BOARD OF APPEALS, CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Appeal of Appeal No. 14-207 ANTHONY GRUMBACH & KATHERINE POOLE, ) Appellant(s) ) ) vs. ) ) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, ) Respondent

NOTICE OF APPEAL

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT on December 19, 2014, the above named appellant(s) filed an appeal with the Board of Appeals of the City and County of San Francisco from the decision or order of the above named department(s), commission, or officer. The substance or effect of the decision or order appealed from is the GRANTING on October 08, 2014, to James Monschke & Anastasia Micheals, of a Rear Yard Variance (construct a two-story horizontal addition at the rear of the building) at 1784 Sanchez Street. CASE NO. 2013.0831V JURISDICTION GRANTED ON December 17, 2014 FOR HEARING ON February 18, 2015 Address of Appellant(s): Address of Other Parties: Anthony Grumbach & Katherine Poole, Appellants 1782 Sanchez Street San Francisco, CA 94131

James Monschke & Anastasia Micheals, Variance Holders 1784 Sanchez Street San Francisco, CA 94131

BOARD OF APPEALS, CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Appeal of Appeal No. 15-002 ANTHONY GRUMBACH & KATHERINE POOLE, ) Appellant(s) ) ) vs. ) ) DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, ) PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL Respondent

NOTICE OF APPEAL

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT on January 06, 2015, the above named appellant(s) filed an appeal with the Board of Appeals of the City and County of San Francisco from the decision or order of the above named department(s), commission, or officer. The substance or effect of the decision or order appealed from is the ISSUANCE on January 23, 2015, to James Monschke & Anastasia Micheals, of an Alteration Permit (rear addition to include master bedroom, family room, and interior stairs; scope to include some doors and windows as well as electrical and plumbing work) at 1784 Sanchez Street. APPLICATION NO. 2014/03/14/0813S

FOR HEARING ON February 18, 2015 Address of Appellant(s): Address of Other Parties: Anthony Grumbach & Katherine Poole, Appellants 1782 Sanchez Street San Francisco, CA 94131

James Monschke & Anastasia Micheals, Permit Holders c/o Brett Gladstone, Attorney for Permit Holders 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105

San Francisco

Board of Appeals

Grumbach Poole Appeals Nos 14-207 15-002

Hearing Date February 25 2015

ZA DBI PDA

Subject Property 1784 Sanchez Street

Permit Types Variance Rear YardAlteration Permit

Variance Case No 20l3.0831V

Permit No 201403 14813S

Appellants Brief

Anthony Grumbach and Katherine Poole

Appellants

1782 Sanchez Street

San Francisco CA 94131

Email grumpoolegmail.com

29871\4736346.4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPELLANTS EXHIBIT LIST ii

INTRODUCTION

II BACKGROUND

The Proposed Addition Will Wall Off Our Backyard Block Ours and

Other Neighbors Light and Open Space and Intrude on Privacy

Because of the Extensions Severe Impacts on Nearby Neighbors The

Planning Department Initiates Discretionary Review

Despite the Planning Staff and Commissioners Recognizing That the

Extension Would Severely Impact Nearby Properties the Planning

Commission and Zoning Administrator Agreed to Let Project Sponsors

Fill in Their Backyard

III ARGUMENT

The Board Should Overturn the Permit Because the Extension Unfairly

and Unnecessarily Impairs Neighbors Light Open Space and Privacy

Filling in Project Sponsors Backyard Severely Curtails Our Light

Open Space and Privacy

Project Sponsors Have Not Shown That Exceptional or

Extraordinary Circumstances Require Walling Off Their

Neighbors 11

The Board Should Overturn the Permit 16

Alternatively The Board Should Modify the Permit to Alleviate

the Impacts on Neighbors 16

For the Same Reasons the Board Should Overturn the Variance 18

IV CONCLUSION 20

29871\4736346.4

Grumbach Poole ZA DBI PDA

1784 Sanchez Street Appeals

APPELLANTS EXHIBIT LIST

EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION

Variance Decision

September 26 2014 Discretionary Review Action

December 23 2014 Permit Issued

1782 Sanchez Street Photographs

Block Map Google Maps Images

October 2014 DBI Approved Plans

January 2015 Modified Plans

July 29 2014 Plans Submitted to Planning Commission

September 12 2014 Discretionary Review Full Analysis

September 18 2014 Planning Commission Hearing Transcript

Residential Design Guideline Excerpts

June 19 2014 Letter from Project Sponsors Attorney to Zoning Administrator

James Monschke Anastasia Micheals Linkedln Profiles

Salary.com Printout and State Worker Salary Database

Census Bureau 2013 Household Income Data

CCSF Property Tax Information for 1784 Sanchez Street

September 10 2014 Ilene Dick Esq Letter to Zoning Administrator Sanchez

Sample Communications between Appellants and Project Sponsors

Board of Appeals Documents

Appellants Proposed Modifications

11

2987 1\473 6346.4

INTRODUCTION

Appellants Anthony Grumbach and Katherine Poole challenge permit issued by the

Department of Building Inspection and variance issued by the Zoning Administrator that would

allow expanding the property at 1784 Sanchez Street in manner that fails to comply with the

Citys planning requirements based on unsupported factual findings Appellants are

homeowners residing with their two children to the north of and immediately downhill from the

subject property who will suffer severely diminished light privacy open space and seismic

security as result of the proposed expansion

Project Sponsors addition which was approved in convoluted discretionary review

hearing and later cemented in the building permit and variance would create new wall

towering 20 to 26 feet or more above our yard blocking all but feet of our southern exposure

and boxing in our property The ostensible purpose for allowing Project Sponsors to fill in their

backyard and violate otherwise applicable open space light and privacy requirements was to

allow them to skirt seismic upgrades on their aging brick foundation that might be triggered by

less intrusive additionupgrades that the City should be encouraging and requiring because they

reduce the seismic risk to us and other downhill neighbors But Project Sponsors have not

shown that any special circumstances warrant the City permitting such drastic departures from

fundamental planning and seismic safety requirements

Because of the flaws in the Planning Commissions Building Departments and Zoning

Administrators decisions and lack of evidence to support their findings we ask the Board to

either deny the building permit and variance or place conditions on them as specified

below at pages 16-17 and in Exhibit

-1-29871\4736346.4

II BACKGROUND

The Proposed Addition Will Wall Off Our Backyard Block Ours and Other

Neighbors Light and Open Space and Intrude on Privacy

We live at 1782 Sanchez Street in the house immediately north of and downhill of

Project Sponsors house We have small but well-tended and lush garden that includes several

mature trees rhododendrons camellias ferns and flowering maples This outdoor green space

is the focal point of our first-floor living space with French doors opening from our kitchen

onto the back patio our kitchen peninsula eating and gathering space facing our yard and

Project Sponsors yard to take advantage of the existing open space and greenery and several

other west-facing windows connecting our dining area and childrens bedrooms to the yard and

providing natural light throughout our home Ex 1782 Sanchez St Photographs

Because our lot and Project Sponsors lot are on steep grade and both the lots have

small irregular shapes the extension has particularly severe impact on us walling off our

backyard blocking our southern light and open space and intruding on our privacy

Our two lots are terraced and steep slopes run parallel and perpendicular to Sanchez

Street resulting in the ground level of our backyard sitting well below Project Sponsors yard

This means that Project Sponsors new first story and the solid wall on the deck that sits atop it

will rise at least 20 feet above our backyard gardendirectly on our property line Their new

second-story bedroom and bathroom suite will tower at least 26 feet above us with some of this

suite set back three feet but most of it directly on our property line

According to the Planning Department Project Sponsors wall on our property line will

extend 17 feet beyond the perpendicular main rear wall of our house Ex at Discretionary

Review Full Analysis DR Analysis This leaves only meager 3-foot gap between the 20-

foot high far end of Project Sponsors wall and the end of our southern property line Mr

-2-29871\4736346.4

Grumbach has measured this 3-foot gap That is because ours and Project Sponsors small and

irregularly shaped lots are adjoined on our particularly short southern border where our

triangular rear property lines pinch together and meet the zigzagging property line to the west at

272 Randall Street Ex Block Map

This pinch point where the three lots meet is important This point marks the limit on our

access to light and open space to the south and west of our lot The houses on Randall Street

tower four stories above our backyard because of the elevation gain between their street arid

ours with 272 Randalls three-story wooden stairways and decks abutting our western property

line Ex 1782 Sanchez Photographs Further impeding our access to open space the house

directly to the north of us at 1774 Sanchez extends into its backyard As result we are

particularly dependent on accessing sunlight and open space through our southern border with

Project Sponsors lot Ex at Google Earth view of southwest corner of block

We have repeatedly shared our concerns with Project Sponsors Ex When we

discussed our concerns with them in fall 2010 instead of engaging with us they stopped talking

to us and began crossing to the other side when they saw us on the street When Mr Grumbach

again shared our concerns with Project Sponsors and their architect at the pre-submittal meeting

in June 2013 they stated that the plans they were showing him had errors but did not respond to

our request to show us corrected plans and discuss modifications When after filing our appeals

with the Board we again asked Project Sponsors to modify their plans they rejected our request

telling us once more that their plans this time the ones that the City had approved contained

numerous errors Two evenings before we filed this brief their architect emailed us modified

Our house and those that surround it were all built in the late 800s and early 1900s long before the City adopted

laws and policies to protect light open space and privacy We cannot change the historical buildings to our north

and west But when we remodeled our house we took care to comply with modem codes and did it without

requiring variance or cutting off our neighbors light

-3-29871\4736346.4

plans but instead of setting their deck back as wed asked and Project Sponsors indicated was

where theyd intended it to be set back in the approved plans the plans now showed that this

deck was enclosed by solid wall on our property line causing even worse impacts to our light

and open space Ex Jan 2015 Modified Plans

Because of the Extensions Severe Impacts on Nearby Neighbors The

Planning Department Initiates Discretionary Review

We were not the only ones concerned about Project Sponsors walling us off with two-

story extension Planning Department staff recognized that if Project Sponsors filled in their

backyard on our property line we would be greatly affected and there would be no southern

exposure essentially for tour property Ex Planner Smith Discretionary Review Hearing

Transcript 9/18/14 DR Tr at 15 In the Planning Departments written analysis of Project

Sponsors proposed plans staff further explained why these plans violated the Residential

Design Guidelines by impermissibly blocking light and open space

The project does not comply with the Residential Design

Guidelines because it already extends much deeper than the

adjacent buildings and the project would exacerbate this condition

The added building depth combined with the proposed height

would encroach on mid-block open space cut off the adjacent

properties from mid-block open space and shade the rear of the

adjacent building to the north

Ex DR Analysis at emphasis added

To reduce these impacts the Planning Department initiated Discretionary Review Id at

1-2 Because the Planning Department had initiated discretionary review we did not file our

own review request intending to share our concerns and discuss solutions at the Planning

Commissions September 18 2014 hearing At this hearing the Zoning Administrator also

considered Project Sponsors variance application which was required because the extension

would leave far less than the required 30 feet of rear yard depth Ex Variance Decision at

-4-2987 1\4736346.4

Despite the Planning Staff and Commissioners Recognizing That the

Extension Would Severely Impact Nearby Properties the Planning

Commission and Zoning Administrator Agreed to Let Project Sponsors Fill

in Their Backyard

At the hearings outset Planner Michael Smith reported staffs findings that building

two-story addition almost to the edge of our property line does not comply with the residential

design guidelines because it would encroach into the mid-block open space and adversely impact

light to the adjacent buildings Ex DR Tr at see also DR Analysis at 3-6 explaining the

Planning staffs findings

Several Planning Commissioners also recognized the problems that Project Sponsors

two-story extension would create for us and our neighbors and acknowledged that far less

intrusive alternatives exist Commissioner Hillis noted that Project Sponsors have room in that

attic space that if you kept the second floor at the existing property line and pulled back and that

if you took second floor bedroom and bath and shifted it toward the street where the end of

that was at the existing .. could keep it kind of the same roof line that you have proposed

in the back now but you would start using some of the attic space instead of kind of leaving

that as dead attic space as second floor space And then yOU don start to interfere with the

light and air on the secondfloor... would allow some tight to the LfnorthernJ property

owner Ex DR Tr at 15-16 Hillis emphasis added

Other Conimissioners concurred E.g id at 17-18 Richards youre crimping the

light thats coming from the south to the neighbor to the north and Im going along with Mr

Hillis thoughts on .. pulling the second floor back in id at 19 Moore believe that the

impact on the adjoining properties irrespective of being sympathetic with the Sponsors

are just to large

-5-29871\4736346.4

Various options for the project were discussed during the hearing including

Project Sponsors proposal for two-story addition extending 17 feet past the rear

of our house to within feet of the end of our property line Id at

the Planning Departments recommendation to reduce the depth of both the first

and second floors by feet Id

our request and other immediate neighbors requests -- and Commissioner Hilliss

proposal at one point to move the second floor far forward enough so that it did

not extend back past the existing main building Id at 22 and

Project Sponsors architects offer to move the second story forward mere feet

Id at 17

The discussion of these and other options was oflen confusing and disjointed E.g ii at

12-14 id at 14 Hillis just want to understand the plans Theres lot of information so its

hard to understand whats being proposed id at 16-18 22-23 Project Sponsors and their

witnesses emotionally described how accommodating neighbors need for light and open space

would be so expensive that it might cause this family of three to leave San Francisco Id at 3-

But Project Sponsors never presented any evidence about the actual cost of the requested

adjustments or that they two highly-educated and experienced engineers faced severe economic

constraints Id In fact while Project Sponsors asserted that moving their second-story suite

over the main building was infeasible because it might allegedly trigger unaffordable seismic

upgrades their architect admitted that he did not know how extensive an upgrade this move

would require or what it would cost Id at 18 Moreover Project Sponsors estimated income

and earning potential puts their income above 85 percent of San Francisco households rendering

their claims of economic hardship suspect See below at 14-15

-6-2987 1\4736346.4

The Commission appeared poised at one point to require the second floor to be moved

forward so that it would not extend back beyond the existing main building Ex DR Tr at 16

22 But the Commission abandoned this sensible proposal when Project Sponsors architect

asserted that the he did not know where he could place the stairway if the second floor were

moved forward Id at 22

The unanswered questions about Project Sponsors alleged financial constraints vague

claims about seismic upgrades and their costs and the last-minute confttsion about the stairway

further demonstrated that this project was not well thought out that there had not been genuine

discussion with the immediate neighbors as required by the residential design processabout

how to mitigate the remodels impact on light open space and privacy During this confused

attempt to redesign the project in the midst of Commission hearing Commissioner Hillis made

telling comment This is why dont like doing this on the fly Ic at 22

Yet instead of recognizing that this myriad of unknowns and unaddressed concerns

warranted denying the project and requiring Project Sponsors to work out sensible compromise

with their immediate neighbors the Cormnission made its decision on the fly It adopted

Project Sponsors architect suggestion to nudge the second story forward mere two feet Ex

DR Action at Following the Conm-dssions lead the Zoning Administrator issued

variance requiring the same meager two-foot adjustment to the second story Ex Variance

Decision at

III ARGUMENT

The Board Should Overturn the Permit Because the Extension Unfairly and

Unnecessarily Impairs Neighbors Light Open Space and Privacy

The Board reviews the permit approval de novo The permit should be overturned

because Project Sponsors backyard extension unfairly blocks light and open space while

-7-29871\4736346.4

intruding on privacy and Project Sponsors cannot show why such severe deviations from the

Citys Planning Code and Residential Design Guidelines are necessary

Filling in Project Sponsors Backyard Severely Curtails Our Light

Open Space and Privacy

Project Sponsors extension will wall-off almost the entire length of our southern

property line between their backyard and ours By the Planning Departments calculations it

will extend along this property line 17 feet deeper than the primary rear wall of our house

Ex DR Analysis at The rear of Project Sponsors and our yards angle sharply together at

the southwest corner of our lot with the short end of each backyard meeting mere three feet

from the rear of Project Sponsors extension Ex Block Map Ex DBI Approved Plans

This slender three-foot gap does not end in open space but at the multi-story posts and decks of

272 Randall Street house house that abuts our western property line and rises four stories

above it Ex Photographs

The steep grade and the terraced backyards of the lots at this end of Sanchez Street

further exacerbate the problems caused by Project Sponsors walling off all but this 3-foot gap

Because of the steep grade and terraces our backyard is at least feet and 10 inches lower than

Proj ect Sponsors by Mr Grumbachs measurement or as much as or feet lower based on

Project Sponsors architects drawings Ex DBI Approved Plans Dated 10/1/14

This means that at the southern edge of our lot the extensions first floor and solid-

walled deck will rise 20 feet or more above all but that 3-foot gap at the rear of our garden Id

Ex Modified Plans Dated 1/9/15 The extensions second-floor roof ends feet from the

back of our lot and portion of it is set and one-half feet from our southern property line But

with the differences in our lots heights the second floor will tower 26 or more feet above us

ExsFG

-8-29871\4736346.4

We are already boxed in on two sides making the extensions impacts even worse as the

existing rear yard opening provides our sole source of southern light open space and privacy

To the west on Randall Street the homes rising four stories above our backyard block our light

and open space from that direction And to the immediate north on Sanchez Street the neigh

boring duplex extends beyond our homes primary rear wall Ex Google Maps View at

These houses to our west and north are historic structures built before the Citys

Planning Code and Residential Design Guidelines were adopted The presence of these historic

houses and the irregular size and shape of all our lots do not excuse Project Sponsors flouting

the Codes and Guidelines important protections of light open space and privacy Instead as

Planning staff understood the existing intrusions and irregular lots increase the importance of the

Board enforcing the Citys rules protecting our familys privacy and our already limited access to

southern sunlight and open space Ex DR Analysis at the extension has bigger impact

here where the lots are small and irregularly shaped

Project Sponsors extension also harms other immediate neighbors Mr Shultys family

to our north whose floor of their below-grade flat lies six-feet below our garden will lose their

access to sunlight and open space through the south facing windows and glass doors of their

recently remodeled living and dining area Ms Talusen family to our west will face wall that

extends to the edge of her small garden blocking light to it Project Sponsors new deck and

bedroom windows and sliding glass doors will open across from Ms Talusens bedroom

window Ex DR Tr at Talusen

The Planning Codes rear yard setback provisions and the Residential Design Guidelines

light open space and privacy provisions are designed to protect neighbors against this very

scenario of project sponsors who gobble up light and open space at their neighbors expenses

-9-29871\4736346.4

The record here leaves no question that the extension fails to comply with the Code and

Guidelines and that it will have particularly harsh impact on the immediate neighbors

The Planning Staff confirmed that the project does not comply with the

Residential Guidelines because the existing building and lean-to already

extend much deeper than adjacent buildings and the project would exacerbate

this condition and the extensions added depth and height will encroach

into the mid-block open space cut off the adjacent properties from mid-block

open space and shade the rear of the adjacent building to the north Ex DR

Analysis at Planner Smith noted that if Project Sponsors plans were

approved there would be no southern exposure essentially for

property Ex DR Tr at 15

Planning Commissioners agreed with Staffs assessment Ex DR Tr at 15-16

Hillis recommending that the second story be moved toward the street to avoid

interfering with light and air and allow some light to the property

owner id at 17-18 Richards youre crimping the light thats coming from

the south to the neighbor to the north id at 19 Moore believe that the

impact on the adjoining properties irrespective of being sympathetic with the

Sponsors are just to large

The Zoning Administrator confirmed that the extension significantly exceeds the

Planning Codes requirement that backyard occupy at least 45 percent of the

total lot depth which here would require rear yard of approximately 30

Ex Variance Decision at citing Planning Code section 134

-10-

2987 1\4736346.4

Even family friend who spoke on behalf of Project Sponsors conceded that

light may be destroyed .. or taken away by the extension adding Thank

God were not like New York where they have no yards Ex DR Tr at

Despite this widespread recognition of the extensions harsh impacts on us and our

neighbors the Conmiission provided no remedy electing instead to adopt Project Sponsors

architects suggestion to shave slight two feet off the second storys depth

As result under the projects current plans only the far corner of our backyard will get

any sun blocking light to our gardens flower beds and trees and shading the kitchen table and

deck where our family dines and relaxes together Instead of light and open space well see

Project Sponsors addition extending 17 feet past our house to all but the final feet of our

southern property line Their second story will tower 26 feet above our garden The walls of

their first story and deck will rise sheer 20 feet above our garden directly on our southern

property line Their second-floor balcony will perch on that same property line allowing Project

Sponsors to enjoy their views of the garden and home that their project is walling off

Project Sponsors Have Not Shown That Exceptional or Extraordinary

Circumstances Require Walling Off Their Neighbors

We have asked Project Sponsors to do what we and many other neighbors have done

when adding space to homes for our growing families complete the remodel without cutting off

their neighbors light and open space and without intruding on others privacy When we

remodeled our house in 2008 by adding 223 square feet to accommodate our four-person two-

child family we did it without requiring backyard variance while conferring with our

neighbors to ensure that we were not blocking their light or views Since we moved into our

house in 1998 families with children have completed steady stream of remodeling projects on

both sides of our block As Google Earth view of our streets mid-block open spaces show

-11-29871\4736346.4

these neighbors have all made room for their families without choking off adjoining lots light

and open space without evading seismic safety requirements Ex at

It is neither exceptional nor extraordinary to ask Project Sponsors to move their new

second-story bedroom suite roughly another feet forward This would confine the suite

within the main buildings envelope while still respecting the historid front facade by leaving 25

feet between the front of the suite and the sidewalk Ex at A3 .0 And because the suite

already extends several feet into Project Sponsors main building they are already remodeling

their existing living space This remodeling extends forward from the new second-story suite

Their plans show that they are renovating floors walls and ceilings that extend 15 to 20 feet

from the front of their new second-story suite Id

It is also neither exceptional nor extraordinary to ask Project Sponsors to make other

adjustments to respect their neighbors light open space and privacy These adjustments could

include things like slightly lowering or sloping all or some of the 11-foot ceilings on the first

floor sloping the roof above the stairway to avoid erecting sheer cliff on the property line

setting the deck back from the property line and confirming that the clerestory windows will be

translucent and above head-level

Adjustments to the first and second story might require Project Sponsors to revise their

plans in ways that they might find less than ideal But the Planning Code and Residential Design

Guidelines do not create entitlements to high ceilings walk in closets windows on three sides of

rooms or large bedrooms and living rooms by Glen Park standards The Code and Guidelines

Instead of considering and assessing this type of reasonable approach the Project Sponsors presented red herring

alternative at the Planning Commission hearing misleadingly labeling it as the Residential Design Teams

preferred alternative This fanciful overblown drawing of huge second-floor addition running almost to the

front of the house was described by Project Sponsors attorney as the grandest of ideas .not what we propose

today Ex DR Tr at 13 Gladstone City Planner Smith confirmed that this design does not reflect the

direction that the department is trying to push the project in at all is just something that they came up with on

their own Ex DR Tr at 10

12

2987 1\473 6346.4

instead require modifications like the ones we are requesting because building expansions into

the rear yard may not be appropriate if they are uncharacteristically deep or tall depending on

the context of other buildings that defme the mid-block open space An out-of-scale rear yard

addition can leave surrounding residents feeling boxed in and cut-off from the mid-block open

space Ex Residential Design Guidelines at 26 emphasis added

The gist of Project Sponsors objections to our requests is that moving their second story

another eight feet forward would be too expensive because it might trigger more complete and

costly seismic upgrades.3 For at least three reasons this does not justify requiring their

neighbors to bear the costs and harsh impacts of Project Sponsors backyard extension

First Project Sponsors evasion of seismic safety requirements is further reason to deny

their permit not justification for walling off their neighbors The City has no interest in

encouraging property owners to avoid seismic upgrades especially for an insecure old house like

this which sits on brick foundation The public interest lies in the opposite direction E.g

Ex DR Tr at 18 Richards Youre doing all this work on this house and it seems to me

wow this is the time actually to do the foundation to make it really .. something more than

keeping the brick foundation and putting rods in it Here the seismic safety concerns are

particularly acute Our seismic engineer warned us that Project Sponsors brick foundation

would likely collapse in major earthquake causing their house to crash downhill into ours

Second Project Sponsors did not submit any evidence of what additional seismic

upgrades would actually be required or cost Despite all of Project Sponsors objections to

Project Sponsors have also asserted that more extensive remodeling toward the front of the main building might

require them to move out while that work is done But their plans already shows them doing renovations in the main

building that extend up 15 to 20 feet in front of the second-story suite Ex Project Sponsors also told us in

December that they already planned to move for at least part of the remodel And many families in the City huddle

into small rooms in their houses during remodeling projects In sum whether Project Sponsors move or stay for

few months of remodeling is no reason to permanently wall off their neighbors

13

2987 1\473 6346.4

complying with the Citys seismic safety requirements as we and other neighbors have done

they have presented no evidence of what these supposedly unaffordable upgrades would entail or

cost When Commissioner Richards asked what specific seismic upgrades Project Sponsors

were contemplating under their own pians their architect replied Im not sure actually We

havent gone that far in the engineering but we would for sure spend some money to give it the

most lateral stability as possible Ex DR Tr at 18 Commissioner Richards inquired

further asking if we did push that the project forward at what point does it require full

seismic upgrade at how many feet Their architect replied Its little bit of grey area and

Im not exactly sure Id Thus despite Project Sponsors repeated insistence that confining the

second-story suite within the existing main building would trigger unaffordable seismic

upgrades they never defined the threshold that would trigger those upgrades or calculated what

they would cost.4

Third there is no evidence that seismic upgrades are unaffordable for Project Sponsors

two engineers who have an earnings capacity higher than 85 percent of San Francisco

households Exs To justify their refusal to follow the Citys zoning rules Project

Sponsors have painted cruel portrait of insensitive planners and neighbors imposing

unaffordable expenses that would force them and their child to abandon Ms Micheals family

home and leave San Francisco.5 But Project Sponsors have submitted no evidence that they are

under such severe financial constraints Although in June 19 2014 letter to Zoning

Administrator Sanchez their attorney described financial and physical difficulties that they

Moreover the Project Sponsors are already renovating floors ceilings and walls 15 to 20 feet forward from their

addition This raises further questions about their assertion that the second-story suite must extend into their

backyard to avoid renovations in the front of their house

Project Sponsors never mentioned to the Cormnission that in 2007 and 2008 they lived in Mr Monschke home

in Silicon Valley while renting out 1784 Sanchez Street during which time Ms Micheals repeatedly told us that

they were considering moving permanently to Silicon Valley

14-

29871\4736346.4

had encountered during the recession he stated that as of year ago 2013 they recovered

from their setbacks Ex at

Publicly accessible records show that Project Sponsors estimated income and certainly

their earnings capacity is over $200000 year Mr Monschkes Linkedln profile shows that he

is senior software architect with 23 years experience who has worked for IBM Tealeaf since

July 2013 Ex According to Salary.com the median salary and bonus for senior software

architects in San Francisco is over $192000 Ex Ms Micheals Linkedln profile shows

that she is materials engineer with masters degree from Stanford who has 10 years

experience at NASA Ames Research Center and SRI International Ex For the past 12

years she has taught at San Jose State and San Francisco State Universities while running her

own consulting business as forensic materials expert Her consulting income is private but

public records list her income from teaching alone as over $26000 Ex Moreover because

Project Sponsors inherited their house they save thousands of dollars each year on property

taxes Ex Treasurers Property Tax Information showing that for tax year 2014-2015

Project Sponsors property tax is $673.70 and the net taxable assessment of 1784 Sanchez Street

is $28571

According to U.S Census Bureau data Project Sponsors combined income/earnings

capacity of over $200000 puts them in the top 15 percent them of San Francisco households

See Ex at showing that only 14.1 percent of San Francisco households have incomes over

$200000 If 85 percent of the Citys households can claim hardship exception this exception

would swallow the Citys zoning and seismic safety rules

In short Project Sponsors cannot justify walling us off and making us continue to bear

the risks from their unstable brick foundation

15

29871\4736346.4

The Board Should Overturn the Permit

The record provides ample justification for the Board to overturn the permit The

extension does precisely what the Planning Code and Residential Design Guidelines are designed

to prevent it leaves us boxed in and cut-off from the mid-block open space Ex

Residential Design Guidelines at 26 emphasis added blocks our southern light and intrndes

on our privacy Project Sponsors have not submitted real evidence showing that exceptional or

unusual circumstances warrant the City allowing such drastic impacts on neighbors And Project

Sponsors have refused to engage in good faith efforts to mitigate those impacts

Alternatively The Board Should Modify the Permit to Alleviate the

Impacts on Neighbors

If the Board elects not to completely overturn the permit the Board should at least

mitigate the harms that this project is causing by modifying the permit to include the following

conditions

Move the second-story suite approximately eight feet forward so that it

does not extend past the rear wall of the existing building This could be

done while leaving the stairway where it is and letting the rise along our

property line extend further toward the front before it turns to the right/south

Ex Residential Design Guidelines at 26 stating that appropriate design

modifications include set back upper floors to provide larger rear yard

setbacks

Continue the sloping roof of the stairway down to the initial landing at

the rear of the first floor This would help alleviate the sheer cliff that is

currently being erected at the property line while preserving the minimum

16-29871\4736346.4

ceiling height needed for the stairway Id at 16 stating that appropriate

design modifications include sloped roof form in the design

Set the second-story deck back from our property line at least and one-

half feet and replace the solid wall with an open railing Id Although

Project Sponsors told us in December that they intended to do this they have

not Instead this week their architect sent us modified plans dated January

that added solid 42-inch high wall to the deck along our property line Ex

Modified Plans Dated 1/9/15 atA2.O A3.l

To the rear of the deck slope the roof of the first story downward Ex

Residential Design Guidelines at 16 This would provide us more access

to light and open space while mitigating the cold cliff wall in the approved

plans These plans show 11-foot ceilings in the new living room which

leaves space to slightly slope the roof downward at the rear of this room Ex

FatA3.1

To respect our privacy require all north-facing clerestory windows on

our property line to be above head-level translucent and fire code

compliant The plans we have been shown do not specify the height or

materials to be used in all the clerestory windows on our property line

Translucent glass bricks positioned higher than head-level from the floor

would be one way to protect privacy and abide by fire regulations Ex

Residential Design Guidelines at 17 stating that appropriate design

modifications include using translucent glazing such as glass blocks or

frosted glass on windows

17

29871\4736346.4

For the Same Reasons the Board Should Overturn the Variance

Following the Commission decision accepting Project Sponsors architects suggestion

to nudge the second story forward mere two feet the Zoning Administrator issued variance

that included the same two-foot nudge Ex Variance Decision at The Board reviews

whether the Zoning Administrator erred or abused his discretion in granting the variance The

Board should overrule the variance because the facts do not establish the five findings required

by Planning Code section 05c.6

As to the first two required findings there are no exceptional or extraordinary

circumstances about Project Sponsors property that distinguish this property from neighboring

properties or that would impose an unnecessary hardship on Project Sponsors if the same

regulations that other neighbors have abided by were applied to them All the lots at this end of

Sanchez Street including ours are small and irregularly shaped Ex Block Map Many

other homeowners on this block including us have remodeled our homes without boxing in their

neighbors and cutting off their light Ex Google Earth View of Block The Planning Code

and Residential Design Guidelines allow many other alternative designs with far less drastic

impacts that are still feasible for Project Sponsors and that would preserve their homs historic

character

Section 305c states that variance shall be granted in whole or in part unless there exist and the Zoning

Administrator specifies in his fmdings as part of written decision facts sufficient to establish

That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property involved or to the

intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other property or uses in the same class of district

That owing to such exceptional or extraordinary circumstances the literal enforcement of specified

provisions of ti-is Code would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship not created by or attributable to

the applicant or the owner of the property

That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right of the

subject property possessed by other property in the same class of district

That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially

injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and

That the granting of such variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Code and

will not adversely affect the General Plan

-18-

29871\4736346.4

Project Sponsors also cannot meet the third required finding that variance is necessary

for their enjoyment of substantial property right enjoyed by other property owners in the same

class of district As the Google Earth view of our block shows other homeowners have

expanded their homes without choking off neighbors light open space and privacy with an

extension like this that extends 17 feet beyond an adjacent house for almost the entire length of

short property line Id Of the seven variances cited by Project Sponsors five were granted

before the Residential Design Guidelines process was initiated none were subject to

discretionary review and none similarly boxed in neighbors and cut off their southern sunlight

Ex at Ilene Dick letter to Zoning Administrator Sanchez 9/10/14 distinguishing the

variances cited by Project Sponsors

Based on the evidence discussed above Project Sponsors cannot meet the fourth required

finding that the variance not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially

injurious to nearby properties and the fifth required fmding that the variance be in harmony with

the Planning Codes general purpose and not adversely affect the General Plan There is stark

dissonance between the extensions severe impacts on its neighbors and the Planning Codes and

Residential Design Guidelines protections of neighbors light open space and privacy.7

In sum whether Project Sponsors extension is reviewed under the de novo standard for

permits or the error/abuse of discretion standard for variances the evidence shows that the hanns

imposed by the extension are severe and that Project Sponsors have other more reasonable

After conferring with the City Attorneys office the Commission and Zoning Administrator appropriately rejected

Project Sponsors arguments that their 2003 variance vested when they performed internal nonstructural work on

their kitchen and bathroom Ex DR Tr at Ex Dick letter at 6-8 citing Avco Community Developers Inc

South Coast Reg Comm 17 Cal.3d 785 791-793 1979 Further indicating that Project Sponsors did not

actually build the improvements required for the right to vest they moved to Mr Monschkes house in Silicon

Valley in the mid-2000s and rented out 1784 Sanchez Street during which time Ms Michaels repeatedly told us

that they were considering permanently moving to Silicon Valley

19-

29871\4736346.4

options available to them Therefore the Board should overturn the variance or alternatively

modify it to add the same conditions that we have proposed for the permit

IV CONCLUSION

We are not opposed to Project Sponsors expanding their living space and we recognize

that even under the alternatives we have proposed we will lose some light and open space We

ask only that Project Sponsors not wall us off block our southern sunlight and open space and

perch their deck and clear windows on our property line Project Sponsors have responded to

our requests by refusing to talk to us or showing us error-ridden plans only to substitute those

plans later with versions that add new harsher impacts on us Therefore we have turned to the

Board for relief

We ask the Board to overturn the permit and variance Alternatively we ask the Board to

modify them as specified above at pages 16-17 and in Exhibit

Respectfully submitted

ithonDated February 2015

For Appellants

Anthony Grumbaeh and Katherine Poole

1782 Sanchez Street

San Francisco CA 94131

2029871\473 6346.4

SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Variance Decision

Date: October 8, 2014 Case No.: 2013.0831V Project Address: 1784 SANCHEZ STREET Zoning: RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family)

40-X Height and Bulk District Block/Lots: 6653/014

Project Sponsor: James Monschke and Anastasia Michaels

1784 Sanchez Street San Francisco, CA 94131

Staff Contact: Michael Smith - (415) 558-6322

Michael.e.smith@sfgov.org

1650 Mission St. Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103-2479

Reception: 415.558.6378

Fax: 415.558.6409

Planning Information: 415.558.6377

DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE - REAR YARD VARIANCE SOUGHT:

The project proposes to remove the existing one-story utility room at the rear of the building and

construct a two-story, flat roofed addition at the rear of the building. The addition would extend the

existing building depth by five feet at the ground floor, increase the height of the building by 14 inches, be set back 32 feet from the front of the building, and remove a small portion of the existing gabled roof

at the rear. The second floor of the addition would be set back 3’-6" from the north side property line

and the overall addition would add 476 square-feet to the existing building.

Section 134 of the Planning Code requires a rear yard area in an RH-2 Zoning District to be equivalent to 45 percent of the total lot depth at grade level. The rear yard requirement can be reduced to the

average depth of the two adjacent buildings’ rear walls. The subject property, with a centerline lot depth of approximately 68’ from Sanchez Street, has a required rear yard of approximately 30’-7". The existing building already encroaches into the required rear yard and the proposed rear addition would

encroach an additional five feet into the required rear yard.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:

1. The Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") as a Class 1 categorical exemption.

2. The Zoning Administrator held a joint public hearing with the Planning Commission on Variance Application No. 2013.0831DV on September 18, 2014.

3. Planning Code Section 311 notification requirements have been mailed under separate notice for building permit application No. 2014.03.14.0813 from May 20, 2014 to July 19, 2014. While no public Discretionary Review Requests were filed during the notification period, the Planning Department initiated Discretionary Review on the project for non-compliance with the

wwwsfpanning.org

Variance Decision

CASE NO. 2013.0831DV

October 8, 2014

1784 Sanchez Street

Residential Design Guidelines. On September 18, 2014, the Planning Commission took Discretionary Review and modified the project, reducing the second floor depth by two-feet (DRA-0379). These modifications were based upon revision plans submitted by the project sponsor dated July 29, 2014.

DECISION:

GRANTED, in general conformity with the plans on file with this application dated July 29, 2014 (as

submitted under Building Permit Application No. 2014.03.14.0813), shown as EXHIBIT A, to construct a

two-story horizontal addition at the rear of the building, subject to the following conditions:

1. Any future physical expansion, even in the buildable area, shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator to determine if the expansion is compatible with existing neighborhood character and scale. If the Zoning Administrator determines that there would be a significant or extraordinary impact, the Zoning Administrator shall require either notice to adjacent and/or affected property owners or a new Variance application be sought and justified.

2. The proposed rear addition shall be reduced by 2 feet at the second level, resulting in no additional encroachment into the rear yard at the second level.

3. The proposed project must meet these conditions and all applicable City Codes. In case of conflict, the more restrictive controls apply.

4. Minor modifications as determined by the Zoning Administrator may be permitted.

5. The owner of the subject property shall record on the land records of the City and County of San Francisco the conditions attached to this Variance decision as a Notice of Special Restrictions in a form approved by the Zoning Administrator.

6. This Variance Decision and the recorded Notice of Special Restrictions shall be reproduced on the Index Sheet of the construction plans submitted with the Site or Building Permit

Application for the Project. This Index Sheet of the construction plans shall reference the

Variance Case Number.

FINDINGS:

Section 305(c) of the Planning Code states that in order to grant a variance, the Zoning Administrator

must determine that the facts of the case are sufficient to establish the following five findings:

FINDING 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property involved or to the

intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties or uses in the same class of

district.

Requirement Met.

SAN FRANCISCO 2 PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Variance Decision

CASE NO. 2013.0831DV October 8, 2014

1784 Sanchez Street

A. The subject and adjacent properties are unique because they are located at the southern end of a block that comes to a point where Randall and Sanchez Streets intersect. As a result, the subject

and adjacent lots are smaller than normal and irregularly shaped with small rear yards. The

subject property measures approximately 1,690 square-feet with 25-feet of frontage on Sanchez

Street and a centerline depth of 68’. The lot slopes up from the street such that the garage level is located below grade level at the rear.

B. The subject property is improved with a one-story plus attic over garage, approximately 847 square-foot, single-family dwelling that was constructed in 1908. The subject building is one of

the smallest buildings within the immediate neighborhood based upon occupied square-footage

and is legal noncomplying because it encroaches into the required rear yard.

C. The subject building is one of the oldest buildings within the immediate neighborhood and is a potential historic resource for CEQA review purposes.

D. The subject property was granted a rear yard variance in 2003 for a similar project.

FINDING 2.

That owing to such exceptional and extraordinary circumstances the literal enforcement of specified

provisions of this Code would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship not created by or

attributed to the applicant or the owner of the property.

Requirement Met.

A. Since the rear portion of the existing building is legal noncomplying structure, literal

enforcement of the Planning Code would preclude the owners from adding to the rear of the

building without the granting of a rear yard variance.

B. The existing building has a non-habitable attic space due to its sloped ceiling. The Code would generally encourage development of the existing attic space closer to the front of the building or

elsewhere within the buildable area of the lot where it would have a greater visual impact on the character of the building and possibly impact historic preservation creating an unnecessary

hardship that is not attributable to the applicant or the owner of the property.

That such variance is necessary for preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the

subject property, possessed by other property in the same class of district.

Requirement Met.

A. The granting of this variance would allow the property owners to create a family-sized dwelling by adding a reasonable amount of square-footage to a very small building. The variance would protect the property owner’s right to expand their dwelling by allowing them to create a dwelling that is similar in square-footage to buildings within the immediate neighborhood.

SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Variance Decision CASE NO. 2013.0831DV October 8, 2014 1784 Sanchez Street

B. The granting of this variance would allow the property owners to protect the character of the existing building by placing the addition at the rear of the building where it would be minimally visible from the street and save them from having to perform costly seismic upgrades to the existing building.

FINDING 4. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially

injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity.

Requirement Met.

A. The adjacent neighbors to the north and west expressed their concern for how the addition would block light to their windows which currently look out upon the subject rear yard. Granting the variance with the condition limiting encroachment of the second story would carefully balance the needs of the property owners to improve the livability of their building and protect southern and mid-block exposure to the adjacent buildings’ windows by including a top floor setback at the north side of the addition and at the rear (as requied by the Planning Commission).

B. The Planning Department also received a letter of opposition from a neighbor two properties to the north of the subject property who is concerned about how the addition might impact sunlight access to the rear of his building and letters of support from 41 neighbors.

FINDING 5.

The granting of such variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Code and

will not adversely affect the General Plan.

Requirement Met.

A. This development is consistent with the generally stated intent and purpose of the Planning Code to promote orderly and beneficial development. Planning Code Section 101.1 establishes

eight priority-planning policies and requires review of variance applications for consistency

with said policies. The project meets all relevant policies, including conserving neighborhood

character, and maintaining housing stock.

1. Existing neighborhood retail uses will not be adversely affected by the proposed project.

2. The proposed project will be in keeping with the existing housing and neighborhood

character. The proposal will preserve the existing single-family dwelling unit on the

property.

3. The proposed project will have no effect on the City’s supply of affordable housing.

4. The proposed project does not adversely affect neighborhood parking or public transit.

5. The project will have no effect on the City’s industrial and service sectors.

SAN FRANCISCO 4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Variance Decision

CASE NO. 2013.0831DV October 8, 2014

1784 Sanchez Street

6. The proposed project will have no effect on the City’s preparedness to protect against injury and loss of life in an earthquake.

7. The project will preserve the character of an existing, potentially historic building.

8. The project would not affect any existing or planned public parks or open spaces.

The effective date of this decision shall be either the date of this decision letter if not appealed or the date of the Notice of Decision and Order if appealed to the Board of Appeals.

Once any portion of the granted variance is utilized, all specifications and conditions of the variance authorization became immediately operative.

The authorization and rights vested by virtue of this decision letter shall be deemed void and cancelled

if (1) a Building Permit has not been issued within three years from the effective date of this decision; or (2) a Tentative Map has not been approved within three years from the effective date of this decision for

Subdivision cases; or (3) neither a Building Permit or Tentative Map is involved but another required

City action has not been approved within three years from the effective date of this decision. However, this authorization may be extended by the Zoning Administrator when the issuance of a necessary

Building Permit or approval of a Tentative Map or other City action is delayed by a City agency or by

appeal of the issuance of such a permit or map or other City action.

Protest of Fee or Exaction: You may protest any fee or exaction subject to Government Code Section

66000 that is imposed as a condition of approval by following the procedures set forth in Government

Code Section 66020. The protest must satisfy the requirements of Government Code Section 66020(a) and must be filed within 90 days of the date of the first approval or conditional approval of the

development referencing the challenged fee or exaction. For purposes of Government Code Section

66020, the date of imposition of the fee shall be the date of the earliest discretionary approval by the City of the subject development.

If the City has not previously given Notice of an earlier discretionary approval of the project, the Planning Commission’s adoption of this Motion, Resolution, Discretionary Review Action or the

Zoning Administrator’s Variance Decision Letter constitutes the approval or conditional approval of the

development and the City hereby gives NOTICE that the 90-day protest period under Government Code Section 66020 has begun. If the City has already given Notice that the 90 day approval period has

begun for the subject development, then this document does not re-commence the 90-day approval period.

SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Variance Decision CASE NO. 2013.0831DV

October 8, 2014

1784 Sanchez Street

APPEAL: Any aggrieved person may appeal this variance decision to the Board of Appeals within ten (10) days after the date of the issuance of this Variance Decision. For further information, please contact the Board of Appeals in person at 1650 Mission Street, 3rd Floor (Room 304) or call 575-6880.

Very truly yours,

Scott F. Sanchez Zoning Administrator

THIS IS NOT A PERMIT TO COMMENCE ANY WORK OR CHANGE OCCUPANCY. PERMITS FROM

APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENTS MUST BE SECURED BEFORE WORK IS STARTED OR OCCUPANCY IS

CHANGED.

SAN FRANCISCO 6 PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Memo

Discretionary Review Action DRA-0379 HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2014

Date: September 26, 2014 Case No.: 2013.0831DV Project Address: 1784 SANCHEZ STREET Permit Application: 2014.03.14.0813 Zoning: RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) 40-X Height and Bulk District Block/Lot: 6653/014 Project Sponsor: James Monschke and Anastasia Michaels 1784 Sanchez Street San Francisco, CA 94131 DR Requestor: John and Mary Ferretti 324 Elm Street San Bruno, CA 94066 Staff Contact: Michael Smith – (415) 558-6322 Michael.e.smith@sfgov.org

ADOPTING FINDINGS RELATED TO TAKING DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FOR CASE NO. 2013.0831D AND THE APPROVAL OF BUILDING PERMIT 2014.03.14.0813 PROPOSING TO REMOVE THE EXISTING ONE-STORY UTILITY ROOM AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY, FLAT ROOFED ADDITION AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING THAT WOULD EXTEND THE DEPTH OF THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING BY FIVE FEET. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN A RH-2 (RESIDENTIAL, HOUSE, TWO-FAMILY) ZONING DISTRICT AND A 40-X HEIGHT AND BULK DISTRICT. PREAMBLE On March 14, 2014, Andy Rodgers (project architect) filed for Building Permit Application No. 2014.03.14.0813 proposing to remove the existing rear utility room and construct a two-story rear addition that would extend the existing building depth by five feet, increase the height of the building by 14 inches, and be set back 32 feet from the front of a single-family dwelling located within a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.. This is a staff-initiated request for Discretionary Review (2013.0831D) of Building Permit Application No. 2014.03.14.0813 because the project encroaches into the mid-block open space and thus does not comply with the Residential Design Guidelines. The Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) as a Class 1 categorical exemption.

Discretionary Review Action DRA-0379 Case No. 2013.0831D September 26, 2014 1784 Sanchez Street

2

On September 8, 2011, the San Francisco Planning Commission (hereinafter “Commission”) conducted a duly noticed public hearing at a regularly scheduled meeting on Discretionary Review Application 2013.0831D. The Commission has heard and considered the testimony presented to it at the public hearing and has further considered written materials and oral testimony presented on behalf of the applicant, Department staff, and other interested parties. ACTION The Commission hereby takes Discretionary Review and approves the Building Permit Application 2014.03.14.0813 subject to the following modification:

Based upon the plans that were submitted to the Commission for review, the second floor of the addition shall be reduced in depth by an additional two-feet.

BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION The reasons that the Commission took the action described above include:

1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances related to the project in that the subject and adjacent lots are exceptionally small and irregularly shaped. The extraordinary size and shape of the subject and adjacent properties results in a confined mid-block open space at the southern end of the subject block.

2. The subject property is further exceptional because it is one of the smallest dwellings in the neighborhood in terms of occupiable square-footage.

3. Moving the proposed upper floor of the addition further towards the front of the property may require costly upgrades to the existing building.

4. The proposed ground floor extension would not have a significant impact on light and air to the adjacent buildings.

5. The small size of the addition makes it difficult to further modify the project without significantly impacting the interior program.

Discretionary Review Action DRA-0379 Case No. 2013.0831D September 26, 2014 1784 Sanchez Street

3

APPEAL AND EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION: Any aggrieved person may appeal this Building Permit Application to the Board of Appeals within fifteen (15) days after the date the permit is issued. For further information, please contact the Board of Appeals at (415) 575-6881, 1650 Mission Street # 304, San Francisco, CA, 94103-2481. Protest of Fee or Exaction: You may protest any fee or exaction subject to Government Code Section 66000 that is imposed as a condition of approval by following the procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020. The protest must satisfy the requirements of Government Code Section 66020(a) and must be filed within 90 days of the date of the first approval or conditional approval of the development referencing the challenged fee or exaction. For purposes of Government Code Section 66020, the date of imposition of the fee shall be the date of the earliest discretionary approval by the City of the subject development. If the City has not previously given Notice of an earlier discretionary approval of the project, the Planning Commission’s adoption of this Motion, Resolution, Discretionary Review Action or the Zoning Administrator’s Variance Decision Letter constitutes the approval or conditional approval of the development and the City hereby gives NOTICE that the 90-day protest period under Government Code Section 66020 has begun. If the City has already given Notice that the 90-day approval period has begun for the subject development, then this document does not re-commence the 90-day approval period. I hereby certify that the Planning Commission did not take Discretionary Review and approved the building permit as reference in this action memo on September 18, 2014. Jonas P. Ionin Commission Secretary AYES: Commissioners Wu, Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Richards NAYS: Commissioner Johnson ABSENT: none ADOPTED: September 18, 2014

No porlloo of building or nlruclore or ocaffolding uned daring coosfruclion Is In be cloner than 6S In ony wire

confainlog more Ihon 750 volts See Sec 385 Coulomb Penal Code

Pumnoont In San Francisco Relfdlog Code lhe building purmll shall be pooled on the Job The nmnnr Is

responsible for opproved piano and oppllcaflnn beIng Irepl ol building nile

Grade linen an uhome 00 drawIngs accompanyingthin applicallno ore assumed lobe correct If actuol grade

linen ore nol the same on shown reniued drawings ohcwlng correcl grade lines cols and fIlls and complete

dublin of retaInIng malta and wall feelings meal be submitted lo Ibis department for appronal

ANY STIPULATION REQUIRED HEREIN OR BY CODE MAY BE APPEALED

BUILDING NOT TO BE OCEUPIEO UNTIL CERTIRCATE OP FINAL COMPLETION IS POSTED ON THE BUILDING OR

PERMIT OP OCCUPANCY GRANTED WHEN REDUIRED

APPROVAL OP THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN APPROVAL FOR THE ELECTRICAL WIRING OR

FLUMBINO INSTALLATIONS SEPARATE PERMIT FUR TNE WIRING AND PLUMBING MUST BE OBTAINED

SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED IF ANSWER IS YES TO ANY OF ABOVE OUESTIONS 10 11112113 22OR 24

THIS IS NOT BUILDING PERMIT NO WORK SHALL BE STARTED UNTIL BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED

lo dmelllogs all Insalallog malerlals musl bane clearance of not less tliao Iwo Inches from all efeclricot

mires or equipment

CHECK APPROPRIATE BOO

LI OWNERLESSEE

CONTRACTOR

APPLICANTS CERTIFICATIONHEREBY CERTIFY AND AGREE THAT IF PERMIT IS ISSUED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION DESCRIBED IN THIS

APPLICATION ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE PERMiT AND ALL LAWS AND ORDINANCES THERETO WILL BE

COMPLIED WITH

SITE PERMIT

MAR 2U1

VEIlS APPLICATIUN SUBMITTED FORSITE PERMIT ONLY NO WORK MAY BESTARTED LINTIL CONSTRUCTION PLANSNAVE BEEN APPROVED

NOTICE TO APPLICANTHOLE HARMLESS OLAUSE The permilleun by occeplonce of the permit agrees Ia IndemnIfy ned hold harmless

Ihe Cily ond Coanty of San Francisco from and ogainol any and all claIms demoodu and actions br damages

resulting from operalions nuder Ibis permit regardless of negligence of Ihe CIly and Coeofy of Sue Francisco and In

asnume Ihe defenon of Ihe Cily nod Counly of San Francisco agalnul all ouch claims demands or odious

In conformity mIIh Ibe pranisloos of Secflon 3600 of the Labor Code of lhe Slab of CalifornIa Ihe applicant oholl

hone workers compensallon coverage under or It designated below or nhalf Indicate Item III IV or

whichever In opplicableIf homuser ilem Is cbeckedillem IV mssl be checked an well Mark the oppropriale

method of compliance below

hereby aHlrm under penally of pnrlsry one ef Ihn following declarations

hone and mill moinbale certificale of cannenl In sull-lasure for werbern cempenoaliso as presided

by Seclion 3700 of the Lobor Code for the performance of Ihe mark for whIch Ibis permit In issued

II bonn sod mIll molnlain workers compensation insurance as reqalred by Enclion 3T00 of the Labor

Cadn for Ibe performunce of Ihe work br whIch thin permit In Issoed My workers compe000llon

insurance carrier and policy number are

Carrier

Policy Nambor

III The coot of thu murk to be done In $100 or less

IV certify Ihat In theperformance of Iho work br which Ibis permil Is insued okoU net employ

any person lo any manner so so In become ssbect In fhe workers compensation lows af California

furlher ockeowludge Ihal understand that In the enent Ihat should become subject to the markers

cnmponsatiao prnnlslsnn of the Lsbsr Cndn of Calfnrnis and fail bocomply forlhwllh mIIh Ihe

pronisluno of Sectian 3600 of the Labor Code Ihat Ihu permit herein applied for shall be deemed renakud

-c

fr-4

BUILDING

Q5SCRIPTIONVERTICAL

HORIZONTAL

.G

APPLICATION FOR BUILDINQPERMITADDITIONS ALTERATIONbR REPAIRS

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION

APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF

OTHER AGENCIES REVIEW REQUIREDBUILDING INSPECTION OF SAN FRANCISCO FOR

PERMISSION TO BUILD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS

FORM Lii OVER-THE-COUNTER ISSUANCEAND SPECIFICATIONS SUBMITTED HEREWITH ANDACCORDING TO THE DESCRIPTION AND FOR THE PURPOSE

NUMBER OF PLAN SETSV_DO_NO

HEREINAFTER SET FORTH

WRITE ABOVE THIS_LINE_V

DATE FILED

3114W-f

FiLING FEE RECEIPT Ndw

a4O82STREEF ADDRESS OF JOB BLOCK LOT

mv c4Je cttd .br3 Jtj

0r

-t

Zoac

Li

PEIMIT Nd

/3LV7ISSUED 2A ESTIMATED COST OF JOB 26 REVISED COST 00

UEC2 7flhI -ooo BY OATh11

INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED BY ALL APPLICANTS

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING BUILDING

4A TYPE OF CONSTR SA NO OF 6A NO OF 7A PRESENT USE BA OCCUR CLASS BA NO OF

DWELLING

OCCUPANCY 1AND CELLARS

ISTORIESOF.SFIZ tCS

yUNITSDESCRIPTION OF BUILDING AFTER PROPOSED ALTERATION

DWELLING

TYPE OF CONSTR NO OF 1B NO OF PROPOSED USE LEGAL USE 18 OCCUP CLASS 1g NO OF

çc STORIES OF IBASEMENTS

OCCUPANCY .1L jANO CELLARS zLe jnk.figr

cI UNITS

113 PLUMBING1OIS AUTO RUNWAYYES

11 WILL STREET SPACEYES

ELECTRICAL

TO BE CONSTRUCTED BE USED DURING WORK TO BE YES Jkl WORK TO BE YES

OR ALTERED ND1CONSTRUCTIDN

NOtPERFORMED

NO PERFORMED ND

14 GENERAL CONTRACTOR ADDRESS ZIP PHONE CALIF LIC NO EXPIRATION DATE

Th15 OWNER -iassa CROSS OUT ONE ADL1RESS ZIP BTRC PHONE FOR CONTACT BY DEPT l/DS

-wisrci frn/cLe0fl Q-veS KViSc IThLfcricttz 93j bV4 yy16 WRITE IN DESCRIPTION OF ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED UNDER THIS APPLICATION REFERENCE TO PLANS IS NOT SUFFICIENT

ft4I frQv11br4 .7% /tdCQL ifl /-4ocH F/EHLV k4-1 fNTJ4cC s1Y1//Cj

5of 7b /NCLUDI- Stei QO/tJ LiJotvJ AJ WftW /f.S jiLi L1JtcA._

PLuenSffJL LJbLL

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

17 DOES THIS ALTERATIONYES a18 IF 17 IS YES STATE

2_2-

19 DOES THIS ALTERATIONYES

20 IF 1915 YES STATE

NEW HEIGHT AT CREATE DECK OR HORIZ NEW GROUNDCREATE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT

OR STORY TO BUILDING NO CENTER LINE OF FRONT EXTENSION TO BUILDING NO FLOOR AREA 581 50 FL

YES21 WILL SIDEWALK OVER

YES122 WILL BUILDING

YES23 ANY OTHER EXISTING BLDG

YES 424DOES THIS ALTERATION

EXTEND BEYONDSUB-SIDEWALK SPACE BE ON LOT IF YES SHOW CONSTITUTE CHANGE

REPAIRED OR ALTERED NO at PROPERTY LINE NO PON PLOT PLAN NO OF OCCUPANCY NO

25 ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER DESIGN CONSTRUCTION ADORESS CALIF CERTIFICATE NO

oçyepy pzs 1d /S fAvLk IYIo26

CONSTRUiION LENDR ENTER NAME AND BRICK DESIGNATION IF ANY ADDRESS

IF THERE IS NO KNOWN CONSTRUCTION LENDER ENTER UNKNOWN4rwKs

IMPORTANT NOTICES

No chonge shall be mode in Ihe chorocler of Ihe occupancy or one wlthoul ErsI ubfalniog Building Permil

outhorlcing such change See Son Francisco Building Code ood Soo Fruocluco Housing Code

ARCHITECT

.2AGENTENGIREER

cerfyon the own sr Iho agent for he owner that In the performance of the mork for whiclr

fhln rmIl In issue mill employ confroclnr mba complies with the morhers compensation lows

of CafowIs sod\prior

In Ihu ommencnment ol nay murk mill Ele cnmpleled cupy of this form

wI lb Cenfrol Per

If

Bureau

\ir LAU 19 .O\LI

Signofure of Applicoot Ayont Dale

REV OB/13

OFFICE COPY

CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS

APPROVED

PAt

BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION PIJBLIC SAFETY

DATE

REASON

NOTIFIED MRAPPROVED

MECHANICAL ENGINEER DEPT OF BLDG INSPECTION

DATE

REASON

NOTIFIED MRAPPROVED

.1

CIVIL ENGINEER DEPT OF BLDG INSPECTION

DATE

REASON

NOTIFIED MRAPPROVED

LiituutvtAsnotedonpIansm LiongTian Cy DPi\JIBSM

BUREAU OF ENJ3INEERING

DATE

REASON

NOTIFIED MR

LII

APPROVED

DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEALTH

DATE

REASON

NOTIFIED MRAPPROVED DATE

REASON

Ea

NOTIFIED MR

DATE

REASON

HGUSING1NSPEC11ONDIVISION 10 IA NOTIFIED MR

REFER APPROVEDTO

YLt hr1c flt

LII

-BUILDING INSEpTO DEPT OF BLDG IF..

APPROVED ct t-1VLWT5Ubor4 ccte

DATE ____________REASON

NOTIFIED MR

APPROVED PURSUAMT TO

CPC DISCRETIONARY

REVIEW ACTION

tL REVIS1ONS SHALL

IW1ERRED It DCP

DATE ____________

REASON

j-jr

Michael 9r acDEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING NOTIFIED MR

agree to comply with all conditions or stipulations of the various bureaus or departments noted on this application and attached statements

of conditions or stipulations which are hereby made part of this application

Number of attachments Eli iiPJDOWNERS AUTHORIZED AGENT

47 --tt1i7-4 _tI-i

-j

4-4

4-

ttt-4---

Ui-tiLii-

4-A 4II

29871\4744156.1

1700 Block of Sanchez Street, Google Earth

1

www.sfplanning.org

Discretionary Review Full Analysis

HEARING DATE SEPTEMBER 18, 2014

Date: September 11, 2014 Case No.: 2013.0831DV Project Address: 1784 SANCHEZ STREET Permit Application: 2014.03.14.0813 Zoning: RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) 40-X Height and Bulk District Block/Lot: 6653/014 Project Sponsor: James Monschke and Anastasia Michaels 1784 Sanchez Street San Francisco, CA 94131 Staff Contact: Michael Smith – (415) 558-6322 Michael.e.smith@sfgov.org Recommendation: Take DR and approve with modifications

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes to remove the existing one-story utility room at the rear of the building and construct a two-story, flat roofed addition at the rear of the building. The addition would extend the existing building depth by five feet, increase the height of the building by 14 inches, be set back 32 feet from the front of the building, and remove a small portion of the existing gabled roof at the rear. The last 10 feet of the addition would be set back 3’-6” from the north side property line. The addition would add 476 square-feet to the existing building. The project requires a rear yard variance due to the shallow depth of the lot. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PRESENT USE The project site is located on Sanchez Street on the west side of the street between 30th and Randall Streets within the Glen Park neighborhood. The subject property is irregularly shaped measuring approximately 1,690 square-feet with 25-feet of frontage on Sanchez Street. The lot slopes up from the street such that the garage level is located below grade level at the rear. The subject property is improved with a one-story plus attic over garage, approximately 847 square-foot, single-family dwelling that was constructed in 1908. The subject building is legal noncomplying because it encroaches into the required rear yard. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORHOOD The surrounding neighborhood is residential in nature and characterized primarily by single-family dwellings with few two-family dwellings. Most of the buildings are workman cottages with gabled roofs that date from the early 1900s. Most of the gabled roof buildings have habitable space beneath the gable which provides two levels of occupancy and in some cases three levels of occupancy.

Discretionary Review – Full Analysis CASE NO. 2013.0831DV September 18, 2014 1784 Sanchez Street

2

PROJECT BACKGROUND The project sponsors applied for and were granted a rear yard variance for a nearly identical project in 2003 that was not opposed by the neighbors. However, the sponsors never applied for a permit to construct the addition and a variance decision expires after three years. The sponsors claim that personal circumstances affected their ability to construct the addition and that permits granted in 2003 for interior work constituted Phase 1 of the work related to the addition. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION NOTIFICATION

TYPE REQUIRED

PERIOD NOTIFICATION

DATES DR FILE DATE DR HEARING DATE FILING TO HEARING TIME

311 Notice

30 days May 20, 2014 – July 19, 2014

N/A (staff initiated)

XXXX XX, 2010 60 days

HEARING NOTIFICATION

TYPE REQUIRED

PERIOD REQUIRED NOTICE DATE ACTUAL NOTICE DATE

ACTUAL PERIOD

Posted Notice 10 days August 29, 2014 August 29, 2014 20 days Mailed Notice 10 days August 29, 2014 August 29, 2014 20 days PUBLIC COMMENT

SUPPORT OPPOSED NO POSITION

Adjacent neighbor(s) X Other neighbors on the block or directly across the street

41 1

Neighborhood groups The Project Sponsors have submitted letters of support from 41 neighbors. None of the neighbors requested discretionary review for the project but the adjacent neighbor to the north opposes the project as proposed for reasons similar to the Department’s concerns and therefore relied upon the staff-initiated discretionary review instead of requesting his own. Staff also received a letter of opposition from a neighbor two properties to the north of the subject property. DR REQUESTOR This is a staff-initiated request for Discretionary Review because the project’s encroachment into the mid-block open space does not comply with the Residential Design Guidelines.

Discretionary Review – Full Analysis CASE NO. 2013.0831DV September 18, 2014 1784 Sanchez Street

3

RESIDENTIAL DESIGN TEAM REVIEW The project does not comply with the Residential Design Guidelines because it already extends much deeper than the adjacent buildings and the project would exacerbate this condition. The added building depth combined with the proposed height would encroach into the mid-block open space, cut off the adjacent properties from the mid-block open space, and shade the rear of the adjacent building to the north. PROJECT SPONSOR’S RESPONSE The project sponsors argue that the existing building is very small and that to protect its historic integrity the addition should be placed at the rear of the building and that a similar project was supported by the Department in 2003. The project sponsors are also arguing that the project is vested by a 2003 variance decision. PROJECT ANALYSIS The project sponsors contend that their project is vested by a 2003 variance decision which authorized a very similar addition to the rear of the building. They claim that personal circumstances halted the construction of the addition after Phase 1 of the construction for interior work without plans was completed. The Zoning Administrator conferred with the City Attorney about this claim and it was agreed that the addition was not vested by the 2003 variance decision and that the sponsor would need to go through the application process again. The subject and adjacent properties are unique because they are located at the southern end of a block that comes to a point where Randall and Sanchez Streets intersect. As a result, the subject and adjacent lots are smaller than normal and irregularly shaped with small rear yards. Of the buildings located on these smaller lots located at the south end of the subject block, the subject building at 847 square-feet has the least amount of habitable square-footage because the other buildings have habitable area beneath the gabled roofs where the subject building has only non-habitable attic space. The project sponsors are also upset as to why their 2003 project was supported by the Department and why their current project is not supported. Both proposals sought to extend the building five-feet deeper extending it a total of 17 feet deeper than the primary rear wall of the adjacent building to the north and 23 feet deeper than the primary rear wall of the adjacent building to the south, coming within five feet of the adjacent building to the west on Randall Street. While an additional five feet in building depth would not be an issue on a residential lot of normal depth it has a bigger impact here where the lots are small and irregularly shaped. The Department did not have a Residential Design Team in 2003; therefore, it was the assigned staff planner who exercised discretion in reviewing the 2003 project against the Residential Design Guidelines. Since 2003, the Design Guidelines review process within the Department has evolved and the process now requires review by a specialized team of planners who are not beholden to earlier design decisions. The Department recognizes that at 847 square feet, the existing building is not large enough to meet the needs of modern family living. To maintain the Project Sponsor’s desired program we suggest sliding the top floor of the addition five feet further forward onto the existing building. When this idea was suggested earlier in the review process the Project Sponsor’s representative responded that it would

Discretionary Review – Full Analysis CASE NO. 2013.0831DV September 18, 2014 1784 Sanchez Street

4

result in updating the original building that would prove to be too costly for the owners. Costs notwithstanding, the Department continues to believe that this is the most viable alternative for a project that is consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Department has determined that the proposed project is exempt from environmental review, pursuant to CEQA Guideline Sections 15301(1)(4) and 15303(a). Under the Commission’s pending DR Reform Legislation, this project would be referred to the Commission, because it does not comply with the Residential Design Guidelines. BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION To protect the mid-block open space and maintain the adjacent buildings’ connection to it, the Department recommends that the depth of the addition be reduced by five-feet such that there is no increase in depth for the existing building footprint. Therefore, the Commission should take DR and reduce the building depth by five feet.

RECOMMENDATION: Take DR and approve the project with modifications

Attachments: Design Review Checklist Section 311 Notice Environmental Determination Block Book Map Sanborn Map Aerial Photographs Context Photos Adjacent Neighbor’s Submittal Response to DR

Reduced Plans (Exhibit B)

Discretionary Review – Full Analysis CASE NO. 2013.0831DV September 18, 2014 1784 Sanchez Street

5

Design Review Checklist NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER (PAGES 7-10)

QUESTION The visual character is: (check one) Defined X Mixed Comments: The character of the immediate neighborhood is defined by single family dwellings with gabled roofs that were constructed in the early 1900s. The buildings are generally set back from the street with raised front entries. SITE DESIGN (PAGES 11 - 21)

QUESTION YES NO N/A Topography (page 11) Does the building respect the topography of the site and the surrounding area? X Is the building placed on its site so it responds to its position on the block and to the placement of surrounding buildings?

X

Front Setback (pages 12 - 15) Does the front setback provide a pedestrian scale and enhance the street? X In areas with varied front setbacks, is the building designed to act as transition between adjacent buildings and to unify the overall streetscape?

X

Does the building provide landscaping in the front setback? X Side Spacing (page 15) Does the building respect the existing pattern of side spacing? X Rear Yard (pages 16 - 17) Is the building articulated to minimize impacts on light to adjacent properties? X Is the building articulated to minimize impacts on privacy to adjacent properties? X Views (page 18) Does the project protect major public views from public spaces? X Special Building Locations (pages 19 - 21) Is greater visual emphasis provided for corner buildings? X Is the building facade designed to enhance and complement adjacent public spaces?

X

Is the building articulated to minimize impacts on light to adjacent cottages? X Comments: The proposed rear addition would not alter the building’s existing siting. The existing building is set back three feet from the south side property line which the addition would maintain. The addition is articulated with a three foot setback at the rear and a 3’-6” setback from the north side property line at the top floor. There are no windows on the wall that is set back, thereby protecting privacy to the adjacent property.

Discretionary Review – Full Analysis CASE NO. 2013.0831DV September 18, 2014 1784 Sanchez Street

6

BUILDING SCALE AND FORM (PAGES 23 - 30)

QUESTION YES NO N/A Building Scale (pages 23 - 27)

Is the building’s height and depth compatible with the existing building scale at the street?

X

Is the building’s height and depth compatible with the existing building scale at the mid-block open space?

X

Building Form (pages 28 - 30) Is the building’s form compatible with that of surrounding buildings? X Is the building’s facade width compatible with those found on surrounding buildings?

X

Are the building’s proportions compatible with those found on surrounding buildings?

X

Is the building’s roofline compatible with those found on surrounding buildings? X Comments: The proposed rear addition would not alter the existing building’s appearance from the street. The proposed addition would extend the building five-feet deeper extending it a total of 17 feet deeper than the primary rear wall of the adjacent building to the north and 23 feet deeper than the primary rear wall of the adjacent building to the south, coming within five feet of the adjacent building to the west on Randall Street. Because of the unusual lot configuration at the south end of the subject block the addition would pinch the mid-block open space thus impacting the adjacent properties’ connection to it. Although the addition would have a flat roof most of the original gabled roof would be retained. The flat roof of the addition would be located at the rear of the building where older buildings typically have an alternate roof form over a utility room. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES (PAGES 31 - 41)

QUESTION YES NO N/A Building Entrances (pages 31 - 33) Does the building entrance enhance the connection between the public realm of the street and sidewalk and the private realm of the building?

X

Does the location of the building entrance respect the existing pattern of building entrances?

X

Is the building’s front porch compatible with existing porches of surrounding buildings?

X

Are utility panels located so they are not visible on the front building wall or on the sidewalk?

X

Bay Windows (page 34) Are the length, height and type of bay windows compatible with those found on surrounding buildings?

X

Garages (pages 34 - 37) Is the garage structure detailed to create a visually interesting street frontage? X

Discretionary Review – Full Analysis CASE NO. 2013.0831DV September 18, 2014 1784 Sanchez Street

7

Are the design and placement of the garage entrance and door compatible with the building and the surrounding area?

X

Is the width of the garage entrance minimized? X Is the placement of the curb cut coordinated to maximize on-street parking? X Rooftop Architectural Features (pages 38 - 41) Is the stair penthouse designed to minimize its visibility from the street? X Are the parapets compatible with the overall building proportions and other building elements?

X

Are the dormers compatible with the architectural character of surrounding buildings?

X

Are the windscreens designed to minimize impacts on the building’s design and on light to adjacent buildings?

X

Comments: The proposed rear addition would not alter the existing building’s appearance from the street and would not add any rooftop features to the existing gabled roof. BUILDING DETAILS (PAGES 43 - 48)

QUESTION YES NO N/A Architectural Details (pages 43 - 44) Are the placement and scale of architectural details compatible with the building and the surrounding area?

X

Windows (pages 44 - 46) Do the windows contribute to the architectural character of the building and the neighborhood?

X

Are the proportion and size of the windows related to that of existing buildings in the neighborhood?

X

Are the window features designed to be compatible with the building’s architectural character, as well as other buildings in the neighborhood?

X

Are the window materials compatible with those found on surrounding buildings, especially on facades visible from the street?

X

Exterior Materials (pages 47 - 48) Are the type, finish and quality of the building’s materials compatible with those used in the surrounding area?

X

Are the building’s exposed walls covered and finished with quality materials that are compatible with the front facade and adjacent buildings?

X

Are the building’s materials properly detailed and appropriately applied? X Comments: The proposed rear addition would not alter the existing building’s appearance from the street. The addition would be finished in quality materials consisting primarily of wood siding.

1650 Mission Street Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103

NOTICE OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION (SECTION 311)

On March 14, 2014, the Applicant named below filed Building Permit Application No. 2014.03.14.0813 with the City and County of San Francisco.

P R O P E R T Y I N F O R M A T I O N A P P L I C A N T I N F O R M A T I O N Project Address: 1784 Sanchez Street Applicant: Andy Rogers Cross Street(s): Randall and Harper Address: 156 South Park Block/Lot No.: 6653/014 City, State: San Francisco, CA 94107 Zoning District(s): RH-2 / 40-X Telephone: (415) 309-9612

You are receiving this notice as a property owner or resident within 150 feet of the proposed project. You are not required to take any action. For more information about the proposed project, or to express concerns about the project, please contact the Applicant listed above or the Planner named below as soon as possible. If you believe that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances associated with the project, you may request the Planning Commission to use its discretionary powers to review this application at a public hearing. Applications requesting a Discretionary Review hearing must be filed during the 30-day review period, prior to the close of business on the Expiration Date shown below, or the next business day if that date is on a week-end or a legal holiday. If no Requests for Discretionary Review are filed, this project will be approved by the Planning Department after the Expiration Date.

Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Commission or the Department. All written or oral communications, including submitted personal contact information, may be made available to the public for inspection and copying upon request and may appear on the Department’s website or in other public documents.

P R O J E C T S C O P E Demolition New Construction Alteration Change of Occupancy Façade Alteration(s) Front Addition Rear Addition Side Addition Vertical Addition P R O J E C T F E A T U R E S EXISTING PROPOSED Building Use Residential Residential Front Setback None No Change Side Setbacks None No Change Building Depth +/- 50 feet +/- 55 feet Rear Yard +/- 28 - 33 feet +/- 23 - 28 feet Building Height +/- 23 feet No Change Number of Stories 2 No Change Number of Dwelling Units 1 No Change Number of Parking Spaces 1 No Change

P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N The proposal is for a rear extension to the existing one-story-over-garage single-family dwelling. The horizontal extension is proposed for the rear of both the existing first and second floors. The proposal will also enclose an existing stairwell at the rear. See attached plans. The issuance of the building permit by the Department of Building Inspection or the Planning Commission project approval at a discretionary review hearing would constitute as the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.

For more information, please contact Planning Department staff: Planner: Casey Noel Telephone: (415) 575-9125 Notice Date: E-mail: casey.noel@sfgov.org Expiration Date:

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT PROCEDURES Reduced copies of the proposed project plans have been included in this mailing for your information. If you have questions about the plans, please contact the project Applicant listed on the front of this notice. You may wish to discuss the plans with your neighbors or neighborhood association, as they may already be aware of the project. If you have general questions about the Planning Department’s review process, please contact the Planning Information Center at 1660 Mission Street, 1st Floor (415/ 558-6377) between 8:00am - 5:00pm Monday-Friday. If you have specific questions about the proposed project, you should contact the planner listed on the front of this notice.

If you believe that the impact on you from the proposed project is significant and you wish to seek to change the project, there are several procedures you may use. We strongly urge that steps 1 and 2 be taken.

1. Request a meeting with the project Applicant to get more information and to explain the project's impact on you. 2. Contact the nonprofit organization Community Boards at (415) 920-3820, or online at

www.communityboards.org for a facilitated discussion in a safe and collaborative environment. Community Boards acts as a neutral third party and has, on many occasions, helped reach mutually agreeable solutions.

3. Where you have attempted, through the use of the above steps or other means, to address potential problems without success, please contact the planner listed on the front of this notice to discuss your concerns.

If, after exhausting the procedures outlined above, you still believe that exceptional and extraordinary circumstances exist, you have the option to request that the Planning Commission exercise its discretionary powers to review the project. These powers are reserved for use in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances for projects which generally conflict with the City's General Plan and the Priority Policies of the Planning Code; therefore the Commission exercises its discretion with utmost restraint. This procedure is called Discretionary Review. If you believe the project warrants Discretionary Review by the Planning Commission, you must file a Discretionary Review application prior to the Expiration Date shown on the front of this notice. Discretionary Review applications are available at the Planning Information Center (PIC), 1660 Mission Street, 1st Floor, or online at www.sfplanning.org). You must submit the application in person at the Planning Information Center (PIC) between 8:00am - 5:00pm Monday-Friday, with all required materials and a check payable to the Planning Department. To determine the fee for a Discretionary Review, please refer to the Planning Department Fee Schedule available at www.sfplanning.org. If the project includes multiple building permits, i.e. demolition and new construction, a separate request for Discretionary Review must be submitted, with all required materials and fee, for each permit that you feel will have an impact on you. Incomplete applications will not be accepted.

If no Discretionary Review Applications have been filed within the Notification Period, the Planning Department will approve the application and forward it to the Department of Building Inspection for its review.

BOARD OF APPEALS

An appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision on a Discretionary Review case may be made to the Board of Appeals within 15 calendar days after the building permit is issued (or denied) by the Department of Building Inspection. Appeals must be submitted in person at the Board's office at 1650 Mission Street, 3rd Floor, Room 304. For further information about appeals to the Board of Appeals, including current fees, contact the Board of Appeals at (415) 575-6880.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

This project has undergone preliminary review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If, as part of this process, the Department’s Environmental Review Officer has deemed this project to be exempt from further environmental review, an exemption determination has been prepared and can be obtained through the Exemption Map, on-line, at www.sfplanning.org. An appeal of the decision to exempt the proposed project from CEQA may be made to the Board of Supervisors within 30 calendar days after the project approval action identified on the determination. The procedures for filing an appeal of an exemption determination are available from the Clerk of the Board at City Hall, Room 244, or by calling (415) 554-5184.

Under CEQA, in a later court challenge, a litigant may be limited to raising only those issues previously raised at a hearing on the project or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, Planning Department or other City board, commission or department at, or prior to, such hearing, or as part of the appeal hearing process on the CEQA decision.

29871\4661094.1 1

PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING TRANSCRIPTION

Speaker

Mr. Sanchez: Good evening and welcome back to the San Francisco Planning Commission regularhearing for Thursday, September 18, 2014. Commissioners, we left off under thediscretionary review calendar of your agenda on Items 17A and B for Case No.2013.0831DNV at 1784 Sanchez Street. This is a staff initiated request for discretionaryreview, and the zoning administrator will consider a request for rear yard variance.

MichaelSmith

Good evening, Commissioners. Michael Smith, Planning Department Staff. Just onecorrection: the staff recommendation on this item is to take DR and approve the projectwith modifications. You have before you a staff initiated request for discretionaryreview for the project at 1784 Sanchez Street, located in the Glen Park neighborhood.The project proposes to remove the existing one-story utility room located at the rear ofthe building and construct a two-story flat-roofed addition at the rear of the building.The addition would extend the existing building depth by 5 feet, increase the height ofthe building by approximately 14 inches and be set back 32 feet from the front of thebuilding, and remove a small portion of the existing gabled roof at the rear. The additionwould 476 square feet to the existing building, and it requires a rear yard variance, thehearing for which is combined with this DR hearing.

The subject lot is irregularly shaped measuring approximately 1,690 square feet, and isimproved with one-story plus attic over garage approximately 847 square foot singlefamily dwelling that was constructed in 1908. The subject building is legalnoncomplying because it encroaches into the existing required rear yard.

A little of the background on this project. The project sponsors applied for and weregranted a rear yard variance for a nearly identical project back in 2003 that was notopposed by the neighbors at that time. However, the sponsors never applied for a permitto construct the addition, and the variance decision expires after three years so thatdecision was no longer vested. The 2003 project was not reviewed by RDT at that timeas the function within the department did not exist. Although the current project is verysimilar to the 2003 project, the department finds that it does not comply with theresidential guidelines because it would encroach into the mid-block open space andadversely impact light to the adjacent buildings. If you look at the site plan for thisproject, you can see that it is very unusual open space located at the point of where thisproject is located as two street come together at the southern end of this block which isRandall and Sanchez Streets. So you can see that it’s quite compressed due to theconvergence of those two streets at an angle, which is a very odd lot configuration.

We are recommending that the depth of the addition be reduced by 5 feet and that anylost space be recaptured by modifying the attic space of the building. We recognize thatit is a relatively small addition to a very small house, and that the property owners needmore space for their growing family. Since the hearing materials were released to theCommission last week, the Department has received an additional letter of support forthe building expansion from former supervisor Jake McGoldrich and a letter ofopposition from the adjacent neighbor to the west on Randall Street which is rightbehind the property. Again, the Department is recommending to take DR and modifythe project reducing its depth by 5 feet. This concludes my presentation and I’m

29871\4661094.1 2

available for any questions or comments.

Woman Thank you.

Woman So since the staff initiated, do we hear from the project sponsor now?

Man We should probably hear supporters of the DR.

Woman Okay. Public comment. Okay, so I have two speakers, Isabel Escalada and AnthonyGrumbach.

Man You’re opposed to the project in support of the DR. So you’re in support of –

Man Yes.

Man So now would be your time to speak.

Woman When you start to speak SFGovtv will turn on the overhead.

IsabelEscalada

Hi, good evening everyone. My name is Isabel Escalada, and I am the neighbor from thebackyard. I’m at 272 Randall Street, and I’m opposing to their project of building upand actually building towards their back to the backyard. I want to show you somepictures from my point of view, and (is this already on?). So this one is from the 2nd

level. I don’t know if you can see it. That’s the 2nd level. Okay, this is from the 2nd

level. This one is when I look down from my, the stairs going back down to mybackyard, going down. And this is directly on the landing from the door, from my livingroom. This is the view from the same spot where I’m standing. This is where the onegoing down stairs. And this is my garden from the backyard where I get my sunlightfrom the east side. If they go up, this garden is not going to have any light. And it’svery important for me. This is where I go to have my peace time away from my family.This is from the side, from the lowest level, and this is their backyard. And this one isfrom the lightwell. Our bedroom is facing their backyard. This is the view. This whereI get my sunrise in the morning and the sunlight. This is the only window I have for mybedroom. I guess that’s it. Thank you.

Woman Thank you.

[pause]

AnthonyGrumbach

Good evening Commissioners, Mr. Zoning Administrator. My name is AnthonyGrumbach. I live with my wife, Kate Pool, and our two children in the houseimmediately downhill and to the north of 1784 Sanchez, of James and Anastasia’s house.We’re asking the City to deny the variance and deny a second story extension into thebackyard to protect our light, our open space and our privacy. This is looking from thenorth end of our backyard next to our house with a panoramic view. And this is wherewe get our light, through this little corridor here. Because by the time it gets over here,it’s been blocked. We’re below Randall Street, and we have really – it’s about six feetup, maybe four feet up to the property levels, and then there’s – with basements, it windsup being three stories above us there. So this is where the trees and the vegetation in ourbackyard gets their light. This is where we get our views of the open space. Ourneighbors to the north, Mr. Schulty couldn’t be here today. He’s out of town. They live

29871\4661094.1 3

in an apartment – they own an apartment, he and his wife and their baby that’s belowground. And so this is their only view to the south, of light and of this open spacecorridor. Again, this is from our breakfast table just to show you the light. This is wherewe get our light coming in from the south, and that’s what would be blocked. This is ourview again to show just more of the open space. This is from our second story. If youextend out here, even just to the end of the shed, you’ve blocked that off. So that’s whywe’re asking this. And I do want to make clear this isn’t some personal thing with Kateand I versus Anastasia and James. This is four families. Isabel’s raising her kids behindthem. The Schultys, there’s Joe and Mia who are moving back to raise a family upabove the Schultys. No one’s forcing them to move. There are options that they coulddo – they could expand as much as they like on a one-story addition there. They coulddo this in stages if they’re having problems affording it now. Do the one story backthere, take the other later. Move things into the rear of the house which is what many ofus have done, and gotten through the historical guidelines and other considerations.

When we hear that it’s the seismic cost that’s the problem, that’s tough for us to hearbecause we had to go through a seismic upgrade. Our engineer said it’s a matter ofgravity. They’re on a brick foundation in an old house. Big enough earthquake, thatwill shake off, down into our house, and we had to do some extra reinforcement to dowhat it could to deal with it. But that’s how it affects us.

[time bell goes off]

Woman Thank you.

Grumbach I’m happy to talk to you about any of the neighborhood process … [cut off]

Man Thank you, sir. Your time is up.

Grumbach Any questions?

Woman Thank you. Project Sponsor, you have 5 minutes.

Ilene Dick I’m sorry, I didn’t give you a card. I apologize. Ilene Dick, Farella Braun + Martel.

Commissioners, Mr. Sanchez – here on behalf of Mr. Grumbach and Ms. Pool. I justwant to focus on the variance. I’m directing my comments primarily to Mr. Sanchez, butalso to the Commission in terms of the viability of the rear yard, or why it shouldn’t bethere. I think a variance, the basis is extraordinary circumstances, and I think it’s hard tomake the case. And I think Mr. Gladstone has gone to great lengths to try to use severalfactors and criteria to try to shoehorn this into extraordinary circumstances, some ofwhich just aren’t applicable. And I’m referring to the most recent letter he submitted toyou last week.

For example, he’s trying to say, extraordinary circumstances exist because the lot isseparate from the midblock open space. But if you read the residential designguidelines, they talk about an out-of-scale rear yard addition such as this would leavesurrounding residents feeling boxed in and cut off from midblock open space. So thecriteria or the evaluation of that isn’t about what midblock open space they affect, it’swhat affect the loss of midblock open space has on the adjacent neighbors.

29871\4661094.1 4

He also uses, in more than a few occasions, the idea that historic resources orpreservation staff has already said in the EIR would be required to build the RDTproposal, and it wouldn’t meet the Secretary of Interior standards. I mean, I think that’sspeculative. We don’t know until an HRER is done, and there are, as Anthony has said,there’s a lot of potential iterations to do this. And there’s several ways to approach thiswithout forcing this family to leave the City and do it within whatever their costconstraints are.

The other thing that Mr. Gladstone did that I want to focus on is the idea that there are allthese variances, I think 7 or 8, that have been issued in and around the subject property.Variances don’t set precedent. They’re not policy-based. They’re fact based. Sothey’re very unique to a specific set of circumstances in a specific proposal, and wedidn’t have all the facts, so to speak, with regard to those variances. So I want to beclear, I don’t see how any of the variances that he used would have any effect on theZoning Administrator’s finding, whether or not they were extraordinary and exceptionalcircumstances.

The last few points I want to turn to is to reemphasize what Anthony said about what hisfamily went through an expansion; not only did they do a seismic upgrade as requiredunder the Building Code, but they also didn’t require a variance, and they were able todo without a variance. And I think Mr. Gladstone refers in a few places in his papersthat they got a variance too, so why can’t we? So I want to distinguish that.

And again, while there certainly has been some back and forth, it’s only very recentlywhere there’s been communication. I mean, this started in 2010 with one minor eveningkind of approach. As you know from the record, Mr. Grumbach was the only person toshow up at the pre-app meeting. He had several concerns; he listed them. He still hasn’treally gotten a response in writing, and it was as if the project sponsors tossed off thewhole pre-app process, and we’re now at – this is the third iteration of plans that camewith the last 311 Notice. It becomes difficult for neighbors to follow this process andparticipate in it, and really feel like they have a voice. I’m hoping you take that intoconsideration. Thank you.

Woman Thank you.

Woman Is there additional public comment in support of the DR?

OK, project sponsor. Sir, your team has five minutes.

RickGladstone:

Rick Gladstone. May I ask a point of order, procedurally? The rules say that a party andtheir attorney and consultant get to share time and we’ve heard from Ms. Dick, theattorney for Ms. Grumbach, so an attorney and a client – if they shared time, that’s great.If they didn’t, it would be wonderful if we had an extra three minutes.

Man Well, the situation’s a little different, because it was a staff-initiated discretionaryreview; so they are not DR requestors. They are just public commenters, whereas youare representing the project sponsor.

Mr.Gladstone:

Thanks for that.

29871\4661094.1 5

Anastasia: Commissioner, I’m sorry, president _____ commissioners, excuse me; I wanted tointroduce my daughter today specifically because both she and I – I was raised in thishouse and she is being raised there right now. My father was a deckhand and a chairmanof the local inland boatman’s union. I grew up in this one-bedroom house. I slept on thefold-out couch in the middle room and I ate off a card table there as my family is doingtoday. It’s my parents’ house and it’s where I grew up though so it means a lot to me.We can’t afford to buy another home in the city. I’m currently a part-time teacher andwe’re asking to expand our home so our daughter doesn’t have to sleep on the fold-outcouch like I did. Right now she’s 2 and she shares the room with us. I’d like tointroduce my husband, James.

James: My name is James. In 2003 we obtained a variance to build a rear addition larger thanthe one before you. We spent money on phase 1 and updating the plumbing andelectrical to replace the systems we took out of the rear room to be demolished duringphase 2. We removed a bath and all but the exterior walls in that rear room. Doing anyaddition in the rear and not in the middle of the building meant we could avoid movingduring the construction and paying to live in two places, and preserves the integrity ofthe original pre-1900 façade, which would otherwise have a massive new storey looming15 feet behind it. Serious health issues and a job layoff prevented us from building outinto the rear in 2003. Once our child was born two years ago and our health andfinances improved, we restarted the project and hoped to immediately start a needed newbathroom and bedroom. We ask that we not be penalized for circumstances beyond ourcontrol. Thank you.

Mr.Gladstone:

Rick Gladstone for the project sponsors. First of all, I’ve been asked to thank the 44neighbors within 500 feet in support. You can see the map of them, and the five or sixcity-wide organizations who are concerned enough about what a family has to gothrough such as this one in particular. First of all I wanted to mention, I talked to theAssistant Zoning Administrator in 2003, and to a quadrant leader back then, and Mr.Michael Smith explained there was no consistency in design, but what I heard from themthat every quadrant leader made sure that designs within those quadrants wereconsistent, and it wasn’t just a planner who happened to review this design in 2003. Itwas overseen by a quadrant leader. And the four quadrant leaders back then metregularly to make sure that there was consistency between quadrants, although there wasnot RDT.

This is a smaller project than the one that was approved by variance. Smaller in threeways: to create less shadow for Mr. Grumbach, the side facing him was set back threefeet six inches (just put it on) – set back for him three feet six inches. To create moreprivacy for him, the full windows on his side were eliminated and there are onlyclearstory windows above the eye level. And to reduce the high end shadow at the back,the upper floor at the rear has been set back. And finally, and very important, the heightwas already reduced by 3-1/2 feet in 2003, was reduced by another foot and a half for atotal of 4 feet less height in the back than was approved by variance in 2003. Noneighbors opposed them. Mr. Grumbach was happy due to the concessions. All fourneighbors adjacent to the south were in support and are still in support as you can seefrom that green map.

The primary objection of staff is mid-block open space, and I think there’s been amisunderstanding. This is the mid-block open space in the lot. You see parallel streets,with rear yards facing rear yards. At this triangle, people bought these houses knowing

29871\4661094.1 6

that they wouldn’t have the traditional rear yard open space. This is where a triangleoccurs; rear yards meet rear years and people, including Isabel in this particularapartment building – she spoke earlier – have a rear yard from one end about zero to theother end about 7 feet. That’s a condition everybody knows. And as you’ve probablyseen from my brief, there are a bunch of neighbors around here who did obtain variances– and some, like Mr. Grumbach – didn’t, but increased quite a bit.

[time bell goes off]

I’ve only gotten through about a third of it.

Man: Unfortunately your time is up.

Mr.Gladstone:

Thank you.

Woman: Thank you. Now I will call supporters of the project: Gregory Young, Jennifer Macius,Kristin Hansen, Joan Leinberger.

Mr.Gladstone:

May we ask Kristin to go first; she has to leave.

Woman: Sure.

Kristin: Good evening. Thank you. I’m here to make just two points in support of the project onbehalf of Anastasia and Michael. I’m here as a neighbor in Noe Valley, and alsosomeone who’s been in their shoes. The first point I’d like to make is that approvingtheir project really will make the difference in terms of helping to keep families here inSan Francisco. And here I really do speak from experience. Seven years ago I camebefore this Planning Commission – at least one of you up there was listening to my case– and you went ahead and approved our project in spite of some neighborhoodopposition, and helped us to stay in the City. Seven years later, we’re still here with ourfive and six year old kids, and we really appreciate it. We didn’t have a lot of optionsthen; we really needed to do that remodel, and we are living in it and appreciating it andenjoying life in the City to this very day.

The second point I’d like to make is that a decisive vote in favor of Anastasia andMichael will be in everyone’s best interest. And here again I speak from experience.Our family spent more than two years going through a process of multiple appeals thatultimately did lead to us prevailing before the Board of Supervisors. It was a verylengthy process and it was quite an ordeal. Not only for us but for those in theneighborhood who did object initially to our project. In this case, even the PlanningDepartment did grant an initial variance and seemed to find no major issues with theproject. There was obviously overwhelming neighborhood support on behalf of thisproject, and no neighborhood opposition. And I’m very sympathetic to the views ofeveryone involved as I was very sympathetic to those who had issues with our projectinitially as well.

But I urge you to vote strongly in favor of Anastasia and Michael to help everybodyavoid the hassle and pain of added appeals and ordeals in this process, allowingAnastasia and Michael to move forward and the neighborhood to move forward. Thanks

29871\4661094.1 7

very much.\

Woman: Thank you. Next speaker?

Mr. Young: Good evening, my name is Gregory Young, and I’m here in support of Anastasia andJames. I’d like to read to you a letter from Henny Kelly. The letter states, my name isHenny Kelly. I’m a retired San Francisco teacher and a present member of the SanFrancisco County Central Committee. I’m writing to you on behalf of a young familyresiding at 1784 Sanchez Street, San Francisco. This is the family home of AnastasiaMichaels who resides there with her husband, James Moshenki, and their two year olddaughter, Elizabeth. Anastasia’s lived there since she was one years old. Anastasiabought the home from her mother. The house is small, 847 square feet of living spacewith only one bedroom and one bathroom. As a result, Elizabeth sleeps in the bedroomwith her parents. As she’s getting older, this becomes more difficult. The family wantsto live in San Francisco, and as Anastasia’s mentioned, she’s now a part time teacher atSan Francisco State. They want to send their daughter to public schools in SanFrancisco and spend their money here in San Francisco. They can’t really afford to buyanother home, and San Francisco would benefit from more young families wanting tolive and raise their families in their neighborhoods.

At this time I’d like to also point out that I’ve had the pleasure of having Anastasia as acolleague at San Jose State. Due to the fact that I’m now very jealous that San FranciscoState has her as an instructor. As her former boss at San Jose State, I think that SanFrancisco State is getting one hell of a deal. She is truly an exceptional educator and itwould be a very huge shame to lose her.

Continuing on with the letter, Ms. Kelly goes on to continue to say that the preferredaddition at the rear of the house would not significantly change the appearance of thehouse from the street. It would be affordable and it would allow them to raise theirfamily in this family home in San Francisco. I am adding my support to the projectbecause I believe that San Francisco needs families to survive. Our schools needchildren to survive, and our small businesses need families to survive. Don’t causeanother family to leave the City. Please grant Anastasia Michael’s and James Moshenkithe permission they seek. Sincerely, Henny Kelly.

Thank you very much for your time.

Woman: Next speaker? As the next speaker comes up I’ll call more names. Tom Peck, BarryMilgram and Jessica Winkler.

Ms. Mesias: Hi, my name is Jennifer Mesias, and I’m currently a resident in Park Merced. I just wantto note that I’m a San Francisco State student, first generation Mexican. And I’mactually in grad school right now because of Anastasia and her support throughoutundergrad. One of her letters of recommendation got me into the grad program, and I’mreally grateful to be in the department.

I also wanted to give this letter. This is a letter from someone who had to leave. It’sfrom the Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute. I’ve been asked also to reada letter from Margaret Brooken & Associates. She’s a long-time advocate for SanFrancisco children. And I’m going to read the letter right now.

29871\4661094.1 8

I am writing to strongly support a request of my Michaels and James for the variance ofmaking an addition to their home at 1787 Sanchez. As families vanish in the City, allour policymakers have recognized at the profoundly negative impact on the quality oflife for everyone and the future health of the City. Mayor Lee has prioritized the goal ofkeeping families in San Francisco yet the goal cannot be achieved unless we findspecific ways to achieve it. Here is one specific example of how this can happen. As along-time advocate for San Francisco children and former Director of the Department ofChildren, Youth and Families of _____ Advocates for Children and Youth, I urge you toseize this opportunity to make reasonable accommodations to promote a policy that isuniversally recognized as a desire for our beautiful City. Thank you so much for yourconsideration. I am sorry that I’m unable to make it and attend this upcoming hearing,but I hope that you all will understand the importance of keeping families in our Citywhich so values its diversity and the role that you can play in achieving this goal. Thankyou.

Woman: Thank you. Next speaker?

Ms.Weinberger:

Hello, my name is Joan Weinberger; I’m a neighbor down the street from the situation. Ican see a viewpoint on both parties, but all I can say is that the construction – I wasasked by the teacher here to go ahead and stay that the guideline is recommendation, andI’m sure you know about the historical factors. This construction will not go ahead andhurt the 1908 look of the house, and I understand how they feel about adding on theback. To me – that happened to us during the last earthquake – so we had to add on theback. And I must stay that, yes, light might be destroyed from or taken away, but thewhole thing is that we’re going to be keeping a family. And that is where I’m at rightnow. I don’t want either neighbor to leave. I want to keep both of them because they’regood people, and I think they’re an asset to our neighborhood. So if you can, pleasethink about the historical factor, the fact that we’re keeping a family and we’ll have moregenerations living in here. Thank God we’re not like New York where they have noyards. At least there’s something and there is still light, but it’s not going to be what Iknow Anthony would like. But there will be a change. And that’s what our City isabout, changing constantly but keeping families. Thank you.

Woman: Thank you. Next speaker?

Mr. Peck: My name is Tom Peck. My wife Judy Diaz and I live at 1740 Sanchez, a few doorsdown the street from Anastasia, James and Elizabeth, and we are here to speak insupport of their plan. I’ve been asked to read a brief section of the historical researchevaluation for 1784 Sanchez Street, and I quote: Option B would not be, excuse me,Option B would be not recommended under the Secretary Standards. It would be a one-story rooftop addition on a one and one-half storey building. Although a person standingdirectly in front of the house would not be able to see the addition, someone walking onthe opposite side of Sanchez Street would be only too likely to see it, and thereforewould not experience the house as a modest turn-of-the century home for a middle-classfamily. Overall, the addition would dominate the original part of the house, making itappear to be a smaller appendage on a larger main mass. And finally, Option B wouldnot conform to Standard 9.

I would like to make a brief, personal comment, and that is that Judy and I are one of theolder couples, seniors on the block. And Anastasia and James and their daughter are theyoungest family on the block. Anastasia as you know has had some history here

29871\4661094.1 9

growing up at 1784 and now would like to preserve that history by keeping her familyhome, improving it, and raising James and her child in it. And how wonderful it is forus, the older folks, to see and be neighbors with a younger family which has a sense ofhistory and how ordinary, out of the ordinary that is today. So we’d like to ask for yourapproval to let them improve their home the way they see fit and according to code andstay within their budget. Thank you.

Woman: Thank you. Next speaker?

Mr. Milgram: My name is Barry Milgram. I’m here to support the project also. I live a couple blocksaway on Chenery Street. I’ve known the family for over thirty years. I’m close friendswith Anastasia’s mother, and as you know, as you’ve already heard, I don’t want torepeat the things that have already been said, but Anastasia grew up there. Her daughterlives there. Three generations already in that house. I don’t know the technicalities.You guys know the technicalities. I’m not an expert. But it seems to me all that I’veseen, all they’re asking for seems so completely reasonable. We’re talking about a reallyteeny, small addition to a house that is already so small. If you walked into that house,it’s a teeny little house. That’s what I would think we’re supposed to be doing,supporting families by making reasonable accommodations, and that’s what I thinkthey’re asking for.

I’ve also been asked to read a couple of things. First is something that staff initiateddiscretionary reviews are very rare. Of the 99 discretionary reviews this year to date, 54were discretionary review requests, 41 were mandatory reviews and only 4 were staffinitiated. Of the four projects, two involved removing housing by merging units. One isa tear-down and a rebuild. The staff initiated discretionary review for James andAnastasia’s small addition is highly unusual, very much out of character for the type ofproject normally submitted to such lengthy and expensive reviews by the PlanningDepartment.

And then I’ve also been asked to read one other thing from the Staff Report. Since 2003the design guidelines review process within the department has evolved and the processnow requires review by a specialized team of planners who are not beholden to earlierdesign decisions. All I can say is that this seems like that’s what people should be doing,kind of supporting the families, keeping families intact and keeping them so that theycan make additions at a reasonable cost. So I again support this. Thank you very much.

Ms. Winkler: Hi, my name is Jessica Winkler. So I’m here in favor of Anastasia and her plan. I’vebeen asked to read some data from the building and lot sizes for lot 6653. Of thebuildings located on the smaller lots, located at the south end of the subject block, thesubject building at 847 square feet has the least amount of habitable square footagebecause the other buildings have habitable area beneath the gable roofs where the subjectbuilding has only habitable attic space. For Exhibit 24: this exhibit shows the relativesize, building to lot area size. For 1784 Sanchez and for nearby houses. The present sizeof 1784 Sanchez is 50% of the lot size, ratio wise, while the others range from 84% to98% of the lot. The proposed size for 1784 Sanchez would be about 78% of its lot size,so it’s still below the highest ratio.

Other than that, personally, I know Anastasia from – I was a former student of hers. Sheactually taught me everything I know about failure analysis and everything else. I verymuch support her; she’s been with me every time I had depression or anxiety, so I’m

29871\4661094.1 10

really hoping she gets this. Thank you.

Woman: Thank you. Next speaker? Is there additional public comment?

OK. Seeing none, is there a rebuttal? Rebuttal from staff?

Man: You don’t have to use the full two minutes.

Mr. Smith: I will not. I just wanted to make a few points of clarification. In case you haven’talready figured it out, there are two sets of plans included in the project sponsor’s brief.The plans in question that are subject to this hearing are the ones contained in Exhibit B.The second set of plans in Exhibit E were not requested by the project sponsor but theychose to provide those for you anyway. They do not reflect the direction that thedepartment is trying to push the project in at all. They are just something that they cameup with on their own. Once again, that’s Exhibit E. So the plans that are the subject ofthis hearing are Exhibit B. Thank you.

Woman: Thank you. Project sponsor, you have two minutes.

Mr.Gladstone:

I think the thing that would be most interesting would be to hear what your own zoningadministrator said in issuing this variance in 2003. Quote: Regarding the mid-blockopen space, the zoning administrator issued a variance and said: The subject property islocated near the apex of a triangularly shaped lot. As a result the rear lot line istriangular in shape. The proposed building expansion will not impede development of orenjoyment of surrounding properties as a result. Unquote.

Other properties have been permitted on this block on this side to expand at the rear.Many with variances, some without. Again, don’t take my word for it. I’m going toread from the 2003 variance: Quote: Granting the rear yard variance isn’t necessary forthe subject property to expand in a manner consistent with and permitted on otherproperties in this neighborhood.

Finally I just want to show the apartment building in which Isabel lives, which is almostat a right angle. It comes of Randall Street. This is the rear yard of my client’s propertyon Sanchez. That building meets my client’s rear yard at its side, not its rear. And whatwas complained about was a loss of view and air from these window. Well, in fact, theonly way that would occur is if the RDT-preferred solution is adopted by building on topand, as Michael Smith said, RDT didn’t draw what we call the RDT-preferred option,but if you’ll ask me I’ll explain why it is indeed exactly what they asked we look at.

As I’ve run out of time, thank you.

Woman: Thank you. OK, with that the public hearing is closed. Commissioner Antonini?

CommissionerAntonini:

Put these on the overhead please. They’ll go up and it demonstrates what – and I believethese are from the staff report but it doesn’t really make any difference. And we have toremember that, while there are opponents to this project, no one filed a DR except forstaff, which is sort of an odd situation and – I believe this house was built in 1893.We’ve been talking about 1908 but I believe it’s actually older than that. In fact it’solder than many of the adjoining houses. And when it was first build the pop-out whichis being removed and then a pop-out that goes out further, a two-floor pop-out if you

29871\4661094.1 11

will, but that pop-out that’s presently there was there when the house was first built. Atleast the information I’m getting. So others have been built, including I think theneighbor to the north has put extensions out in more recent years. And if you look atthat picture you can see the mid-block open space ends right there. The large, very largebuilding is 270 and 272 Randall which is the apartment building in which one of thepersons who objected to the addition lives in, and you can see that the expansion of thisbuilding would go towards the side of the building, not toward the rear yard. In fact therear yard of that apartment building probably adjoins the rear yard of Mr. Grumbach’sproperty at 1782 Sanchez. But you can get an idea of – this addition conforms to apattern established 100 years ago in those buildings, maybe a little more than 100 yearsago. And we have a situation where instead of having any kind of significant rear yards,all of these properties, by allowing them to build on Randall and on Sanchez almost tothe end, the compromise was that nobody really had much of a rear yard and that’s thesituation that exists today. But they are going to get light and air, sufficient light and air,as we have in many parts of the City. This is a little bit exceptional in an RH1 area; Ibelieve it’s RH1; they’re detached homes anyway, but in any case the allowances arevery small. But that was the situation that was made when these were first constructed.And of course if you want to look at a building that fills the space as full as you possiblycan it’s that apartment building at 270 and 272 Randall which just about takes up theentire lot from Randall back to the rear yard.

I guess the other thing that’s a little bit disturbing is this was approved once before; thevariance was granted and now we have a different opinion. And that’s a little bit hard tounderstand. Then also the project that’s being presented now, as was pointed out byproject sponsor, is a smaller project than the one that was allowed in 2003. They’ve setback 3 feet, 6 inches on the side; another 3 feet on the rear set-back from what Iunderstand. The windows have been moved up above eye level and then apparently theheight is about 4 feet less than was the case originally. So they’ve made a lot ofconcessions. And this was a workingman’s cottage when it was first built at that time.

And again to talk about staff’s suggestion, first of all they’ve made some really goodpoints. You’re on a limited budget. You’ve found out already when they had to do thework: removal of all the plumbing from the rear structure and get all that done first.And then also change around their structure inside to be able to be ready to do theaddition, and when economic conditions changed they weren’t able to continue at thattime. But I think you would have the disadvantage of not being able to live in the housewhile you do the addition. If you do the addition in the back, then you can live in thehouse while the addition is being – you’re not going to have to rent another place to livein during the period of time that’s being construction. No one can really say what theSecretary of the Interior’s guidlelines might be, but I would think that in this as confineda space, having a large addition on the top might be a little bit unsightly from SanchezStreet.

So given the choice, I think the addition they suggest is a better one, and I believe we didhave an opinion from Alish Tuffy I guess, which is a preservation planner. I don’tknow, I saw it somewhere in the report that I received from project sponsor.

So anyway, I’m in favor of not favoring the DR and in favor of approving the project aspresented, and it’s particularly critical because this is a family where we have threegenerations. I think this is grandmother’s house, and then it was mother’s house andnow it’s daughter’s house. So we have three generations having lived in this house and

29871\4661094.1 12

we want to allow them to continue to live there, but I think this is a very modestaddition. Somebody made a good point; they showed the percentages of lot taken up bythe structures on all the different lots of that area and this is the smallest at 50%, and itmoves up a little bit more but it’s still smaller than the others. So you’ve got a densesituation and all you’re allowing them to do is to move up to a density that’s somewhatcloser to what the other neighbors have.

And, according to what the plans, and you can probably see it on that thing, the area thatlooks like an open space is really an empty lot on Randall Street that was neverdeveloped. So that isn’t an open space. It could probably be developed at some time inthe future. And lots 14A, 14B and 14C in the diagram, the ones that come down to thecorner, have less open space than does the project lot. And they’re only going from 476square feet to 847 square feet. The average home in San Francisco is, according to astatistic, I guess this is a single-family home, about 1,500 square feet.

So those are my main feelings on this, and I’m supportive of the project. I don’t supportthe staff plan.

Woman: Commissioner Hillis.

CommissionerHillis:

Thank you for all the information, although it’s a lot. I’m a little confused as to what.There’s two sets of plans. I guess one was the plan that was originally proposed for thevariance. There’s one that says progress. It’s a set of plans with a sloped roof, what wasthat.

Mr.Gladstone:

There’s a set of plans for a very large building which was attached to the 311 drawingand that can be found at Exhibit – we’ll tell you in a minute. It was the grandest ofideas. It was the idea of putting up a floor where the attic is at the top, that would beseen quite a bit from across the street, and something at the rear, because at the moment,that was a year ago, perhaps last – it wasn’t decided which direction by the projectsponsor – let’s show the overhead. Exhibit E, right?

CommissionerHillis:

It would be helpful to do that – A3.0, of that.

Mr.Gladstone:

Exhibit E. Again, what this shows is the suggestion of the RDT and Mr. Grumbach thatwe add to the top of the building, which would – half of it could be seen from across thestreet.

CommissionerHillis:

So this is your interpretation of what the RDT is recommending?

Mr.Gladstone:

Let me explain … yes it is.

CommissionerHillis:

So that doesn’t go back as far into the backyard.

Mr.Gladstone:

It’s 16 feet from the façade, whereas what we’re proposing is way back at the end of thebuilding.

29871\4661094.1 13

CommissionerHillis:

But this one doesn’t have as much – it doesn’t go into the rear yard.

Mr.Gladstone:

It does not. Except at the very rear, it goes 5 feet here? Thank you. This goes 5 feetbeyond where it is today, so that is what we’re proposing, but also has the atticexpansion that Mr. Grumbach and the RDT suggested …

CommissionerHillis:

So the difference though, it’s doing kind of both. It’s going back in the rear year towhere you would like it go back in the rear yard and it’s expanding in the front.

Mr.Gladstone:

Exactly, and it’s not what we propose today.

CommissionerHillis:

So if you go to your plans, can we just go to A2.0 of your plans, of the Exhibit. WhatI’m hoping…

Mr.Gladstone:

Page A2.0. That’s an interior, would you like to see…

CommissionerHillis:

That’s good. So this goes back 5 feet in addition to what that one storey setback is,correct? To create a dining room and a family room.

Mr.Gladstone:

That’s true. If you look at this, this says existing first floor plan, and this one to its left,proposed. And the difference, where my thumb is, is 5 feet.

CommissionerHillis:

Alright, then if you go to A2.1, that shows that kind of elevation. Go down a little.That’s your bedroom addition. You would continue to use the attic space as kind of atticspace. I mean, there’s not …

Mr.Gladstone:

Would you explain, we’re not raising – would you explain what the attic is?

Anastasia: The attic is unfinished now and it has a low peak height, and so this, our proposal todaydoesn’t include finishing out that space where it’s labeled attic, right here. So this roomremains unfinished attic space.

CommissionerHillis:

Where I get confused is like the existing – you don’t have an existing second floor attic –the addition that includes the bedroom, does that go into the space that’s currently theattic space, or is that all beyond the existing attic space right now? You know what I’masking? So the end of your …

Anastasia: It’s all beyond, yes.

CommissionerHillis:

So the end of your house currently on the second floor, is that?

Anastasia: It’s right here.

CommissionerHillis:

So it does go into the current…

29871\4661094.1 14

Anastasia: Yes. Right now – so it’s taking a portion of this attic here, to make up for the rear set-back. And the attic which has low peak height and has the slope and the shallow slope,or the steep slope I guess, it’s too narrow to finish out.

CommissionerHillis:

So how many feet does that go into your existing – point your finger to where theexisting line of your house.

Mr.Gladstone:

Why don’t you point to the excising back line? There is the existing back line of thehouse. See we put in a couple of feet toward the top of the existing house,Commissioner. And as the client mentioned, this can’t be turned into space that’s livablebecause it’s a very narrow building at this point and because the attic slopes very low,and this would be made quite a bit higher in the middle for this to be livable space. Andagain it’s the slope, and it’s a small triangle within this attic at this location, a very smalltriangle. We wish this building had the bigger attic that all the others had.

CommissionerHillis:

Let me just ask this question. I just want to understand the plan. There’s a lot ofinformation so it’s hard to understand what’s being proposed. And then why did youchoose to make that roof flat, instead of kind of …

Anastasia: Because in 2010, when Mr. Grumbach approached us with his concerns, one of theconcessions that he requested was to lower the roof height, and to change the aspect ratioto a flat roof. And so we felt by lowering the roof height 3 feet and by flattening it out inaddition to the side setback that we had conceded to him in 2010, that that would addresshis concerns for light.

CommissionerHillis:

OK. All right. Thank you. Can I ask the planning staff a question? Can you keep thatsame drawing up?

Can you kind of show what the recommendation of staff is on this, how that would kindof look on this second floor, and first floor area?

Mr. Smith: So approximately like that. So I believe this is the rear wall of the main portion of thatbuilding. There’s a lean-to that goes like that, it’s about 8 feet, and then there’s 5 feetthat they’re adding. So we’re saying not add 5 feet at all to the depth of the building, soit would come down something like that. So they’ve already on the top floor, already cutit back 3 feet, so they only have about 2 more feet to go on the top floor to hit staffrecommendation. And then it affects the ground floor obviously for the full 5 feet.

CommissionerHillis:

And you’re OK, staff was OK with the flat roof at that same height of this?

[inaudible discussion]

CommissionerHillis:

It’s to where the existing end of the building is, you would keep it there?

Mr. Smith: Yeah. So that line is obviously approximate; it’s not scaled, but I can see that this is 3feet so, put another 2 feet in.

Commissioner And what are you trying to accomplish, because, I get, we talked about rear yard or themid-block open space. I kind of agree with Commissioner Antonini. There is – I don’t

29871\4661094.1 15

Hillis: know what that gets – what does that get anybody?

Mr. Smith: I understand where you’re coming from, I mean we struggled with this as well, becauseit is a very small addition to a very small house, and this is a family we’re trying to keepin the City. What we were looking at is – to there’s the rear wall of the existing one-story portion of the building. You extend it out 5 feet; it’s coming to within I think 5feet of this corner of the building, right here. This side of the building. So thateffectively cuts off the two sides of this open space right. So there’s some open spaceright here and there’s a little open space right there. And we thought that there was anopportunity to build more into the attic space. Not to what they recommended or shownyou in Exhibit E, but there’s still and opportunity to build within the attic space of theexisting building.

CommissionerHillis:

I get that; there seems to be – I don’t get what we accomplish. Even the people, thepeople who are opposing this project live in the larger building. Can you point to wherethe folks who live who oppose.

Mr. Smith: The folks you heard from today, someone lives in this building and then another personlives in this building. So it is our conclusion that this person would be greatly affected.If this wall were to start coming out, there would be no southern exposure essentially forthis property. At least at its rear windows. This is Mr. Grumbach’s property.

CommissionerHillis:

Is there a picture of that building from the backyard of the subject property?

Mr. Smith: Yes, there’s some photos in the staff report; I’ll get to them here in a moment.

CommissionerHillis:

This picture might help too, this one, kind of angled …

Mr. Smith: On the overhead now is more of the ground level picture. So there will only be a 5 footopening between the end of the rear wall of their proposed addition and this side wall ofthe building right there. So, no more would sun, in our opinion, hit the back of this fromthe southern exposure perspective.

CommissionerHillis:

OK. So let me ask the project sponsor a question. Back to that this A2.1 of the … So Ithink the planning staff, and kind of correctly, is pointing to – there’s attic space up therewhich you don’t, which you really don’t take advantage of. And I get the concern aboutyou don’t want to approach too far into the front because you start to kind of lose someof the integrity of the building, of the historic nature of the building if you get that fromthe front.

Anastasia: Well, I’m not sure if the whole – that that’s the whole explanation, because what can Ido with the space? I can put dormers – well I can’t because it’s too low, too narrow.

CommissionerHillis:

Let me just propose – I mean I don’t think I have a problem with the first floor going outto the – I somewhat disagree with staff on the first floor going out, like you taking thatadditional 5 feet doesn’t seem problematic to me, right? Because if you look at theinterior space you start to get – it would be hard if you came back 5 feet because it cutsinto that family room, and you start to kind of reconfigure how that space looks on thefirst floor. But I think on the second floor is where it’s more problematic, because

29871\4661094.1 16

you’re bumping out on the second floor and adding this bedroom, yet there’s room –you’ve got room in that attic space that if you kept the second floor at the existingproperty line and pulled back – if you put that room upstairs, started at the existingproperty line, at your existing second floor and dormered out and made that addition –you’re cutting into some of that already – why not go farther?

Man: This is the architect.

Mr. Rogers: My name is Andy Rogers; I’m the architect for 1784 Sanchez Street. I think I can helpto clarify this a little bit. The existing house from the rear – this drawing shows it prettywell. On the second level there’s really no vertical walls along the side. In other words,in order to build that out and make it habitable, one could do dormers as you suggest butyou’re still going to need to get to a reasonable height along the perimeter. This topdrawing shows an 8 foot height and that’s our interpretation of what it would look like if…

CommissionerHillis:

I’m suggesting even if you took your second floor bedroom and bath and shifted ittoward the street where the end of that was at the existing – you’re not going to come asfar as what’s here. You could keep it kind of the same roof line that you have proposedin the back now, but you would start using some of the attic space – instead of kind ofleaving that as dead attic space – as second floor space. So I don’t think you’d have tocome as far to the street as this drawing shows because that’s showing much – that’salmost two bedrooms up there, not one bedroom. And then you don’t start to interferewith the light and air on the second floor. I mean you would allow some light to theproperty owner, north I guess; is that north?

Mr. Rogers: There’s two reasons, if that building extends further toward the street, that top levelbecomes more visible. And it at some point we’re going to bump into the historic …

CommissionerHillis:

I know, and where that point is? It’s not there.

Mr. Rogers: The other consideration is just cost of construction, and as has been made clear, we’reunder a pretty limited budget with this project. And the further toward the street weextend, the more we have to fully rebuild the structure and all those vertical loads haveto come down. That’s…

CommissionerHillis:

I get it. But you’re doing that, you’re coming into your existing building with yourexisting foundation now.

Mr. Rogers: Right.

CommissionerHillis:

I would imagine as you get into this you’re probably going to replace the entire – I meanit wouldn’t make sense not to just stop where you’re at on that second floor foundationand continue on with the entire foundation.

Mr. Rogers: Right.

CommissionerHillis:

But maybe that would be a cost consideration; I don’t think it’s enormous to go and add4 feet, 5 feet, I don’t know what it is exactly.

29871\4661094.1 17

Mr. Rogers: Well at some point it becomes a full seismic upgrade versus a voluntary seismic upgradewhich is what my clients want to do. At a certain threshhold the price to the constructiongoes up pretty exhorbitantly.

CommissionerHillis:

Yeah. Well that’s my sense. I don’t have a problem with what you’re proposing kind ofon the ground floor; I just think on the top floor you’re kind of leaving attic space andthen adding on, and we’re leaving dead attic space. But I think you could add intowithout starting to impede the front of the building and the look and the feel of the frontof the building. So that’s all. We’ll hear from other Commissions.

Woman: So, can I clarify, Commissioner Hillis? Are you talking about the additional 2 feet inaddition to the 3 feet that they’ve already come, or you’re not putting a number on it?

CommissionerHillis:

I mean I wouldn’t cut back. I’m trying to get your program. You’re trying to get abedroom and bathroom upstairs and the size of that is 16 feet 6 inches. The currentdepth of the house is – the current depth of the second floor – I can’t find the currentdepth of the second floor.

Mr. Rogers: Commissioner Hillis, I think on sheet A3.0 of their current proposal going with the flatroof, which it shows the proposed north elevation, what they’re showing is a 3 footsetback from the rear building wall. An additional 2 feet on top of that would meet thestaff recommendation of not extending the 5 feet that they are currently on these plans itappears either showing a dimension of 6 feet where it says existing and new, so rightnow they’re cutting into their existing building by 6 feet to square it off for the bathroomand so if you were to essentially take that second story and shift it 2 feet more towardsthe front they would be maintaining a 5 foot setback at the rear and they would be going8 feet into the existing building envelope and kind of reconfiguring that attic. And thequestion about it’s a flat roof versus a gable roof and how that may impact the neighbors.

CommissionerHillis:

I think that’s even more modest than the change I was talking to you, because you’recoming back to the 5 feet the staff recommends; I was presumably coming back to theexisting second floor _____, but I think if we think 5 feet gets light in there to theadjacent neighbor that could be it to, just come 2 more feet on the top. It’s just a matterof how much you shift that top floor into the existing attic space.

Mr. Rogers: Mr. Hillis, I just wanted to add one more point if I could about the thought of moving theupper level further toward the street, and that’s in addition – part of the additionalconstruction cost is that it gets less possible for the clients to live in the house in theconstruction because that floor system has to be rebuilt and that means the ceiling comesout at the existing kitchen and it just becomes less habitable during construction. Themore we keep it to the back the easier it is to accomplish while they’re living there. Andwe’re building new foundation back there anyhow, so ... The reason obviously that it’smoving …

CommissionerHillis:

I got it.

Woman: OK thank you. Commissioner Richards.

Commissioner This is my third hearing. We are dealing with such small spaces that have suchenormous impact, and you’re crimping the light that’s coming from the south to the

29871\4661094.1 18

Richards: neighbor to the north and I get that. I’m kind of going along with Mr. CommissionerHillis’ thoughts. I guess the question I have is, can you tell me about what kind ofseismic upgrading you’re going to do with the plan as-is, if we didn’t take the DR?

Mr. Rogers: Right. We would do a voluntary seismic upgrade.

CommissionerRichards:

What would that entail?

Mr. Rogers: That would entail looking at the best, most effective things that we could do for thedollar, which is basically ensuring that the foundation is bolted, putting in shear wallswhere they’re going to make the biggest difference, ensuring that the posts are bolted tothe beams, that kind of thing.

CommissionerRichards:

You would keep the brick foundation and just bolt it.

Mr. Rogers: I’m not sure, actually. We haven’t gone that far in the engineering, but we would forsure spend some money to give it the most lateral stability as possible.

CommissionerRichards:

You’re doing all this work on this house and it seems to me, wow this is the time toactually do the foundation to make it really – maybe not a full seismic maybe somethingmore than keeping the brick foundation and putting rods in it.

Mr. Rogers: I suspect that some of the brick walls will be replaced by concrete walls, but if we canavoid doing the entire perimeter, do it just where it’s most effective, that’s probablywhere we will go.

CommissionerRichards:

So, I guess the question I have is, the residential design team proposal, if we did pushthat, the project forward, at what point does it require a full seismic upgrade, at howmany feet?

Mr. Rogers: It’s a little bit of a grey area, and I’m not exactly sure. It’s more of a structuralengineering question. In part it has to do with how much square footage is being addedversus how much exists, but I do think when you’re adding horizontally to a structureinstead of adding above the existing, it’s a little bit more forgiving in terms of that ratio.

CommissionerRichards:

I guess I’m more going along with Mr. Hillis’ thoughts on potentially keeping the firstfloor bumped out but pulling the second floor back in.

Mr. Rogers: Right.

Woman: Thank you. Commissioner Moore.

CommissionerMoore:

I was actually going to ask Mr. Jozelyn who I see punched a button to perhaps weigh ina little bit more and further elevating the discussion you had in the residential designteam. I am gravitating to what Commissioner Hillis and Commissioner Richards aresaying. I believe that the impact on the adjoining properties irrespective of beingempathetic with the _______ are just to large. We have many other applications in frontof us and it’s weighing the balance of what everybody else needs and wants, includingcosts, but I do not personally believe that just pushing the existing, the expansion as

29871\4661094.1 19

being a seismic upgrade and then tying the nonupgraded structure into that and sayingit’s a voluntary upgrade is enough for me. I believe that we need to work with thecircumstance as it presents itself. In the last 10 years we have added staff who helps thePlanning Department and the Commission to elevate the discussion internally and I takethe recommendations and observations by our professional team very seriously. Theyalso need to recommend to this Commission to keep a balance between all the things welook at. There is no maliciousness or intent to discriminate against you versus anybodyelse but we need to look at the impact as it affects the enlarging of this building relativeto everybody else. It’s an equal world, and the balance between all is what is the mainthrust of what we discuss here. So Mr. Jozelyn, if you could perhaps elevate thediscussion of your internal review of this project a little bit for me.

Mr. Jozelyn: Well I don’t know how much it will elevate it, because this dialogue you’ve been havingreally roughly mirrors the same nature of the discussion that happened at the residentialdesign team. There was an effort to acknowledge the needs of the program, the desiresof the family, but also acknowledge these other qualities and look for a solution thatdidn’t compromise the spatial needs but met the community needs.

CommissionerMoore:

And so you’re suggesting the additional 2 feet would basically reflect the totality of therecommendation.

Mr. Jozelyn: Correct, and the modification up above.

CommissionerMoore:

I would basically have to support that because it is the bigger discussion in which we aremaking this decision. I’m all supportive, I’m all interested in the reduction of costs andfinding ways to minimize it but there are other ways of how that can be done, so I makea motion we do take DR and work with the parameters as set by the Departmentincluding any modification any of the Commissioners might have proposed and I didn’thear them clearly, so they would need to be restate. I think the Department made thecorrect recommendation and I ask that we support it.

Man: Second.

CommissionerMoore:

Take DR.

Man: Second:

Woman: Can I ask staff to maybe restate what’s been discussed so it’s clear?

Mr. Smith: OK, I’ll just repeat what staff recommendation is. Going back to this drawing on theoverhead on A sheet 3.0. Staff recommendation is to cut the building back to theexisting rear wall, which is 5 feet. So – obviously that’s an approximate – but thesecond floor would still be above. So this would still be a 2 story portion right here. Sothe existing lean-to that you see right here.

Woman: So what I heard discussed was actually allowing – Commissioner Hillis, correct me ifI’m wrong – allowing the ground floor as drawn in that drawing. Could you shift itdown please. But cutting the second floor approximately where you’re drawn that line.Is that accurate?

29871\4661094.1 20

CommissionerHillis:

I was more amenable to the second floor staying kind of the length, the depth that it is.Stepping back the top floor the full 5 feet.

Mr. Smith: I just wasn’t sure if that was the motion that was made.

? I don’t believe that was the motion that was made.

Woman: Oh, OK.

? My understanding of the motion was …

CommissionerHillis:

Oh the motion, no, was to …

? … to take staff’s recommendation. Take DR and approve the project modifications.

Woman: Oh, OK.

CommissionerHillis:

But I would be supportive, just to clarify my – I mean I would be supportive of the firstfloor, because I think if you look at the layout of the first floor, if you cut that back 5 feetfrom what they’re proposing, it doesn’t get you a very functional addition in the back.

Mr. Smith: Commissioners, if you may, I spoke to the neighbor next door who would be affectedmost by the this project. He doesn’t have a big concern regarding the ground floorextension of the 5 feet. What he wants to see pulled back more is the upper floor. So Ithink the closer we can come to maybe meeting that, the more it would address hisconcerns and I think the Department can go along with that as well.

CommissionerHillis:

Well that’s what I’m proposing.

CommissionerMoore:

I’m prepared to modify the motion to say that we modify the upper floor but not theground floor. If that’s acceptable, if that is a solution we can live with, I would becomfortable in doing that.

Mr. Smith: But I also wanted to state that, so the staff recommendation is to cut the upper floor backby 5 feet. I think that if we’re going to allow the ground floor come out the wholedistance, that he’s looking for a slightly more cut back than 5 feet at the top floor. Justputting that out there.

CommissionerHillis:

I don’t mind hearing from the neighbors.

Man: Let’s make the motion first …

Man: I have comments …

Man: … sponsor’s property …

Mr.Grumbach:

I just want to clarify in the interests of compromise. You’ve had, in two minutes withtheir attorney and the project sponsor, you’ve had more discussion in the first twominutes than I’ve had in all the years. And what we have been trying to say is, we

29871\4661094.1 21

would support them doing what they need to do at the second floor of the property to theend of the building, and I’m drawing that where the shed begins, nearest to the house.Right? Commissioner Hillis, if I understood you correctly, that’s what you were saying.Just move that a few more feet forward; it’s still far from the road. We understand that,we have impact on light on us. We just want our backyard. We just want to have theopen space. And for their first floor, do what needs to be done so they can …

CommissionerHillis:

No, that’s originally what I proposed … yeah thank you.

Woman: OK, thank you.

CommissionerHillis:

I mean, that’s what I originally proposed, kind of go back – but it’s hard to determinehow far that is given the plans and how they’re drawn right now, because it doesn’tnecessary get you there. I don’t know if – because this is a variance too, so …

That is correct. And I would say that this discussion is very illuminating as well for me,and what I would also go along the lines of the variance as well, allowing it at theground level but restricting it at the floor above. If that is at 5 feet or something more, Ithink another thing to take a look at – we don’t want to beat this to death – but the roofform itself and going between the gable and the flat roof, because the flat roof, overallthe height may be less, but the height is higher at the side property line and therefore theimpact may be greater to the neighbor, and so I just wanted to point that out, and becognizant as well. It’s a minimal couple feet but having that higher wall at the propertyline – and it looks like the current shed extends about 8 feet past that rear building wall,and then they’re proposing to come out 5 feet further, so for a 13 foot total from that rearbuilding wall. And if you were thinking that that second story would be above theexisting building entirely, and not extend above the shed, is that what you were thinking?

CommissionerHillis:

Originally yes.

Mr. Smith: Then you’d be shifting it essentially – unfortunately the plans are not completelydimensioned as they could be to make quick analysis easy, but right now it would beshifting it 10 feet, I think it would be 10 feet further back? To get back to that pointwhere it’s in the same position as the existing rear building wall.

Man: Just for clarification, there’s a motion that has been seconded, but I believe that’s beenamended to allow the ground floor expansion, so the only question we’re playing with isthe second storey.

CommissionerMoore:

Upper floor demising line, if I go over in my mind the comments made byCommissioner Hillis, is that we’re taking the existing rear wall of the existing building,not the shed, of the existing main building, as being the demising line of where thesetback would be.

CommissionerHillis:

Yeah, I think to me, you get, you can get the program you are all looking for, grantedthere may be some additional foundation _____ along that ten feet along both sides. Butit seems to me you’ve got a concrete foundation at some areas of the driveway, I mean ofthe garage, and then you kind of get the neighbor’s objective – you get the first floor youwant. You get a second floor with a bedroom; it’s just shifted farther toward the street,

29871\4661094.1 22

but I don’t think enough to be a big impact to the front of the building.

Mr. Rogers: One thing, if I may note, and they do have a very tight floor plan on that lower level,right now the stairs to access the master bedroom are in the rear in the new addition.And so if it were to be brought back in line with the existing _____ wall they would nolonger be able to access that area. Maybe they would have some kind of a stair access…

CommissionerHillis:

But you could put the stairs above the existing stairs down to the garage. This is why Idon’t like doing this on the fly.

Mr. Rogers: If they were stacked like that then there would be access through the bedroom, theexisting bedroom. Because right now the stairs go down through …

CommissionerHillis:

There’s no way to take … I mean you’ve got the variance but you can work on it in moredetail on the architect on account of exactly where that setback is. Is there a way we canmake a motion and kind of punt you, and you have more detailed discussions with themon where that line is for the second floor.

Mr. Rogers: We want to make sure that the Commission’s decision is honored, and so, in my mind Ithink that even a 5, simply going with the 5 feet at the second level at the back could beadequate. I mean that may not be enough for the project sponsor, it could be as much as6 feet, and they still may be able to retain that existing stair going up to the masterbedroom. I’m just concerned about the small, tight floor plan here and how can theykeep access to all the levels.

Woman: OK, why don’t we continue with commissioner comments. Commissioner Antonini.

CommissionerAntonini:

OK, I just want to talk to the architect and see if everything that’s been said about this iscorrect. It’s been stated that well you’ve already moved your project back 3 feet fromthe back to accommodate the neighbor concerns.

Mr. Rogers: That’s correct.

CommissionerAntonini:

And if you went another 2 feet then you would be back 5 feet. And what they’re sayingis you’ve already moved 6 feet into the existing pitched roof section.

Mr. Rogers: Correct.

CommissionerAntonini:

So if you went back to 8 feet that would give you a total setback of 5 feet on the upperwhich I think is a compromise – I don’t know if the maker of the motion would supportit – but it would solve the stair problem. It would give a full 5 feet of setback that theneighbor seemed to indicate when he was saying that might be enough. But I’m not sureif that was the case.

Woman: I don’t believe that that was what the neighbor indicated.

CommissionerAntonini:

All right…

29871\4661094.1 23

Man: Sir, I’m sorry, you need to come up to the podium when there’s a question asked…

CommissionerAntonini:

But anyway, I will ask the other Commissioners if that sounds like a compromise thatwould work me: is that going to work for you?

Man: Yes. And I think that it’s important that we come back 5 feet on the top and not morebecause if we can’t put the new stair and the new portion back then it completelydisrupts the first floor plan. So I think we can make that work, that additional 2 feet andslide that forward toward the street, but more than that’s really going to screw us up.

Woman: OK, thank you. Mr. Sanchez, oh…

________ I just wanted to say that I would ask the maker of the motion if that ends up beingacceptable and the seconder, because it will determine whether I support it or not.

CommissionerMoore:

I would ask Mr. Jozelyn to clarify what these 2 or 3 feet are. Could you please go overthat for us? Even put the drawing on the overhead that we can see. There are too manypeople talking about 2 or 3 feet.

Mr. Jozelyn: I think I’ll invite Mr. Smith to do so because he’s got access to those overheads, apencil…

________ All the tools.

Mr. Smith: If I understand to be as this wall on the second floor is coming back towards the streetanother 2 feet and the ground floor is staying where it is.

Woman: That’s the proposal, yeah. But we have not yet heard from Commissioner Moore.

CommissionerMoore:

Mr. Jozelyn, as that in concurrence with the residential design team’s review?

Mr. Jozelyn: It’s not consistent to the letter with the direction that’s been given thus far, but that’s partof what this discussion is intended to do, is give additional clarity and direction to thatteam, applying these guidelines in these kinds of circumstances.

CommissionerMoore:

As an architect, the modifications which the residential design team suggested, wouldthey still result in a workable floor plan as you see it.

Mr. Jozelyn: Yes, in particular I’m sensitive to the architect’s last comments in terms of how toaccommodate that connection between those levels. If those floor plates are gettingpulled too far apart. So yes.

CommissionerMoore:

So after second thought you would support it?

Mr. Jozelyn: Correct.

CommissionerMoore:

That having been said, I think I would amend the motion based on what Mr. Smithsummarized and what Mr. Jozelyn confirmed. As this project moves forward, I want tomake sure because they have looked at various aspects back and forth. That lastcomments are what we are deciding on today. That’s in terms of drawing modifications

29871\4661094.1 24

be verified with the department before it moves to construction drawings and goes toDBI.

Woman: Yes, thank you.

________ … accept them on faith ….

Woman: Commissioner Richard?

CommissionerRichard:

I’m good with that.

Mr. Sanchez: Commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to take the DR and approve theproject as proposed, eliminating 2 feet of the proposed extension at the second level. Onthat motion, Commissioner Antonini?

CommissionerAntonini:

Aye.

Mr. Sanchez: Commissioner Hillis?

CommissionerHillis:

Aye.

Mr. Sanchez: Commissioner Johnson?

CommissionerJohnson:

No.

Mr. Sanchez: Commissioner Moore?

CommissionerMoore:

Aye.

Mr. Sanchez: Commissioner Richards?

CommissionerRichards:

Aye.

Mr. Sanchez: Commissioner Fong?

CommissionerFong:

Aye.

Mr. Sanchez: And Commissioner President Woo?

CommissionerWoo:

Aye.

Mr. Sanchez: So moved. Commissioners that motion passes, 6-1 with Commissioner Johnson votingagainst.

29871\4661094.1 25

Mr. Smith: On the variance, at the close of public hearing being inclined to grant the requestedvariance with the condition that the second floor be set back 5 feet from the currentproposal.

San Francisco Planning Department

Excerpts

Residential Design4-z/-

Click to enter

December 2003City and County of San Francisco

2987 1\4740235

REAR YARD

GUIDELINE Articulate the building to minimize

impacts on light and privacy to adjacent properties

Rear yards are the open areas of land between the back of the

building and the rear property line When expanding building into

the rear yard the impact of that expansion on light and privacy for

abutting structures must be considered This can be challenging

given San Franciscos dense pattern of development howevermodifications to the buildings design can help reduce these impacts

and make building compatible with the surrounding context

Light

In areas with dense building pattern some reduction of light to

neighboring buildings can be expected with building expansion

However there may be situations where proposed project wifi

have greater impact on neighboring buildings In these situations

the following design modifications can minimiae impacts on light

other modifications may also be appropriate depending on the

circumstances of particular project

Provide setbacks on the upper floors of the building

Include sloped roof form in the design

Provide shared light wells to provide more light to

both properties

Incorporate open railings on decks and stairs

Eliminate the need for parapet walls by using fire-

rated roof

Planning Code Section

101 states that one of the

purposes of the Planning

Code is to provide

adequate light air

privacy and convenience

of access to property in

San Francisco

Although features such as bays and chimneys project into the side yards the overall side yard pattern is

consistent creating defining characteristic of the block face

16 Residential Design Guidelines December 2003

Provide shared light wells

to maximizelight

to both

properties

Privacy

As with light some loss of privacy to existing neighboring buildings

can be expected with building expansion However there may be

special situations where proposed project will have an unusual

impact on privacy to neighboring interior living spaces In these

situations the following design modifications can minimize impacts

on privacy other modifications may also be appropriate depending

on the circumstances of particular project Some of these measures

might conflict with the light measures above so it will be necessary

to prioritize relevant issues

Incorporate landscaping and privacy screens into

the proposal

Use solid railings on decks

Develop window configurations that break the line

of sight between houses

Use translucent glazing such as glass block or

frosted glass on windows and doors facing

openings on abutting structures

Building

Lightwell

Building

Light wel

Site Design 17

In modifying the height and depth of the building consider the

following measures other measures may also be appropriate

depending on the circumstances of particular project

Set back the upper story The recommended setback for

additions is 15 feet from the front building wall

Eliminate the building parapet by using fire-rated roof with

6-inch curb

Provide sloping roofline whenever appropriate

Eliminate the upper story

On this block face of two-

story buildings it is possible

to preserve the building scale

at the street by setting back

the third floor However

an additional setback for

proposed fourth floor is not

sufficient The fourth floor must

be eliminated to respect the

neighborhood scale

The three-story scale of the

block face is maintained by

setting the fourth floor back

so it is subordinate the to the

primary facade

Subject building

GUIDELINE Design the height and depth of the

building to be compatible with the existing building

scale at the mid-block open space

Rear yards provide open space for the residences to which they are

attached and they collectively contribute to the mid-block open space

that is visible to most residents of the block This visual open space

can be significant community amenity

Subject building

Building Scale at the Mid-Block Open Space

Building Scale and Form 25

Block with strong mid-block

open space pattern

Block with an irregular mid-block

open space pattern The rear

yards of many of the parcels are

developed with structures

The height and depth of building expansion into the rear yard

can impact the mid-block open space Even when permitted by the

Planning Code building expansions into the rear yard may not be

appropriate if they are uncharacteristically deep or tall depending

on the context of the other buildings that define the mid-block

open space An out-of-scale rear yard addition can leave surrounding

residents feeling boxed-in and cut-off from the mid-block open

space

The following design modifications may reduce the impacts of

rear yard expansions other modifications may also be appropriate

depending on the circumstances of particular project

Set back upper floors to provide larger rear yard setbacks

Notch the building at the tear or provide setbacks from side

property lines

Reduce the footprint of the proposed building or addition

Planning Code

Section 134

establishes

minimum depths for

required rear yards

in all residential

districts Planning

Code Section

136 summarizes

permitted rear yard

projections

26 Residential Design Guidelines December 2003

Scott Sanchez Hanson BridgettJune 19 2014

Page

The rule is if property owner performed substantial work and incurred substantial

ilabfifties in reliance on permit the property owner acquires vested right to complete

construction of the work under the permit Once vested right has been secured

government agency may not prohibit completion of the cons truction

The fact that the build out of two-story addition at the rear has not commenced merely meansthat the second phase has not begun It is obvious that the completed work was first phase

as the rear one-story room had to have removal of kitchen and other improvements with

permits prior to the commencement of phase II For logistical reasons the project had two

phases and the first phases scope was placed on separate phase permit

That permit included tear down of the rear room that was required before phase II could start

as that rear room was not structurally sound enough to be added onto It is obvious why they

destroyed only the inside of the rear room and not its exterior structure --- otherwise the

homes rear at the first story would have been exposed to the elements should there be any

delay in getting phase II approved From reading the permits it is clear that the permits

obtained removed all items within the first story at the rear that would have left nothing but

shell to tear down during phase II The remaining shefl at least protected the interior until phaseII began

To contain costs Anastasia and James did much of the work themselves The total cost of the

work was about $13500 paid to contractors When one adds in building materials fixtures and

tools that were purchased after they listed $13500 on their alteration permit the total wascloser to $20000 This amount was sufficient expense to establish Vested Right to continue

construction We would be happy to provide examples of Court cases stating that these levels

of expenditures are sufficient to meet the test of incurrence of substantial work These

expenditures in light of the minimum construction costs of adding two stories at the rear could

easily be deemed substantial using percentage of total construction tests articulated by the

courts And of course since much of the internal work was done by their own hands value to

that in terms of the cost of their time would be included

When Anastasia and James were in position to proceed with the next phase of construction

several things occurred Anastasias health declined which necessitated numerous medical

procedures on her neck and back and eventually neck surgery and two abdominal surgeries

which left her unable to continue working full time as researcher at NASA and as result

of the recession James contract position at HP was terminated and he was subsequently

underemployed with an early stage startup that was frequently unable to make payroll These

financial and physical difficulties prevented them from going forward However as of year

ago they recovered from their setbacks and started filing new variance application although

they did file under protest since they do not feel they need one The filing was supplemented

by Supplement to Variance Application that was submitted this week Anastasia and James

sent you copy as welL.1

Even before this Supplement to Variance Application was submitted1 the Department already

announced to Anastasia and James that the Department would be filing Staff Initiated DR and

would likely not issue the variance then protested that the Department had reached these

footnote continued

Hanson Bridgett LLP

425 Market Street 26th Floor San Francisco CA 94105 hansonbridgett.corn6361792.1

HansonBridgettBRETT GLADSTONEPARTNERDIRECTDIAL 415 995-5065

DIRECT FAX.415 995-3517

E-MAIL BGladstone@hansonbridgett.com

June 19 2014

VIA EMAIL U.S MAIL

Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez

San Franoisco Planning Department1650 Mission Street Suite 400

San Francisco CA 94103

Re Variance Application for 1784 Sanchez Street Planners Casey Delvin Washington and

Michael Smith

Our File No 32377.1

Dear Scoff

am representing James Monschke and Anastasia Michaels who live with their daughter in

one bedroom home of 847 square feet built in or prior to the year 1893 and it is the home that

Anastasia grew up in urge you to refer this letter to the City Attorneys Office to review the

legal mtters refered to in this letter.

They received Variance for the same addition they are planning today with one exception --

an outdoor staircase on the side of the building has been enclosed in the new plan but that

does not trigger the need for variance. They started work pursuant to the earlier variance

but Planning Staff has denied them the right to continue on the basis that work did not complete

during certain number of years My clients then submitted variance application for the samenew addition under protest However this time after asking my clients to submit an entirely

new Variance application and fees your Staff has decided to oppose the Variance and reëuire

Staff Initiated Discretionary Review This ha greatly disappointed my clients who have asked

me to challenge the need to have another Variance at all

In short it is our position that new Variance is not needed because Variance has been vested

based on the following they took out permits to do the first phase of the work the work

was completed and there was an inspection and the Job Card noted completion of the work

according to the plans Thus the earlier Variance vested and cannot be taken away now

The Variance required Anastasia and James to obtain permit for the project by January

2006 As shown on Building Permit Numbers 200309154793 200312162410 and

200409234925 aft ached as Exhibit Anastasia and James did in fact start construction by

January 2006 and as result the Variance should be considered vested and not voidable

due to lack of continued constrUction of the second phase

For many decades in California courts have developed clear definition of vested rights to

continue construction We believe that all the criteria in the following definition have been

satisfied by James and Anastasia

Hanson Bridgett LLP425 Market Street 26th Floor San Francisco CA 94105 hansonbridgett.com

6361792.1

Scott Sanchez HansonBridgett

Page

The following work was done pursuant to Building Permit Numbers 200309154793

200312162410 and 200409234925

Moved the existing bathroom the only one in the house from the rear north room to the

middle of the house so that they would have bathroom during the rear addition

construction

Reconfigured the kitchen space to accommodate the new addition moved the west side

kitchen door and remodeled the kitchen to accommodate moving the bathroom This

involved closing off one door closing off an interior window and adding doorway

Relocated kitchen and bathroom storage from the rear room to the remodeled kitchen

and new bathroom

Moved the washing machine and its electrical outlet from the rear room to the basement

removed the sink in the rear room capped supply and waste lines

Removed the bathtub in the rear spaces old bathroom and capped the supply and

waste lines rendering the old bathroom unusable Removed siding and added plywoodto the interior wall of the rear south room in preparation for further work on the addition

window facing onto the rear south room was removed window facing onto the rear

north room was covered over door entering the rear south room was removed and

new door entering the rear south room was created approximately 10 feet away

The Planning Commission has policy to allow large downtown development projects to

continue beyond the permitted time to start when there are downturns in the market and then

complete construction In fact their permits are only taken back after public hearing and

chance to explain at hearing whether there are extenuating circumstances which should

cause the permits to remain in force

This family rightly believes it is unfair to allow the largest of downtown property owners to

extend their entitlements and not do the same for couple who also have suffered during the

recession particularly since this couple has obtained vested right tO continue due to work

performed .pursuant to the Variance

cc Planner Delvin WashingtonPlanner Michael Smith

conclusions before submittal of this Supplemental Variance Application The Department acted

without seeing the final application and only reviewed very barebones one

Hanson Bridgett lIP425 Market Street 26th FIoor San Francisco CA 94i05 hansonbridgett.com

Brett

6361792.1

Are You A Director? - Apply Now to the Worldwide Who's Who network for Distinguished Individuals | Read More »

e.

t,

www.linkedin.com/in/jamesmonschke/en

Background

Summary

Senior software architect (hands-on) and C++ developer:

Expert knowledge and 23 years experience with Object Oriented Architecture and Programming in C++

across a very wide range of problem domains and environments. Strong but pragmatic focus on quality,

simplicity and programming appropriate to the lifetime and usage of the code. Experience includes API,

library and framework development; STL / Boost libraries; template meta-programming; concurrent/multi-

threaded programming and exceptions and exception safety.

Specialties:

Object Oriented Architecture and Design Guru

C++ Guru

API, Library and Framework development.

Multi-threaded / Concurrent programming

Experience

Software Architect / Senior Software EngineerIBM Tealeaf

July 2013 – Present (1 year 8 months) | San Francisco

Senior Software Architect and ProgrammerMonschke Consulting Cooperative

October 2008 – Present (6 years 5 months) | San Francisco, California

Working on a clean (unencumbered) re-implementation, extension and generalization of a messaging

based framework for concurrent programming that I had originally developed several years ago.

Senior Software EngineerOne Step Beyond Consulting

January 2013 – April 2013 (4 months) | San Francisco, California

• Hired to replace architect who had left One Step Beyond while company completed development of

Muve music player application on Android for Muve division of Cricket Cellular for March 31 contracted

delivery.

• Senior developer on team of 3 C++ developers developing C++ cross-platform component of Muve

music player app on Android.

• Mentored and consulted with coworkers on C++, object oriented design, coding practices and

279connections

James MonschkeSoftware Architect / Senior Software Engineer at IBMTealeafSan Francisco, California Computer Software

Current IBM Tealeaf, Monschke Consulting Cooperative

Previous One Step Beyond Consulting, Grid Net, MokaFive

Education Kansas State University

Connect Send James InMail

2nd

Home Profile Connections Education Jobs Interests Business Services Try Premium for free

Advanced

Page 1 of 8James Monschke | LinkedIn

2/3/2015https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1605323&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=q...

Anastasia Micheals, M.S.James Monschke

Get introduced

Brian GrimshawDirector of Engineering at whiteCryption

I first met James over a decade ago as members ofthe ACCU. Over the years of ACCU events, wehave enjoyed, and still... View

Anupama BhaleraoSoftware Engg at One Step Beyond

James is a good developer as well as a goodcommunicator. He has in-depth knowledge of objectoriented programming. He took... View

Balajee NagarajanSoftware QA

James is a rock star C++ programmer who is goodat designing software components and has a verygood eye to code quality.... View

Paul BaierSenior Software Engineer at Grid Net

During his time with Grid Net I had the pleasure ofworking with James developing a feature forstreaming metering... View

3 more recommendations

architectural design issues.

• Code quality evangelist.

ENVIRONMENT: C++ (GNU), template programming, Concurrent programming, Subversion, Eclipse,

Android, SQLite

2 recommendations

Senior Software EngineerGrid Net

June 2011 – December 2012 (1 year 7 months) | San Francisco, CA

• One of 9 developers on Server Side of AMI smart grid / intelligent power meter system.

• Designed and implemented multi-threaded UDP based server for “last gasp” power meter outage

notifications that was designed to handle large peak volumes of traffic. Architected with distinct layers for

handling different protocol aspects including a digital signature protocol layer for validation, and a distinct

payload dispatch layer for directing packets to payload specific handlers.

• Developed multi-threaded SOAP server and client using gSOAP for handling and forwarding of real-

time power-usage data from smart meters.

• Refactored error handling mechanism of an existing server application to use exception handling that

resulted in the elimination of about 6000 lines of error-filled, error-handling code.

• Identified and fixed numerous thread-safety / race-conditions during review and refactoring of existing

code in several different server applications.

• Mentored and consulted with coworkers on C++, object oriented design, coding practices and

architectural design issues.

• Code quality evangelist.

• Advocated for use of code review software including investigation and evaluation of available tools,

setup of demo systems, brown-bag presentation and negotiating price discounts (unable to finally

purchase because of budgetary changes).

ENVIRONMENT: C++ (GNU), STL and BOOST libraries, template programming, gSOAP, Concurrent

programming, Subversion, Eclipse, Redhat Enterprise Linux, doxygen, UML, Oracle OCCI

5 recommendations, including:

Senior Software EngineerMokaFive

August 2009 – March 2011 (1 year 8 months) | Redwood City, California

• One of 9 developers on client (windows native) portion of virtual machine management software

system.

• Organized and moderated weekly “developer discussion” meeting for our team to discuss programming

topics.

• Led extensive refactoring effort and contributed to continued development of XP “Gina” and Win7

“credential provider” logon systems that had become unwieldy and error prone due to “bit-rot”, improving

cohesion and reducing coupling

• Refactoring and primary development of printer management daemon to manage dynamic installation

and removal of printers from a virtual machine environment to reflect printers available in the host

environment.

• Development of re-usable code including:

o Subscribe / Publish framework including pluggable dispatcher strategy.

o Expiration / TimeOut framework (based on boost::date_time).

o LockedQueue templatized “Producer – Consumer” queue.

o Scoped user impersonation facility.

• Mentored and consulted with coworkers on C++, object oriented design, coding practices and

architectural design issues.

• Code quality evangelist. Kevin Guerra Sr. Software

Engineer at Google

People also viewed

Home Profile Connections Education Jobs Interests Business Services Try Premium for free

Advanced

Page 2 of 8James Monschke | LinkedIn

2/3/2015https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1605323&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=q...

Nisha Thatte-PotterEngineering Manager/Senior Software Engineer, Front-End at Auction.com

James is an expert in C++ and Object Orienteddesign. I have learned a lot about design patternsfrom him. He is always... View

Mark WilleySenior Staff Engineer at HashFast Technologies

James is the best C++ coder on our client team. Ifwe want to get a code review or advice on designpatterns or C++... View

7 more recommendations

Jim TalbotTechnical Program Manager / Software Engineering Director

James is a detail-oriented and thorough softwareengineer. He has a methodical approach to problemsolving, and communicates... View

Phil GoodwinPivot at Pivotal Labs

James is a smart, thorough, and hard workingengineer. He is easy to get along with, an excellentresearcher, and a good... View

programming, Subversion,

9 recommendations, including:

Consultant ProgrammerFacebook

April 2009 – July 2009 (4 months) | Palo Alto, California

on 3 Month contract.

• Merging and extension of 3 existing Database APIs plus extensive refactoring and modifications to

interfaces to make API much less error-prone.

• Developed a generic templatized object pooling facility

• Wrote thorough unit-tests of new APIs.

• Wrote high quality documentation of new APIs.

• New API received enthusiastically positive feedback and adoption.

ENVIRONMENT: C++ (GNU), Boost libraries, template programming, Eclipse, Subversion, Linux,

Doxygen

Software EngineerReplay Solutions

November 2007 – October 2008 (1 year) | Redwood City, California

• Porting of Windows App to Linux with one other developer while maintaining a single, common code-

base.

• Investigation of “Word Tearing” issues on Multi-core systems and wrote tests to attempt to trigger and

detect this potential multi-threading issue.

• Introduced practices including use of Boost static assertions, Doxygen style embedded documentation,

and thorough use of assertions to test pre and post conditions and class invariants (design by contract).

• Developed API for Thread Local Storage (based on Boost interface) with inline assembly

implementation to improve performance (avoiding overhead of modifying error codes in windows API),

introduce type-safety, and provide a consistent usage model for Thread Local Storage throughout the

system. The addition of type-safety and a more robust usage model exposed two existing bugs in the

system. Used HRT (High Resolution Timer) with inline assembly to validate the runtime performance of

the implementation.

• Wrote functionality tests and a supporting test framework for java.security.* libraries.

ENVIRONMENT: C++ (MSVC and GNU), Java(Sun), Perl, Eclipse, Subversion, Windows XP, Linux,

Xbox 360, VMware Workstation.

2 recommendations

Staff ProgrammerVMware

July 2006 – October 2007 (1 year 4 months) | Palo Alto, California

• One of 4 primary developers working on a client/server, physical-to-virtual, computer migration system

(“VMware Converter”).

• Primary developer responsible for command line client in that system.

• Mentored and consulted on architectural design issues.

• Refactored existing code base to improve cohesion and reduce coupling.

• Designed and wrote appropriate portions of new functionality as library and framework code that is

independent of the application code in order to support reusability.

ENVIRONMENT: C++, template programming, boost, eclipse, MS Windows, Perforce, XML

Staff Programmer

Home Profile Connections Education Jobs Interests Business Services Try Premium for free

Advanced

Page 3 of 8James Monschke | LinkedIn

2/3/2015https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1605323&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=q...

Paypal

June 2004 – July 2006

• Architected and developed an extensible, real-time, multi-threaded, messaging based framework to

support live-site application logging. Lock minimizing strategies such as lock-free buffering, and lock-free

thread-safe message stream join points were used to enhance support of multi-threaded processing. This

framework made use of the STL and appropriate portions of the framework were coded as parameterized

templates.

• Developed real-time, multi-threaded backend reporting system utilizing that framework to support an

advanced centralized application logging system for generating reports on PayPal site status, and to aid

in debugging run-time issues. This system is designed to use a single 4 processor computer running

RedHat Linux to handle over 650GB / day of logging traffic generated by hundreds of front-end machines

in real-time. The system is also designed to support scalability through additional computer systems

when needed.

• Developed tools to generate graphic charts and HTML reports on logging system statistics

ENVIRONMENT: C++, template programming, Linux, g++, gdchart, UML, ClearCase, Tibco, pthreads

software developeriecare

November 2001 – June 2004 (2 years 8 months) | Redwood City, California

• Analyzed requirements and advised on issues and system architecture for initial implementation of a

highly scalable system to support medical video conferencing.

• Developed internet based, remote digital photo COM/activeX control for tele-medicine using the

LeadTools graphics library, MFC and ACE networking framework, and using XML/SOAP for server

communications.

ENVIRONMENT: C++, ACE C++ networking API, LeadTools, XML/SOAP, MS VisualStudio, MFC,

Windows XP

C++ consultant programmerHewlet Packard

May 2001 – September 2001 (5 months) | Palo Alto, California

• One of approximately 10 developers on “Batik” a C++ graphics library based on Java’s AWT that is also

used as a native implementation of the AWT graphics library for the HPChai embedded JAVA VM.

• Analyzed the existing API architecture which had become unmanageably complex, and consulted on

architectural changes to simplify, stabilize and improve the performance of the existing library. These

changes preserved current functionality while providing a simplified API to the programmer, improved

performance, reduced memory requirements and greatly reduced internal complexity.

• Developed a plan for implementing these changes through a series of incremental changes to the

existing library, avoiding the need for a complete rewrite.

• Analyzed and implemented bug fixes to existing API code.

ENVIRONMENT: C++, MSVC++, C, Clear Case, Windows NT, PCs

C++ consultant programmerKLA-Tencor

February 2001 – May 2001 (4 months) | Milpitas, California

• Developed template based C++ library for image processing to support research into new methods of

defect detection in IC wafer inspection equipment. This library includes functionality for 2D convolutions

with wavelet-based filters as well as segmentation and characterization of sub-regions of an image based

on various criteria.

ENVIRONMENT: C++, MSVC++, windows NT, PCs, image processing

C++ consultant programmerCisco

June 2000 – February 2001 (9 months) | San Jose, California

• Testing, debugging, fixing and extending of C and C++ directory access API based on LDAP

(Lightweight Directory Access Protocol) to manage and control user access to Cisco’s web site.

• API rolled out to production successfully.

• Designed a 2nd directory access API, documented and implemented the design in C++. The API

included abstractions for both the data schema and the underlying directory implementation. The new

abstractions drastically reduce the need for recompiling and testing of over 200 client applications when

changes are made to the schema or underlying implementation.

• Consulted and mentored coworkers on C++ and Object Oriented Design.

Home Profile Connections Education Jobs Interests Business Services Try Premium for free

Advanced

Page 4 of 8James Monschke | LinkedIn

2/3/2015https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1605323&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=q...

C++ consultant programmereBay

June 1999 – May 2000 (1 year) | San Jose, California

• Solved several major production site problems, including a serious, persistent problem that had existed

for over 1½ years which many coworkers had previously attempted to identify.

• Assisted coworkers with analyzing and fixing difficult problems.

• One of >70 developers on multi-threaded, exception handling, ISAPI DLL.

• Provided extensive comparative analysis of performance evaluation tools.

• Provided extensive input on current and future development directions.

• Consulted on programming practices and standards.

• Consulted and mentored coworkers on C++ and Object Oriented Design.

ENVIRONMENT: MS Visual C++, CVS, ISAPI, C, Windows NT, Oracle 7.3

C++ consultant programmerInternational Logistics Systems (ILS)

August 1998 – June 1999 (11 months) | San Francisco, California

• Co-developer of the server of a client server, shipping logistics system. This system communicated with

an Oracle Database through ODBC and communicated with client applications through sockets. This ILS

customer specifically commented on the very high reliability of the server.

• Developed Kanji (Japanese) Label Printing DLL in C++. This work resulted in explicit requests for my

continued presence on projects from this ILS customer.

• Consulted on Object Oriented Design.

• Mentored coworkers on C++ and Object Oriented Design.

ENVIRONMENT: MS Visual C++, C, Windows NT, Windows 98, Oracle, client-server

C++ consultant programmerHewlett-Packard

February 1997 – August 1998 (1 year 7 months) | Cupertino, California

JAVA Development Group

• Mentored coworkers on C++.

• Authored Java tests.

• Implemented bug fixes in C++ implementation of Java API’s.

• Analyzed and resolved testing problems, and automated testing and reporting of results.

ENVIRONMENT: C++, C, Java, ClearCase, HP-UX.

C++ consultant programmerIntel

December 1995 – January 1997 (1 year 2 months) | Santa Clara, California

C++ Compiler Development Group

• Mentored coworkers on C++ programming and testing strategies.

• Advised on C++ performance recommendations and authored text of performance recommendations for

“Code Coach” feature of VTune. VTune is an Intel software product for profiling, performance analysis

and optimization.

• Studied assembly output of C++ compiler and prepared detailed report of performance problems and

recommended fixes / optimizations. These recommendations were applied, yielding significant

performance improvements.

• Designed and wrote test programs to verify correct operation of compiler.

• Analyzed results of C++ compiler tests.

ENVIRONMENT: C++, MSVC++, windows NT, PCs.

C++ consultant programmerTaligent, inc

October 1995 – December 1995 (3 months) | Cupertino, California

• Worked in intensive C++ / Object Oriented environment.

• Contributed to implementation of Taligent's CommonPoint framework.

• Wrote code responsible for rendering GUI controls to make use of display cache.

• Enhanced encapsulation and functional partitioning of significant bodies of existing code to improve

maintainability and exception safety.

Home Profile Connections Education Jobs Interests Business Services Try Premium for free

Advanced

Page 5 of 8James Monschke | LinkedIn

2/3/2015https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1605323&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=q...

ENVIRONMENT: C++,

Software Design EngineerTranslogic

November 1994 – October 1995 (1 year) | Denver, Colorado

• Applied Jacobson's OOSE, Gamma, et al’s design patterns, and Wilkinson’s CRC cards in system

analysis and design.

• Compiled C++ coding practices and standards document.

• Mentored coworkers on C++

• One of 4 developers of a C++, real-time control center for pneumatic tube material handling system.

ENVIRONMENT: C++, OOSE, CRC cards, Rumbaugh, PCs

C++ consultant programmerIBM

July 1994 – November 1994 (5 months) | Hawthorne, New York

T.J. Watson Research Labs

• Contributed to client-server insurance claims processing application.

• Developed GUI code for OS2 using StarView cross platform development tools.

• Developed program infrastructure code that was highly reliable, with no bugs reported against it.

• Optimized existing code to improve runtime from over 2 hours to about 2 minutes.

• Mentored coworkers on C++ and debugging.

ENVIRONMENT: OS2, AIX, UNIX, C++, StarView, Rogue Wave, client-server

Research AssistantKansas State University

December 1991 – July 1994 (2 years 8 months) | Manhattan, Kansas

Physics Department

• Developed a C++ library of more than 5000 lines that provided a high level, object oriented interface to

low level, dedicated digital video hardware with tight integration to Borland's "Object Windows Library"

framework.

• Developed several digital video, MS-Windows applications for physics education using C++, Borland's

"Object Windows Library" framework, and my digital video library. These applications included a video

playback application that was written in an afternoon using my C++ library and less than 2 pages of

additional code. Another application implemented: real-time video capture at 30 fps, real-time random

access and display of video using a slider "scrub" control, frame by frame control of playback, and

collection of time and position data from the video.

• These digital video applications were the most complex of many projects developed within this group,

yet established a distinguished record for reliable, bug-free operation.

ENVIRONMENT: Borland C++, Action Media II, Digital Video, OWL, MS-Windows 3.11

36

26

22

21

21

19

18

15

Skills

Top Skills

Object Oriented Design

Distributed Systems

XML

Multithreading

Subversion

Design Patterns

C++

OOP

Kevin Guerra Sr. Software

Engineer at Google

People also viewed

Home Profile Connections Education Jobs Interests Business Services Try Premium for free

Advanced

Page 6 of 8James Monschke | LinkedIn

2/3/2015https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1605323&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=q...

15

15

James also knows about...

13 12 8 8

8 7 7 5 4

4 4 4 4

4 3

Linux

Software Development

Unix SOAP Agile Methodologies Scalability

System Architecture C Android Boost C++ APIs

Windows UML Software Engineering Visual Studio

Databases Refactoring

Education

Kansas State UniversityBS, Computer Science

1986 – 1991

Additional Info

• Interests

Object Oriented Architecture and Design, C++ Programming, Photography, Cooking

• Personal Details

Birthday March 21

Organizations

Additional Organizations

IEEE Computer Society, ACM, Mensa

Recommendations

Senior Software EngineerOne Step Beyond Consulting

“

Brian Grimshaw

Director of Engineering at whiteCryption

I first met James over a decade ago as members of the ACCU. Over the years of ACCU

events, we have enjoyed, and still enjoy, frequent discussions and debates on the efficacy of

different programming languages and software development practices. I developed a great

respect for James as a person and a highly skilled software developer.

More recently, James was part of my... more

May 31, 2013, Brian managed James at One Step Beyond Consulting

Anupama Bhalerao

Software Engg at One Step Beyond

Given (9)Received (18)

Home Profile Connections Education Jobs Interests Business Services Try Premium for free

Advanced

Page 7 of 8James Monschke | LinkedIn

2/3/2015https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1605323&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=q...

Help Center About Careers Advertising Talent Solutions Sales Solutions Small Business Mobile Language Upgrade Your Account

LinkedIn Corporation © 2015 User Agreement Privacy Policy Community Guidelines Cookie Policy Copyright Policy Send Feedback

Senior Software EngineerGrid Net

See More

“of object oriented

started working on new features of Music player quickly. I enjoyed working with him. I highly

recommend James!

April 10, 2013, Anupama worked directly with James at One Step Beyond Consulting

“

Balajee Nagarajan

Software QA

James is a rock star C++ programmer who is good at designing software components

and has a very good eye to code quality. James is very responsive at analyzing and fixing

defects quickly and a hard worker who would always meet his commitments on time.

Given his background and rich experience James would be a great asset to any organisation

and would welcome an... more

December 18, 2012, Balajee managed James indirectly at Grid Net

“

Paul Baier

Senior Software Engineer at Grid Net

During his time with Grid Net I had the pleasure of working with James developing a

feature for streaming metering attributes to a customer web-portal and was extremely

impressed by his overall breadth and depth of knowledge of software development.

James' drive and meticulous work result in high quality deliverables; he would be an asset to

any organization and I... more

December 10, 2012, Paul worked with James at Grid Net

“

Steve Iribarne

Sr. Embedded Engineer at Neato Robotics

James is a top notch C++ object oriented engineer. He never reported directly to me,

however, in the management meetings his name would come up often as the "go-to" guy to

get problems solved. In addition, James would recommend tools that would help us find

issues before they even arose.

He was a leader when it came to defining coding standards, and by leader I meant... more

December 8, 2012, Steve managed James indirectly at Grid Net

Home Profile Connections Education Jobs Interests Business Services Try Premium for free

Advanced 1 3 1

Page 8 of 8James Monschke | LinkedIn

2/3/2015https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1605323&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=q...

Are You A Director? - Apply Now to the Worldwide Who's Who network for Distinguished Individuals | Read More »

Connected 5 years agoRelationship Contact Info

Background

Summary

I have 17 years experience working and consulting in materials science and engineering. My areas of

specialty include failure analysis of materials, materials characterization and materials processing.

As a consultant and expert, I apply my experience to matters including product failures, materials

applications, and accident causation. Extensive work in materials characterization, including materials

analysis with scanning electron microscopy. Professional publications and presentations, including

frequent presentations to the American Academy of Forensic Scientists.

Specialties:materials science and engineering, failure analysis, materials characterization, root cause

analysis, expert witness testimony, education

Experience

Expert WitnessForensic Materials Consulting

January 2003 – Present (12 years 2 months)

In my consulting work, I apply my experience as a materials scientist to determine the root cause of

materials failures.

Areas of work include:

* Failure analysis of materials

* Mechanical testing of materials

* Nondestructive materials evaluation

* Metallurgical engineering

* Fracture mechanics

* Quantitative analysis

* Materials selection and processing

* Identification of trace elements in solids, liquids and gases

For more information, please see www.forensicmaterials.com.

FacultySan Jose State University

September 2002 – Present (12 years 6 months)

r›

462connections

Anastasia Micheals, M.S.Materials Engineering Consultant and Expert WitnessSan Francisco Bay Area Mining & Metals

Current Forensic Materials Consulting, San Jose State University

Previous NASA Ames Research Center, SRI International, United

Airlines

Education Stanford University

Send a message

1st

Home Profile Connections Education Jobs Interests Business Services Try Premium for free

Advanced

Page 1 of 4Anastasia Micheals, M.S. | LinkedIn

2/3/2015https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?trk=contacts-contacts-list-contact_name-0&id=1605332

At

Microscopy (SEM) lab.

Materials ResearcherNASA Ames Research Center

March 1998 – September 2002 (4 years 7 months)

At NASA, I worked to develop heatshields for several interplanetary programs, including Mars Exploration

Rover. I also managed the Materials Characterization Lab for the Thermal Protection Materials Branch.

Materials ChemistSRI International

November 1992 – March 1998 (5 years 5 months)

InternUnited Airlines

1990 – 1990 (less than a year)

Failure Analysis internship at United Airlines Maintenance Operations Center, SFO

68

47

44

38

25

17

14

12

12

10

Skills

Top Skills

Anastasia also knows about...

9 9 9

6 6 6

5 5 4

4 3 2

2 2 2

Materials Science

Characterization

Scanning Electron...

Failure Analysis

Materials

Powder X-ray Diffraction

Thin Films

Microscopy

Design of Experiments

Teaching

Expert Witness Metallurgy Spectroscopy

Research Semiconductors R&D

Root Cause Analysis Physics Electron Microscopy

Sputtering Optical Microscopy Material Selection

Chemistry Polymers Science

Education

Stanford UniversityMS, Materials Science and Engineering

2001

Home Profile Connections Education Jobs Interests

Page 2 of 4Anastasia Micheals, M.S. | LinkedIn

2/3/2015https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?trk=contacts-contacts-list-contact_name-0&id=1605332

San Jose State UniversityBS, Materials Engineering

1989 – 1991

Activities and Societies: Tau Beta Pi Engineering Honor Society

Lowell High School

Organizations

Additional Organizations

AAFS (American Academy of Forensic Sciences) SFES (Society of Forensic Engineers and Scientists)

ASM International (American Society of Metals) EDFAS (Electron Device Failure Analysis Association)

FEWA (Forensic Expert Witness Association) IEEE-SVCN

Honors & Awards

Additional Honors & Awards

Secretary, Engineering Sciences, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences

Secretary, Society of Forensic Engineers and Scientists

Member, Tau Beta Pi Honor Society

Recipient of 1990 ASM/SAMPE scholarship

Home Profile Connections Education Jobs Interests Business Services Try Premium for free

Advanced

Page 3 of 4Anastasia Micheals, M.S. | LinkedIn

2/3/2015https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?trk=contacts-contacts-list-contact_name-0&id=1605332

Jessica Winkler Materials

Engineer at Six

Sigma/Winslow Automation

People also viewed

http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/Software-Architect-Sr-Salary-Details-San-Francisco-CA.aspx?&hdcbxbonuse=on&isshowpiechart=false&isshowjobchart=false&isshowsalarydetailcharts=true&isshownextsteps=true&isshowcompanyfct=true&isshowaboutyou=true

29871\4746961.1

http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/state-

pay/#req=employee%2Fsearch%2Fname%3DAnastasia%2520D%2Fyear%3D2014%2Fdepartment%3DCS

U%2520San%2520Francisco

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013 5-Year American Community SurveyB19001: HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2013 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) - Universe: Households

Margin of Error Percent of Total+/-1,739+/-1,096 6.7%+/-1,011 6.2%+/-660 3.8%+/-769 4.0%+/-776 3.3%+/-801 3.5%+/-814 2.9%+/-733 3.1%+/-681 2.8%+/-1,020 5.6%+/-1,146 7.6%+/-1,146 11.0%+/-1,081 9.4%+/-1,050 6.5%+/-1,110 9.3%+/-1,333 14.1%

$60,000 to $74,999 26,343$75,000 to $99,999 37,908$100,000 to $124,999 32,594$125,000 to $149,999 22,574$150,000 to $199,999 32,197$200,000 or more 48,567

$40,000 to $44,999 10,536$45,000 to $49,999 9,794$50,000 to $59,999 19,501

$25,000 to $29,999 11,523$30,000 to $34,999 12,195$35,000 to $39,999 10,072

$10,000 to $14,999 21,269$15,000 to $19,999 13,081$20,000 to $24,999 13,981

EstimateTotal: 345,344

Less than $10,000 23,209

2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year EstimatesSupporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, andstatistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website inthe Data and Documentation section.

Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocationrates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Surveywebsite in the Methodology section.

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population,demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's PopulationEstimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of thepopulation for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates ofhousing units for states and counties.

San Francisco CCD, San

While the 2009-2013 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflectthe February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions ofmetropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names,codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differfrom the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of thegeographic entities.

Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristicsreflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As aresult, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect theresults of ongoing urbanization.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013 5-Year American Community Survey

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degreeof uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is representedthrough the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percentmargin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin oferror and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidencebounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACSestimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsamplingvariability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is notrepresented in these tables.

Explanation of Symbols:

1. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sampleobservations or too few sample observations were available to compute astandard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.

2. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sampleobservations or too few sample observations were available to compute anestimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of themedian estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-endeddistribution.

3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowestinterval of an open-ended distribution.

4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upperinterval of an open-ended distribution.

5. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median fallsin the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statisticaltest is not appropriate.

6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate iscontrolled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.

7. An 'N' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates thatdata for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number ofsample cases is too small.

8. An '(X)' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available.

29871\4748221.1

29871\4682259.1

11for

tifl3tT1 MeVnQ

Pie-Application Meeting Sign-in Sheet

t1sV 20 2a1taNAasttsta -----SfrdingThwc k1s F3Dpws

MeingAdass SHtàtt STflt5ec1Ad fl%M SAP3WEPmpatyOwnerName PdPvSTftSLfr CtWflSvc..nar.i.th..- hA1t4 RhbLWSS

P4bPtsscw

dME1 4o4CkkEtISA.3 tzskS

Pease pnnt your name be1on state your address and/or aifiliafiRwithanadgwup.aIilpxnñde

FwenmthaPw1nocrna1ne17eow domtmpreaL.wypiiiliopptkabthepa$ecflis for documaaliottpmrpeseserüt

I7LSaccLt-v$t v4y7-921 ist

.1

NAME/ORGANIZAflON

AM4tmw \1J ADDRESS ifLONBI SEND PLANS

22

18

Affidavit for Prp-Applicatlon Meeting

Summaryof discussion from the

Pre-AppJication Meeting

MeSingDMe fl%iftSDAM4U4tL 20Mevhngrnr pMMesiagAddress IW SMCtWL bTflc4ectAddr fl% M4ttMw Sfl

fltLtfl..e4S sAsIsSti La haLt

1siet iThtt

se eununarize the questioaslcommonls anti your response frwmThe Fre-AppkBlioumeeling in the

sparbeknt 1seMa1thowflwwc4eaInsItmtxh1Inzcspmre1oyunnnt

QuesiauJCnncan1 bynalnephnalmthlwgbbot3eigltnthe$groap-rcWkcN ncW4S suwuis wr rau cnviu Ni MW TD

tJL toaQl2 AgPomsoritponse Wi UtU- W0b3 DMttCflN -r .tR- SUr%tAk

StTI.t F.ECsA$.biW b%1t4pMCflJS

Atorflt3 Ar r4t

zPFUME PCI- t-tocjv- lx ft4E

hit

SEtS IC- cFtrf

FdwBespxuse b- bIeVt

Grumbach Anthony 22 x4436

From Grumbach Anthony 22 x4436

Sent Tuesday February 18 2014 502 PMTo jacqui sweet

Cc Andy Rodgers Anastasia Micheals

Subject RE 1784 Sanchez drawings

cq

Thank you for the plans Are these the plans that you intend to submit again in April or are you planning to revise them

before then understand that the Planning Department has advised that the remodel should use the footprint to the

east of the shed while minimizing the remodel of the space where the shed is If you are going to revise the plans wed

appreciate seeing the new ones

Weve discussed our concerns again recently with Anastasia and James Wed welcome the opportunity to hear Andys

and your ideas about ways to address the concerns that Kate and have which include

Impacts on light privacy and open space

Protection of trees and plants in our backyard

Mitigation of potential seismic water and structural issues

All my best

Anthony

From jacqui sweet jacguilsweetcimail .com

Sent Tuesday February 18 2014 1237 PM

To Grumbach Anthony 22 x4436

Cc Andy Rodgers Anastasia Micheals

Subject 1784 Sanchez drawings

Hello Anthony

just realized recently that had not sent you the drawing set after our neighborhood pre-application meeting as

you had requested thOught had done so at the time but cannot find any email record of sending it This was

an inadvertent oversight on my part and sincerely apologize for the mistake

Attached are the plans for your reference hope all is well and please dont hesitate to contact us with any

questions

Best

Jacqui

Anthony Grumbach grumpoolegmail.com

Coogt

Re 1784 Sanchez Street

message

Anthony Grumbach cgrumpoolegmail.com Tue Feb 2015 at 725 PMTo Andy Rodgers cardesignatt.net

Hello Andy

would appreciate it if you would identify these most recent updates that you made to the plans And would you

mind briefly clarifying what you mean when you write that the plans have been updated but the design is

unchanged from that which was submitted to DBI dated October 2014

Thank you

Anthony Grumbach

1782 Sanchez Street

San Francisco CA 94131

grumpoolegmail.com

On Mon Feb 2015 at 543 PM Andy Rodgers cardesignatt.net wrote

Hi Anthonyunderstand from James and Anastasia that you asked for some clarifications on their plans The attached drawings

have been checked over and updated but the design is unchanged from that which was submitted to DBI dated

October 2014

Regards

Andy

Andy Rodgers AlA

www.rodgersarchitecture.com

ph 415 309- 9612

fax 415 924-2750

ME Jf Anthony Grumbach cgrumpoolegmaiI.corn

Re 1784 Sanchez Street

message

Andy Rodgers cardesignatt.net Tue Feb 2015 at 944 PMTo Anthony Grumbach cgrumpoolegmail.com

Anthony

Sure please see below All of the clarifications occurred following your meeting with Anastasia on 12/12/14

including

The proposed view on the first page A1.O did not show the 1/2 foot side offset

The 3-6 offset on the north side where there is sloped roof above the interior stair to the upper level wasshown correctly in the proposed north elev but the proposed site plan was updated to show this and the rear

west deck on the upper level

Page A2.1 the interior attic is now labeled as not We always show hatched walls and floor roof

framing in our building sections unlike in our floor plans where we only hatch the new walls according to our

wall legend Otherwise the sections would be very difficult to read understand

Scale format appear within each drawing title as 1/4 1-O except for the site plan which is 1/8 scale

The building section shown as drawing sheet A2.1 was inaccurately drawn previously It now correctly

shows the cut through the interior stair and the upper level inset north exterior wall

As regards plans have been updated but the design is unchanged from that which was submitted to

DBI dated October 2014 there have been no changes to the proposed work horizontal and vertical addition

from the 10/1/14 submittal as regards the additions height setbacks overall design etc and were to

correct inconsistencies in the plan set and were to clarify how we show information in the plans such as

scale and which spaces are existing vs proposed

Hopefully that helps

Andy Rodgers ALk

www.rodgersarchitecture.com

ph 415 309- 9512

fax 415 924 2750

On Feb 2015 at 725 PM Anthony Grumbach cgrumpoolegmailcom wrote

Hello Andy

would appreciate it if you would identify these most recent updates that you made to the plans And would you

mind briefly clarifying what you mean when you write that the plans have been updated but the design

is unchanged from that which was submitted to DBI dated October 2014

Thank you

Anthony Grumbach

1782 Sanchez Street

San Francisco CA 94131

grumpoolegmaiI corn

On Mon Feb 2015 at 543 PM Andy Rodgers cardesignattnet wrote

Hi Anthonyunderstand frorn James and Anastasia that you asked for some clarifications on their plans The attached

drawings have been checked over and updated but the design is unchanged from that which was submitted to

DBI dated October 2014

Regards

Andy

Andy Rodgers AlA

www rodgersarchitecture corn

ph 415309-9612

fax 415 924 -2750

City and County of San Francisco Board of AppealsEdwin Lee Cynthia Goldstein

Mayor Executive Director

January27 2015

Anthony GrumbachKatherine Poole Appellants

1782 Sanchez Street

San Francisco CA 94131

Appeal Nos 14-207 15-002

Subject Prop 1784 Sanchez Street

Dear Sir or Madam

This is to notify you that the above-referenced matters has/have been rescheduled with the

agreement of all parties from Feb 18 2015 to Wednesday Feb 25 2015

500pm CityHall Room 416 One Dr Carlton Goodlett Place

Please note that the briefing schedule is automatically changed to require briefs on

the same three Thursdays one Thursday schedule as outlined in the Preliminary Statement

of Appeal Accordingly the AppellanVs Brief is now due on Feb 05 2015 and the

Respondents Other Parties Brief is now due on Feb 19 2015

Letters of support opposition 11 copies from members of the public are due at the

Board office no later than one Thursday prior to hearing by 430pmon Feb 19 2015 Please call the Board office if you have any further questions

Sincerely

BOARD STAFF

cc DBI if applicable Planning Dept if applicable Other Parties if applicable

Occupants Property Owners within 150 feet who requested additional notice if applicable

and Other Concerned Citizens Groups if applicable

James MonschkeAnastasia Micheals Variance Holders

1784 Sanchez Street

San Francisco CA 94131

Board of Appeals 1650 Mission Street Suite 304 Phone 41 5-575-6880

www.sfqov.orqlboa San Francisco CA 94103 Fax 415-575-6885

Grumbach Anthony 22 x4436

From Grumbach Anthony 22 x4436

Sent Monday January 26 2015 100 PMTo boardofappealssfgov.org

Subject 1784 Sanchez Street Appeals -permission to consolidate briefs into one 24 page brief

Hello Victor

Thank you for confirming that we can file one consolidated brief of up to 24 pages for our appeal of the permit and

variance

All my best

Anthony Grumbach

1782 Sanchez Street

Email grumpoolegmail.com

ph 415.595.9329

City and County of San FranciscoEdwin Lee

Mayor

James Monschke Anastasia Micheals Permit Holders

do Brett Gladstone Attorney for Appellant

425 Market Street 26th Floor

San Francisco CA 94105

Board of Appeals

Cynthia Goldstein

Executive Director

Appeal NoAppeal Title

Subject PropertyPermit Type

Permit No

15-002

Grumbach Poole1784 Sanchez Street

Alteration Permit

2014031 4081 3S

vs DBI PDA

Dear Anastasia Micheals

This is to notify you that an appeal has been filed with this office protesting the ISSUANCE of

the above referenced Alteration Permit Pursuant tà Article of the San Francisco

Business Tax Regulations Code the subject permit is hereby SUSPENDED until the

Board of Appeals decides this matter and releases notice of decision and order

We are enclosing copy of the Preliminary Statement of Appeal for your information

The hearing regarding this matter has been scheduled for February 18 2015 at 500 p.mCity Hall Room 416 One Dr Canton Goodlett Place

If you have any further questions you may call this office at 415 575-6880

Sincerely

BOARD STAFF

cc Dept of Building Inspection do BID

Anthony Grumbach Katherine Poole Appellants

1782 Sanchez Street

San Francisco CA 94131

1650 Mission Street Suite 304 San Francisco1 CA 94103

Phone 415475.6880 Fax 415-575.6885 Email boardofappealssov.orpwww.sfgov.orjilboa

January 06 2015

PrSiminry Statement of Appeal of BOARD OF APPEALSIssuance of Building Permit

l784SanchezStreet jn LJL

Permit Application No 201403140813 APPEAL fiaflPlans Revision No.31

Issued December 23 2014

We live in the house at l7S2 Sent Street with our two children directly downhill and

north of 1784 Sanchez Street The proposed twd-story rearyard addition would box us in and

deprive us of light open space and privacy The City should have required the project sponsors

Anastasia Micheals and James Monsehke to do many oThers in the neighborhood have

done when ràtodeling homes consider the impact on theirncighbors yards and homes Milk

expanding their pwn home in way that is seismically saf does not block light or open space

and respects privacy We are appealing the permit because we will incur substantial safety risks

impacts and costs from the proposed project when alternative deign options would allow Ms

Miehasis and Mr Monschke to expand their living space in manner that meets their needs

Mile reducing their neighbors risks impacts and cos

We request that the hearing on our appeal of the building permit be consolidated with our

appeal of the variance decision

Anthony Grumbach Katherine Poole

1782 Sanchez Street

SsnFnncisco CA 94131

Appeal NoAppeal Title

Subject PropertyPermit Type

Permit No

14-207

Grumbach Poole vs ZA1784 Sanchez Street

Variance Rear YardCase No 2013.0831V

Dear James Monschke Anastasia Micheals

This is to notify you that an appeal has been filed with this office protesting the GRANTINGof the above referenced Variance Pursuant to Article of the San Francisco Business

Tax Regulations Code the subject variance is hereby SUSPENDED until the

Board of Appeals decides this matter and releases notice of decision and order

We are enclosing copy of the Preliminary Statement of Appeal for your information

The hearing regarding this matter has been scheduled for February 18 2015 at 500 p.mCity Hall Room 416 One Dr Carlton Goodlett Place

If you have any further questions you may call this office at 415 575-6880

Sincerely

BOARD STAFF

cc Zoning Administrator Staff Planner

Anthony Grumbach Katherine Poole Appellants

1782 Sanchez Street

San Francisco CA 94131

1650 Mission Street Suite 204 San Francisco CA 94103Phone 415-575-6880 Fax 415.575-6885 Email boardofappeals

www.stciov.orWboa

City and County of San FranciscoEdwin Lee

Mayor

Board of Appeals

Cynthia Goldstein

Executive Director

December 19 2014

James MonschkeAnastasia Micheals Variance Holders

1784 Sanchez Street

San Francisco CA 94131

PreliminaryStatement of Appeal of

Variance Decision

Dated October 2014

Case No 2013.0831V1784 Sanchez Street

The Zoning Administrator erred and abused his discretion in granting this Variance The

proposed project does not meet the five findings required by Planning Code Section 305

We live in the house at 1782 Sanchez Street with our two children directly downhill and

north of 1784 Sanchez Street The proposed two-story rear-yard addition would box us in and

deprive us of light open space and privacy The Zoning Administrator should have required the

project sponsors Anastasia Micheals and James Monschke to do what many others in the

neighborhood have done when remodeling homes consider the impact on their neighbors yards

and homes while expanding their own home in way that is seismically safe does not block

light or open space and respects privacy

The Variance Decision should be overruled because it requires us to incur substantial

safety risks impacts and costs from the proposed project when alternative design options would

allow Ms Michaels and Mr Monschke to expand their living space in manner that meets their

needs while reducing their neighbors risks impacts and costs

Anthony Grumbach Katherine Poole

1782 Sanchez Street

San Francisco CA 94131

29871\4685814.1

City and County of San Francisco Board of AppealsEdwin Lee Cynthia Goldstein

Mayor Executive Director

December 18 2014

Anthony GrumbachKatherine Poole and Isabel Talusen Escalada Requestors1782 Sanchez Street

San Francisco CA 94131

Re JURISDICTION REQUESTSubject Property 1784 Sanchez Street

Application Nos CASE NO 201 3.0831V

Types of Action GRANTING of Variance

bear Requestors

The Board of Appeals considered your request that jurisdiction be taken beyond the 10-day

appeal period on December 17 2014

Your request was GRANTED and you should come to the office of the Board of Appeals in

person to file your appeal Enclosed is information regarding the procedure for filing an

appeal

You have calendar days from the date of the Boards decision to file your appealwhich ends this following Monday December 22 2014

If you have any further questions please call the Board office

Sincerely

Board Staff

cc Planning Department

James Monschkeand Anastasia Michaels Variance Holders

1784 Sanchez Street

San Francisco CA 94131

1650 Mission Street Suite 304 San Francisco CA 94103

Phone 415-575-6880 Fax 415-575-6885 Email boardofaocealsasfaov.org

www.sfgov.crqlboa

Appellants Proposed Modifications

Move the second-story suite approximately eight feet forward so that it does not extend

past the rear wall of the existing building

Continue the sloping roof of the stairway down to the initial landing at the rear of the first

floor

Set the second-story deck back from our property line at least and one-half feet and

replace the solid deck wall with an open railing

To the rear of the deck slope the roof of the first story downward

To respect our privacy require all north-facing clerestory windows on our property line

to be above head-level translucent and fire code compliant

2987 1\4750053