The goal of averaging is to allow flexibility and design. In our case we have an unusual case. In the front line the houses are angled and stepped. The following of the code means we take the difference of the adjacent neighbors and divide that by half to get the front yard setback. In this case, this is the detach line. We chose here to step this. If we go beyond the front yard setback, we have to look at the setback on the sides. We need to prevent any further growth to the front. The Planning Department have confirmed that the setback confirms to 137 of the planning code. The concern about sunlight claims that for 45 minutes of the sunlight is egregious. He does not acknowledge that for approximately seven months of the year the proposed project has no effect at all. Can you pause the time, please. The president lost her connection. My apologies, everyone. Shes connecting and will let us know when she gets back on. Shes back. Why dont we give an extra minute, please. Well resume time at six minutes. This is in regards to the sunlight and the concerns about the sunlight in the summer solstice for 45 minutes is egregious. But he does not acknowledge that for seven months of the year the proposed project has no effect at all. It is important to note why there is any effect at all in the summertime. The appellants for the appellants the building is south of the project site. The reason why is in the summer, if you look at the sun diagram, youll see that the sun is rising from a very, very shallow angle in the north. So therefore it does 50 steward will cast a small shadow beginning at 6 00 a. M. And ending at 7 00 a. M. In the morning, due to the fact that in the summer the sun shining is shining from the north side. There is no effect to this unit for seven months of the year. We gave the appellants full access to google share for their usage. We were perplexed about the claims of only receiving two hours a day. That doesnt make any sense to me. Stepping the building at the rear and removing parts of the rear facade will reduce substantially the sun exposure for those neighbors. Thats all i had to say. If you please have any questions for us regarding any of these complicated sun studies or the demolition, please let me know. Thank you. Okay. Vice president honda. The question is im so sorry, we need to take a fiveminute break at the request of one of the commissioners. My apologies. Hold on to your question. Thank you for your patience, everyone. For a, b, and c the permit holder just provided their presentation and we have a question now from Vice President honda. The question was given that you found out it was a twounit midway thri your process after you submitted your plans and i saw in the brief there was something taken off the back, could you tell the difference between that plan and the plan you see before you. Yes. The original plan was a reverse plan where we had the living room and kitchen and dining room way up on the top and that was not cut back at all up there. Through this process we once discovered that there was the second unit, we also had the main unit opening on the whole floor at the entry level or street level, so it was actually much larger, the unit. After the unit was discovered and there was already a concept that we were going to restore the unit on the bottom two floors because thats basically an empty crawl space basement. So we were committed to doing that. As through the different various processes of cutting back the project, what happened then is the second floor of the maine unit became the traditional living, dining, study, and then on top became the three bedrooms for the two kids and the parents. Im sorry to interrupt you. What was the Square Footage difference between that plan and the addition of the second unit . Quantity. Let me just check with vaughan my project architect. I remember the unit being over 3,000 square feet it was 3,400 square feet. Plan a prior to adding the second unit was 3,400 square feet . There was always the second unit in the project, but in the first original submittal, the main unit was 3,400 square feet and the lower unit was i believe that would have been 1,120 square feet. Thank you. We also have a question from commissioner tanner. Thank you. I was just trying to understand in terms of the this project had been developing over a while over several design iterations that happened. Can you tell us about flipping the garage location from one side to the other. Youll have to have a new curb cut. Im just curious about that. This was discussed at the Planning Commission hearing, but the fact of the matter is its not only sloping downhill. So the current garage, the client cannot get their car into the driveway because it bottoms out and is too steep, whereas on the lefthand side its a shallower slope. From a safety standpoint they were concerned because they have two children. As young parents they have a minivan so it was better to flip the garage to the other side. There was a discussion about this being safer for the grawj to be on that side because of the opening and the turn. Arage to be on that side because of the opening and the turn. There was concerns of the blind corner there. Can you talk a little bit also about through this process what kind of communication there has been with the appellants and other neighbors or interested parties, meetings, email discussions. It also seems there are a number of adaptations not to the degree that the appellants want. They have been very thorough going around and telling people what their plans were. There was a long hiatus between the preapplication meeting because it basically took us a year planning to get back. So i think some of the apprehension from the neighbors came from the fact that there was long periods of time with nothing happening. Although we did communicate saying that nothing was happening, hey, were not able to disclose anything, we dont know whats happening with planning. There was a discussion with an adjacent neighbor. I believe that mr. Pinkou bought it unit after the preapplication meeting i believe winning, but it was disclosed to him that there was a preproposed project. During that discussion with the neighbors we had a slope roof and there was a discussion, can you lower this and minimize the impact to our view of sunlight. We did drop that roof and then along with the other requirement, could we pull back the top floor adjacent with the rear building. So there was a lot of changes. Unfortunately, the appellants have insisted that theyre not against any development, as long as as its basically within the existing volume. Unfortunately that weve been working with them to discuss if this is allowed, its almost 10 feet shorter than the actual height on it. Unfortunately, we havent been able to resolve the basic sentiment that no development should be allowed. May i also ask the question. You asked how we have engaged with the neighbors im sorry, im sorry. Commissioner tanner, is that fine . If you have a response to the question. My apologies. Go ahead. No, thank you. We held a meeting in our home before march of 2017 before we filed the papers. That was an open house and any neighbor was able to come and we recorded the feedback and included that in our submittals. We had two meetings with the neighbors because they werent able to come to the original meeting and another that lives down the street. There was a long time when the 311 notice issued and the dr if i remember the timing correctly, when we understood there would be a d. R. Hearing, we had not heard before that and mr. Pinkou did not live in his home when we had the initial meeting. We did not go down the block. Me and my son knocked on doors. We asked if they had questions about the plans, some people did and some didnt. We talked to some on carson street and on 19 street that runs along. Seward makes a triangle. When did you first engage with im sorry, its not time for a conversation [all talking at once] there are untruths being said. Its not your time to respond. Thank you. I think i get the sense that you had a lot of engagement and see that there have been revisions to the plans based on the sfooeb from your neighbors as well as the Planning Department. Feedback from your ns as well as the Planning Department. It sounds like you had a lot of feedback. In terms of constructability, i think thats one of the areas i was concerned when i looked at the numbers. Its obviously concerning to have errors. Of course were all only human, but that made me want to be sure that what we see before us are the final calculations you believe are accurate. Is that correct . Yes, i testified, yes, we triple checked them and its always concerning if you missed a section. Clearly, we were way, way under the threshold. When it comes to that and constructability and your experience, do you have concerns of the highlevel scrutiny that will be applied to this project that not one wall, window, pa parapet would require you to seek this authorization, was it constructible as planned . As we have done over 800 projects in San Francisco, im confident that the contractor used will be very aware of the situation and we will only emphasize it further about the level of scrutiny that is given to this project. So that is how most San Francisco contractors are familiar with the situation have to perform. So i cannot attest obviously because im just the architect and not the contractor, but what the Planning Commission required and the approved project, we would put that as a condition, but that is what they need to follow. Im not sure whos speaking, but its not time for an open conversation. As a general point of order for the appellant, commissioners may have questions and i may ask them questions. There is still time for commissioners to ask questions, even if none have been asked to this point. Thank you. We will hear from the Planning Department and they have 21 minutes. There are folks using the chat box which we have asked folks not to use. Theyre asking when they get to speak so were responding to them in terms of the process, theyre not making substantive comments. We do allow the chat box for assistance and not Public Comment. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you. Scott sanchez, Planning Department, the subject property at seward street. The subject building is an existing singlefamily building built in 1928 and there had been a previous legal dwelling. The building is a category c historical resource. That means it is not a historical resource. Apologies for my dog barking in the back. The historic determination was made as part of the review process for this application. The subject building is a legal lawcomplying structure that extends into the required rear yard, which is approximately 16. 5 feet and this encroaches 9. 5 feet into the rear yard. This is a substandard yard under our minimum yards. The lot is wider than typical, 28. 75 feet. It isnt a regular lot shape in that it has the front Property Line is not parallel to the rear Property Line. It has varying lot depths. On the longest about 78 feet and the shortest 57 feet. The Building Permit was submitted on april 19, 2017. Subsequently the application was submitted in july of 2017. The environmental determination was issued in march of 2018. A year later in february of 2019 the section 311 notifications started. They initially started on february 2 for a 30day notice period as it was pointed out, there had been this illegal unit issued which no one had been aware of previously, so we reissued the notice with a new start date of february 13 and end date of march 8. There are three appellants in this matter. The Planning Commission heard this matter on june 6 initially. At that hearing they continued the item and asked the project sponsor to look at addition of an accessory dwelling unit that would be a third unit on the lot. It was continued twice without hearing. The Planning Commission reviewed plans that included the 80u proposal that they initially asked for, but took action on the project to require removal of the a. D. U. They just didnt feel that the a. D. U. Worked, although it was something that the department was supportive of and was approvable of by the department, as the commission asked that the [indiscernible] be merged back into the lower swelling unit that was proposed. The Building Permit was subsequently issued in august, august 19 of this year. The three appeals that have been filed i only received one appeal brief and was not aware of the other two appeal briefs until earlier this week because they were not sent to me by the appellants. I have reviewed the materials and am prepared to respond to the issues raised in those appeals. Ill start with the front setback. The adjacent building to the south extends to the front Property Line and the adjacent building extends to the north Property Line. The building that is to the north is not parallel to the front Property Line. When this is the case under our code, the front setback is calculated based on the average depth of the buildings. So we have basically zero setback for that building to the south and goes 12 feet three inches to the setback on the north. Three a little over six feet. The code does a method of averaging. The goal and the whole purpose of this is to have a gradual transition between the buildings. This is highlighted in the residential Design Guidelines, is having a stepping between the buildings. This is a unique lot shape and with building siding that is not quite complicated by the code. But we found that it complies with the intent and the requirements of the code and this is in the zones purview, i think as the code knows. Under section 307, the code allows the administrator to make applications of the code. There have been applications made that the b. A. Was pressured into making these decisions. The pressure cant be applied to mr. Tieg. He has more problems saying no in my experience. That is an exceptional Zoning Administrator. He only makes a determination if its fair and consistent with the code. In terms of what happened with this case, i agree. I think its an appropriate and fair interpretation of the code. I will attempt with my limited technical abilities to try to share a document with a little bit of a graphic to help illustrate this. Just bear with me while i find the one i intended to show. The top is a graphic from the residential guidelines and shows the step nature. This is part and parcel of the Design Guidelines and good design is ensuring some consistency, the carrying over of the pattern from the adjacent buildings. The bottom is a graphic exactly from section 132 which shows how it is applied. Generally the mass is set next to the building that is close to the front property lots. The adjacent building comes closer to the front Property Line in relationship to the subject building with this wall setback, this building with the greater setback is to the north here. The building with the lesser setback is to the south. Now, looking at how the appellants argue the code should be applied with the massing strictly as the code says, it would have something that would be inconsistent with the residential Design Guidelines. It would have the massing closer to the property on the south, which would not have the gradual transition of the residential guidelines and the code and graphic itself. Looking on the right here, you can see the subject proposal and finding that that is more graceful and gradual with the front facade and complies with the intent of section 132. As noted by the permit holder, they have filed a notice of front setback, to make sure they dont change their minds in the future about how the code is applied. With that too, it was also reviewed by the Residential Design Team on multiple occasions and bound to comply with the residential guidelines. Context is important and its not just looking at the guidelines on this block face, but also the Properties Across the street. Its not only the immediate context, but the broader context needs to be taken into account. I would like to look at the findings from our staff report as regards to the designs. It ranges in buildings from two to four storeys. The high parapets along with the modest height of the thirdstorey height results in a height that is greater than that noted. Horizontally expanding the build at the front and at the rear improves the position at the rear. There is stuc stucco as well. This has a moderate glazing to solid materials. There are angled bays. This is one of several reforms found on this block. Although the entrance of the location and garage has changed, the scale and pattern of the recessed entry has changed. The vertical recess with the horizontal expansion to the front will change the light effect, but most of the shading will fall on the roof of the adjacent building to the north of the street. The adjacent building is deemed to be de minimus. We appreciate the appellant does highlight the inconsistencies, but the permit holder corrected these inconsistencies. I think it is obvious that the permit is a demolition permit. The second is alteration permits. There is a proposal for 50 of the sum of the front and rear facade. While the front facade is going to be removed, the significant amounts, if not most of the side walls will be retained and of course there are new openings for new windows and doors. The last method by which it can be a demolition is a major alteration which proposes 50 of the horizontal elements. While they have that front setba setback, there are also other elements significant enough such that it is not a demolition. This is not the first time these have been raised to the board. We rely on the design professionals. This is not the applicants first project in San Francisco. Hes had a few more than this. We dont have any reason to believe that the plans are inaccurate such that it will be a demolition. They are strongly advised and i know that chief inspector duffy will be able to speak to this as well. If there are unexpected conditions found, like dry rot that would not could want under section 314, then they