Transcripts For SFGTV Board Of Appeals 20240712 : vimarsana.

Dont disturb the proceedings. Appellants, permit holders, and respondents are each given seven minutes to present their case and a threeminute rebuttal. Time may be limited for Public Comment to two minutes if the agenda is long or there is a large number of speakers. Four votes are required to grant an appeal of a Building Permit or a section 348 on are are section 328 hearing. Regarding Public Access and participation, they are of paramount importance to the board, and every effort has been made to implement the inperson sharing process. Sfgovtv is broading and streaming this hearing broadcasting and streaming this hearing life, and we will have the ability for full Public Comment on todays agenda. To watch the meeting on t. V. , go to cable channel 78. A link to the live stream is found on the home page of our website at sfgov. Org boa, and Public Comment can be provided in two ways. One, you can join the zoom meeting by computer. Please go to our website and click on the zoom link, or you can call in by phone. Call [inaudible] sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the stream if youre watching the broadcast. If you wish to comment, dial star, nine, which is the equivalent of raising your hand to indicate you want to speak. You will have two or three minutes to speak depending on the number of speakers and the length of agenda. Please note there is a delay between the phone line and broadcast. If any if anyone needs technical assistance, you can request alec longway, the boards legal clerk or send a message to sfgov. Org. Now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note that anyone may testimony without answering, but if you wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, you will have to swear or affirm. Raise your right hand. Do you swear that everything about to say will swear or m that everything you are about to say will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . We are moving onto general Public Comment. This is anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the boards jurisdiction but is not on tonights calendar. Is there anyone here for general Public Comment . If so, please raise your hand. Okay. I dont see any hands raised, so we will move onto item number 2, commissioner comments and questions. My only comment is just a word of sympathy for folks particularly up north of us who are dealing with the glass fire. I know our thoughts are with so many people who are evacuating and those who have lost so much and those who have lost their lives. Please, just be thoughtful or individu vigilant if youre traveling around, and take measures to keep you and your loved ones safe. Commissioner swig thank you for bringing that up. I have a residence in san monthle molina maybe i dont, and i dont say that lightly. It is horribly tragic, it is horribly tragic, and you cant understand it unless youve seen it, and i really am so sad for all the people who have lost so much. So unfortunately, tomorrow, on friday, we have winds and high temperatures and low humidity, so lets pray for those people who are going to, unfortunately, suffer. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Anymore commissioner comments . Is there any Public Comment on this item . Please raise your hand. Okay. I dont see any Public Comment, so we will move onto item number 3, the adoption of the minutes. Commissioners, before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the september 23, 2020 meeting. Commissioner swig motion to approve that those minutes, please. Clerk okay. Is there any Public Comment on that motion . Okay. We have a motion from commissioner swig to adopt the minutes from september 23. On that motion [roll call] clerk okay. Thank you. That motion carries, 50, and the minutes are adopted. We are now moving onto item number 4a, 4b, and 4c. These are peappeal numbers 20057, 20058, and 20059. Subject property is 50 seward street, appealing the issuance of august 19, 2020, of a site permit, renovation and addition to a singlefamily dwelling. Addition of second residential unit, new fourth floor addition, convert existing basement and firstfloor space to habitable space, and create new unit with two new bedrooms, one new bathroom, and one new powder room. And commissioner honda, as a preliminary matter, to remind you regarding disclosure . Vice president honda i wish to disclose that i am a partner of a company that hired reuben, junius. As always, this will not have any effect on my decision. Clerk okay. With that, well welcome mr. Pincow. Mr. Pincow, well highlight you, and welcome. Thank you. Commissioner tanner, let me tell you first that i share your sentiments for our neighbors to the north. I live at 49 seward street, unit 1 across the street my fee fiancee is a physician, and we moved to San Francisco together. We are not opposed to construction. Many of our neighbors have completed extensive remodels, but none of them changed the entire look of the rows of mediterrane mediterranean revival type homes. None of them blocked light to their neighbors. The permit holders seek to build an extraordinarily high building that would have impact on the appellants. The permit holders contend that because seward street is mixed character, they can totally do what they want. I do not argue that the permit holders home needs to be identical to their neighbors, what i argue is because the r. D. G. Requires evaluating the buildings on the same block face, and because the r. D. G. Says to avoid a sudden change in the building pattern, and because the project is part of a pattern of six nearly cued cal looking twostory meditrain january revival style mediterranean revival style home. In some situations, there may be groups of buildings that have common roof lines, providing clues to what type of roof line will help tie the streetscape together. Moreover, the project would also block light to my home, which the r. D. G. Says to avoid. The permit holders says the biggest impact is the 40 minutes of new shading on my home. But their o project would resun approximately half of the direct sun light to my home, and the morning, which is the only time i or my fiancee or i are home to enjoy it. One, i pointed out that the table titled sum of front and rear facades shows [inaudible] their employ . After rechecking the documentation, we agree with there pincow that there is a typo with a documentation of one wall. Two, i point out that the certain walls and windows are not accounted for . Their reply, mr. Pincow is correct in pointing out that this was not accounted for in the vertical envelope elements calculation. Three, i pointed out that the removal of a portion of the opening of the first floor and second staircase are not even included in the demolition calculations. Their reply . It is correct that this was inadvertently omitted from the calculations. What is most peculiar is that the permit holders contend in their brief that all of these mistakes should be overlooked because aapparently, the Planning Department staff from time to time has requested to use their architect demolition calculation sheets as an example for other projects. They say as staff will confirm, the project remains in compliance with the code. I think what the permit holders mean is that they expect the Planning Department staff to just rubber stamp anything that their architect presents them with. Mr. Lum is well known to the staff at the Planning Department and has previously appeared before this board. By just especially his plans at safeguard, they are letting the fox guard the hen house. Ive shown in the permitshown, and the per h how can they now rely on the plans, knowing that errors exist . If they did not previously independently verify the democalculations, shouldnt they do so now . Their attorney submitted new drawings to this board and the Planning Department today. What will the Planning Department so . Say oh, these are from john lum, all good . The d. B. I. And Planning Department should be neutral and not give deference to the particular architect here. They should have independently verify his calculations, like i did. That includes glancing at plant plans that have been glancing at plans that have been verified, like i did. Without without proving that this project would not amount to a demolition, which is clearly appears to be, the subject permit is defective, and a demolition and a conditional use permit should be required. The prince architect for the Planning Department David Winslow asked, how is this not a demolition . This question remained open and unanswered. Thank you. Accordingly, the subject permit should be revoked. Thank you. Clerk thank you, mr. Pincow. Okay. We will hear from mr. Kenneth hillan. You have seven minutes. Okay, yeah, and ill try and have to share my screens. Good evening, members of the board. My name is kenneth hillan, and im speaking on behalf of myself and my husband, duncan robinson. As outlined in my brief, i will show that the proposed project has an unlawful front set back pursuant to planning code section 132b. Furthermore, it contravenes San Franciscos residential Design Guidelines. Dont hesitate to stop me for any clarification as we proceed, and now, im going to move to share screen, so i hope thisll work. Can you tell me if you can see my screen . Clerk yes, we can. Good. It is this extension that will be the focus of my discussion today. Under the law, planning code section 132 b applies using attive dimension of calculating the depth of the required front set back, and these are accomplished using the two proposed set backs of the two adjacent properties. 50 seward has the greatest front set back, and 4446 seward has the least set back. Its the property that projects further forward on its lot. These facts are material to todays discussion and are either disputed by the appellants or their lawyer. As highlighted here by the red arrow, all portions of the propertys front set back are not, as required by code, directly exposed laterally to 54 seward, which is the adjacent property with a greater front set back. Indeed, a significant portion of the front set back that lies adjacent to the front entrance of the property has no direct lateral exposure to 54 seward. Exposure is, instead, indirect, as direct exposure is encumbered by the direct extension of building section a. To make my point, if you were to turn right and walk directly laterally, you would literally walk into the threestory wall and would be prevented from proceeding directly towards the front set back of 54 seward. The application of the planning code section 132 b is clearly laid out in San Francisco Planning Department Zoning Administrator bulletin number 5, exhibit 3 in my brief. Quoting directly from the bulletin on the right, and highlighted in red, when the two adjacent structures have different depths, relative to the subject lot, one can extent the structure on the subject lot, into the required front set back so long as the building extension is adjacent to the structure projecting further forward on the lot, which as addressed earlier and not in dispute, is the property at 44 to 46 seward street. Sewar the San Francisco Zoning Administrator has confirmed in writing that there are no prior approved or documents interpretations regarding a situation where portions of the front set back did not have direct lateral exposure to the adjacent property with the greater front set back. Neither the z. A. Nor the Planning Department has provided any reasonable basis based on the fact why planning code 132b might not apply here nor any circumstance provided by the z. A. In any situation where it would extend beyond his remit. I can attest to carefully review planning code section 132b, and there is simply no legal basis for the z. A. s determination. The owners laura certificat certificates lawyer exposes a failure to acknowledge the regulation and provide evidence of the weakness of his rebuttal. Staffing is absolutely permitted stepping is absolutely permitted in front set backs, and let me draw the attention of the board of appeals back to figure 3, that shows how a step front set back is properly applied under planning code 132b with alternative front average set back. The front set back of the subject property, as you can see, is stepped back from the front of the adjacent building with the greater front set back, while the building set back on adjacent to the side of the building that projects further forward on the lot. Further, two adjacent structures have different decks, one can extend and also step a structure on the subject lot into the required set back, but, only provided that the following condition is met so long as the building extension is adjacent to the structure projecting further forward on the lot, which is, as is evidenced, not what is being proposed here. In conconclusion, the z. A. Either made an error in his determination or exclusive chose to exceed the Authority Vested in him. This goes well beyond the scope of the Authority Vested in his position. Clearly, the Planning Department reviewed the project and approved the permit based on improper rationale, an arbitrary and unreasonable association by the Zoning Administrator. As such, it should be rejected and removed by the board of appeals. Okay. Now, we should highlight elisa fitzgerald. Hello. You have seven minutes. Good evening. Members of the board, my name is elisa fitzgerald, and i will be speaking on behalf of myself and alexander middleman. We reside at 48 seward street, directly across the street. When 50 seward was for sale in 2015, we walked through it. The layout is indeed outdated. We would also like to tell you that two of our adjacent neighbors at 51 and 54 seward completelied renovations of their properties with no objection from us or their seward street neighbors. We are all here today because the owners chose an on Us Development plan incongruous with our neighborhood. 50 seward is already a very large building, having 3,489 square feet according to the plans. Adding a fifth story and pushing the facade 10 feet closer to seward streets curb, this project will add 1,778 square feet to the building and create a total Square Footage of 5,267 square feet. They would become the largest singlefamily resident on seward street by more than 2,000 square feet. The next largest home, 57 seward is only 3300 square feet. We use the word singlefamily loosely. We know that theyre adding a second unit. The owners state a rationalization to improve the Square Footage that would increase the citys Housing Stock, but how does keeping the housing within their own familiarly increase the citys Housing Stock . The owners had a very strong motive for permitting for a demolition. A renovation permit was their only path to increase the building size. To add up the story and increase the buildings footprint by 10 is extreme, and we believe violate the San Francisco city requirements for set back as presented. I would now like to spend some time discussing the San Francisco residential Design Guidelines in detail, and the very first paragraph of that document, titled, why do we have residential Design Guidelines, in order to maintain the visual interests of the neighborhood, it is important that the design of New Buildings and renovation of existing buildings be compatible with nearby building. A sing building out of context with its surroundings can be disruptive to the neighborhood character and if repeated often enough, to be disruptive to the city as a whole. There are a total of 34 buildings on seward street. 41 of the buildings, almost half on the whole street are of the same era and have a distinct look. Page 9 of the r. D. G. Provides the definition of visual character. It says this block face has a specific character because of the uniform height and width of the buildings on the block and comparable features such as existing entries and bays. I will show you an example of strong visual character. Im sharing my screen now. You see the six homes, photos from the front of each home. Clerk yep, we see. Thank you. So as we can see in this, the block of six houses clearly meets this definition in the r. D. G. Of strong visual character. The issued permit will break this visual pattern and character of these sister buildings. Let me show you how, by going to the next slide. The new building will not be of uniform height, will not have comparable details, and will not have consistent placement of features such as entries and completely removed vicinity mediterranean styled parapet. It fails to comply with the r. D. G. There are seven elements which break the existing pattern, shown there in numbers 1 through. Page 32 shows the r. D. G. Guidelines, respect the building entrances. Automatic of the garages in this group of six buildings, and also the other eight mediterranean buildings are on the right side of the building. Moving 50 sewards to the left side is a clear violation of this guideline. Page 35 states design and place garage entrances and doors to be comparable with the building and the surrounding area. The proposed design, which switches the entry door and garage location, is in clear violation of this guideline, as well. So how is it possible that a permit was issued for a design which so clearly violates multiple guidelines in multiple ways . Section 311c1 of the planning code states that any alterations shall be consistent are