versus the department of building inspect whereon with the planning department approval and it's located at 645-647 valencia street and protesting the issuance on may 25, 2018, to dennis ring of the site permit and preserving and renovating a two-story commercial structure and a new three-store vertical addition to it, for a to theaal height of 55-feet tall. it has ground floor commercial and entry and parking for some of the units with access from sycamore street. the upper four stories will house seven units. the proposed work will have the additions of kitchens and bathrooms. this is application 2016/11/14 2016/11/14/2504. and we will hear from the appellants first. you have seven minutes. thank you. >> hi, it indicates minutes? >> clerk: you will get a chime that indicates that you have 30

seconds left and then a final chime. >> all right, thank you. >> clerk: so... >> i want to -- okay. thank you. hello board members i am james goossens-larsen, the owner of 85 sycamore street. i hope that all of you have had a chance to read our brief and review its exhibits. today i would like to briefly touch on the concerns that we have with the current project design. after that i will comment on the arguments set forth in the responding brief from the project sponsor. since we were told about the project in 2016, we had been evaluating the impact of the project on our quality of life and our own financial situation. and we're disappointed we have not been able to come to a

reasonable outcome with mr. ring. our major concerns with the project design as follows is, one, the survival of our indian laurel fig tree and landscape in our yard which could be condemned due to both construction and less light in the back. and our second concern is, two, the impact on the neighborhood character and specifically the destruction of an interior box space. the cause for these concerns come from the massing of the building being outside sized and moved all the way to the property line with the variances from the planning code. this building will create a looming 50-foot wall, reducing light and quality of life significantly compared to a building that would be more appropriate for the neighborhood and the historical resource that it is supposed to preserve. multiple variances were needed for this project. the project design, and they were taken to the extreme. and we'll now respond to the

arguments to reject our appeal from the sponsor's brief which will also re-address our concerns. so, first, yes, this is our third appeal. we value our home. i've always wanted to live in this city. i'm a small town farmer boy and i made it here. and i am exercising my rights. and we also value the process that the city has designed for us, we're simply following that. if the project sponsor would make reasonable concessions on square footage and profit we wouldn't have to appeal. we have been stonewalled from the beginning and it's related to the massing of the building from this project. real quick -- oh, -- what you guys see up here is -- this is where they'd -- this is our garden and this is where you -- they want to build straight up. this wall will be replaced by a

50-foot wall all the way up. and this light that you see right now will be taken away from the building they want to erect. two, the arborist report does clearly state and i quote, "if the root system is damaged the tree could become hazardous." that's our big ficus tree here right, indian laurel. we're deeply concerned about the construction of the building and the damage to the tree's root system. at the discretionary review mr. ring had a gentleman suggest replacement tees of our indian fig tree if it were condemned which clearly -- which clearly proves the anticipation of our tree's demise. no other expert from the sponsor has come to our property to make an assessment. we have read now for the first time in the brief from the sponsor that our tree will be preserved, but they're not stating how. i'm sorry.

the concern is valid. the light concern is valid and it relates to the masking of the building that is pushed on the property line. the hills mentioned in the sponsor's brief and this being part of the city living it's not relevant. we live in the mission, it's flat. a code compliant building would not remotely impact us as badly if it was code compliant. all right, now... these are they schematics they had actually drawn up in their brief. the sponsor mentions that, quote, "there is currently no pattern of complying rear yards in the neighborhood." the property next to it is planning to have a 20-foot setback. this is 657, right next to the elbow room. south of them. they are a code compliant

building. they -- moreover, the building next -- i'm sorry, the building next to the 657, hotel tropica, also has a 10-foot setback from the property line. mr. ring's building will be the only building that does not have a setback from the property li line. the destruction of the open space is very clear and we see that the sponsor is trying to mislead the board by painting the property next to them, 657 valencia street, as fully built up while it is not. the neighbor is going to have a code compliant building. our yard is lush and that's because of the ample light and because of it being part of an existing mid-block open space that will now be destroyed by the location of the massing of the building. and they mention that there is no proposed setback when indeed

there is. and so this is actually -- we're going to get more green space right here if you draw a line. which helps our gar garden grow. the sponsor claims that an alternate design isn't possible, however, at one point an alternative design was proposed with the five-foot setback if we signed a letter to present to the planning department waiving all of our rights going forward. here are some of the other designs that they proposed. here's a code compliant building right here. the last one on the bottom there. we consulted with a volunteer architect and the alternative designs are always possible. this is the opinion of only one architect. evidence number six, with neighborhood support. the neighborhood was unanimously behind us and the people mr. ring got letters from are

people that don't live in the vicinity of the project. not only did the people not live in the neighborhood but mr. ring's support was confused that he was je generously saving the building facade when, in fact, he initially wanted to tear down the elbow room. and the last repeal was also the confusion of one of the board members. not only have we acquired the support of our neighborhood but we also have support from the mission neighborhood association. is that it? >> clerk: that's it. thank you. >> president fung: you will have time in rebuttal. >> okay. >> clerk: we will now hear from the permit holder. >> it confused me. good evening, commissioners, thank you for seeing us today. my name is dennis ring. my wife, susan, and i own the property at 645-647 hav valencia

street. this is my architect, toby morris. and after his presentation if you have questions for me personally or my wife i'd be more than happy to come up here. thank you. >> hi, can you hear me here? toby morris, on behalf of the project sponsor. this is the third appeal of this project by the appellant, including the d.r. in 2017 where the project was approved with additional modifications. it's benefitted your applicant. and the appeal with variances upheld here and the site permit. we've had a lot of interaction with the appellant, goossens-larsen. they are reasonable people and they are open to finding common ground. together, for example, we have resolved all of the privacy issues. they remain, however, concerned about the garden and the property values. they believe that the impact on their property will be not a big

deal. >> clerk: please stop the time to give you a moment. >> so first a little history. the original proposal for the project -- sorry, if i could get this -- in 2013 was a demolition and new construction mixed use project with nine units. and in 2014, research for the lgbt contact statement was

underway and the planning department encouraged the project sponsor to keep the building a historic resource, significant in the lgbt history. and we agreed. and my firm redesigned the additions four times with direction from preservation staff. we lost two units and about 25% of the area. most significant was the substantial setbacks that were required from the front and side pushed the additions back against the appellant. these are the appellant's concerns, privacy and historical disation of the property and the variances and increased shadows on the yard, the potential impacts on their tree and destruction of the midblock open safe. i will just go through each one of these. in terms of privacy, these issues have been abated by reducing the property line windows, secure glazing and installing privacy screens and

an additional five-foot setback of the top floor, further reducing the privacy concerns. the historical designation, we were told by the planning department this was not a resource. due to the evolving research on llgbt history. we respect the department's standing to identify and protect the city's unique history and over four years ago the project sponsor embraced this approach and enjoys broad support in the lgbt community and in the mission. the variances are justified given the preservation of the resource and were upheld in the last hearing because of the large setbacks described to protect the resource, the variance decision noted the rear yard variance is necessary to accommodate the reasonable amount of the development on the subject property. that is really the issue.

where are you going to put the space if you take it away? in terms of the open space that variance was granted. three of the five units are buried in the historic resource and planning wouldn't allow us to have -- to make a common roof space possible. and as the appellant has ample access to light and air with a 20-by-25-foot yard. their focus on the direct sun rays into the garden and they requested and we provided a shadow study to quantify the before and the after impacts on shadow. the study demonstrates that the appellant's yard is a shade garden in shadow already 96% of the time. the proposed additions to the subject property were found to increase those shadows an additional 1%.

the 1% shadow will not alter the appellant's shade garden. over 80% of the garden is currently in concrete patio and artificial turf and what plants exist are against the eastern wall where they're in shade all of the time. concerns of the health of their tree, the appellant commissioner had an arborist report. it made clear they're unjustified. as he quoted, root losses are not likely to be so significant as to be a reason to remove the tree, so why would the tree die? also while it concludes that pruning might condemn the tree there's no evidence that we need to prune the tree. in fact, there are no limbs, major limbs, that cross over the

property. the appellant claims that the destruction of the interior block space. there isn't a pattern of interior block space here. many of the buildings go directly to the rear property line. their garden, which is a grade is cut off from other interior box space and that pattern won't change. as mr. goossens-larsen explained correctly, there was an alternative design which was proposed by the project sponsor and turned down by th the appelt and that's to push the additions east towards -- sorry, west towards valencia. we took that -- it was turned down by the appellant and we took it to the planning department and flatley rejected by the preservation staff and said that there's no way they'll approve anything with less than a 15-foot setback from valencia street. so it's basically meet their demands or meet the neighbors

and lose the square footage. >> clerk: thank you. sorry, you'll have time on rebuttal. thank you. >> thank you, good evening, president fung and commissioners. the project at 645 valencia is within the commercial transit zoning district and i think that the project sponsor gave a very thorough history, the background of the history of the project. first came into the department for review in 2013, that environmental review and p.p.a. are preliminary project assessment were submitted at that time. it was to be a demolition and new construction with nine new units. as the department was reviewing it and as the noted evolution of the historic importance of the building, the project was changed from a demolition, new construction to an alteration to

maintain the existing building which is found to be an historic resource. because of events that it had taken place at the property and it was placed in the lgbt community. and given that, these revisions have forced the project sponsor to make significant setbacks at the upper levels for the proposed addition, 15 feet at the front that you're seeing as well as a side setback. and the side setback, provides additional light for the alley. meeting the requirements of section 261.1, which requires setbacks when you have buildings that abut narrow alleys. the property is subject to a variance request. that variance was heard i believe in december 2016. and the variance decision letter was issued last year and appealed to this board which upheld it last fall. the building permit was subject to section 311 neighborhood notification at early 2017. discretionary view was filed and

heard by the planning commission on june 22nd and the planning commission did take the hearing and had that top floor set back an additional five feet from the appellant's property. the commission found that was adequate to address the light and air concerns of the neighbor and upholding the applicability of our design standards for the project. i would note that the appellant's property is a three unit building and i believe that it was constructed in the early 2000s. it's a corner property with those three units that does have the frontages on six mor sycamor the light for those buildings. with the history of the project and how it balances to provide additional units and providing the setback for historic resources and providing setbacks for shadow on sycamore street, that the project does meet the relevant guidelines and the variances as i noted was previously appealed to the board and upheld by this board.

so i would respectfully request that board also uphold the building application before you now on appeal and available to answer any questions that you may have. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> commissioners, i will be brief. i didn't hear anything in the appeal to do with any of the code issues so i don't have anything to add unless anyone has questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none we will move on to rebuttal. mr. goossens-larsen. you have three minutes. >> so i just wanted to finish up where i left off again. the neighborhood support is there for -- to meet some of our

requests hopefully. we keep coming back to this. i just want to make sure that this is an inaccurate image. they show that the green space would stop right there when, in fact, the neighbor is going to have this much green space. so the interior block is going to be compromised if pushed back all the way to the property line. and then also the arborist did say, you know, our concern is more that the construction is going to destroy the tree. the -- and the arborist said if anything that -- with these types of constructions, that it happens often. so we're not -- once it's built, that's fine. but once the tree during construction, what kind of

safeguards do we have, not only against the tree but our entire garden? and we haven't heard anything from mr. ring's side about what kind of compensation is going to happen if we were to lose the garden due to light deficiency and due to construction. because the garden is a big part of our yard. it's a manicured landscaped yard and it was part of the purchase price when we got it. so that's where i'll end. thank you. >> president fung: may i ask you a question. did your arborist present any prescription for the garden should there be construction? was there -- how do you protect that tree in the construction -- >> he said that he should be at

the construction site when it begins. that's all he said in his letter. that he'd like to be there. >> president fung: during the demolition period? >> during the demolition and everything. because it's not necessarily the building that he was concerned with, it was the construction of the building because the tree is right on the property line. >> president fung: so the -- >> vice-president swig: it's the construction workers versus the construction? >> yes. >> vice-president swig: but he did not suggest any mitigation procedures that might help prevent something to happening to the tree? >> no, no. this is only our risk that we had come out. >> vice-president swig: okay, thanks. >> sir, can you explain why you rejected their compromise solution where they were going

to move the entire addition forward approximately seven feet toward valencia? >> can i see those drawings? >> was there an exhibit on that? >> yes. >> you don't recall that, sir? >> unfortunately, my husband is the one that has been handling this but he's -- he just got accepted to college and he's on a therapy retreat. >> overhead, please. >> i actually had the same question why the top buildings couldn't be pushed forward. and you say that the red zone would take up -- the red zone right there -- we would simply be sliding everything forward, is that -- >> president fung: that's what their proposal was. >> and then -- but is this -- is this where we would wave our

rights of -- no. >> president fung: thank you. i don't think that you know the answer. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> hello. so i was going to say at the end basically that we acknowledge that this falls on us as the appellant but we do think that there's upsides. we don't see that their tree will be in any danger. it is true that the arborist report basically says, hey, i could be there on site and there's no prescriptive preventions or mitigations or anything described there. i'm just going off what the arborist report says which is basically they don't anticipate problems with the roots. and they say, hey, it's going to come out on the elbow room side and you will have to take them out on the opposite side and then the tree will be compromised.

but there's no reason to expect that. you know, i would point out this is sort of silly but you circulate a petition and you get neighbors to sign on to things. half of what was in that petition has been resolved. that is all privacy issues. and the other half are neighboring saying that we don't like variances. so, you know, it's tough. the var variances are there to address these issues and many people don't understand that. so, i mean, the bottom line is that i don't think that this tree is going to be compromised. we are happy to have the arborist there advising the construction workers with respect to possible threats to that tree. i don't think that is a problem at all. i think that it's pretty much what i have to say. thank you.

>> may i ask a question please. so along the same line of questioning, you're experienced in designing and building stuff? >> right. >> and i'm sure that you have met a few property line trees along the way. >> here and there. not a lot. not like this. >> and so how would you -- and how long is this construction going to go on? a year? >> probably 14 months. >> right. and it clearly is unreasonable to have an arborist there for 14 months every day to protect the tree. i'm, you know -- >> if there's a period of risk. >> it's a rhetorical question. so what might you suggest or what might mr. ring suggest as something that would put this neighbor at ease that you're

going to use best efforts to protect his tree? the construction workers won't care. they're in and out and they are probably nice guys. >> honestly i would refer to an arborist. this is not something that i know inside and out. i would say that we get an opinion about how you protect the tree and how you give it the best shot at having zero impact. that may actually be thinning it. >> vice-president swig: so our challenge here today is to, you know, to uphold or deny an appeal. and if we want to uphold the appeal with the condition to protect the tree, we don't know which way to go and that's my difficulty. that's why i'm asking. >> i am sorry i can't help. >> i'll bring up the same

question that we brought up to the appellant. is there any reasons why they rejected that scheme? >> there's not a simple answer to this. this process is trying to find compromise is very difficult. >> president fung: i'm talking about only the appellant and i'm not talking about the staff department. >> no, i understand. so there came a point where, look, planning basically pushed us in this hole in the first place by basically saying if you're going to preserve this resource, we need all of these setbacks. so, fine. so the building is pushed back and in the end the commission said let's bring back a piece of it with the top floors to help these impacts. at one point we said to the appellant, join hands with us. and let's go to the planning department. you say i'm fine with the

five-foot or six or seven-foot set back above the second floor as long as we can preserve that square footage on the valencia street side. and the appellant said, no, we don't want to deal with you guys. so we went and had a conversation with planning directly. >> president fung: thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. mr. sanchez? nothing further, mr. duffy? >> commissioner, sorry, joe duffy, d.b.i. just on the roots of this tree if they are on the property line and there's a new foundation going in there and i haven't seen the drawings, that could be an issue for them. and you want to be very, very careful and try carefully to not impact the roots as they excavate for a foundation and might end up killing the tree. we do end up at d.b.i. dealing with that and it's a very thorny issue.

so i wanted to just make that comment. i'm not sure if it's going to be an impact or not. i am not really sure. but i wanted to point out when construction starts people go in there to work and they just start cutting roots and it can be a problem. we do deal with that at d.b.i. >> i think that the issue is that it's likely that this historic building has shallow foundations and the root system is probably underneath that foundation. >> right. >> especially a ficus as very extensive root systems. >> i just wanted to point out that it could be an issue before the work starts. >> clerk: thank you. >> president fung: i had a question for the d.a. i went back through the secretary of interior standards, and i don't see anything about

15 feet. i see things related to setbacks, that you're trying to meld a historical building versus new construction. this is melding an activity on a site. i don't see where 15 feet, which is the crux of their issues between the two parties, you know. >> so they may not specify certain setback, explicitly 15 feet or 7 feet or 40 feet that. determination is made by our historic preservation staff when they review the project to determine what setback is appropriate given the size of the building and given the size of the addition and in this case the 15-foot setback was determined by our preservation staff to be the appropriate

setback. >> president fung: okay. if one of their renderings -- the building adjacent to them it looks like it's going up about five stories. >> adjacent to the south? >> president fung: i presume that is to the south, yeah. >> okay. i mean i don't have -- is thera question -- >> president fung: i'm saying that it goes up fairly high and it goes right to valencia street. >> in this case it's about the subject property and the setback from the main facades of the subject property and preservation staff -- >> president fung: no, i'm questioning whether you know anything about the project that is adjacent to them. >> proposed property to the south? i don't have details. but there's a specific question i can certainly look -- >> president fung: no, that's all right. thank you.

>> all right. >> clerk: okay. so commissioners this matter is submitted. >> president fung: commissioners you probably are curious as to why i made the motion to support it, the variance. and the reason i did it was because this project sponsor had no options. i didn't state it at that time but it appeared to me, i made a cryptic remark, about the -- about how the design appeared to be done by committee. and i think that i made a cryptic remark about what was driving this. if you think about it from various attributes that planning should be looking at, let's say from urban design point of view.

the greater the height wants to be closer to valencia. it doesn't want to be next to the alley. it doesn't want to be next to the adjacent building, residential building. and yet everything that was done was pushing them to -- and it's a relatively small site -- to a fairly deep setback in the fro front. and it's not even an historical building as such. it's historical resource which admittedly needs some level of significance applied to it, and i think that the d.a. knows where i'm going with this. i'm not convinced that the 15 feet is -- >> say it again? >> president fung: is

untouchable. when i looked at the drawings further at this time as compared to when we saw them for the variance hearing, recognizing that they couldn't do anything so i said, okay, the variance is all right. there's no other way they could have dealt with the open space. there's no other way they could have dealt with the exposure, given this particulars of this site. the only thing they saw that perhaps helps a little bit both in terms of how the massing relates to valencia and a little bit of relief to the adjacent neighbors is to just slide the addition forward. instead of having such a large wall in the back, you still are

providing the setback that somewhere is in the neighborhood of 7 feet, so you split the difference of the 15 feet between front and back. the setback in the front still provides some level of significance from the historical preservation point of view in that you're separating the fabric of the existing building from the fabric of the new building which is going to be entirely different, you know. it would be my -- if i was to make a motion i would make a motion to -- it would be a motion of intent to allow to grant the appeal and to modify

the design so that the addition above the existing two-story building in its entirety to be moved forward towards the valencia street by approximately seven feet. >> for the non-architects amongst us, what does that mean as a practical matter, what does that do to the sponsor? >> president fung: well, the sponsor would have had to upgrade the xiftdin existing tws building. that new structure can be anywhere within that building's footprint. it's not going to change that much. let us conclude our discussion and we'll see if there's any

objections. it may not even go, but that's my suggestion. >> i think that it's a very reasonable idea because it gives some light and air -- some more light and air to the appellant and i don't understand why the necessity of having the extreme setback on valencia anyway. you pointed out, what you want is definition on the existing building and if you have a slight setback you still have that definition. so the mission is accomplished, mission accomplished. >> president fung: opinions differ, mr. swig. >> vice-president swig: well, i agree with your opinion. >> president fung: you have an yobtioobjection to what i said i

will let both parties one minute. >> dennis ring, project manager. 2013, this is 2018, we have been with -- in the planning department for how long? five years. we wanted to do this at the beginning. we asked rick sucre who was our planning department representative over and over and over again why does it have to be 15? we talked to our neighbor. we said if we can get in there and go in as a united front and have -- >> president fung: we have already heard all of its history. >> all right. so what i'm saying is if you're suggesting then a new design, what it means for us is probably, obviously, more money out of my pocket to do this. this would be the fifth rendition of the design on a building made by committee.

preservation is going to have to weigh in on it. and it's going to delay this process once again, a year or more. and, frankly, my wife and i have -- we're reaching the bitter end of this. i mean, you know, we have lived in the mission district 43 years. >> president fung: actually -- >> i know -- >> president fung: the schedule can go a little bit differently than that. the schedule can be -- you come back with a revised design in two weeks and this board can issue a special conditional approval for that. for your site permit. >> and a timeframe? >> president fung: i said two weeks. it's up to you how long it would take you to come back with a revised set of drawings. >> you'd put us on the calendar. >> clerk: we have a hearing on the 15th and -- >> president fung: okay, whatever that timeframe but it's not a year. that's what i'm pointing out,

all right? >> excuse me one moment. so you want a decision from me today as far as -- as far to entertain or say yes or no on your suggestion? i -- you know, i don't know what zoning -- what i'm understanding is that you're saying, president, is that this board can overrule what the preservationists and the planning department has said? >> president fung: the d.a. let's hear from the d.a. and he's shaking his head no. >> okay, let's hear from him and i'll come back and entertain your question. >> president fung: okay. >> thank you, the planning department. so the environmental review application for this project, which was submitted in 2013, and the environmental review was issued in 2016, it was based upon a project with a setback of 15 feet. it was given a categorical

exemption based upon that setback so any changes to that setback would need to be reevaluated from an environmental review perspective to ensure that we still have compliance with the secretary of interior standards. so if preservation staff and our environmental staff don't find that there's consistency or compliance with the set standards and the changes are made to the project that could lead to revocation of the environmental review which puts the project back to zero and invalidate the entitlements. so we can certainly look at this again. i do believe -- >> president fung: if you look at your document on the environmental review, it didn't say much. >> we had a lengthy document. >> president fung: you guys provided it as part of the packet. >> and there's a full environmental review analysis given to the community plan exemption on december 6, 2016, there's a lengthy section on preservation. it's found that given the setbacks that were included in the project that it would not

result in a negative impact on the historic resource. and that's where we did move, moving forward. when the commission took action, took d.r. on the project on june 22nd of last year they had -- they had two options. one, on the top floor to move it forward five feet to give additional five-foot setback to the appellant's property or just shorten it by five feet. and the determination there is that they left the preservation depending -- because this was a change made after presser vague had review -- preservation reviewed it. and they reviewed and let them shift the top floor forward slightly but that top floor was set back more than 15 feet. so they went and just shortened that setback at the top floor. we can certainly look at this again and have our preservation staff look at it again but i can't guarantee, given that it's already been -- the project sponsor said it's been discussed extensively about having less of

a setback and preservation consistently said we need the 15-foot setback. it's a typical or standard setback and it's something that we often rely upon for, you know, for new additions in residential districts or have a setback of 15 feet. it's somewhat of a standard and not at all codified in the secretary osecretary of interio, i agree with you there, but it's used by our staff and i can certainly ask -- >> president fung: it's argumentive but agreed that it's been used and r.h.1 and r.h.2 housing type things to reduce the impact visually. however, i'm looking at multiple landmarks, not even historical resources. especially downtown. they had high rises built over

them. >> some of those changes may have been made before our current preservation standards. i know that i do have other projects that i have seen similar that have come in for variances because of setbacks that are required at preservation review where the setbacks have been as much as 40 feet from the front building wall. so there is a variety of setbacks. sometimes they are greater than even the 15 feet and maybe in some cases it would be appropriate to have less. i think that in the case here they felt that 15 feet was appropriate because of the height of the pit that was proposed. but we can look at it again. but there is a cost to that because we'd need something to review, a project to review, to make the determination whether the setback could be -- could be less. i mean, i think that maybe given the timing of this and they've -- they have gone through the building permit review and the

site permit review for this project and maybe had these changes come to light at the time of the variance that would have allowed a bit more time to review an alternative and then go through all of the building permit review process. but this is -- it would be a late change. of course, if the board wanted we would do our best to review and give feedback whether a lesser setback could be done. but i am hearing from the project sponsor they've had those discussions and the answer is, no. thanks. >> president fung: you have a comment, sir? >> i do. i wish you were there two years ago president fung. this is, you know, this is my life. these standards by preservation. and it is very case-by-case.

the litmus test is the addition -- it's the serving to the original structure. as you point out there are issues, this structure is important for its social history, but i think that either the secretary of interior it doesn't matter, it's still a resource. so we actually had this conversation with the preservation staff.

>> president fung: the possibility is probably not very good. >> president, given the comments by the sponsor, are you still proposing your motion? >> president fung: i'd like to give it a chance. >> is it wise? >> president fung: is it -- >> wise? >> president fung: is it wise? >> given what the za has said about -- it's almost like a domino effect.

>> president fung: well maybe the horse can sing? >> maybe. >> president fung: i'm always more of an optimist than a pessimist. >> but there is also the burden and expense. and they've been doing this since 2013. there's also housing that's involved and the mayor's priorities of getting housing. it seems to me to be -- i don't think i could support your motion as it is. we can vote. >> president fung: well, maybe that's the starting point. if there's no support for the motion, i need four votes. all right. >> i'm not supportive.

>> president fung: ok. then -- i'll make the motion. i'm going to continue with my original motion in the following way -- the grant appeal and to condition the site permit to change the design whereby the new added floors in its entirety would be shifted towards valencia by seven feet. >> but still maintaining the 15-foot setback? >> president fung: toward valencia would reduce that setback by seven feet. >> ok. on the basis -- on what basis?

>> president fung: that some accommodations to the rear yard of the adjacent neighborhood would be helped. >> ok. we have a motion from -- is this a motion of intent? >> president fung: might as well make it a motion. >> we have a motion to grant the appeal and issue the permit it be revised to require the new floors be shifted towards valencia seven feet on the basis that it accomodates the light concerns of the adjacent neighborhood. on that motion, commissioner. >> no. >> wilson. >> no. >> vice president swig. >> no. >> that motion fails. do we have another motion?

>> a motion on the basis of the permit was properly issued. >> ok. so we have a motion by vice president swig to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. on that motion president fung? >> president fung: no. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> aye. >> that motion carries with three votes. so the appeal is denied. >> two >> good evening. and welcome back to the august 8th, 2018 meeting of the board of appeals. we are now moving on to item number 6. this is appeal number 18-094. the subject property is 1621162a grand view avenue. norman herdrich versus department of building inspection with planning department approval. protesting the issue anson

june 28th, 2018 to 162 grand view llc of an alteration permit. a revision to building permit application 201604296192 regarding shoring and excavation for a vacant love. this is application 021712085884. we will hear from the appellant first. you have seven minutes, sir. >> hi, i'm norman herdrich. i main be the owner of the subject property or maybe not. that's up to the courts to decide. >> can you speak into the microphone. can you adjust his microphone up. can you do that? >> should i -- how is this? should i repeat what i just said. i said i'm norman hedrick and i may be the owner of the subject property or maybe i am not.

that's up to the courts to decide. if i am the owner, i want the property to remain as it was when my father died, which is as an empty lot. and that's why i'm asking this court -- this board to do all it can to maintain the status quo until the courts are finished doing their work. and that's all i have to say. thank you. >> president fung: thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> ok. so the permit holder -- >> good evening. my name is jim zack. i'm the architect and contractor and i was the previous owner of this project. when we received this appeal, my first thought was to do very little. this is a matter that's been

going on for a long time. i don't believe it's an appropriate subject matter for the appeal board. but i did prepare a presentation so it's best i go through with my presentation. myself and two partners purchased this property in 2014 from this state. it was a sale we were told had no court confirmation required. soon after, we were in contract, there were 14 offers on the property and we won the bid so to speak. mr. hedrich appealed the sale of the property. we went to an appeal hearing, a court hearing and the court denied his appeal of the sale and we were granted the right to purchase the property. we designed a project to put two new units on this property. went through a len eth lengthy d

planned with neighbors, ultimately a d.r. and we attempted to sell it. last year, mr. handland purchased the property from us. i'm going to read my brief and try to address his issues. we request the board to deny this appeal and approve the permit. it's the construction of two new detached dwelling units on a vacant lot. the permit is a minor revision to a excavation permit approved in december 2016 issued novembe. there are three main points we want to discuss described in our brief. the permit approvals. the project has been properly reviewed in the permit in question is properly issued. the appeal ant is not providing argument in his brief or in-person today or documentation to prove otherwise. second, the appellant stated objections for the appeal and they're unfounded and do not apply and he has not provided argument to justify his state of

concerns. the issues have nothing to do with the issuance of the shoring permit and demonstrate a lack of understanding of san francisco codes and the permit procedures. number three, the appeal ant's estate issues. the primary reasons for the appeal seems to be more motivated by a personal grudge or the permit. and this appeal is just the latest effort to burden on anyone connected to estate, even as connected as i am or my client. first and foremost are the approvals. it should be noted the permit that was appealed was a revision to a already issued permit not appealed and not a permit for the buildings and the revisions were minor. changing in locations of four or five out of 30 peers on the site. the appellant did not appeal thl the site permits in 2016. at the time he did not file a brief and he did not attend the hearing and the appeal was denied 5-0. as an architect and builder we

have 26 years of building in san francisco and working with the planning and building departments and we're well-versed with the permit process and i might claim we're expert. we have followed application requirements and planned check procedures and reviewed by the planning staff due to the variance reviewed by the zoning administrator. it was uncontested approved without conditions. the project was determined to be compliant and approved and meets the requirement the design guidelines as well as satisfying the general plan policy findings. we conducted all of the required notifications made the extra effort and garnering support for most of the adjacent neighborhood. we held a saturday open house. presented it to neighborhood groups. the appeal ant was con stic cony absent. we were able to come to an agreement with the requests satisfying their concerns and they retracted their d.r.

the shoring permit being appealed was reviewed during the d.b.i. required slope review process with our consulting geologist, two engineers, a shoring engineer and structural engineer and required to retain both peer reviewers. the geologist and geo technical engineers have been on site once a week for the last two months during our excavation and shoring process. the excavation shoring has been designed in fully vetted by a panel of local experts in the d.b.i. structural plan checkers. in his appeal, he claimed that the site had shifting soil and sliding as the a pal ant claimed but this is been refuted by our experts during the review process. the main point is there are no a parent issues with the approvals issued by for the permits. second to address the appellant state of objections he had five points. it was unstable soil, which we just addressed. the property was part of an

estate still being litigated, which he mentioned, the property should be preserved as a possible archeological site, the property is under developed, and should remain so and the property should be a public park. i believe we can all agree that most of those are pretty ludicrous claims with no basis in code requirements as a developer of a private property. the appellant are not applicable to the project and he has been provided evidence otherwise. finally addressing the long litigation with the estate. we understand that bringing this issue into the discussion is speculation on our part but the appeal ant's pattern of behavior is clear. we believe it's a motivation for his a people has filed lawsuits and appeals and court actions getagainst the estate and lost every time. he requested this case be heard by the california supreme court which was denied. he appealed the sale of the land the he is indicate sold and w