Will be joint shortly by joseph duffy representing the department of building inspection the board request you silence all phones and other Electronic Devices so though not disturb the proceedings and we ask you carry on conversations in the hallway. The boards rules are as follows. People affiliate with these parties must include their comments within seven or three minute permit good members the public are not affiliated with the parties of up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. Please, speak into the microphone. To assist the board in the acrid preparation of minutes were asked but not required to submit a speaker card or Business Card when you come up to speak. Speaker cards are viable on the podium for your convenience. The board welcomes your comments and suggestions and we have Customer Satisfaction surveys on the podium for your use. If you have questions about requesting a hearing the boards rules or hearing schedule speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting were call or visit the board office. We are located at 16 mission st. In room 304 thats between dubois street and s. Van ness ave. This meeting is broadcast live on sfgov tv cable channel 78 and rebroadcast on friday at 4 pm on channel 26. Dvds of the meeting are viable for purchase from sfgov tv. Now we will swear in or from all those who attend to testify please, note any member of the public may speak without taking the oath pursuant to their rights. If you intend to testify at tonights proceedings. And have the board give you the board give it evidential weight please swear. Do solemnly swear the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Thank you very much. Pres. Honda we have one housekeeping item tonight. Appeal number 17028 which involves a permit at 435 marina blvd. Should that matter has been withdrawn and will not be hurt. The first item on the counter is public commons. General Public Comment. This is an opportunity for anyone to speak to the board on a matter within the boards subject matter jurisdiction but that is not on tonights calendar. So the response brief in my case, 1713 written by margaret bumgardner City Attorneys Office had no evidence to support her claim. Rebecca krill of the Arts Commission lied under oath in the statement that she read as a response. The street arts program is not conducted studio visits in two years. There is evidence from the Public Information officer. They said they conduct monthly studio visits. It goes on and on. They never responded to calls or emails. I dont know why they can get away with standing up here and lying to you about things that i am supposed to have done which i did not do. And with no evidence to support their claims. I think the public trust has been eroded by backroom politics and misconduct. This morning i listened to a California Court of appeal First District case it was a bayview Hunters PointArts Coalition against the Arts Commission. Which is almost identical to my case here. It was athe Arts CommissionCommunity Arts trust refusing to process applications based on personal biases of the staff. So everything that was said against me is false. Thank you. Thank you. Any other general Public Comment . Seeing none, we will move on to item 2 which is commissioner comments and questions. Commissioners . No. Okay. Seeing none, will move to item 3 which is the consideration of the april 5, 2017 minutes. Unless theres any changes deletions may have a motion . So moved. Thank you any Public Comment on the minutes . Seeing none, we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes. On a motion fung aye honda aye wilson aye swig aye. That motion carries 50. Next item on the counter is item for appeal number 17004 scott and Patricia Quinn versus the department of building inspection with Planning Department approval section 14 party 2320 082330 north point st. Protesting the issuance on november 7, 2016 to northpoint and baker partners to add to 13 feet 2 x 25 by one story at rear one story and top altar shape of western light will at ground in a large eastern light will move deck over 15 feet front setback over top a new story internal b configuration. The jurisdiction was granted on january 11, 2017 and a public hearing was held on march 22 on january 11, 2017 and a public hearing was held on march 22, 2017. The matter was continued to allow commissioner lazarus to participate and i seem commissioner, you rude the materials ps i have bethink you so much. My understanding of the parties however if this matter has been settled in the boardthe parties would like to ask you to consider the adoption of revised plans reflecting elements of that agreement. Okay. I need still need to make a disclosure please i wish to disclose of hired rubinon the project i represent. Rubin representation of the entity appeared before this board this evening will not have any effect on my decision. So we can invite the parties to come up to confirm their agreement and commissioners, you should have with you a copy of an email i received from the section 14 parties was unable to attend tonight but did confirm that shes an agreement and once we hear from the parties we can also accept the revised plan to the record. Welcome speeding members of the board. Tom tony rubin junius and roast on behalf of the permit holder and we have reached a settlement. Weve agreed to a project revision they are set forth in this revised plan. We would like to submit that. Were happy to talk about any of the changes if youre interested andi guess i will allow the appellant to speak and confirm this if that would be appropriate. Thank you my name is scott quinn i am the appellants. We have thoroughly reviewed the plant and were very supportive of the project moving forward. We would also like to note the other party that was involved in this activity Deanna Mistral shared an email with Cynthia Goldstein which hopefully hopefully you have a copy of it shes quite supportive of it as well so we recommend we move forward with the project documented in the plans. Thank you. Thank you. Can you briefly summarize what those changes are . We reducedwe changedwe reduced the floor area of the rear extension at the first level. So we brought it in from the back 56 and widened it to the Property Lines, and then filled in the light well on the queens side, so that provided the floor area that was lost in the rear extension. Then we slope to the roof of the fourth floor and added a 10 foot balcony off of the fourth floor pop up above the third floor. Facing the street. The rear deck that was on top of the extension . That was reduced along with the floor below in terms of depth, but it will staywas pulled in 5 feet on either side and that will remain. We have agreed to planters on each side of that for privacy as well. Thank you. Okay. If you have those plans then you can provide them to mr. Ken tara and i just want to invite the departments. I dont know if mr. Keever for mr. Duffy anything to add . Good evening present honda and Commission Good great teak planning to barman staff. I did get a chance to look over the proposed revisions. They still meet the planning Code Department raised at the last hearing was that if the groundfloor unit was reduced by more than 25 it would be considered a merger and would require a conditional use authorization thats not being proposed here based on the tradeoff you heard he the only thing i would put out here is that that interior light well did provide an additional amount of light into that groundfloor unit. So that has been an issue with the Planning Commission has been looking at more thoroughly on projects when they are moved when the unit is moved to the rear and lower floors to the overall quality of the unit. Just to make you aware that is the tradeoff being made it its not an issue of code compliance but just general policy in terms of the quality that other unit but otherwise the proposed revisions are code compliance. Planning verify the open space requirement for the unit . [inaudible off mic] correct. There is adequate space. Okay. Joe duffy dbi. I did email mr. Tony today. The headroom clearance we need to be 80 inches when theyre slipping the roof. That was the only thing i needed to point out. Then if theyre losing some light there was still need to comply with title 24 requirements. So we would like to remind them of that point as well. Thats all we have two offer. Thank you. I think you all can sit down at this point and ill see if theres any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, and commissioners the matter is yours. Commissioners . I would move to grant the appeal and on the basis of the revised plan submitted to the board today. Is that on the basis reflects the agreement on the parties . Yes thank you we have a motion to commissioner lazarus to grant the appeal. Issue the permit on the condition that it be revised to reflect the plan submitted today and thats on a basis that reflects the agreement of the parties. Should we include the recommendation of dbi and tagged thatsubject to title 24 compliance, or is that a given thats given okay. I was just wondering whether we should really reiterate that regulation or not on a motion fung aye honda aye wilson aye swig trent. That motion passes with a vote of 50. We will move on to item 5 appeal we will move on to item 5 appeal number 1717027 philip and kristin springs in bursa department of building inspection with planning to barman approval with section 14 party tracy lynn. Property is at 60 russell st. Protesting the issuance on february 6, 2017 to fill and kristin springs in of a site permit to add two stories to an existing onestory singlefamily residence at new balcony to rear infiltrates in path on westside and infill tree small light wells replace foundation, extensive interior remodel and new garage with twocar mechanized stacked parking at new driveway with curb cut rays rear yard replace deck at solar panels and this is on the hearing today so we will start with the appellant. Good evening and welcome good evening before id like to present information before the board for consideration. As far as . Its a copy of the document already in the record. Its the Planning Department hearing on june 16. Okay. You can give it to gary there but you can use it in your as far as visuals in your notes. Can i please ask sfgov tv put the camera onto the visual display and leave it there so the Board Members see our visuals as we present them. Thank you. Good evening president honda and members of the board. The question before you concerns a matter only 16 inches vertically 36 inches horizontally. We are asking the board to reverse changes to our future home by these amounts. Has the benefit of the small distances to those outside the building are insignificantwhile the burden of those inches inside the building to us are severe. Our appeal is based on two arguments. One, the change to the plan to barman and Planning Commission are not appropriate and two, the procedural errors by the Planning Department made their changes a violation of due process. As i presented i like to keep three things in mind that each illustrated with a picture. First,the extreme height difference between us and the properties on union street is seen here. Second, the setback from our property buildings on russell street. Beginning with height, the first thing to note is the building is fully compliant and never approach the maximum 40 foot height. On face, no changes to i shouldve been necessary at all. Most buildings on russell street are not 40 feet high of course but in exhibit 6 of our brief you saw that most were all about the same height as our project. Three stories, most over a garage about 30 feet high. Thus, the height we request as a code complaint its in character. Next, the allies of the three buildings behind this union street the shortest is 12 feet not inches, above the highest point of our parapets. Its harder, still above our roof in any level of our floors in the other two buildings are even higher than that. With these buildings been so much harder than our project one has to ask, how can a shorter building cause a harm . Finally, consider the relative value of height inside versus outside. The sum of all changes by the department and commission was only 16 inches. From the outside, can you notice a difference between a 334 and 32to building walking down the street . Either up the blocker next to it i doubt not. In contrast if i lower the height of the ceiling even an inch or two youll immediately notice. Furthermore the plants recommend have a height reduction at the rear of 24 inches over the original plan more than all the changes recommended for reversal. We volunteer that 24 inches based on labor input and it does not take away from our living space. Next lets consider setback. Our project fits entirely within the footprint of the existing building. Although our lot is small and we could have variance we chose to stay within the footprint. This means we have a 16. 5 separate with only 15 is required. This was our choice to be Good Neighbors and respect the existing size of the building. Second and most important, our second floor the one closest to our neighbors, at the same level as their basements when the Planning Commission set this floor back an additional 3 feet they were taking space away from our living room and dining room to provide greater privacy for neighbors basements you consider that semen and what it represents. We cannot be a great city if we give greater priority to basements them into living rooms and dining rooms. Only in our third floor is the project the same level as the living space as others thats where were provided extra 10 feet of setback. In this light, the changes by the commission to little bit if i take a step back 18 inches and you still see me or hear me any different . The changes by the commission do not address the problem that itself does not exist. Compared to the minimal impact the additional setbacks are severe on us 3 feet on the second floor means our dining room cannot accept the normal dining table or living room cannot accept a normal couch separate will not be able to gather our entire family around for thanksgiving dinner. The additional 18 inches on the third floor has equal impact. The room to be our nursery into been so small and unusual shape theres no room for changing table and creams for both of our twins. The same logic applies to the terrace. Outdoor living space is at a premium in russian hill. Willing setbacks of a few feet are usually required when a railing comes right up to a lot line. When ours already starts 16. 5 feet theres no need for further setback. The true problem with the commissions changes comes when you consider the height and setback issues together. Look at this diagram. The current rear of our building is just over 15 feet high. Now, look at what the Planning Commission approved. The height in this location is now just 166 inches, or just under 14 feet. That means the commission took away 79. 8 ft. 3 of livable space from the existing building envelope. Took away. This is beyond backwards. The dr process february how much we can add to im not take space away from a small structure that is not only grandfathered but compliant. We ended up your i really dont know. But there is truly no justification for leaving us unable to use part of the house that we started with. Finally, lets address the light well. A picture is worth 1000 words here. Im not sure i can explain the situation better than the diagrams in exhibit 9 and 10 of our brief. The light will proposed will provide more light to our neighbor at 64 russell st. Then it receives now. Taking living space to deepen is not justified. Our second line of arlene is some of the plan to punch you not make changes after they had already reviewed her plants and formally approve them. Here, you see the residential design and review conducted after discretionary review. It clearly states that the project is recommended and there are no changes that need to be made. Can we have the thing we just gave you . It clearly states the project is recommended no changes that need to be made. The Planning Department demonstrated position public with the Planning Commission its harmful not only for us but all residents of the city of decisions on record by the city agency can be reversed on a whim. This violation of due process is an error in abuse of discretion. Should be reversed. Before i conclude, i want to review all the changes that we already made to the project. This list shows multiple changes made from early2015 until july 2016 for multiple parties. Highlighted changes were made in direct response to exhibits to requests included in this brief of exhibit were requesting on the changes be reversed. I mention this to highlight we are not seeking to circumvent either of the planning process or the interest of our neighbors. Only seeking to reverse the changes that an undue burden on us were providing negligible or nonexistent benefit to others. Thank you very much for your time today. Thank you. Maybe we can hear from section 14 party, ms. Luke . Good evening and welcome hello. How are you guys . If you can leave the projector on i would appreciate it. Good evening everyone. My name is tracy luke. I live at 64 russell st. , which is the neighboring property. While i am the only discretionary review filer thats been granted the opportunity tonight this is a culmination of not just my dr but of drs surrounding neighbors in Neighborhood Association on the Planning Commission thoughts over basically a twoyear period. I personally, have and continue be supportive of the appellants request