and 94 the owner signed saying no off street parking was consisted. a certificate of occupancy was never issued. the 1975 permit application answered no to does this altercation constitute a change of occupancy. and the day high report required plans for unit legalization but no plans were filed. and, d.b.i.'s stipulation stated comply with day high plumbing and electrical reports with the electrical inspection reports on the overhead is very clearly three reverting to two. it's clear, in 1975, permit removed the 30 legal units. but something strange happened. c.f.c. was issued por three dwelling units. why? i hate to say it. it appears someone dock forward to the records after issuance.

we had the permit application, not the as soon as we see and it shows serious manipulation. on the overhead you can see telling to thretelling todwellie from two apartments to three apartments. we know they have made after issuance because in 1975, job carts were typed concurrently. building five and occupancy code i. dwelling, number of families. the occupancy description dwelling matches the writing on the 1975 permit application proposed use of dwelling. however, the word dwelling was

subsequently crossed out and replaced with three apartments. the unit counts on the job cart was subsequently crossed out and replaced with a hand-written three. and here is another enlargement of the 75 permit. you can see i was changed to h. so what do we do with erroneous cfc. building code is clear. it quote shall not be valid. this is different from the c.f.c. where there's a minor problem and the building permit is overlooked or ignored. and the c.f.c. is valid. this is about the unit count itself. it's a much more serious issue. and the board of appeals is not the first body to decide this issue. d.b.i. told the appellant to do a pre application meeting with representatives of d.b.i. and fire. the department's formally determined, i'll put it on the overhead, the pre application

decision letter that the unit count was wrong. a permit should be issued to correct the records. they issued a written decision document which says quote, 1976c.f.c. was in her or. the building is an r3 and the owner should work with d.b.i. to get the c.f.c. for the building reissued and correctly reflect the building as an r3-two family dwelling. this per ab28 is required to be followed. this is given significant weight and force as future building permits are filed. frankly it's perplexing that d.b.i. then would deny the permit application that they told the appellant to file. i think the answer from my conversation, has to be they don't like repudiating c.f.c.s and they would like the board of appeals to hear this and hopefully do it for them. we have significant amount of expert testimony as well.

>> good evening, my name is michael. i'm a license preservation architect practicing san francisco for 37 years. i performed a side visit and confirmed there's no historical or physical evidence that a one-hour tire rating or off street parking were installed from 1963 to today. the original historic detailing is still intact. that means mandatory work for legalization was not done. and the illegal kitchen was removed regard than legalized. >> there will be timing rebuttle. >> i have a question. >> going to the briefs, there was a fire that was caused by the illegal kitchen for one of the units. they've applied -- knowing how the legislation regarding legalizing illegal units in san francisco effect this particular building? i thought that even if it was an illegal unit, that the city requires that it be legalized.

>> good question. the answer is, the issue in this case say little bit different. the issue in this case is how many legal units are there? assuming the board agrees, hopefully agrees with the evidence that there are two legal units, later question for the planning department will be is that third kitchen a quote-unquote unauthorized dwelling unit under planning code section 317. the requirements for that to be an unauthorized dwelling unit is there has to be independent ingress and egress and no interior, visual connection between the illegal space and the legal units. in this case there is one. >> i wanted to hear your version. >> how many units were in the

ground floor when the fire occurred? >> one legal unit and this illegal unit, which they subsequently put back in or the inspectors simply overlooked when he signed off. >> where does the number five come from? >> there were additional illegal units which were lawfully removed from this property. >> when? >> the owner can speak to the exact dates. >> a permit was taken out in october of 2017 to have the two illegal units removed. after the job card was signed off and signed final, there was an e-mail discourse between planning and the building department and i was told that they would not issue my c.f.c. i was subsequently told to get a

permit that had the correct writing on it. i got that permit issued in december of 2017. enclosed it in january, i believe january 172,018th. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> ok, so we will now hear from the planning department. mr. sanchez, do you have anything to add? >> d.b.i. again. i find it really hard to back up their assertion that it's a two-unit building. there's something here, if you want to put it on the overhead. i had to lighten it a little bit. it's one of our original records. it says 1963, new shed, new rear stairs, basement flat, two apartments.

in 1986, they have a certificate of completion for this floor plan here. originally the whole scope of work was to remove an unlawful unit in the attic and in the rear shed. but they're showing two units at the ground floor, two kitchens and then the flat above covers the whole floor. that's what this set of blueprints shows. that's from 1986. whether the day-high report that had the fire ratings checked was erroneous or not, it doesn't change the unit count. we have consistency with all of our completion certificates here showing three units. >> could you put that in the overhead? >> which one? >> the floor plan. >> we had those. >> i know. >> which one? >> the floor plan.

>> face it like you are looking at it. >> you want to go this way? >> it's upside down. it has two kitchens here. that was 1986 where they got this certificate of completion and occupancy right here. >> thank you. >> i think they were told to file, knowing it would be disapproved but that was before senior inspector duffy knew they had gone for additional use and were denied. i'd like to also add that both chief owe reardon, inspector

duffy from the complaint department, have all walked the building and they're all minus the three-unit building. anything else? >> thank you. >> ok. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez, you have nothing? [laughter] >> to add at this moment. yeah. >> he is carrying that 20-pound. >> did you bring your barbell. >> thank you. scott chan says. the matter before you is an issue with building inspection records. we do rely on the three hour port on the c.f.c. to be the golden record of the legal unit count of the building. the planning department relies on those records and we believe that department of building inspection acted appropriately in this case. we did submit a brief to outline additional information that was left out of the appellant's -- it's hard to call it a brief.

it's much more than a brief. they left out the history related to the authorization that they thought to merge from three to two units on the property and the planning commission heard that and denied it last year leading them to continue with this path to the board of appeals to seek change in the c.f.c. and the legal unit count of the building from three to two units. in our brief, we did highlight a couple of relevant planning code provisions. first, when the administrative record is incomplete or doesn't fully tell the picture about the lawful history of a permit, we're to look at it in the planning department and the planning code we're to look at it as a legal unit. this was recent change to the planning code and the goal of preserving units. if there is not substantial evidence to show it's legal we assume that it is a legal unit. in this case, it's more than just a lack of information. we actually have the c.f.c. saying it's a third unit. we would look at that and assume

that this is a three-unit building. separately, even if the board overturned this permit and recognize legally it would be subject to section 317 and an authorized dwelling unit and subject to a authorization requirement to remove that unit and have, in the floor plans and i believe this would comply with the definition of unauthorized dwelling units, which means one or more rooms within a building that have been used without the benefit of a building permit is a separate sleeping space independent from residential units on the same property. independent shall mean that the space has independent access and does not require entering a residential unit on the same property, which if this is the case, there is a separate access for both of the units. there's no open visual. these are outdoors and there there is no connectio connectio.

there are rooms that comply with the decision of an authorized unit. i'm available for any questions that the board may have. thank you. >> i'm sorry to get clear in my mind the number of units. you are saying, and the building department is saying that at least three units that were utilized through a series of previous permits. how do you count that? you count the one on the second floor as one unit. the one on the ground floor as one unit, even though the plans show two kitchens there. >> there are two units on the ground flor. >> how about the rear structure? >> the permit came in initially.

the project came in several years ago now to go from three to two units. the legal records the cities show for the property. i believe staff then did a side visit of the property and found not only were there the three units, they were two additional illegal unitis, one in the attic and one in the rear structure. under section 317, if there's no path to legalize the units and the units can be removed without the condition lease authorization, which is what they were able to do. they did, upon staff finding they had not just three units but five units, they did seek permits to remove the two illegal units and then to go through the process at this point. i think the permits for that may have been issued at the end of last year. >> that would be the attic unit and the rear structure. >> if it's an r3 they can get

three legal units in adu as a fourth unit. >> the zoning, at the time, where the legalization would have occurred and in 78 it would have been down zoned to rh2. they could, under this -- we have three legal units. they can add one a.d.u. now. >> especially since parking is no longer a requirement which is hinderance prior. >> ok. >> thank you. how many people are here for public comment? can you raise your hand? can you please lineup against the wall and hand -- for this item. public comment for this item. if can you lineup against the wall and hand your speaker card

when you come up. >> first speaker, please. >> you can go ahead sir, if you are the first one. >> my name is doug madowell. i'm on the board for san francisco little league. i also run the flag football league out on treasure island. michael's good neighbor. this is a good initiative. this will help provide him with the space. i know he is gotten engage. he has talked to me about starting a family. this is his house. this is his dream. this is what he would like to do is have enough space to start a family here and families help san francisco and they help the schools. i support michael in this. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> i'm nick schneider. i'm a tenant. i'm here in support of the appellant and urge you guys to approve his appeal based on what i think is best for the safety of the building and the tenants within the building. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is jim. i'm also here to support -- if you are using whatever discretion you have to allow this building to be officially recognized as the two units. it will make a real home for this young couple trying to do the right thing. and restore a beautiful victoria an. i'm president of san francisco

victorian alliance. we see, all the time, the difficulties that there are in people finding homes and going through the whole process of restoring them. that is what this couple is really trying to do. they want to have a home here. they want it restored. they have become active in the community. they've built warm relationships with their neighbors. and they really want this house preserved as their home. the ground floor unit is the one they plan to occupy. the largest unit upstairs has a tenant. they're not looking to displace anybody. this is a challenging case for you. we would like to see as much housing as possible in san francisco but clearly there's a great deal of grey area here and what the records say. i don't think there are any attempts at deceiving.

this isn't one where suddenly a house is getting an illegal demolition. it's not where an envelope is being expanded it out of contex. they're preserving a charming old house and be part of a community and make this their family home. whatever discretion you have, i would urge you to please apply it to support exactly the kind of thing we and victorian alliance wants to see, young people making a life for themselves in the process restoring these beautiful old houses. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> do you live in the same household? >> yes. >> you would be considered a representative of the party so you need to use your time under his rebuttle time.

according to the board rules. >> thank you. >> no other public speakers, we'll move on to rebuttle. we'll hear from the appellant. >> thank you, ryan patterson. i'll respond briefly to a few things here. first off, the zoning administrator's comment that even if the board were to overturn this denial and issue the permit then we would have to go into the section 317 process. i think it's correct. and the answer is the board should overturn the denial and then we go into this section 317 process. and planning can decide if they want to seek legalization as an a.d.u. or what not. that is the appropriate process

to be going through. the question of whether there's an assumption of this unit being lawful or not, based on lack of evidence, there's a lot of evidence showing that this is not a lawful unit here. so that's the right process. if you overturn the denial, you are not sentencing this unit to disappear forever. planning will have its way with us. senior inspector's note about 1986 permit and c.f.d. showing two ground flor units, this is what our argument is all about. the 1976 c.n.c. says three units and that carry over into the subsequent permitting. when you apply for a permit, you don't go back and research whether the previous permits say the right unit count. the previously c.f.d.s. that error has been repeated a couple times now. the fact that the '86 permit

repeated the error doesn't make it anymore correct. two wrongs don't make a right. and just to correct the record, inspector duffy did know about the c.u. f. applications on the overhead and e-mail to him about it. i walked the property with him. i'm not sure that characterization of thinks authorities on the property are accurate. i welcome him to speak to that himself. i'll pass the time to talk about the permit history. >> so, the issues of a c.f.c. are correct. there are issues with the c.f.c. the '86 c.f.c. and the other c.f.c. they're all related to the '75. there's an issue with the conditional use. what is in front of you is someone takes a permit in '76 and fills it out to remove a unit and to end up with two units, and changes that after

the permit gets issued is that a c.f.c. that you think is valid? do you keep invalid c.f.c.s? we don't remove c.f.c.s unless the most extraordinary circumstances. if it didn't get fire raided it's not enough of a reason to envoke the c.f.c. if someone changed that permit to go from two to three and everything there says it got changed. is that a valid c.f.c. you are setting a precedent of what is appropriate to up hold c.f.c.s. >> thank you. >> mr. currin. you have your three minutes. >> we haven't seen you in such a long time. >> guest appearances here tonight. i'm just going to reiterate, we believe that the c.f.c.s were correct at that time they were issued for the unit count. there's even this one from 1973 as the date on it. like i said before, it says 1963

in the remarks. new sheds. new rear stairs, basement flat to two apartments. that's as clear as it can be as far as i'm concerned. it's a three-unit building. there's nothing that i see that would indicate anything any different. >> are you finished? >> yeah. >> the pre-ap process is a fairly well documented process. and it's one that, once it's been signed by both sides, it gets incorporated into the contract documents, which become the permanent document. in this instance, what happened? the pre-ap notes were signed? they were agreed to. >> you are talking about an original document that is over

40-years-old. i was still in high school. i can't speak as to what might have transpired then. we have subsequent c.f.c.s after that. >> i'm talking about the pre-ap signed by jeff. >> i don't know. i don't know what happened with that. >> ok. >> i can't answer that question. >> ok. >> mr. sanchez. >> scott sanchez planning department. just to reiterate the planning department is this a three-unit building. in addition to the c.f.c.s one of the propofol property owners, even though there's been a history of illegal units on the property, there was a notice of special restrictions recorded that has exhibit m and the appellant's brief. i'm stating that the legal use of the property is three units. that was required by the planning department for one of the permits that corrected one of the violations of the

previous property owner so does the position of the department these are three illegal rent-controlled units and all would be subject to rent control. the planning commission has heard their request last year to remove one of the third units planning commission denied that. that decision is final. the appellant in this case did not appeal to the board of supervisors as they would have been allowed to do. that decision is final and we respectfully request you up hold the department of building inspections action on this permit. thank you. >> mr. sanchez, if we were -- and i hate to use this but to guess. if they went through 317 notice, it's unlikely that the planning commission would not require them to maintain that third unit. >> yes, sir. >> is that a fair? >> i can speak on at least

behalf of the planning department that we would -- we haven't reviewed app application but we would likely recommend the planning commission deny a condition release authorization to row move this unit. there's a -- if it was an unauthorized unit, that does appear to be a path forward to legalize it and that would be the action that we could ask of the permit holder to legalize the unit, which is already legal. >> president fung: there was something in there that the department went and reviewed the two illegal units and found them to not be appropriate for housing. was that planning or building? >> we deferred it to the department of building to see if there was a path to legalization. >> president fung: i guess we're talking about the attic. >> and the rear shed. >> president fung: they were --

>> they had permits to remove those. these were not deemed habitable. there's even a document that is specifying that the attic space goes with that top unit. it's not to be a separate unit. >> president fung: so they would be removed as units for the structures will be demolished in the rear? >> i don't know if that was part of the stipulation. i just know that they had to take out -- there was something about a gas stove in the rear building and an illegal unit in the attic space. >> and not habitable means what? head room? >> it wasn't compliant. it wasn't zoned for five units, first off. i mean it was probably originally built as a single-family dwelling. somewhere along the line they added, the two flats and then they split the bottom flat into

two apartments. someone got the great idea to put a unit in the shed and a unit in the attic and obviously were caught for it and made to remove those. >> it wasn't a carriage house or something? >> no. this is the shed they recovered to in that document i just read. the new shed at the rear. >> ok. >> i've got a question for mr. sanchez. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> just for argument sake, say we say this is a team and planning says because of 317 they have to add an a.d.u. does it need to be specific to that location or can they relocate that a different place? >> in this case, the unauthorized unit we could seek legalization in its current configuration. they would have a couple paths to legalize through the a.d.u.

program or legalize under section 207.1 which is somewhat of an amnesty program for illegal units and it would be the most straight forward path for this application. there are numerous paths to legalize. >> there's no other way to actually consolidate or move that unit because that would be destruction or remove of a rent-controlled unit? >> yes, sir. they would need, whether it's legal or unauthorized they need a conditional use authorization to remove it and the planning commission heard the application to remove the existing legal units and denied that. >> thank you. >> i got another question, mr. patterson. >> yes, sir. >> if we were to guess in planning commission is going to require you to have and maintain a third unit, what does this

legalization process bring to you? >> what does this permit mean to us? well, it corrects the record for starters. which puts us in a different position of planning commission either having a lawful unit versus an unlawful unit, which is what this is. it goes through 317 either way. there's a different treatment by the planning commission. >> i think you are wrong. i think you will end up with the same results. >> it's possible. but i think the law is clear. especially to your question of the significance of the pro application document. that is a legally binding document per a.b.28 that d.b.i. required follow. we still have to go for 317, that's true. this first step is a different question and the answer to this step is clear.

about correcting the record. >> president fung: you are saying that your client relied on the documentation from the pre app meeting? >> he relied on it in filling the permit as he was instructed to do. >> president fung: why go through the c.u. process? >> why go through the 317 process? that will be up to planning after the record is corrected. not trying to evade your question. the only thing we're looking at today is question of how many legal versions illegal units there are. that one is clear. you are correct that that will not be the end of the story. we still have to go through more process once the record is corrected. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> this matter is submitted.

>> well, it's interesting how history goes around the loop. probably, if i recall properly, back in the '70s and '80s, real estate financially was worth more if you had more units. these days it seems to be worth more if you have less units. and larger ones in terms of the units. what has been brought before us is whether this huge pile of documentation has any basis for us to rule that the building department disapproval was an

error. i'm not 100% convinced by this documentation although it does raise some questions to it. the issue here is for me, is i was convinced by a signed pre-ap note, which in essence becomes part of the record. you know, for those who are in the industry, you know, those notes signed then are added to the permit as part of the drawings and they become a legal part of that. and so, the c.a. signed one to me representing and opposition that has some legal basis.

>> a lot of material to go through. looking at the history of misuse on the property, i believe that the owners have said they would do one thing and done something else. the goal was to get more units. here we are in 2018 and they're trying to say they have less units. i find that departments' reasoning indicates there were three units on the property. i would not support a removal of a rent-controlled unit. i'll make a motion to deny the a

deal on the grounds that the department did not error in their decision. >> so, we have a motion from commissioner honda to deny the appeal and up hold the apartment's denial of the permit on the basis it was properly denied. on that motion, president fung. >> no. >> commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> vice president swig. >> aye. >> so that motion carries 3-0 and the appeal is denied. >> president fung: we're going to take five minutes for a break. >> ok. >> welcome back. we are moving on to item number appeal 18-100. with planning apartment

approval. 575 belvedere street. to daniel of the site permit. horizontal addition adding 991 square feet of interior space and deck to the back of existing residents. new layout and finishes throughout. restore the garage to the lower level with new driveway out into the sidewalk and new front stairs and landing. this is application 1016108266097s. we will hear first from the appellant. >> you have seven minutes. >> thank you. >> my name is steven. we thank you for the time and consideration to hear our appeal regarding the 575 expansion project. having been owners and residents on belvedere street for 42 plus years, we command daniel and calvin for wanting to improve their home.

575 and 569 belvedere are the only single-family dwellings on that side of the block between 17th street. >> overhead, please. >> the overhead shows the properties next to each other where they are now. as the next diagram shows, if the project proceeds, as planned, we will be placed in a tunnel between two much larger looming structures restricting natural ventilation. even though the city could allow a larger building, it doesn't make it right. our concern is not only the size and scope of the expansion but the willingness to compromise on any of our requests. you can only change as they have offered for mandated by the city are the residential review board. we made two additional simple requests.

first to remove plan a, due to concerns about water damage as well as potential damage to our foundations and building. and two, a request to shorten the third floor deck roof overhang. which would allow more natural sunlight and minimize the over all looming structure with no loss of space. both requests have been denied. we've been advised that they need to have this amount of space as they wish to have children as well as bringing both sets of parents to live there. we have raised a family without making a mansion to overwhelm our neighbors. this needs not to be so much about family, which may mayor not happen, but what is right for the neighborhood and the effect it has on the immediate neighbors. earlier, we had presented a potential idea that could easily have been incorporated into their plans to minimize the over

all looming aspect that their project will create and allow a natural flow of sunlight and air. this was turned down. we request to appeal the board in support of the request, we have letters from neighbors, also in support of an appeal and keeping with the neighborhood can be reviewed and approved. thank you. >> my name is alison, owner and resident at 569 belvedere for 42 years. thank you for your consideration in this hearing of our appeal for the expansion of 575. while we have never been opposed to a remodel of the next door property, as one of two single family dwellings on the west side, it is the size and scope

of the expansion we are appealing. our property will be overwhelmed by this expansion that will place us in a tunnel situation. it has been disconcerting to my husband and me that from the beginning of this proposed expansion, that we have been told by the owner we could have made it bigger. according to the land use and city zoning. in our case, that doesn't make it right. our former neighbor at 575 belvedere for 35 years was a progress foundation who ran a successful three quarter way house with no less than five residents in residents at any given time. i don't feel the size of the this expansion is needed for the potential family that may or may not materialize. this very large expansion should not be about potential family but what is right to maintain a healthful, safe and pleasing

environment for all. furthermore, no other property on this street has tandem parking. many have a garage for one small car or a pull-in situation for two cars side by side or no garage at all. more over, no other property on belvedere street has a planter box next to the adjacent neighbor's property as shown in the expansion plans. more importantly, the owner of 575 belvedere has been unwilling to compromise from the start and appears to have little or no regard for the negative effect his plans have on our sunlight, ventilation, and privacy. we ask you reopen the expansion plans for reconsideration based on the above negative impact to our property and our home of 42 years. thank you, very much.

>> good evening. michael. san francisco architect. the design of the building can do more to try to limit the amount of sunblocking, the looming effect that the building has. it does have a small home and this is a very common problem. we're seeing a lot of these large, boxy buildings, square is design. i'm an architect. i know how to design a building to be less i am pathfu impactfu. things like pulling back over hangs, pushing the three-foot setback on the one side and moving it to five feet. these things are not that difficult to accommodate. the drawings show a mistake. they show soil up against the folks' home. they have not acknowledged it. they just want it fixed. so the building department issued the permit showing soil up against the neighbor's house. it just needs to have a wall

there. it's a very simple thing to do. why there's a resistance to me is beyond me. thank you for your time. >> are you finished? >> i'm finished. one of the details they provided shows a concrete wall there. >> it's indistinguishable. there's a detail that shows a drainage. it's a front to rear section that shows drainage. it doesn't show the property line condition. it's just a change of the drawing. >> i had a question. the photo you showed of the rear of a building with pitched roofs, what would we gather from that as what you want to see? >> overhead, please. >> i have a sample to give to

the owners to incorporate and breakup the mass of looming aspect. not that they had to do it exactly. >> primarily the change in mass in there that's what you would prefer? >> it's the change in mass at the rear of the building? >> yes. to incorporate and allow more natural sunlight and ventilation. because right now it's just boxes on boxes and the original plan had a solid wall against our house. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. >> you have seven minutes. >> good evening, president fung, the board members. my name is daniel. i'm the owner of 575 belvedere.

we've asked here, it's also our architect, robert sink, structural engineer alex an toes and our legal council jodie night. we have worked with our neighbors and the planning department, designed this remodel for us and our aging parents and our future family in a way that is considerate of our neighbors, meets the zoning requirements, design guidelines and is compatible with the neighborhood. originally built in 1911, having been neglected for many years, our house requires major upgrades to bring it to the current standards and to accommodate our multi generational family. throughout the permit application process, we have been responsive and transparent in our communit communications h

neighbors. reaching out to hosting multiple neighborhood meetings. many neighbors, who were part of the 311 were able to lend their support. overhead, please. >> those were submitted to the board in the brief. the proposed design is a result of a multi-year consultation process that incorporated feedback from multiple parties. during this vetted process, we made multiple changes to address concerns from our neighbors including the appellants, which ultimately reduced the size of our future home by over 1,000 square feet. first, even before pre application meetings, we decided to eliminate the fourth-storey vertical addition and reduce the horizontal addition by two feet. second, we have further scaled back our second and third floors by creating a side setback on the appellant's side.

overhead, please. the side setback was designed in consultation with the city planners to match the setback. while still retaining key functionality necessary for our family. third, we removed over five feet of external wall on the third floor. this change opened up the top corner of the building and minimized the third floor projection into the backyard, allowing for more light and air and creating even more open spaces between our two houses. fourth, we designed a addition so that 50% of it is located on the ground level. as a result, our project steps down to the backyard further minimizing the light and open space. residential design guidelines require the building additions should not be

uncharacteristically deep or tall. as shown, the project is not compared to the other buildings that define the open space. as shown in this rendering, the project will not be uncorrected at all. as i matter of fact, if you this head-to-head comparison demonstrates that the project will have negligible if any impact on shading and it's consistent with the real work observation. as a result of the structures to

the side, that the terrain and the shades by other existing buildings. it's important to know and the bank of appellant house receives direct sunlight here is hour house to the left. the sun beams into the back of the house. our house, to the left, will not block light before or after the proposed addition as for impact on ventilation, the plans property receives plenty of wind from the ocean. as shown in this rendering, the proposed setback allows for openness between the two properties and not resulting in blocking. as we have my parents move in with us, they expressed a desire for one additional bedroom and

we think that it would serve as better than a second parking lot. before we are kindly asking for this infigure race which was submitted as exhibit k. in summary, the project is compatible with the surrounding buildings. respect the open space and privacy and maintains access to light and air with adjacent properties providing adequate set backs. we request the board denial the appeal and allow the project to move forward on the basis that the permit was properly issued. more specifically, one, the approved project complies with all applicable planning codes and residential design guidelines. requiring no variance or exceptions. two, we proactively engage with our neighbors and followed the city's due process going above

and beyond of what is required to ensure a design that works not only for our family, but also for the community. we have already made numerous changes and concessions to the scope and design to specifically address the appellant's concerns. thank you for your considerati consideration. i'm here to answer any questions. also, i have alex, our structural engineer, who can provide more color on the requirements around the planter. i think we can probably do it later during the rebuttle. >> president fung: i have a simple question at this point. you are cre creating the planteo allow the slope into your garage. are you creating new concrete walls around your planter?

>> overhead, please. could you repeat? it's not my native language. >> are you creating new concrete walls around your planter? >> yes, absolutely. we will have -- >> so where is the property line there? >> my name is alex santos. project engineer. as you can see, the larger concrete wall is the foundation of the neighbor and i show a smaller concrete wall right adjacent to it and that will be the curb of the planter. so the property line is the inner face between the new planter concrete wall and the adjacent foundation. >> i don't see a wall there.

>> the wall is right here. the wall is the planter. >> ok. >> here is an example. so, on the same block, you can see that the planter has a concrete wall right directly adjacent to the neighbor. >> president fung: so your planter has its own structure. >> you have a waterproofing membrane between our wall and the neighbor's wall. there's not going to be any water intrusion or anything like that into the neighbor's foundation. >> president fung: ok. >> thank you. we'll now hear from the department. >> planning department. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. subject property 575 belvedere street with a rh2 zoning district and the application was

submitted in august of 2016. that was noted the scope has a horizontal expansion and zoning district that we have a single family dwelling and the neighborhood notification for the project was sent out at the end in may of 2017, between may and june of 2017. one discretionary view is filed by the adjacent property to the north who is also the appellant. the planning commission held two public hearings. one at the end of the last year on des 14th. the commission requested additional information and they heard again on january 11th and unanimously voted not to take discretionary view. it's noted, during the additional design review process that happens when a d.r. is filed, staff, the team looks at the d.r. application and sees if any additional changes need to be made to the project based on new information and staff did a request of additional changes to the project which were made

that's why the planning commission approved the project this year. project is completely code compliant and noted by staff and the residential design guidelines. the applicant has put forward a revision regarding the garage and having, rather than two parking spaces, an additional bedroom at that floor that would appear to comply with the planning code and any issues with that revision and that the board supported could be adopted as a revision here. generally interior revisions, such as that, can be done under the addenda process and addenda or not appeal able to this board but i think in spirit of transparent z. it'trancetranspae applicant has put forward that change because there are changes at the rear of the building. it's good that the entire project can be reviewed by the board. i'm available for my questions.

>> the second unit does not additional space. >> so there's no variances required for this property? >> right. >> and just out of curiosity, what would be the scope -- how much further could they have gone without a variance? >> they're coming to the 45% required rear-yard line and doing a 12-foot pop out. in terms of the extension at the rear, it's the extent of it is about as much as can be done under the code. they've done reduction of the upper levels. so the upper levels don't extend into the rear yard as much as they could under the code as well as vertically they could have the story under the code. >> it appeared it was thoughtful that they did a step back? >> yes, sir. it has been suspecte sculpt as '

material. when you look at the foot prints of the building on the brock it is he will straight tive to see this is nothing abnormal in terms of encroachment. >> thank you. >> actually, the pop-out could have been first in the other direction. >> they could do it one-storey no higher than 10 feet above grade the full width of the lot or the two-storey which they're doing here. although it's not maybe two stores but the height of it is what would fit within that envelope. >> thank you. >> so, we'll now move on to public comment. how many people are here for public comment. >> ok, again, if you wouldn't mind lining up against the wall and handing in your speaker card when it's your turn. you can have the first speaker.

>> mr. president, members of the board. good evening. my name is george burgman and i'm an owner and resident at 57 riffly street which is within the node indicatio notifications proposal. thank you for the opportunity to speak on this item. i will keep my comments brief. the appeal before you tonight relates to a proposal for a large addition to a single family residents in a residential district. if this proposal, as submitted, is approved it will enlarge an existing 2500 square foot four-bedroom two bathroom house into a 3,422 square foot 5-bedroom four bathroom house. in other words, this 991 square foot addition increases the

house size by 39%. while this massive construction is not expressly pre concluded by the city, i believe that any adverse impacts it causes on the neighborhood and on adjacent properties is within your board's purview. to this point, among the stated purposes of the city's plan is making neighborhoods helpful, safe, pleasant and satisfied for all residents and provided at quit open spaces. also, the general plans calls for relating building bulk to the scale of existing development and to avoid a overwhelming and dominating appearance in new construction. i believe the applicant's proposal, as currently designed, conflicts with the general planned provisions and in particular, the massive building wall will loom too close to the appellant's property and w