Department and Planning Commission. As well as andrew perry, senior planner with the office of the Zoning Administrator. And up front, we have joseph duffy, senior building inspector. And given the coronavirus, were taking a few special precautions. We would appreciate if you would the public would use every other seat. If youre together and you dont mind sitting next to each other, thats fine. Additionally, please use Hand Sanitizer when you come up to the use the equipment. Please dont touch it. He can adjust the microphone as well as the laptop and the projector. If youre sneezing or coughing, please leave the room and make sure you sneeze or cough into your arm. If you feel sick, please go home. Physically sick, not related to your case. The guidelines are as follows. The board question that you silence all phones. Please carry on conversations in the hallway. The boards presentation are appellants, respondents, each given seven minutes. Three minutes or rebuttal. Members of the public who are not affiliated with the party have up to three minutes to address the board. Four votes are required to grant an appeal. To assist the board, youre asked but not required to submit a speaker card or Business Card to board staff. Speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. The board reserves the right to not call an item after 10 p. M. If you have questions about a rehearing, the rules or schedules, speak to staff during the break or visit or call the office. This meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv, cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast an channel 26 at 4 00 p. M. The video is available on our website and be down loaded. We will swear in affirm all those. Please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath. If you intend to testify tonight and wish to have the board give your testimony evidencery rate, please stand and say i do. So whoever is going to testify, if you could please stand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to gives the truth . Thank you. Please be seated. Commissioners, we have one housekeeping item. For item 7a through 7d, that is for appeals number 1907, 99, 100 and 101. The 24th street tree removal. The parties have requested continuance until may 6. Since it is on the calendar, we need a motion and vote. Move to continue. Ill motion. Any Public Comment on the motion . Seeing none, we have a motion from Vice President honda to move the appeals to may 6. On that motion, santacana aye. Lazarus aye. Tanner aye. Swig aye. So that motion carries. 50. And those appeals are moved. Item number 1 is general Public Comment. This is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the boards jurisdiction but not on tonights calendar. Anyone for general Public Comment . Okay. So we will move on to item number 2. Commissioner comments and questions. No . Okay. Well move to item number 3. Commissioners before you for adoption are the minutes of the march 4, 2020 board meeting. Any changes, corrections . No. Motion to approve. Okay, we have a motion any Public Comment on the motion . Okay, we have a motion from commissioner swig to approve, to adopt the minutes from the march 4th meeting. On that motion, santacana aye. Honda aye. Tanner aye. That motion carries 50. We are now moving onto item number 4a and 4b. These are appeal numbers 20004 and 20005. Gutterman and derosa versus the building of department inspection. Subject property is 333 el camino, appealing issuance to peter and Michelle Carter of 4 floor addition. This is permit number 201809271583. Well hear have you decided, the appellants, who is going first . Mr. Gutterman, please approach. You have seven minutes. Let me know if you need help with the equipment. I was going to do the slides he mentioned he would run the computer for us. On the laptop . Go ahead and well wipe it down after, before the next user, or do you need assistance . That would be great because okay. Welcome. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. While this issue is very important, nothing is more important than everybodys health in these unsettling times. So with that, may i wish you good health. Hello, my name is scott gutterman, im here with my wife, we share property to the south of the 333 el camino delmar. Our appeal presents four challenges. Neighborhood opposition, a design that manipulator the building code, encroachment on our privacy and a project that threatens to change the character of the neighborhood by breaking new ground and setting precedent. Can we go to slide 2. There is strong neighborhood and Community Opposition to this project. The number of neighbors are very upset about it. Written a letter explaining the project should not be allowed due to the height was misrepresented. The current project is not in compliance with the special conditions permit. Even after hearing the arguments, they have no action to the letter referring of opposition, dated august 5, 2019. Slide 3. With respect to the opposition, what is relevant here is what i would call the strike zone. These are the houses most impacted by the project and directly to the south of the project on the east side of 27th avenue and the west side of 26th avenue. There is overwhelming opposition from key stakeholders. One of 18 homes to the south of the project has written a letter of support in the strike zone, while 11 of 18, 61 have written letters of opposition. The one letter of support is from a family in the middle of their own construction project. While the developers are aggressive campaigners, writing multiple letters, they were unable to turn the group of opposers to support their project. Slide 4. The developer refuses also that they have support from the two neighbors that are most impacted by the project. The adjacent neighbor to the right and to the left. We would argue those two neighbors are the least impacted and have the most to gain, yet their support is still conditional. Both neighbors are told the developer they would not support an addition extending into the yard. This is wrenched in the referenced to the response on august 19. Slide 5. The Building Department conflates dormers. The interpretation by the Planning Department infers that a design is a twostep process. First, a structure could be built with a sloped roof and then a dormer added. What purpose would the sloped roof serve . Certainly not functional or habitable space. Therefore, the design is left with no choice but to find a way to convert the slope roof into habitable space, hence the dormer. It simply does not work without it. This manipulates the spirit of the code. Nowhere is it inferred in the code that the dormer window can be the basis of creating a sloped roof as it is in this case. Slide 6. Slide 7. This is the a vault and three, a definition of dormer, specific window is a gabled extension of attic room through a sloping roof to allow for a window opening into the room. Its not itself the room. Next slide. We did a wikipedia search and you the topic of dormer windows. We came up with a number of illustrations. All these are relatively small additions to rooftops. Nothing that looks like the developers project. Next slide. We did a visual inspection of our neighborhood and we cant find anything that looks like the developers project. On slide 8 here, these are this is the these are two homes on 26th avenue, around the corner from 33 el camino. Slide 9, two homes on scenic avenue, right around the corner from the developer. This is what a dormer window looks like. This highlights that the project dormer is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. What the projects calls a dormer is not a window by any conventional or practical application. An additional room, own upward sloping roof. This modern design is pushed to the rear of the building to contort every inch of the design to meet effort of compliance. The structure is hung off the back of the building to borrow space in order to lower the midpoint calculation. This avoids a review by the Historic Preservation commission. The developer claims that there is significant distance between our home and their home. The distance is 60 feet. In baseball, the Pitchers Mound is 60 feet. I can tell you that the Pitchers Mound is not a significant distance from home plate. The developer claims there are large trees that will minimize the impact. While we do have a large tree in the backyard, it does not minimize the impact from our home. These are views from our second and third floor. All these are eastfacing lines of sight from our home. You can see from the second floor and third floor, well have a direct line of sight to the new project. You can see here the designs uncharacteristically tall and out of scale. It towers above the surrounding area. I should note thinks the arc techs rendering and it looks out of proportion to the homes to the left and right. Furthermore, if youre in our backyard, would you remembyour the peak of the roof. [bell ringing] go the last one, if you would. So, the last point here, this is what the developer is proposing. And this is what were going to end up with in our neighborhood if we allow this project to go through. Every roof line is the same height. Its been there for 97 years. This is what were going to get. If you dont deny this project. Thank you. Thank you. Well now hear from mr. Derosa. Good evening, welcome. Thank you. Good evening. My name is frank derosa, my wife and i live at 126 27th avenue around the corner from 333 el camino. We were before you in 2013 when you ordered a special conditions permit to approve the Settlement Agreement between us, the guttermans, four other neighbors and the current owners, the existing owners, the same owners of 333 to install a roof deck. They now want to install a 4th story penthouse. The owners admit that the height limit in the Settlement Agreement and the permit is incorrect. And we believe that the height limit in the current permit drawings is also incorrect. This is the rear facade of the 2013 Settlement Agreement. And the special conditions permit. Note the circled 35foot, this says 35foot height limit. You may want to zoom in on that. It shows an arrow and this line here that is the 35 foot height limit at the existing roof of the current building. The language, the arrow and the black line, are the owners notations. The language doesnt say approximate or assumed as the owners brief states, it says 35foot height limit. No ambiguity and clearly no room for a penthouse above it. The next slide is the owners 2019 proposed rear facade. Its exhibit a of the brief. This existing roof line, this is their drawing, this existing roof line is in the same location as that 35foot height line that we just showed you in the first slide. Their new height limit that accommodates this new penthouse is six feet higher than the one they showed us all of us, in 2013. Not six inches, six feet. The owners argue that the height limit was not relevant to the Settlement Agreement and in any case, it was a private agreement. On the first point, the height limit was absolutely relevant. We argue that the proposed stair penthouse leading to the roof deck was a major structure under the code. And would be above the height limit. So the location of the height limit mattered. We agree this was a private agreement. Were before you today because they grossly misrepresented the height limit, the central issue in the case. And you relied on that information in ordering the special conditions permit to be issued with the height limit as noted. The owners say theyre free to file for future permits. We agree. They have a 30 4300 square foot home with a deep backyard. We didnt say they couldnt do any improvements. But their drawings showed that they couldnt build they couldnt build another story above that because the height limit was that was shown was at the existing roof line. It would make no sense for us to spend the time and money to argue over to protest a roof deck if we would agree to come back a year or two later we would agree they could come back a year or two later and build a full penthouse. That is what the doctrine of reasonable reliance is all about. There was no reason for there to be language to prohibit a fourth story in the agreement because the height limit was at the existing roof line. Imagine how people could gain the system if they could present a false set of facts and then come back later and say, just kidding, sorry, these are the true facts. In a quasi judicial proceeding such as the board of appeals, people are accountable for their actions. Please dont allow them to take advantage of their material mistakes. The proposed penthouse is above even the revised height limit. Im going to ask mr. Ron here to explain why the survey points chosen by the owners architect overstate the height limit by 1. 4 feet, which would cause the penthouse drawings to exceed the height limit. How much time . 1 minute 20 seconds. I was asked a surveyor with four Years Experience here in San Francisco, to calculate the natural grade as best i could at the rear building line. At the center line of the lot. What was given to me was a top graphic survey of the site by mirror consulting incorporateded. What you see underneath, you cant see the grades very well, but thats that survey and what our office did, we put in the boundary, we put a line down the center line. We showed the back of the building and the front of the building. And what we did was a calculation. The only way that i know how to come up with natural ground, doing this many times in my 40 years, in a lot like this that has different terraces is to go to the back of the line, the center of the lot and come up with grade. 127. 0 based on the survey. To go to the very front of the lot, back of the sidewalk, right at the Property Line at the back of the walk and i did. 117. 6 is the existing grade. [bell ringing] youll have more time in rebuttal. Im sorry, your time is up. That was a minute and 20 seconds. I have a question for mr. Derosa. So your fellow appellant did not mention the Settlement Agreement. You are not longer asserting that the Settlement Agreement by itself just up holding this justifies upholding this appeal. Your argument now is that the plans that were submitted in connection with the agreement to this body were a misrepresentation of fact or now the new ones are a misrepresentation of fact . Youre not arguing that the agreement itself is what we should base our decision on, is that correct . I think so. Im not quite sure of the distinction. We had the Settlement Agreement. We entered into the Settlement Agreement knowing that the height knowing that the height limit was at the existing roof line. So we reasonably no, i heard the presentation. What i want to understand, are you asking us to enforce the Settlement Agreement or not . Im sorry, the question is for mr. Derosa. You are, okay. Thats all i needed to know. Thank you. Well hear from the permit holders. I didnt see that. We just found out. Sorry i did not make this disclosure. I am a Party Partner a project that has hired this law firm. Their appearance before this body will not have an affect on my decision this evening. Considering that the name is in the room this evening. They didnt tell us in advance just so you know. I just saw tom sitting there and realized that. Thank you. Youre responding to two appeals. You have 14 minutes. Madame director, they havent fixed the airconditioning yet . Ready . Yes. Good evening board members. My name is Michelle Carter and my husband peter and i are the owner of 333 el camino, where weve lived six years. If anyone asked us in 2013 if we would renovate our house again, we would say no way. We now have two little girls and hope to have another child. We have a full and busy household with every bedroom occupied and my husband and i work from home. We have three sets of parents between us, they love visiting for extended periods of time. We want to have room for them to stay with us. This 624square foot addition accommodates our growing family needs providing additional bedroom, bathroom and home office. In the past 18 months weve gone to Great Lengths to communicate with our neighbors. We spoke to all neighbors to inform them of our plan, including appellant gutterman. We also delivered many letters inviting communication conducted at least five meetings and attended another meeting with derosa and architect at the Planning Department. Because weve invited communication and because our project is sensitively designed, we have the support of 20 neighbors as shown on this map, including several across the street. And the neighbors immediately to the east arched west. As and west. As you can see, there is not one neighbor opposing the project on our street. The two next door neighbors are directly affected and theyre both supporting the project. Please note there are three parties who initially opposed our project during the d. R. Process. They were the only three parties willing to talk to us after the hearing and all three are no longer opposing the project. Please note they still cite them as part of the opposition. After learning more, peter temple and janet have said theyre neutral on the project and the Planning Association of the richmond have told us they no longer are actively opposing the project. The current project design preserves our small rear yard which is one of the main reasons we fell in love with our house. Our children and friend, including many neighborhood Children Play in the backyard regularly. Although we hope our 20 letters of support so how extensive our outreach has been, we understand this is not a popularity contest and we know although our reasons choosing to renovate are personal and matter deeply to us, they might not matter to us. What is m