoked. all work's been forceablely stopped, and the developer's been called to address recent violations issues and didn't show up. he's made no attempt to contact us regarding the violations and in fact has ignored our requests to safeguard our property at this time. i'd like to further point out that this is not the first time the developer has been found themselves in violation of working outside the code, as you found out. he has no respect for the neighborhood that he works in, at this time, the developer has no permit to build this garage which is already halfway completed, and until such time, does not have an active permit, he should not be given leave to

remove whatever trees to set himself up for whatever he assumes he'll have in the future. he should address the damages he's already caused before given permission to cause more. we respectfully ask this tree removal be upheld at this time. >> clerk: okay. is there any other comment at this time? we won't have rebuttal since there is an agreement. commissioners, this matter is submitted. well, that would be up to the president. you want to allow them the rebuttal time? >> yeah, they can have it. >> clerk: okay. >> we haven't acted on the agreement, so let's -- >> clerk: okay. so you have three minutes. >> so chris was on vacation last week. we received a letter from the

neighbors last night at about 5:10 p.m. i did not have time to do a thorough rebuttal. i have the notes here from the director's hearing mafs mentioned. i don't know where he got his information. when we started this project on my own dime, i had a photo documentation company go in and completely photograph all the conditions in his house specifically for this condition. we had two foundations, you know, mine was brick, his was concrete, and his was poured up against my brick. that causes a lot of vibration. i did everything i could to be certain if i did cause damage, he had all the evidence he needed to prove it, and we could sort it out. when he called about the notice of violation, i went straight to pat buskovich. i talked three times with joe, asked him what he wanted, how

to proceed. we got no response from joe. i feel i've done what i can to try and do this. i certainly have gotten ahead of myself. i foundation that we did was done with a permit, and you can go on-line, you can see the foundation upgrade, and all the inspections that were done. it was every square inch of that concrete, reinforcing steel, everything inspected, approved by my engineer, all details, every single detail. in the rear yard, we did over excavate, and i did that just thinking it was okay to dig in my rear yard. i didn't think about greater than 2 feet, what was considered building construction. i did it simply because i had the opportunity to move dirt in a more efficient manner at that

time while we were still under construction. so in response to joe's comments, i am fully prepared to repair whatever damage i've caused, and then have -- and perfectly transparent with his requestst requests for access to the property, every documentation he may need at every request. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. mr. buck? >> chris buck with san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. i don't have specific rebuttal regarding the appellant. certainly our client would prefer a cleaner transition here. we certainly don't want to be seen as moving along with the removal when the status of construction permits are in question and clearly in play. so, you know, we're not here --

we don't need to push this forward, we're just presenting our case. we've always tried to look at the tree itself and let other experts in the field of building inspection and planning, you know, do their jobs, so we're really here just before you to -- whatever your recommendations are. thank you. >> mr. buck, you want multiple conditions, don't you? >> multiple conditions are the box-size replacement and sidewalk landscaping to be installed. >> species. >> species would be at our recommendation, our approval. we agree that there's a number of species on that block that would be more appropriate for replacement under the power lines. next step would be probably get -- they're not at the approval process yet, but when

they're at that step, they would be required to show the sidewalk landscaping permit. >> and you would want this permit held in the abeyance of the building permit? >> correct. in the old days, we were last all the time, and now we're kind of first, and so we do end up often approving permits and then saying -- stating in the permit itself, well, for one, we wouldn't issue the permit, you know, there's a decision here that could be made, and we wouldn't issue the permit until those conditions would be met, so we just put it on hold until those conditions are met. so we do do this with a lot of other cases. it's just typically a little cleaner between, you know, neighbors. >> okay. >> thank you. >> clerk: commissioners? >> matter's submitted. >> there's an agreement with granting the appeal and

approving the permit on different conditions. >> madam director, do you have that list of conditions? >> yes. is there any more discussion? i can read, basically, grant the appeal and overturn the order, denying the tree recovery room value and issue the tree removal permit on the condition that the applicant first obtain all necessary permits to install a garage and driveway curb cut, and that the tree that is removed must be replaced with a 48 inch box sized replacement tree approved by the bureau of urban forestry to be a few feet from the proposed driveway, and that the property owner install additional sidewalk landscaping in the public right-of-way had a public landscaping permit administered by the bureau of urban forestry. >> question of clarification. read the first part again,

please. >> so the first part would be mr. suspekin would first have obtain a permit to install the troy. >> but we would issue the permit and the conditions versus it would hold the permit -- >> right. the tree permit would not be issued until he first -- >> okay. thank you. i got the clarification i needed. >> okay. >> that would be mine. >> okay. did we want to clarify the time frame for getting the sidewalk landscaping permit within a reason time after removal of the tree? is that the time frame? we're deliberating here. >> chris buck, public works. prior to. prior to the permit being issued, we would need the

landscaping permit submitted. >> okay. so thank you. this would be a motion to grand the appeal and overturn the order denying the tree removal and issue the tree removal permit on the condition that the appellant first obtain all necessary permits to install a garage and a driveway curb cut and also obtain landscaping permits so that additional sidewalk landscaping in the public right-of-way could take place, and those are two rewe can whi can -- prewe can requisites, ae are conditions to be approved by the department of urban forestry within a few feet of the proposed driveway. >> that's all fine.

the thing that i'm suggesting is a protection of the neighbor. the neighbor has suffered damage, so what can we do in -- as part of the -- the permitting process on the garage and the completion of that job to also ensure that the neighbor is -- is cured? >> i personally think that that's -- what's before us is just the tree. >> yeah. >> and that the protection of the neighbor is going to happen with the department going through the n.o.v. process, and more than likely, this property is going to be before us again, but not for a tree. >> okay. that's why i brought it up, and i want to have discussion on it rather than having something on the -- thank you.

i'm happy. >> okay. would you like me to read the motion again -- >> no. >> -- and take a vote. so we have that motion on the table from commissioner lazarus. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. that motion carries, 5-0. thank you. we will now move onto item number 6. this is appeal number 18-002, consideration of adoption of written findings. this is lydia w 0 ytak versus department of building inspection with planning department approval for the subject property at 1033 to 1037 washington street protesting the issue wednesday on december 15, 2017 to 1033 to 1037 washington street, l.l.c., of a site permit of fourth floor residential addition to

building. [please stand by] . >> clerk: we'll start out with the appellant, miss woytak.

>> good afternoon, and i would like to thank you, commissioners, for preparing findings and conclusions for the appeal. you are absolutely right, this is a historical property, in an edwardian neighborhood. the subject building is the biggest property already. it occupies the entire lot, and the property is a structure of merit, category b, and as such, it requires preservation -- a detailed preservation report, and no such report has been prepared. i inquired with the planning -- project planner, and the -- so

also, i would like to say that i agree with the commissioners, that the project is out of character. take a look at this addition, four-story addition, topped by a fifth story deck almost 8 feet high. it's -- it's not only out of character and it's visible from both sides, including the front, but also, it's built totally against existing building codes, namely, it's building code 134 requires 25% of the open space. then, this property is located, as you are aware, in vanness

special district use. and washington street is in the district. it is washington street is a corridor, and special precautions are done by the san francisco building code to protect it. namely, section 253.2 says that every property abutting washington street needs to have at least 15 feet open space back yard. and also, please note, section 172. this section says no existing structures on a nonconforming lot shall be constructed, enlarged or reconstructed. this is clear direction from the building codes. all of this has been

overturned. the zoning administrator and majority of you voted to uphold my appeal on the zoning because zoning administrator considered them to be impractical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. and to -- also, if you look at zoning administrator's decision and appellant's letter, he points out that without variance would mean that project would only have 37 feet of total property. they misunderstand the concept of set back. they think that they can do set backs on fourth level.

it's wrong. set backs are done from ground up. and appellant states well, there are plenty of buildings in the area that are four-story buildings. and please take a look at his photographs. they are all modern structures. they are not super imposed modern structures on a 100--year-old fragile historic building, so none of them, including quoted by him, 135 wetmore alley, it's not washington scenic corridor. and i'm not aware of any details pertaining to that property. so also, i would like to rebutt

appellant's statement that i apply appeal permit of 8496-s. i go by what's black and white. this is what it says, black and white. if it is not correct, applicant should have corrected it. and to -- regarding decks, he says the appellant has a deck. our deck is grandfathered in. the building inspector told me on many occasions it's not legal. if it ever burns down, you cannot build it -- rebuild it. so our decks on washington street are not legal. there has been no environmental

review done. the property's nonconforming. all nonconforming property requires environmental review. and to -- does not have soil report. the building sits on soil, not on rock like some other properties in san francisco. no geophysical report. the applicant is going totally blind into it. also, he says that item b appeals ceqa -- okay. so -- >> you have 30 seconds. >> 30 seconds. so two more points. he claims liberty development claims they're a minority. corporation is not a minority. number two, also claims affordability housing act.

that act was designed for low, low-income people, not for l k luxurious penthouse older. >> okay. we'll hear from the property owner. you can come up. that's fine. >> good afternoon, commissioners. todd mavis, project sponsor, and one of the owners. together with my partner, kevin chang, we've lived in san

francisco for over 20 years now, and my partner, kevin, grew up in chinatown, just a block away from this particular building. we've owned this building at 1033 to 1037 washington street for a little over 20 years, as well. so we know the area very well, we know the community really well, and we care about it very much. and i think sometimes that gets a little lost in all the briefing documents, as well, that our proposal to make this building bigger, our intent clearly is not to make the neighborhood worse or the quality of the neighborhood go down through our actions. what we're trying to do, obviously, and we've been at this now for a little over two years, following the process as diligently as possible, following all of the rules of

the planning department and the planning commission and this board, is to add additional housing to chinatown, to san francisco, which we all know we desperately need. so rather than go through all the points that are in my briefing document, which you've already had, i'm going to try just to focus on two of them. one, try to emphasize why it's important to allow a project that's nonconforming, to allow it to be intensefied in its nonconformity. i'd like to convince you of the reasons to do that. and the second thing that i'd like to do this afternoon is to just talk about why it would be manifestly unjust to deny our site permit at this stage. so the first thing that i'd like to emphasize because i think as we understood it was the primary reason why this board decided that we should not be allowed to have our site permit, and i think the primary reason that we understood was because we would be making a

nonconforming building more nonconforming, we would be intensifying that nonconformity. once we finish the building and adding new housing, we will only be 50 feet tall. we won't be the tallest building, because just around the block, at 135 wetmore street, a new building was proposed that will be 57 feet tall. also, a modern design. we emphasized in our briefing documents how many other tall buildings there are in the neighborhood. so we certainly won't stand out in terms of height. the appellant emphasized that this is a historic building. i think that's important to answer, as well, however. the planning department did that analysis for us. we submitted our environmental evaluation. they reviewed it and said it's not an historic resource. they thoroughly reviewed our

project. for close to two years, we've been through this process, and decided that we would not be making -- we would not be ruining a historic resource because it's not an historic resource, that it would be a valuable addition to the neighborhood and that there are some benefits to the project. so let me emphasize some benefits to s benefits to the project. i mentioned more housing, but a large part of it is making the building safer. the back stairway closed, adding springlers, size -- sprinklers, seismically fit. all of that is economically feasible because we're adding this additional unit. it's not some luxury unit that for some reason we're suddenly going to be able to sell and make a ton of money on. what it does is make it

economically available to afford the retrofits to this building. now it leads into -- and this leads into the second point that i'd like to emphasize. let me go back and address one other issue that the appellant raised which i think is important. she put some slides up on the projector showing what the addition would be like, saying it's out of character character. i would like to say those are her drawings, not showing the set back on the plans. in your packet, we did provide 3d rendering. my next point is weighing intensefication of a nonconforming building, from doing all this to a nonhistoric

resource that's not the tallest orthe biggest in the neighborhood, but you get the benefit of additional housing. that leads me into we've gotten here after a two-year process. we had a variance hearing. if this board had thought that this is a bad idea, the time to say that is back at the variance hearing, when this board said that the variance should be allowed. not enough votes were cast to say we should deny this particular variance. that's why we feel so strongly about the second point and why i'm also spending so much time talking about it, because we feel it would be manifestly unjust at this point to say no. not to mention all the time that we spent, all the planning department and planning staff time that was spent on this, the zoning administrator time spent on this project, the money that was paid, things

that are requested when a variance is approved but prior to a fees that have to be paid in advance, like school fees, most of which are nonrefundable. the issue of a site permit, all of these things were paid already. and now, at this stage, the site permit is being denied. because of the particular unusual situation, i'll read this to you, please adapt the additional finding we wrote in our appeal or grant a rehearing request. in other words, if we had a rehearing, then perhaps we'd have time to work with the appellant to make adjustments to the set back of the building to address the light and air issues that she's raiseds in previous hearings for the windows. thank you very much for your time and consideration. if you have any questions -- >> you still have 30 second, sir. >> that was --

>> oh, that was -- >> thank you. >> seven minutes go by quickly. thank you very much. >> okay. now we'll hear from the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. so i thought this item was discussion of the draft findings and not necessarily relitigation of the case. but i think as the board knows that the planning department did support this. i did grant the variance that was previously appealed to this board, but i'd like to offer some clarification on a few points in the draft findings in. item four and eight and actually all the discussion tonight, there's reference to nonconforming structures, and technically, in section 1 # 8, we use the -- section 188, technically, we use the term noncomplying structures. those are noncomplying structures when they don't comply with the set back requirements of the planning code. there was some reference by the

permit holder to the housing accountability act, and i think you're able -- deputy city attorney can address those issues, but it's generally my understanding under the housing accountability act that a project must be code compliant. it did not, and they did seek a variance, which they did uphold by default. also, just as an observation having come before the board and dealing with variances and dealing with discretionary reviews in similar cases, i would say that an action on a variance does not in any way bind the board nor would it bind the planning commission when they're granting a variance that the project itself must be granted. certainly i have routinely advised the planning commission that even if i'm inclined to

grant a variance, the planning commission can be more restrictive. similarly, i would give that advice to the board because the board hears both the permit and the variance application. a couple other items that were raised by the appellant, and i think this was raised and discussed extensively at the variance, but environmental review was done for the property. that's a fact. similarly, the department did not make a finding that the building is not a her toric resource. that is not a finding that was made by the department. the department granted a categorical exemption for the proposed scope of work because they weren't altering the facade, and the proposed vertical addition is set back substantially from the front property line so as to be minimally visible, and that generally complies with secretary of interior standards. so even though there's been no

determination whether there is a isn't a historic -- is or isn't a historic resource. we treated it as a historic resource and determined it complied with secretary of interior standards. there's been no determination it's not a historic resource. it's still listed in our preservation materials as a potential historic resource. there's some discussion about noncomplying structures and whether they comply with the fire code, but there's a section under 188 that does allow for reconstruction of noncomplying structures, so there there's that provision. so i think those are the points and clarifications that i wanted to make to the board, and i'm available for any questions. >> i have a question, mr. sanchez, and i understand this hearing is just to adopt the findings. the project sponsor mentioned several upgrades. how many stories is the project

now? >> they can address that readily. i don't have it off the top of my heads. >> he said -- is it three? it's four now? >> three. >> three. >> so adding the -- it's one unit, that doesn't automatically trigger soft story retrofit or anything like that, does it? i'll get them in the rebuttal then, thank you. >> i think mr. duffy can answer those questions. thank you. >> thank you. mr. duffy? we'll now hear from the department of building inspection. >> before we start, we did miss you during last week's hearing. >> so i heard. >> yeah. >> joe duffy. d.b.i. i'll be here in august. the soft story retrofit -- >> well, i was just wondering if that next upgrade triggered the soft story. i would imagine if they did the

next improvement, it would trigger it, correct? >> correct, but it looks like it's not part of the soft story, i don't think. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay. please, both of you, if you can come up against the wall, so we can move it along. please approach the microphone and identify yourselves. >> hello. my name is ishoka. i live about two blocks away from this unit, and i just wanted to voice my support of this project. so i've lived in nob hill. it's a very desirable neighborhood and you can easily walk to stores and offices to work. if you want to live in nob

hill, people already living in nob find it extremely expensive to do so. so i think any additional units of housing in this neighborhood would be helpful. to the subject if it fits or conforms with the neighborhood, again, i live two blocks away. there are buildings that are five stories tall, three story does tall and some even taller than that. my building is four stories tall next to buildings that are eight stories tall and two stories tall. in addition, standing on the roof of my building, you can look across the entirety of nob hill and see other decks installed on rooftops of other buildings. i would summarize by saying i support this construction. i don't believe it's out of character with the neighborhood. if you look within a through-block radius of this -- three-block radius of this