Welcome to the september 23, 2020, meeting of the San Francisco board of appeals. Commission also present is deputy City Attorney brad russi who will provide the board with any needed legal advice this evening. Im julie rosenberg, the boards executive director. We will also be joined by a representative from the City Department that will be presenting before the board this evening. Scott sanchez, deputy Zoning Administrator for the Planning Department. The board requests that you turnoff or silence all phones and Electronic Devices so they will be disturb the proceedings. Appellants are given seven minutes each to present their case, and people affiliated with these parties must give comments during these sevenminute periods. Members of the public have three minutes to address the board and no rebuttal. Our clerk will give you a warning 30 seconds before your time is up. If you have questions about the probable cause, please email board staff. To enable public participation, sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live, and we will have the ability to receive Public Comment on each item. [inaudible] a link to the live stream is found on the page of our website at sfgov. Org boa. You can join the meetings by computer. Go to our website, sfgov. Org sla sfgov. Org boa and click on the meeting link. Or you can call 16699006833, and enter the webinar i. D. Number 80013407141. Listen for the Public Comment portion for your item to be called, and dial star, nine to indicate that you want to speak. Please note that there is a delay when the item is broadcast and streamed on t. V. Or the internet. It is important that people turn down the volume on their t. V. S or computers, otherwise, there will be feedback on the line. Now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note that all of those who wish to speak do not have to answer in pursuant to the sunshine ordinance. Do you answer or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . You can say yes or nod your head. Which will move onto we will move onto item one, which is general Public Comment. This is the chance 23for the public to speak on any item in the boards jurisdiction that does not appear on the calendar. And i believe mr. Sanchez has some comments tonight. Yes. For those of you that dont know, bob passed away. Bob worked at the Planning Department from july 1960 to may 1999. He served as Zoning Administrator for more than 29 years, a years. This was a time of unprecedented growth and development in San Francisco, but bob guided this city through the time by knowing not only the code requirements but why they existed and could explain it in a plain language to anyone. I dont know how many years you ultimately spent inside hearing chambers, but i think the number would be considerable. He would not hesitate to say no to a project or to defend the board of the fullest, having sued the department on several occasions and winning those battle doe battles, as well. I had the opportunity to work with bob many years when i was an intern and a training consultant. I remember being amazed at the level of detail that you could recount of these arcane planning code conversations years after the fact. He set the standard for the office of the Zoning Administrator, one that we can all admire and try to live up to today. And i would respectfully request that the board consider adjourning the meeting in his honor tonight. Thank you. Thank you. President lazarus, you have your hand raised . Yes. Id like to comment, but i can wait until board comments or questions, either way. Is there any other comment for this item . Id only like to comment on scotts mention of bob passmore. Please go ahead, mr. Chincata. You have three minutes. I knew bob well. In fact, i had a conversation with him just about three weeks ago. He was always available. If i needed to ask a question and wanted to know what his thoughts were. I was amazed when he responded to my email by calling me. This really surprises me and really hurts me. I actually was part of one of those lawsuits where he actually sued the board of appeals. Any way, he was really quite brilliant in his job as the Zoning Administrator, and this makes me sad to hear it. He was really a remarkable planner. Thank you. Is there any other general Public Comment . Please raise your hand. Okay. We are moving onto item number two, which is commissioner comments and questions. President lazarus . Yes. Thank you. First of all, scott, thank you for that very lovely and deserving testimonial to bob passmore. Like mr. Cincata, ive been kicking around city hall since he was there, and he was legendary. Im not sure they cut people from the same cloth anymore. He was a lot, and he will be remembered, as scott was saying, for his many contributions, and we are more than happy to adjourn this meeting in his memory. Thank you. Thank you. Well now hear from Vice President honda. Although scott mentioned it earlier, id like to get on the record, id like to congratulate my soontobe excommissioner Rachel Tanner on her appointment by mayor breed to serve on the planning commission. Thank you and congratulations. Thank you, Vice President honda. I appreciate that, your congratulations. Thank you. Any other commissioner comments or questions . Okay. Is there any Public Comment on this item . If so, please raise your hand. Okay. I dont see any Public Comment, so we are going to move onto item number 3, which is the adoption of the minutes. Commissioners, before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes from the sept 2, 2020 meeting. Commission september 2, 2020 meeting. Commissioners, any questions or comments . Okay. Is there any Public Comment on the motion by president l lazarus . Okay. Seeing none [roll call] okay. So that motion carries, 50, and the minutes are adopted. So we are now moving onto item number 4, which is appeal number 20010, Joshua Riskin and susan lee, versus the Zoning Administrator, pealing the issuance on january 9, 2020, to Joshua Riskin, of a letter of determination that only one garden shed or similar structure is permitted within a required rear yard pursuant to planning code. The subject property contains two such structures within its required rear yard and therefore a variance pursuant to planning code section 305 is required to legalize the second garden shed. We will hear from mr. Cincata first. You have seven minutes. We cant hear you, mr. Cincata. Ill try and make this fast because i want mr. Riskin to be able to tell his story what he had to go through for this. This is usually when i get up here and talk about why were here today, but this matter is a little unusual. In the exhibit brief i gave you, youll see the two sheds in exhibit a that i gave you. You can tell in the exhibit that there are no fixed attachments to the ground. Those are above the ground on blocks and can be moved anywhere. Theyre not fixed. You can also tell from one of the exhibits that we have in our brief that theres no neighborhood opposition to this project. All of our neighbors can see it, but its not intrusive to anybody, and they can see it. Why are we here . Id like to see item number one, please. So the planning code specifically says that other structures commonly used item number one, im sorry. Items such as gardening and tool sheds are specifically allowed as long as they do not cover more than 100 square feet of land. So the structures here do not violate any of those requirements, and there are should be permitted. Well get into other issues later. Also, with regard to this, Building Department, in its rules, and thats showing item 3 shows that these types of structures are specifically exempted from requiring a permit. This is from the Building Permit guide, the very first item, it says, do not require a permit. These are things not requiring a per milt. This is also in the California Building code, section 106a2, and again so again, why are we here in weve got structures that are permitted, and we are allowed to do structured without permits. The issue that came up with this is the determination in item 4 with regard to what does the interpretation mean. This is what the focus of this decision was and what the focus of the Zoning Administrator. This is a decision from 1988, an interpretation from 1988, and this is not really an interpretation. If you take a look at it, interpretations and there are hundreds of people in the planning code back of the planning code. And i know that many of you Board Members have seen these interpretations before. Some of you have dealt with these interpretations in your other jobs as planning personnel in other occasions, other lawyers. Interpretations are just that. Theyre designed to deal with vagueness or contradictions to the planning code. Each of these hundreds of other interpretations describes circumstances and then describes why there is an interpretation necessary to clarify. This does none of that. This purports to change the planning code. Despite the plural construction of the planning code, this is trying to say oh, that doesnt matter. Im changing the planning code with this interpretation so theres only one structure. That the Zoning Administrator does not have that authority to do that. Thats only the board of supervisors that has the authority to change the planning code. This interpretation, mr. Sanchez and mr. Teague would not today write an interpretation as inko inconsequential as this one is. Eventually, were going to need to reduce the notice of violation under the Building Code, for doing without work a permit when a permit is not required. Now if theres any time left, id like mr. Riskin to speak. We need to pause the time while we get mr. Riskin on. Commissioner santacana, did you want to ask a question or did you want to wait . Mr. Riskin, you have 1 49 fast. Ill talk fast. My mom is 88, disabled, has advanced dementia and is currently residing in approximaa nursing home that costs about 700 a day. When she comes to live with us, she will co a second backyard shed seemed like the Perfect Solutions to store things needed for her daytoday care. I believe that im more than satisfied those expectations by referring to several publications by the city, starting with sfdbis booklet getting the city permit. This purpose is to assist and simplify the permitting process and educate the homeowners. It says anything about planning interpretations, where the only issue of quantity is mentioned. As a homeowner, i would never know how or where to refer to these complications. On september 2, 2019, when i went to apply for a permit at d. B. I. , and i was turned away. The complaint which triggered the n. O. V. By d. B. I. Which triggered a neighbors concerned over retaining walls and the issue of the two sheds was issued in passing. Time . Yes. Youll have time in rebuttal, mr. Riskin. Thank you. Commissioner santa cana, your question . Yes. I guess whats to stop a homeowner from putting in an unlimited number of 80squarefoot sheds in a yard. What would keep Something Like that from happening . Youre muted, sir. There are limitations on the size of the obstructions are allowed. Planning code does limit in size and in height how much Square Footage can be covered, and certainly, if there was the necessity of reducing it by some number, that would make sense, but this interpretation doesnt do that. This interpretation says only one is permitted. We dont know what the youre absolutely right in asking that question because we dont know what the limit is, but we do know that multiple obstructions and multiple corrections obstructions can be permitted. So the section 136 says covering up to 100 square feet of land, right . Is that the one that says covering up to 100 square feet of land . You can have as many structures as you want, but you cannot cover more than 100 square feet of land. That section uses the plural, by the way, and that section has other other types of obstructions. There are a number of other obstructions in section 136 that are admitted as intrusive in the rear yard. If there was a method for a discretionary review process, because it was excessive, then the discretionary review process could be initiated by a neighbor or by the Zoning Administrator himself. That thats not what we have here. We have an arbitrary decision that says this is too much. Well, thats not required, so how would a discretionary review process ever come about . Well, i think that the discretionary review process i think that first of all, i think that this letter, this interpretation of this section needs to be rewrite. Yeah, im not focused on the interpretation. Id like to know what you think the section means. I understand that you dont like the interpretation. Im with you there. The section seems, to some degree, ash trahery. What do you think are the number of obstructions in the section that a homeowner could build . Heres the other problem i see with this. The definitions of structures, which is in section 102 says that structures yeah, i know that part of your argument, but that wasnt my question. No, but my point would be, to answer your question, i think that this provision of the code should address what a structure is and should require a permit. We have conflicting issues both in the planning code and the Building Code as to what is a structure and what requires a permit. And i im only asking for this particular client to have equity done for him. But really, what needs to be done, the definition of structures which requires the definition to be made consistent between the Building Department and Planning Department. And secondly, there shouldnt be any further requirement of how to minimize structures in rear yards in the provisions. You see in these provisions, they limited the height and Square Footage. In the planning, it says 100 square foot of land. In the Building Code, its 100 square feet of roof. These need to be made consistent. When we talked to the Planning Department, they say it did. You agree that the Planning Department has the right to interpret the section the best it can. These codes are 32 years old. Yes, i agree that the planning administrator has the right to interpret the planning code. This is an attempt to change the planning code. Mentioning bob passmore tonight, i didnt ask him about this when i talked to him three weeks ago. This would be within his jurisdiction. Theres not even an explanation as to the intent behind this provision. I think ive got my answer. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Weve got a question from Vice President honda and then commissioner tanner. Okay. How long have those restructur been in the rear yard . Mr. Riskin, youre on mute. Can you hear me, commissioner . Now we can. Theyve been in the rear yard since late august of 2019. Okay. So so they were after the interpretation was and by the way, you have a very tidy yard. Oh, thank you. I i like my i like the way it looks. Even though my tenure has been close to eight years, this is the first time that this particular issue has been brought up. I was always under the impression that it was under 100 square feet, no permanent foundation, no electrical. Thank you for answering, and i look forward to the deputy b. A. Clarifying or his interpretation. Thank you. Commissioner tanner . Thank you. My question, just to reiterate commissioner s commissioner santacanas question, so its your interpretation that there could be any number of 100 square foot or less buildings in a rear yard . I believe there is a process to prevent i dont know if im still on. I believe there is a process to prevent that from occurring by the by either the Code Enforcement provisions so i can understand [inaudible] where Code Enforcement [inaudible] but it is your interpretation that if your client wants to do another 1 80squarefoot shed, that that would be allowable . I think under the present code, i think it would be allowed, but i dont think thats what was intended. I think under the present code, thats exactly what is allowed. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Okay. Thank you. We will now hear from mr. Sanchez. Thank you. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. The matter before you is a letter for appeal on the property located at 150 morningside drive. Section 136c22 allows for other structures commonly used in gardening activities such as greenhouses and sheds if no more than 8 feet in grade and covering no more than 100 square feet of land. Theres a longstanding interpretation, over three decades, stating that they can only have one structure that meets this requirement. Its one that commissioner santacana has gotten to the bottom of. If there were no limit, how many could be allowed. By the appellants logic and argument, it would be an unlimited number, and theyre also stating no permit would be required because there is no structure, and no permit is required, and they could cover the yard. If no permit is required, and they could have an unlimited number, and the city is not allowed to enforce that, theres no purpose for the section. Nothing can be developed in the rear yard unless its allowed by 136. Permitted o