Down, so i would just implore everybody to use their Community Minded feelings and focus on that so we can get out of this as a whole. Thats all i want to say. Hear, hear. Is there any Public Comment on commissioners comments and questions . Im looking in the queue, and i dont see any hands raised, and theres no chat coming. All right. Thank you. Then im going to adjourn this meeting at 6 52 p. M. Thank you very much, everyone. Appreciate your time, and that that that last permit applicant made me hopeful for the future. End on a high note. End on a high note. Thanks, everyone. The presiding officer tonight and shes joined by Vice President darryl honda, commissioner rick swig and commissioner rachael tanner. Commissioner Eduardo Santacana is absent this evening. Also present is deputy City Attorney who will provide with any legal advice this evening. At the controls is the boards legal clerk and legal assistant Katy Sullivan. Im Julie Rosenberg the boards executive director. Williams be joined by the representatives presented before the board this evening. Scott sanchez and joseph duffy acting chief building inspector with the San Francisco department of building inspection. The Board Meeting guidelines are as follows. The board requests you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices. Apellants, permit holders and Department Respondents are each given 7 minutes to present case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated must include their comments within the 7 or 3 minute period. They have up to 3 minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal if they are nonmembers. Our legal clerk will give you a verbal warning 30 seconds before the time is up. Four votes are required to grant your appeal or modify your determination. If you have questions about requesting a rehearing, board rules or hearing schedules email board staff at board of appeals at sf gov. Org. Public participation is of paramount importance to the board and every effort has been made to replicate the in person hearing process. Sf gov tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and well have the ability to receive Public Comments it for each item on todays agenda. To wave it on tv go to cable channel 38. It will be rebroadcast on fridays on channel 26. A link for the live stream is at sf gov. Org boa. Public comment can be provided in two ways one you can join the zoom meeting by computer. Go to our website and click on the zoom link or you can call in by telephone. 669 9006833. And enter the webinar id85973566623. Sf gov tv is broadcasting and access is across the screen. To block your phone number dial star 67 then the phone number. I willsen for the Public Comment portion of the item to be called and dial star 9 the equivalent of raising your hand so we know you want to speak. Will you brought into the hearing with it is your turn. Our legal clerk will provide you with a warning 30 seconds before your time is up you will have 3 minutes. There is that delay between the live proceedings and when its broadcast on live stream and tv and internet. Its important that people calling in reduce or turn off the volume on their tvs or computers otherwise there is interference with the meeting. If any participants on zoom need a disability accommodation or Technical Assistance you can make a request on the chat function to Katy Sullivan the legal assistant or send an email to board of appeals at sf gov. Org. The chat function cannot be used to provide Public Comment or opinions. Now we will swear in or firm all those that intend to testify. Any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance. If you wish the word to give your evidentiary weight, raise your land and say i do after you are sworn in. So those testifying. Do you swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing, but the truth . Yes. Hello . Yes. Okay. I see some. If you are participant and youre not speaking please put your zoom speaker on mute so we are now moving onto item number one. Which is general Public Comment. This is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the boards jurisdiction that is not on tonights calendar. And, is there any member of the public who wish to speak on an item not on tonights calendar. I see someone raising their hand. Mr. Iverson are you here for general. I thought you were here for the 12 22 matter. I guess i made a mistake i just wanted to raise my hand that i testify to tell the truth, the whole truth. Wonderful. Thank you. Thats all im a neighbor. Thank you well call on you when its time. Is there anyone here for Public Comment. Please raise your hand. General Public Comment. Okay i dont see anybody so were going to move onto item number 2, commissioner comments or questions . Commissioners. I will have to say goodbye again later on. We congratulate her on getting a unanimous, 110. 110 for supervisors world record. Congratulations. Thank you. Im very excited aboutinning the Planning Commission, but i will say im very very sad to leave the board of appeals and as i said, to commissioner this week, i have learned so much from this commission on how to conduct myself, how to treat people with respect and like human beings even though were in a big fancy chamber just really connecting with the folks. I want to thank you off for being great examples of what it means to serve on a commission and its really going to be sad not to be with you guys every wednesday night, but i know you will have a new commissioner soon hopefully who will make you forget who i am, but hopefully not too much forgetfulness and hopefully i will see you around San Francisco. You will not be forgotten. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . If so please raise your hand. Any Public Comment . Okay i dont see any hands raised so we will move onto item number 3 the adoption of minutes. Commissioners are the minutes of the october 21st 2020 meeting. Any additions, changes, . Yob corrections, is there any Public Comment to accept the minutes . Please raise your hand. I dont see any Public Comment so on the motion to adopt the minutes president lazarus . Aye. Commissioner tanner . Aye. Okay so that motion carries 40 and the minutes are adopted. We are moving to item number 4. Rose feng, Zoning Administrator appealing the issue of septembes Family Investments lp of variance decision. The proposal to demolish an existing one car garage and construct a new four story Single Family residence. An existing two story residential building located at the rear of the subject property is proposed to remain. Planning code section 132 requires the property to maintain a front yard equivalent to 15 feet, the proposed Single Family residence encroaches approximately 9 feet 11 inches into the required front yard set back. Providing only approximately 5 feet 1inch set back therefore a variance is required. Section is 34 requires them to have a 45 . The proposed building does not extend into the required yard, however an existing second building is located entirely within the required rear yard. Such development requires a rear yard variance. They granted the front set back. This is Record Number 2018, we will hear from the appellant first. Thank you. Welcome. You have 7 minutes. Okay. Can i share my screen now . Yes. And we wont start the time until your document is showing. Do you see my document . No i dont. I see a file folder. Maybe if you click oh. I dont see its black. Okay. Now we see a picture. Where . Of the sidewalk. No you can see the picture now . Not now. It flashed on then off. Would you like some assistance . Okay now i see it. Now you see it right . Correct. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Well start your time now. Thank you. Okay. The building front set back diminishes from the required 15 feet to 5 feet 1inch. Therefore the land cape and premire section 132 kept be matched. When we look at this picture, this is the sidewalk view in front of winston avenue. And the front Property Lines was under the fence. When we look at the picture, provided by the variance holder, he purposely moved the Property Line to the sidewalk. The sidewalk is 15 feet 7 inches and his purpose is to mislead the general public and his purpose is that in his simulation here, he purposely move our front fence to the back. Now he after the construction he want to share that here is the real Property Line. This is not true. He moved the Property Line to the sidewalk. Because the location of the front Property Line is the start point of the division making, and now it look like we need to do the investigation regarding where should be the front Property Line. So, the division for the front yard set back is not [indiscernible]. And now according to the variant requirement and this section 134c3 at least 45 of total is required at the rear of subject lot. Clearly the proposed building plan and the subject property does not meet this requirement. And also, it was significantly reduced to the neighboring house at 1208 winston avenue. The 1208 winston avenue window it faced west directly. In the morning, the sunshines from the south. So the sunshines on the house at 1222 winston avenue, but not the neighboring house at 1208 winston. The sunlight comes from the southwest and then enters the 1208 winston house through the front windows between 2 00 p. M. To 5 30 p. M. The newly planned building at the subject property will be located at the southwest of the 1208 winston house and will cover its sunlight southwest sunlight approach so the southwest will be very much blocked from 1218 winston housing. The open space will shrink too much by the planned building. The consequence is that there will be much less sunlight to the 1208 winston house and the building will cost, will cost [indiscernible] in the front yard of 1208 winston avenue. So there are deficiencies of the proposed building plan, the division of front set back is not [indiscernible] because the plan is misleading. The subject property space shrinks too much, shrinks too much this will be the newly planned building in front of the tree. Since the open space will shrink too much it is blocking the sunlight to its neighboring house at the rear and the only sunlight to its neighbors front yard private open space. And the last thing is that the windows on this are adjacent wall this windows the challenge the owners, the 1208 winston avenue owners [indiscernible] the similar building to the [indiscernible] one. Eventually for this plan the owner at 1208 winston avenue will not or wont be able to build a similar building like the panda one. This is not fair. According to ab009 according to ab009, the opening should be located entirely above any ajoining roof or at least 6 feet laterally beyond any wall of an ajoining building. This is the our neighbors building which exactly shows what ab09 place and last thing is that it appear to be no input from the fire marshal about a necessary egress [indiscernible] to the immediate rear of its proposed building. This may create safety issue. So my conclusion is that the plan needs to be revised and the building should rebuild within the code. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have you concluded your presentation is there anyone else speaking on your behalf . Yeah i concluded. Okay thank you ms. Feng. We will now hear from i believe, let me see we have a hand raised one moment commissioner tanner has a question. Yes. Thank you ms. Feng i just wanted to confirm are you the resident of the ajoining unit to the cottage thats in the rear yard of this subjects property . I live 1218 winston avenue with my parents. Are you or your parents the owner of that property or do you rent that property from someone else . No my parents is the owner. They are the owner. Okay there was a part of the permit holders brief that said part of your parents home is on the property of the adjacent parcel. Are you familiar with that . Do you agree with that . I think this is a history i didnt do the investigation. Im not familiar with that. Okay. No thats no problem. Just to make sure i understand part of your concerns are certainly that you want to make sure that the new home proposed doesnt encroach on the sidewalk, and also that it might have imping on your sunlight. Were any shadow studies formed or did you request any shadow studies related to the building . I dont know how to do that request. The issue is not like the new building will encroach the sidewalk. It can, do the minor encroachment they can get a permit to do that. The thing that i saw the balance holder move the Property Line move to the sidewalk which i dont think its, he can do that. You think the Property Line was not depicted in the right location . Yes. The Property Line should be under the front fence. I see okay great. Thank you for clarifying that. Okay. Thank you so much maam i appreciate your testimony. Thats all. Okay thank you. We will now hear from a representative for the variance holder, i believe mr. Woods will be speaking first. If you have 7 minutes mr. Woods. Actually im going to speak on behalf of the Property Owner. Oh, okay. So this is mr. [ inaudible ] im sorry. I cant hear you. You froze up. Oh. Can you start the time over please and if you wouldnt mind starting over please. The time is restarted. Thank you. Okay. So can you see my screen . Yes. You want me to maximize it or does that not matter . No its fine we see it. Thank you. So, commissioners i would be happy to address some of the comments that just came up. I will use my rebuttal time for that. So i will start in here. So, good afternoon commissioners. Im tony morris with morris architect representing the appeal of variances. On july 23, 2020 the Planning Commissioner filed by the current appellant approved this project approving the variances. And rear yard. We asked the board reject the same appeal. First a little history. The project submitted in 2018 remains the same. The demolition of a existing single car detached garage in the front. The construction of the new Single Family home in its place. The existing nonconforming cottage at the back of the lot which is a twin of and connected to the cottage owned by the apellant at 1218 is to be preserved. It is found to be ineligible for the california register and not a contributor to any Historic District however the owner decided to keep it as an affordable rental unit. In december 2019, after several rounds of [indiscernible] the height and depth of the building, the proposal was heard for the variances. This is the site plan at that time. Ms. Feng voiced concerns. I reached out, but she did not want to reach to meet. No dr was filed. An abundance of caution and to reinforce variance signing number 4 that the proposal will not be materially injeerous to the neighbors. Approach the project sponsor, and requested that we reduce the height further and shift the building further away from the appellant lot. We were flabbergasted by this request coming subsequent to the expiration with no dr filed. We decided to accommodate the department however upon renoticing the supervised project the fengs filed through dr. The dr was heard in july and recognized an extraordinary of thes we had taken to create a new unit while minimizing the impacts on the appellant. The project received unanimous support with the commissioners. The front yard set back variance for 132, due to the huge front by averaging a required front set back is close to the maximum 15 feet. They supported pushing the building 51 from the front Property Line in order to open up the midblock open space for the benefit of the cottages. That reduction of the front set back required a variance. Rear yard variance section 34 a rear yard set back exceeds the lot depth. Per the 1986 interpretation of section 134, a limit 25 of equivalent area or 30 feet is required between two structures on a lot. Our proposal fell short by 30 minutes and required a variance. In terms of the five findings for the variances the case is clear the extraordinary circumstance is the presence of an existing nonconforming cottage in the rear yard, which reduces the developable area for the second unit on this lot. Both front and rear provide forlogical development that preserve the right for a second unit consistent with the general plan and minimize the effect on the neighbors. I would like to address the appellants concern. First appellant is concerned about the front cut back variance and negatively impacting the public good. This is certainly no not the case. No portion of the proposal encroached on the 15foot deep sidewalk. Not the front stairs nor the driveway. If you look at this drawing you can see that the dashed red line is somewhat forward of the house. His house is about 16 and a half feet back from the curb, and the sidewalk is legally 15 feet. So that is what explains ms. Fengs concerns. Its not the Property Line is not right up against the fence. So in fact we proposed to move the economisting nonconforming encroachment which will restore the sidewalk in front of this property. By contrast the appellants property has an identical approach 15foot walk and the appellant regularly blocks the sidewalk and defies the state law for public safety. Second the appellant claims that landscape through section 132 cant be met. Those requirements are for