you all again next year. you all take care.

you can attend and provide public comment by calling. enter webinar id, 830. and dwen, sf gov. tv is broadcast anding streaming the number. to block your number, dial star 9 which is equivalent of raising your hand. you will have three minutes depending on the length of the agenda and public speakers. 30 seconds before your time is up.

if any of the participants are attendees need disability accommodation. you can make a request to legal system or send an email to board of appeals. now the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. please note that we will take public comment from those physically present. now we will answer in and affirm all those who intend to testify. please note that any member of the public may asked to speak. if you intend to testify at any of the proceedings and wish the board to give weight, raise your right hand and say i do after you've been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear that the testimony

you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. thank you. if you're a participant and not speaking please put your zoom speaker on mute. i just want to say to my fellow commissioners, thank you for entrusting me for the power of holding a gavel for the first time. to the public and my fellow commissioners for indulge me for the next few minutes. in the two previous meetings, there were some participants in our hearings specifically mr. jenson as well mr. stockle and ms. madeline from the

department of recreation and parks. who explained that i breached the policy by peaking aggressively and some some say rudely to themselves city employees, for that i apologize to them and i'm sorry. both were testifying on behalf of the same department on separate issues. as long one person thought i was rude, i was. and i apologize to those offends in the public and in the department. and no excuses will be made. there is no doubt that testimony triggered some questionable behavior on my part as exhibited by my intense reaction. my passion got the best of me.

as my strong reaction was to meant to create a positive outcome of our city as it is. i would like to introduce you to the equity fair and respectful work place policy. under that policy, my behavior was unacceptable. i would like to point out a couple of things in that policy. it reads as follows. the city of san francisco, is committed to promoting and maintaining a safe and healthy working environment where every individual is treated with stability, dignity and respect. to promote and sustain a work place we're all employees and members of the public are treated with respect and dignity and with they are welcomed and valued. each city employee is expected

to abide by the values and standards below in this respective policy in this respect policy generally behavioral. to the member to i have made. those those are follows work honestly and colleaguely and colab ra rately with others. listen and value the opinions of others, particularly when they differ from your own. personality. again, these three bullet points follow with support. i'll continue on my own.

there is great respect from city employees and myself and members of this panel, make no mistake. we enjoy the opportunity with to work with most city departments. and we recognize their hard work on the behalf of san francisco. if it were not for the popular workers. mu fellow commissioners, we sit here week after week. we are volunteers although we're paid a wage which is a fraction of minimum wage. we are not here for the pay, we are here because we care, we have a job to do, and these are the request of the mayor of the board of supervisors. our responsibility is to serve the public by ensuring that their appeals and defenses are those and those defenses of

their appeals are fully heard while their arguments are evaluated and ruled upon on the basis of law, legislative compliance and other rules. we work honestly, earnestly and colleaguially and collaboratively with each other and we try to do the same with the public and all city department who testify in front of us. there is a presumption of good faith and trust. this may come with people trying to mistreat themselves when they have broken a law or other compliance issues. when commissioners face these situations, and i'm speaking on my own behalf, this generally

stimulates or triggers feelings of frustration insult, and sometimes even greater irritation. as result commissioners respond, through asking tough questions, which develop information that will lead to a fair and just resolution of any case. if an appellant or permit hold or city department representatives is viewed as not coming forthcoming comes unprepared to present his case or presents in unbalanced or unequitable fashion it's a commissioners job to ensure that these insufficientcies are corrected. this is always with ensuring that information which is necessary evaluate any case fairly is fully developed and

becomes transparent to the commissioners in evaluating their final position. the process of getting some participants to be forthcoming transparent and truthful is often a tedious and rough exercise as emotions can flare on both sides of the room. regardless of emotions and sometimes heated exchanges, even between a pel --appellants it's important to make sure everybody has had their equitable day in front of this quasi body. members of the public sometimes challenge the body by some even do not even fully tell an accurate truth, they represent themselves as they need and they only have their consciousness to hold them accountable unless a law is

clearly broken at which point they're held accountable with some punitive measure. even when we as commissioners are clearly mislead, we listen fairly and an in a balanced fashion, even when we are observing abuse of our system of laws and government. is often very hard to maintain a de quorum when malfeasance at bay. but the process will result appropriately. city departments in my view are held to a higher standard because they are paid by the citizens of san francisco to, to quote the a for mention policy, work honestly, henerestly and colleaguially and collaboratively with others. the others in this case, are the citizens and those persons

who volunteer to represent them. in this case, others also include the commissioners who sit in front of you today. city departments, should not represent a biased or con tribe for private gain or because it's an idea logical or self-serving need for the department or to achieve a purpose.

when a department does not complete their full process in a diligent fashion because of an internal agenda or convenient need or sometimes pure neglect, this weakens democracy and trust and further exacerbates, inaoek quality and environmental crisis. of thus the impact can be significant. departments with the best intentions may have internal may have an internal agenda which in their minds is the right direction, good for the

citizens or a method to find a convenient path to satisfying the naoetd or moving a problem. dids my belief that may or may not be shared by others. when it seems that questionable testimony may be evidence that it is necessary to scrutinize that information to seek support for that department's representations with fact, metrics substance, according to the rules and laws are compliance. just like the public, when they are not feeling fairly created in testimonyials sometimes this can be aggravating mainly because the outcome may have important real world implications.

it's especially disgruntleling when it seems the testimony may not be forthcoming from the city department which taxpayer subsidized to p.m. at the highest standard of trust equity and professional and without private gain. clearly in the last two hearings and during those meetings, it was my view that testimony from departmental representatives may not have been balanceds and fair may not have been transparent and was not necessarily supported by reliable and documented research, metrics and other findings. whether pressed business elaboration and questions by myself which is the responsibility of every commissioner, it was my experienced that these representatives may not forthcoming with responsible

answers to my quarries, that was may be setting to me because that may have abused see city policy by not acquiring to the work base policy. i will not use this as a justification for my resulting for discomforting behavior because it was hurtful but it does serve as an explanation as to why my frustration was triggered so intently by testimony. i exercised poor judgment before the delivery of thoughts and messages that the city department representatives. clearly i may have over stepped the balance of equitable fair

and work place policy for which again, i apologize to those aforementioned and take full responsibility with remorse and with respect to those offended by that delivery. again no excuses. i hope those that i offended will accept the apologies for the strong delivery and choice of words. yet with humility, i respectfully ask that my behavior not act as a distraction that will take focus from the critical issues that were prepted in the cases and triggered that behavior in the first place. commissioners and to the public thank you for your time for allowing me the moment to share my feelings and to express my apologies. >> thank you, anybody else have anything to add in the first agenda item?

>> i just want to say personally, i want to thank commissioner swig for his comments. there is a lot here. i particularly appreciate the res tation of bullet it's a good reminder for me and i hope others. i'm not going to try to respond to it, i'm going go home and read it and consider it. but one thing that jumps out at me is that, we're not that different between the volunteers that become on commissions and the dedicated sitting county of san francisco employees. we have one boss, that's not the boss in room 200 or across the hall from 200, it's the people.

and that's something that gets forgotten or side tracked. so i do want to say that if any of that team fails, whether it's city employees, on part of commissioners and staff, then we all fail the people of san francisco and i'll do my part to fulfill my responsibility. i appreciate commissioner swig, i know we have a long agenda so i will not go forward. --further. >> thank you. >> one thank you to everybody all the members of the public who are choosing to spend your wednesday evenings here. i know there are probably other places that you can be tonight but we greatly appreciate your presence and your participation in the public process and on whatever items you're here for

tonight. thank you for being here. and on that note, let's move on. >> okay, i just have to check if there is any public comment. >> this is general public comment. is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on item not on today's agenda? nobody in the room. so we'll move on to item number 3. this the adoption of minutes commissioners before adoption are the minutes of february 7, 2024 meeting. and and prior to the meeting, the public speaker that attended via zoom and attended a samsung fm, he thought he

should be listed as you know identify caller, so he proposed to amend the minutes that way. i need a motion and then i'll call for public comment. or if there is any other corrections? >> are there any other corrections. >> i'll move the motion. >> we have a motion from commissioner trasvenia. we have a motion from commissioner to adopt the minutes as amended by him on that motion vice president. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries 4-0.

we are now moving to item number 4. the appellant is requesting a rehearing paring of 12-068. at that time upon a motion by commissioner swig, the board voted 5-0 to deny the appeal. the permit holder is margaret and the permit description is revision to building application number 2000-06 had. to correct proposed building height. remove approved ground level garage and expand retail space. and we will hear from mr. vand

road en first. welcome, you have three minutes. we will not start the time until you're ready. >> okay, can you hear me? >> yes. >> i don't feel that i received a fair hearing because nobody in the board nor representatives really understood the ada laws while there is strong in from the board, they didn't understand the extent of what was presented. it's frustrating to see the gentleman from dbi state the law around title 24. confusion of what type of business whether retail or residential was on which floor. that was not correct results. unfortunately, the board does not have or have the legal knowledge to make an informed decision. experts are available and

properly viewed and understand the laws. under title 24 disability access is triggered when they receive the threshold which happens, then it's treated as new construction right? so the other thing that was not addressed is the california civil rights law, in california disabled person's act to protect the right of individuals to full use. but if they provide any violation, that was not addressed. filed sue exception to see get around this. technical adding any neighbor is adding a fuel fourth floor resident. and invasive process but very common. i had an structural engineer to go through the rebuttal to show where the elevator can go. can you see this.

>> can you help him zoom out, please. so i'm not sure what the real issue other than denial or budgetary. you'll see in california, shopping center is more than one establishment by the state's definition her building would be considered shopping center. to have any concern. this goes on and on. >> 30 seconds.

>> so like, i have photos, and everything from november first photos showing the work starting, the permit was not approved december 4th. the only active permit is to install the sprinkler. i'm asking a rehearing to put input. thank you. >> thank you. i don't see, we have commissioner tresvenia has a question. >> thank you for your testifying under our rules in order to get a rehearing, you must show new evidence that could have changed the outcome of the appeal or establish that there is manifest injustice. >> that's what i'm showing. >> brand new evidence. >> okay. and can you describe in a

sentence or two, the manifest injustice? >> i'm not sure what the question is. >> there is two requirement, if you're to be if we're to grant a new rehearing, you must show new evidence or establish that there is manifest injustice and i want to give you an opportunity to say clearly. >> what does that mean exactly manifest injustice. >> can you use different words what i'm suppose to respond to that for that? >> i'm hesitant to go back and forth. >> why i think there is injustice. nobody read my first appeal, i'm not sure if you're hearing my second appeal. i have new evidence, the civil rights unrule was addressed.

all exceptions should be thrown out. >> okay. great. >> i don't understand why they were not the first time. >> sure. >> just a question, i acknowledge the new evidence, my interpretation is that sites where elevator can possibly be installed. >> yes. >> does it also present any evidence as to why an elevator needs to be installed? >> so again, we need the ada requirement, i'll read it again. civil title 24 state building code requires access for more than three-storey buildings. and again, if you have businesses, she has two retail and the first floor is retail and second is retail and fourth is residential.

you need vertical access. >> except all of those exception that's we discussed in depth in the last hearing and that you're mentioning again. >> the first technicality visibility is it a joke and should not have been issued. and i have evidence from a structural engineer, when you put a fourth one you've got to reopen the whole thing, it's not like a little thing. i'm requesting that it be reheard so we can talk the right language. i've done heavy heavy research on this. there are some things that were not addressed. >> thank you, okay. >> i'm a little emotional about this. >> i don't see any further que,z you can be seated.

>> thank you. >> so we will now hear from the permit holder. if you can approach the microphone, please. if you can identify yourself for the record. >> speaker: i'm architect and ao* i've been linsed since 1990, i still have an active license. >> we have spoken before. >> thank you. >> speaker: thank you, wla i want to read to you and the letters that in response to the appellant's remarks.

this letter, to the appellant's brief for appeal number 23-068, dated 2524, if a project faces evaluation, it's 200,399 then the entire building must comply with accessibility requirement by as required by the california in san francisco building code unless there is a financial hardship or technical accessibility. level one is fully accessible compliance. there is no debate there. level 3 retail spaces only one retail space will be located at this level.

after the it's complete. office space since these levels are located above sidewalk level vertical access is required. technical and feasibility was granted after an evaluation of the second floor. so you figure, steal moment frames. let me show you. >> you should turn it and just

look at it if you're. towards yourself as you're looking at the document. >> okay. >> if you're reading document. one mower turn. >> one more turn. >> we paused your time. see figure one that shows the critical structural members that were install steel moment frames beams. let's go to page 2 here. you can see how disruptive a new elevator will be. it's impossible to put elevator

without the shaft or foundation supports. figure one shows all the critical structural members whether they are still moment frames shown in blue, figure two shows the completed foundation with massive gray beams and spread foundations of the retaining walls. >> thank you, it's your time. >> okay, thank you. >> okay, thank you. i don't see any questions at this time. so you can be seated. thank you. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the planning department. nothing from the planning defpt. anything from the building department? >> good evening, president and members of the board.

i don't believe there was any new evidence introduced. however i do have a letter from senior plan checker certified cast specialist who did do the plan review, he is enable this evening, so i'm going to read thinks letr. the project application number 20-2108025569 was reviewed my myself and approved on november 11, 2023. a technical infeasibility was granted for access to this floor. second floor occupancy had been approved in 1978 under permit 7806096 and occupancy has not changed since then. the use of the m occupancy on the second floor is not changing under this permit but in lieu of installation of commercial elevator would require moving structural

members and providing a pit which would have to be excavated would make this project feasible. mia proof al of this project is also in line with many approve as granted to small appeal offices through the accessible building program. the they will be providing a dedicated space on a fully accessible ground floor to accommodate members with disability. it's important to member that ada accommodation and instructed open to the public, after january 6, 1993 must be accessible to people with disability. as they were provided many years before the ada requirement became enforceable it's my interpretation that the project was approved correctly and the provisions adequate to provide public service. that's it. >> thank you, we do have a question from commissioner swig. >> yes, yes it seems that the

three areas that were surfaces by the appellant tonight were ada a numeric threshold of improvement. you didn't have that letter with you. >> yes. >> but you had information verbally, is that true? >> yes. did we all do the financial piece? >> yes. >> again it may not have been as detailed did you not reference that? >> in this letter? >> no, couple of weeks ago.

they db reach a threshold. and then, and then, i believe by virtual of those two first things that we did hit on the hardship. >> yes. >> can you comfortable with that the three element that's were braupt tonight as new issues and even though it was diligent that the appellant consulted an expert, the expert may not have had understood what was down below that. >> yeah. >> are you comfortable that you held forth on all of those three items, last time?

>> yes. >> commissioners, i have the issues that i have being very careful because this is--but i was here at a previous hearing and heard about the and it was a discussion about what was underground, so i have information hearing from a previous hearing that provides me with the support of these claims, fyi, if you want to elaborate so we can. >> they have a very extensive foundation. would you have to recalculate and poor new beams to accommodate the spread of the weight or the load down to it. and thens you go through the building, going through steel

frames and paris lands, you're opening up an enormous amount of work. >> so is there anything new ha we heard today? >> not on our part. >> no sir, thank you. >> i saw the plans in the brief. i'll give way to commissioner epler. >> with respect to the plan, i guess we saw two layers. we saw the see framer and what we saw what the foundation system which is the kind of pinkish red shapes. and we saw that, hey, there is plenty of space between the blue lines but what we didn't see and this is the issue that commissioner swig was, the

issue is wre didn't see the overlay of the blue lines over the pink spaces and see how little white there is left after you overlay the two. >> yes, it's a complicated situation, getting an elevator in you also be interruption foundations and grade beams, it's pretty extensive. >> that would require reworking, reimagining of the foundational piece. >> it depends or it goes, it can interact with that. it's usually a four to six feet pit and you have to put the concrete around it, you have to support it as well. >> okay, thank you. all right. >> commissioner tresvenia. >> if you can differ to the city attorney if that's appropriate, the sick

--significance about what you're describing right now about the difficulty of putting in an elevator is the issue that it's impossible or that the ada recognizes that this would be too much of a burden on the property owner and therefore it's not required because it's too much of a burden? >> yeah, it would be the latter. if you really want to spend a lot of money, squeeze in. elevator. >> and that's the legal issue we should be looking at. >> thank you. >> thank you, no further questions. is there any public comment in this item? anybody in the room? anybody on zoom, please raise your hand. i don't see any public comment, so commissioner this matter is submitted. >> all right commissioners i'm not going to go down the line so anybody that wants to start, may start. >> i didn't hear, aside from the fact that we saw a new set

of plans, or a set of plans which add a claim to it, and i don't consider that new information because i believe those issues were discussed and handled earlier, there was no new information from my view. >> i would concur, we saw a different version of understanding what it was. but these are things that were considered by the department previously and we quized the departments about the issues whether around there was actually technical and feasibility, regardless of whether or not we had eliminated.

>> we have heard the testimony and the evidence before, and this time, i just don't see a basis to make any different decisions than we've already made. >> sir, they're in deliberations, mr. van roaden please. >> i concur with my fellow commissioners. so. >> i'll make the motion to deny the request from the hearing as there is -- ~>> there is no new evidence

and manifest. >> thank you very much. on that motion. >> aye. >> vice president. >> aye. >> aye. >> that motion is carries 4-0 and the request is denied. we're moving on to item number 5. 1230goettingen street, of the site permit. new family residential type vv two-story building. this is permit number 2021-09-23-8995. and wale hear from the appellant. >> good evening, i'm kathy i'm a friend of jacqueline, i'm not a neighbor. but i'm very interested in this

case this permit. i want to thank you to the respondent for considering that the idea that small houses on small parcels. however, our appeals stand in this case, it is an ill conceived project covering the entirety of a very tiny slice of property better left to be open space. it's hard to believe that the inspectors have visited the site to properly access the ability of the property which is a left over tag and when the street changed. we feel that the proposed project can serve only one or two people and will not have the advantage of space that an rv, standard rv would have as far as livable open space. we have mentioned that a standard rv will not fit on the property which ranges from 7 feet to 11 feet on the opposite side. the official sidewalk in the

plans and i can show you that. >> overhead, please. >> is that where i put it? >> yeah, it's right there. it's wider than the house proposed. which also proports to have two sets. open space other than the public sidewalk and the street outside, is only another thin sliver a 134-square foot of two-storey supposedly for a family but it's merely a few feet away and they've all complained in nr papers that you have. there is also existing telephone poll na need to be regarded. there is no services to this piece of report.

--property. street trees which i mentioned at first in the first appeal, they may be under window abutments. the respondent also submitted items 1 and 2 that jacqueline has lived on, i want to say that jacqueline has lived on her property for 15 years and has taken on rubage until her property was build. because it's in the bottom of a little dip and everything ends up there. she feels she had a quick claim roit or wrongly that the property since before the present owner bought that piece of property. that was a city sale of a little tiny piece. she says that she refuse today let any builders or contractors on her property. while she was under pressure almost two years ago, which is

part of the package that the, that the respondent wanted, but no carpenter has given her a price. she is 97 years old of two days ago. she has changed her mind and realizes since she has taken care of sliver it's her prerogative not to remove it because of her concerns of her safety. there is no need for her spend to any funds or anymore time on this preponderous project. she is 97 years old and on a fixed income. there is also concerns regarding that section belonging to the family who is here tonight as well. discussion should be they don't want access to the project either.

please note that the other neighbors contribution as reversal of this project has more details became available. in other words, as more details became available they pulled out their support for that project. those are not the code readers or anything like that. by the way my kitchen table that sits three people on one side is 7 feet long not including the chairs but if i include the two chairs it's ten feet, that's how big this place is, this tiny piece of property that the the person who applying for this permit or has received this permit wants to build a two-storey house with a little 130 square piece open space. the house contains the own tire property up to the sidewalk up to any kind of fences in the back property of the people

behind it. that, that standard rv that i was talking about is usually, the one that you see rented all over is 25-feet long, this says accord to go this, 33 feet in the front. so, it within that includes, in that plan, it includes two sets of stairs and room for three garbage cans or recycle bins and is, that standard, rv is about 10 feet wide. 10 to 12-foot wide, it has to accompany going on a city street. this would be, this project would look like two rvs on top of one another with a deck on top. i think that the codes might have all been well in the plans that were submitted but the actual reality of what that project would not only look

like but the affect that it would have on the neighbors and you heard from several neighbors and will again tonight, is immense. the respondent owns property next to it and this this is jacqueline's property right here, they own that. so they can do anything else. through an adu to bring that inspiration as they said that will help battle the housing crisis. am i finished? >> 30 more seconds. >> i'm sorry? >> you have 30 more seconds. >> okay so that the idea that would be inspiration for other tiny homes, this is not the one that will do it. this is not the one that will make it. feasible. especially considering its taking the whole plot. so, i will sit down. >> thank you.

>> i can answer questions if you have any. >> yes, you have a question from vice president. >> so i understand that there was a previous board of appeals hearing on this property in which a vair yept was granted with conditions back in 2021, i was not on the board but we were provided with the decision in that. and ultimately, i think my understanding of it, and please correct me if i'm wrong, is that the previous decision kind of already addressed the whether, the question of whether a structure can be built on this lot or not. so number 1, please tell me if i'm wrong in some way about that. and number 2, what has changed since that last hearing in 2021? what are the words that i'm

trying to say? what has changed since 2021, so that we might have some basis to grant, i mean to grant an appeal on this considering, considering the previous decision? >> okay, what i feel that nobody has looked at the actual size of this, i tried to give you comparisons, but the original one was for 3 stories. then it went down to two. then it was the variance had to do with the amount of open space. and it had to do it was not a design quite honestly how it would work with plumbing on one side and plumbing on the other. as far as i understand was that

the building would take over. so the respondent submitted another plan with this little open space. remember it covers the whole entire lot. and i was there. but it didn't address the concerns of the neighbors or the concerns that i have that this particular tiny house will be a precedence for other tiny houses. . this is a very distinct tiny tiny house. >> commissioner swig. >> i'm going to try to put this in a formal question and maybe you can help me if not i can reserve the comments for later since i was a member that did pass the variance but there was

one dissenting vote, guilty as charged. and did you happen to participate in that hearing? >> yes, i did. >> and i do. >> do you recall me commenting on. the fact that i was stumbling on the issue of where the plumbing was actually going to go? or where the infrastructure was going to go in this house this barely had room for people? to you recall that? >> yes, i do. >> can you elaborate on that for the clarification? >> yes. >> of the commission. >> yes, the plumbing was not quite right to have it two sides of the house.

i think you and the other people did respond the idea, i can't remember who it was that that lot was probably smaller than his tund ra, do you remember that? yeah, we got to do something, that was the feeling that i got from that. and so, the respondent did do a good job of letting the floor go. i don't know, i just don't know. i can't get feeling that pieces of different codes, because i

understand codes, put together makes an actual real house unless you're a builder and know what that is. and in this case, i can be corrected that the respondent is the contractor and the builder. >> thank you. commissioner trasvina. >> i want to thank you for your testimony on behalf of ms. born. thank you affected by this, or are you presenting her sell. >> i'm presenting her case and she is affected by it. i put this other picture because there was a respondent back, appeal back to saying that, she didn't take her fence down or whatever. this is the neighborhood that needs a fence. >> you're not now answering a

question that i didn't ask. and the reason i asked that question is because i'm not sure if the other questions are fair to you if you're not a fair, if you're not there. what i want to know, two things, first is, whether you are saying this violates the code or whether this is just a bad idea of anybody looked at it? >> i think it's a very bad idea. >> okay. >> but the idea of tiny houses on parcels is not a bad idea. >> okay, so thank you saying. >> at this point it is. >> what is unlawful about it? as opposed to you and others can see it as a bad idea. >> i can ask anyone else here who came in in defense of -- ~>> if you don't know it's unlawful about it, that's fine.

i'm not going to infer too much you've told me. as between, unlawful and a bad idea, you've clearly made the case in your view and others, it's a bad idea, that's fine. >> it's a bad idea, unlawful, i think the variances are pretty much absurd but i didn't go for them, the people that were in commissioners seats most of them did. actually there was two people that said no. >> i'm trying to focus here and not take you down a road that i shouldn't. so i have now established that you're speaking for my maybyrne you think it's a bad idea. can you describe in addition to the impact of to mer property. >> no into the other neighbor's

property. >> okay, so what other impact to ms. maythener is there if this is built? >> she is 97, she wonders. >> she is 97 anyway. >> she'll be 97 anyway. >> right. she has a great desire not to see a two-story building with a thing that un compasses her whole back yard because it's a triangular piece of material. she has a feeling that it would affect the plant life in her back yard and so do other people. she feels like like i do, it's not enough open space for anyone because it's fully enclosed lot that is going to be on all sides, sidewalk to people's property and all the back property. it's the whole lot it should

not be like that. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner swig, did you have anything further? okay, thank you you can be seated. no further questions. we will now hear from the permit holder. mr. lea, you have 7 minutes. >> okay. thank you, fellow commissioners at the board here. since the last appeal meeting we had for this project, you know, any changes that former president hand a requested me to change, i had done all of that for him, that's why it got approved last time.

actually no windows facing any of the neighbor's yards, it's all facing the front of the street. those were changed that president honda told me to make last time. so another thing, stays the same. all the departments which were involved in check my plans from dbi, the planning commission even the fire department because this house will have fire sprinklers in it as well. they all have checked the plans, some have actually gone out to the site itself, even though they could not access it because the fence that was right there but they were able to still, you know, they can can still see it from my side of the yard, so we were able to see what was transpired and everything that was going to go with it. so, per the request for from the city as well, you know, i

will be planting two trees, there was a mention for environment for the environment so two trees will be installed on to the sidewalk. there is actually other trees and also planted on the sidewalk as well from dpw friends of urban force. and it was from their comments that tiffs at the two trees as well in front of the property. for the environment. the home itself, it's really structural strong, there will be actually some steel beams in there to make it very strong supporter for anyone living there and pretty much, it's about 625 square feet give or take around there. i mean, if you consider some high-rises that are being built which has like, studios, one bedroom apartments they're slightly smaller, this tiny home is still bigger than some of those.

but some of those buildings, if you want to rent them it's quite expensive as it is. i know she was concerned about the safety of removing her fence. i'm not asking her to remove her fence but only to move it within her property line. that's also mentioned in the last appeal that we can discuss this. that we don't necessarily have her cover 100 percent. i was willing to help out as well at the time, when i said it at the last meeting. and if you look at the exhibits that yes, her representative said no, that she said she would move her fence at the time, even if she had moved her fence, i would still erect another temporary privacy fence, you know just to make sure that everything is safe for her and for other members of the community.

and and like, her representative kathy had said, my hope was to hopefully, battle the housing crisis that we have here in san francisco. you know, i know, we have a we have a lost land and this possible to build smaller size homes to bring back the middle class because a lot of them have been, you know, moving out because they've been pushed out because of the high rents, that is being proposed. and i just want to give back to the community. i mean i've been fortunate myself, i also work for the city and i consider myself fortunate i want to give that back to the community and hopefully bring back and boost the economy and bring back the city to what it once was and could be again. >> okay, thank you, are you finished?

>> yeah, you still have 2 minutes and 40 seconds. >> i mean, i forgot i needed to show you, the exhibits which i believe you already have on in front of you. so this was ms. mathers first let tore me, after that appeal meeting, she said that she would try to find somebody to get the estimate for the work and everything like that. so i had to assumed that everything was going to go forward and everything. and then, she had sent exhibit 2 here, to to tell us that she needed more time, so i respected her decision to give her more time, i was not pressuring her, i was not forcing her to do anything. i gave her ample time since this appeal in 2022, it's now

already 2024 and you know, she filed this appeal here, that's where we're at right now at the moment. one of the architects is here too so if you have any questions for him he can give you more details on the plan as well as the architecture design of it. >> thank you, are you finished? >> yes. >> okay, i don't see any questions at this time. so you can be seated. thank you. we'll now hear from the planning department. >> good evening, vice president lemberg. 1, 2, 3, 0, is a substandard

size parcel in the rh1 district and heighten bog treatment. straement it's to instruct a single story 625 feet in size. the new dwelling will contain one bedroom and one and a half bath. 100 squa*ir feet of space will be on the roof. the appellant is jacqueline a neighbor at the rear. jacqueline's concern is that the lot is too small and the new development will be too disruptive for the neighborhood. by way of background in 2021, a variance for rear yard and open space was granted by the zoning administrator and later appealed to the board of appeals. the appellant for the variance was jacqueline.

her issues today for the permit are the same issues. she had for the variance. at the august 18th 2021 variance appeal hearing, the board granted the appeal and issued the variance on the condition that the design of the dwelling be revised. the board requested the new building be scaled down which included the removal of third floor and the stair penthouse. the board also requested a three-foot setback for the roof deck. both president perez were present of the hearing. when a walk you through some graphic to help better illustrate the project.

>> although it's extremely small approximately 300 feet in size it's a lel lot in record. and the appellant's property is in read.

it shows the outline. there are other dwellings on the other side of the street. here is a street view and an area photo on the bottom of the subject property. this is looking directly on the street and you can see the appellant's property at the back and i believe from looking at the photo her building is three stories. another area photograph, showing the subject property, and the appellant seize property here.

here is the proposed. notice that it's two stories in height and there are no windows on any of the three elevations, this is the back this is the side where you come in. and this is the south elevation. given the proposed design is consistent design approved bit board. we act that the board deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. that concludes my report i'm happy to answer any questions.

>> we have questions from mr. tras vina. >> what is the nature of property of what you a described as the appellant's building and the permit holders, proposed building? is there seems to be a gap and i'm trying to figure out what that is. this is the to help explain the subject property which is shown in blue. >> right. >> and then the appellant seize property shown in red, you see the footprint of the building

on boweding wild and koennington, you can see it's fairly small. on wild and koegington. right these are buildings. the property. >> correct. >> oddly shaped area, correct. >> thank you. >> this is the first time i've seen the photograph but the appellant brought up the photograph shows

>> this is a zero lot line and the windows are only on the side of the building, the door is setback three feet and that allows for the trash can storage as well. it's a small lot, so not much you can do.

>> thank you, i don't see any questions. is there anything that would like to provide public comment. after you're done speaking, if you can fill out a speaker card and give it to alec, thank you. >> computer please. >> good evening, commissioners thank you for the time in hearing this matter. is the lot that you are just asking about. so there is four of us here. it's my mother's birthday and we're here. we're opposed to the construction.

i'll highlight what is important, privacy and health issues especially health issues as it comes to construction dust and debris. this is not where the dust is going to contain inside the existing building. so we're highly concerned. actually in 2021, during the pandemic my mom was in the icu for more than a week and she has health conditions. why is which we heard the first meeting. but we attended a all the consequent meetings. so i'm going to show you what the street look lubesing. this is the lot in question, so they have 30 feet of this, 20 foot is part of our property which is her yard right now.

so this is ms. mathen house, this is our house. this is an office here. this is a bedroom, this is another bedroom and this is a bathroom. so, where they build a home here, two-story home here, even though there is no window, the roof top garden that they're going to use as open space is going to look into all of our bedroom and existing bathrooms. again, very strong privacy concerns for us. and in terms of construction dust, very concerned, we live in a very high wind area we're on top of a hill. so besides us, there is actually a childcare center here that is this blue house here, this is a childcare center within 500 feet. about 390. >> 30 seconds.

>> and on this block, there is a group home, within 500 feet. so we're very concerns about construction noise and dust. and i don't believe they have a dust control planned approved bit department of health as part of their building permit. thank you. >> okay, thank you is there any further comment in the room? anyone in the room wants to provide public comment? okay, and i do see a hand on zoom, stefan, please go ahead. you need to unmute yourself, stefan? >> i just wanted to say that i support this construction home project. i the department of building inspection, they're very professional and they've done their job properly.

so i just, i guess i feel the person that is trying to appeal is, they don't even know what a construction project entails. this does not impose all the time. jonas i see your hand raised? you need to unmute yourself?

it's surrounding, it feels neglected, so if somebody wants to build a new home, i'm for it. and secondly, i don't want to talk about homelessness because i don't think it's one tiny home will fix that, but i want to talk about how it can affect individuals, i have colleagues that have moved into the city for work and they moved into old neighbors, just the greater bay view hunters point.

please go ahead. >> thank you for allowing me to speak. i'm perry i'm born and raised in san francisco but i don't live there presently but i do have thoughts about this project. i'm for the project. you know, i just think about the housing crisis and i just read an article that san francisco by the state required to build some 10,000 new units per year in the last five years, total were added. any sort of buildings and this meeting code, it meets all the requirements and things. i don't see why this can't be moved forward. because, we really need more in this area and san francisco in particular. it does model for other

construction things fantastic. i traveled around the, i see people in different places. my wife and i when we first came back to the u.s., we lived in a apartment, it was about 600 or 700 square feet and it was fine. it was great. concerns of 625, it's definitely livable. and again as we can bring more house to go of sf, i'm for it, thank you. >> thank you, we will now hear from justin i, please go ahead, justin i. you need to unmute yourself. we can't hear you. >> can you hear me now? >> yes. so arguments still uphold the decision, or it's very strong, it's in my opinion that the permit holder should be able to

continue based on all the apartments that played a part in this approval process. i don't think it's unlawful because this was approved in accordance for safety and the holder just has concerns from the commission previously and he has good intentions for this project. and it's, the previous new caller who are also in favor because it helps combat in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you, we will now hear from kyja clark, please go ahead. you need to unmute yourself. >> speaker: i just unmuted myself. thank you, i own the house across the street from this development and as a, person who has done a lot of constructions, this is extremely small. i agree with, the comment that it was it's even smaller than

an rv and consideration so much of the property a cots street on the towards brussles, has extremely deep lots and has plenty of land to build something on this on, i understand that this is an available lot. and because of that, they can build on it but i do not think it's a good idea for the neighborhood or for anyone around because it's just too small to actually live in it comfortably. thank you. >> thank you, we'll now hear from jan, please go ahead. jan, you need to unmute yourself. we still can't hear you. >> okay, got it. >> we can hear you. >> i'm a neighbor i live down the block just past the corner. i'm a little dubious about

people that are not from the neighborhood and don't know how to pronounce goengen as the streets boarding the zone. this is a teeny tiny property, it's the size of a bed and a toilet, there is no way to sugar coat and make it into something more attractive, of course we need more housing but housing on on a site like this this is better for a community garden or a playground or something that the community can use rather than trying to get rich of a tiny piece, it's putting lipstick on a pig no offense to the pig toxer put a two-storey on this property. it's making dust and a nuisance and what not, can and i'm a black away so it's not going to

kill me but it's an insult to the people that live right on top of it and tracked from their property values of course. it is inconceivable that somebody would like to live in this. and i have lived in small places, i have lived in a trailer in the past. so this is just, beyond the notion of being comfortable. it is, it is kind of a rip off on the community of because it was thought of as a unneeded piece of property. honestly, we didn't realize that this permission had been

granted previously, we thought it had been denied so we were only actually learning in this hearing an outrage that this project could go forward because it would be bad for the community and bad for san francisco. we need housing, there is no doubt about that. but we need housing that is properly built and designed and not like a cop job stuck in the driveway. this is essentially the size of a parking space. so, i'm not going to be labor the point, i hope that you guys reconsider allowing a project like this to go forward. thank you very much. >> okay, thank you. we will now hear fromal please go ahead. >> hello members of the board, my name isal, i would like to fully support this project as the responder to the appeal, currently facing a current crisis. for me, i can i believe that having more housing it had help

the shortage and lower the cost, san francisco is very very expensive to live in. by having this single family home. preferable since the rent will not be as high. especially when they want to come to san francisco. if there is no public comment, please raises your hand. for those that have said i don't have construction knowledge, i've been a contractor wife for 55 years.

i know building and what works and what doesn't work. and i also have questions about where is the exhaust going to go. i know the respondent wanted to have something before the family and open space on the second floor that bedrooms on the second floor, with tiny little stairway, does not work necessarily for a family a teacher says that you need 136 square feet per child. in a school setting, that's a school setting, but that again shows you how much there is no room in there, i'm sorry, it was a mistake to put it as a buildable lot, that piece. but that was years and years ago. sorry. people that are talking now, i actually have family members

who lives across the street as well. so it's not that i'm totally not aware. i know goengen and wild leaf for probably 40 years. what else can i say, it's ill conceived at this particular lot and i do not, i'm not against tiny housing. and sorry. yeah. >> that's fine, are you finished? >> unless there is any other questions to ask. >> i don't see any other questions at this time. thank you. >> okay. >> okay, we'll now hear from the permit holder? >> architect wanted to. >> okay, that's fine. >> if you can introduce yourself for the record. >> sorry. >> dock mock, i represent the architects on the this project and we understand this is a challenging lot.

and the project size is actually 625 square footage of habitable space and that's actually, not that small and quite a few people live in spaces smaller than that in san francisco. and i would like to respond to the applicants about the sewer, we will be only using one sewer and that will be taken care of while we work with the public works department. and same as the trees that were raced in their concerns and regarding the privacy. we just as i said before. there are no windows on the three size of the property, the only windows that we have on the building are street facing ones. and and so much, much of the

points raised today, it's, it's repetition of what we have covered previously and variance hearing. so we would like to for you to continue the support, my client's project. thank you. >> thank you, we do have a question from commissioner trasvina. >> thank you, for your testimony. have you or the permit holder had a chance to talk to your neighbors about the dust concerns? we have not moved forward with the document and the plan on the site on the dust control. >> do you intend to talk to your, now that you heard people here have legitimate concerns about dust, talk about their their individual health or age

issues, do you plan to talk to them about and incorporate with them on their dust concerns? >> yes, asked the project moves forward we will be addressing that as well. >> with them? >> yeah. >> thank you. >> okay, thank you. okay. just planning department have anything further? no? okay. i have a question for planning. >> i have a question for planning. >> okay. so i descended on the last variance, i left that part out. i believe that my decent was out of character with the neighborhood. as we look around that, and i stick to that, and and i stick

to that position to today. as you look around the neighborhood thank you to the tour of the neighborhood, that was very interesting. and the we saw the overheads, we saw the street views. this proposed building, bares no relationship to anything else in the neighborhood so that still resonates with me. can you please tell us if a building like this is clearly not has nothing to do with the rest of the neighborhood, why is what is that, how do you raise the priority or raise the

exception that a building is should not be built because it does not resident nature with the arte in any way shape or form with the rest of the neighborhood? why is that good planning? and where does that come into play? and in the variance, this is why this variance should never have been granted in the first place because it bears nothing in the neighborhood. so i'm still hung up sorry for the chip on my shoulder but it's a fact, you can see it. tell us about that. enlighten us why this building should be built when it appears no relationship to the rest of the neighborhood? >> thank you very much, tina for the planning department. the zoning administrative core was team was present at the variance appeal hearing back in 221, i believe he did answer that exact question that you asked about compatibility and i believe his answer was it is

compatible with the neighborhood character in terms of its use, it being a single family dwelling in a neighborhood that is zoned for single family dwelling. the size previously was approved for a three-story building because we do three-storey buildings in the neighborhood. but it was ultimately revised to a two-story design which makes it even more compatible with a lot of other two-storey buildings in the neighborhood. the size of the building, it's much smaller than most of the other houses, so there are we did not feel that the impact would be there because it's smaller and the height of the building is in par with the other two-storey buildings in the neighborhood. and it fills in a gap along the street where there is other houses that are built right on the front. >> could this be, this is a

substandard lot i think you said that. all right. why is this p a substandard building or in my view, appropriate to contribute to a neighborhood of this caliber or or of this make up? substandard lot substandard building is 625 square feet. why does this fit in the neighborhood? why should it be built? other than the fact that it, it fits all the bells and whistles. we had initially secured a building that was 906 feet, but we respect the decision to

remove the third story. we didn't create the law, the law was created from the beginning when the block was sub divided however, long ago that was. it is owned by a person who has interest in developing it. and that's what we're reviewing. >> i don't think you answered my question. which was, but you gave me further comment to make and supplement the question. the planning department supported 900 square foot building. the board of appeals cut off 300 feet of that. does which makes it again, even more challenging. does the planning department, why does the planning support support 625 square foot building when, when your tone

and delivery imply, we may not like it so much as 600, so -- ~>> that's not what i said. that i didn't like 600. >> i understand. >> we're fine with either 600, whether it's 1 bedroom or 2 bedroom it's a dwelling unit it's compatible with dwelling units in the neighborhood. there are other dwelling units throughout the city that are just as small. it's not smaller than the size, i'm not entirely clear as to --how to answer that question other than it is because of the size of the lot and whack do with the lot based on the variance outcome back in 2021. >> so let's go back to the original question when is a

building, let's take, just generically, when is a building on a substandard lot, which by necessity is smaller by probably 3 to 400 percent of any other building in the neighborhood, what makes it compatible, or i'm trying to think of the wordings in item, i think it's item number 5 or item number 6 in the variance requirements. which which makes it not out of, i wish i could come up with a words because, if you recall

what the, what the 6, the last one on the variance. >> the five findings. 3053, do we have wordings on that. >> brad you know this. >> deputy, the 5th finding is the will not adversely affect the general plan. >> okay, what is the one that out of synch of the neighborhood. >> the fourth one is about the variance will not materially will not be materially did you triment al to the public welfare. is that the one you're thinking. >> no out of the character of the neighborhood one, is there not one that says out of the character of the neighborhood? i thought that was number 5. >> no. >> all right, when is something

out of character in the neighborhood is any general. >> if your question is when is something too small, there is not provisioning in the planning code about being a certain size. i know there is something in the building code about dueling and habitation and if it's too small, you cannot call it living space. and we don't have one. and i believe it's mr. kevin, can come up and answer that. it's, it's quite small. much smaller than what is being proposed for this project. >> okay, thanks. >> we have a question from commissioner eppler. >> are there accessory dwelling units built in this? >> um, i would assume so, quite possibly i did not do that

research. have whether it's legal or illegal or not, we do have a local and a state program for adus and we do find those throughout the entire city. >> and what is the arrange size would you say about an adu, it ranges it depends on the poverty itself. i've seen folks put in adus in garage space or it's only a studio, one room. >> so 300 square feet. 200 square feet? >> possibly, whatever the minimum. >> and run the gamut. >> whatever the minimum requirement is for the building code. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you, no further questions. and i'll hear from dbi. do you have a question commissioner? >> yeah, sure. >> i'm not trying to build a case, i'm trying to get educated.

i think also the dialogue, he had nothing to say. so i'm trying to recall, i'm sorry i didn't watch again myself on tv. from the last hearing, but i believe my concerns related to not only that you have a 300 square foot platform to build on, but by the time that you build the infrastructure, with appropriate four by sixes or whatever the requirement is, building something, by the time you put in an infrastructure which might include a water heater, so you have hot water in the morning or in the dishwasher by the time you put in the tiniest of dishwashers and the tiniest of everything.

there is not a lost room left in a 300 square foot max space. and, and i think the conversation went, yes you can do it. and it might be so small that you would have to step outside to change your mind but you can do it. and and could you put a bed in the bedroom with a ?iet stand yes you can do it. and thank you put in efficiency bathroom to shower, you may not have a room for tub but you can put in a shower. but just because you can do it, it's not a good idea was the question. and two, when is what is too small? when is too small too small?

commissioner eppler was pointing out. is i live in the marina i see garages converting into adus, when is too small too snarl? especially in a free standing family residents? i don't know how family fits in there, i don't know how two people fit in there. when is too small too small. >> the only thing in the housing code as far as bedroom, i believe it's 80 square feet which is pretty small. yeah. >> and the ceiling height is 7 foot 6, so the actual jayer footage of kitchen or bathroom are not in the building code just the bedroom. >> sol size does not matter. you can make it as small as small can be as long as it passes all the bells and

whistles. >> a lot of these, you can have the nz to hot outside a small unit that supplies radiant hot as well as hot water, you have ten-inch dishwasher, it's a small space but it can be done. >> that's the response i got last time. that works, thank you very much. >> thank you. i don't see any further questions. commissioner somewhaters submitted. and i see somebody on zoom raising their hand but we're not taking any further comment from the public on this matter. this matter is submitted. >> commissioner epler, it looks like you want to start. >> i was not on the commission, i think the variance discussion was probably an interesting one and probably one that was well debated and that was, would have been, would have been, you know, a good conversation to be

part of. however this is not a rehearing event. it's an appeal on a particular permit. and in respect, i don't see any grounds to grant the appeal. and so, not to jump the gun but i'll go ahead and move to deny the appeal. on the basis that the appeal was issued. >> commissioner vastras vina. >> i concur with commissioner eppler. i appreciate the everybody's who has come out both on the phone and in-person. spending your mother's birthday, and haour here. and ms. matherin you have a great advocate. these are all important discussions to be had among the neighbors in the community to

talk about neighborhood character to talk about dust plan to talk about, is this really what we want to have here? are you really doing this to promote the house ining san francisco. another way to give back in san francisco is to do something else and make your neighbors happy. my first inclination, but we heard two things. one is, we heard, we've heard from nobody that there is any legal flaw with this, if there is any violation of any codes. people have reviews on it, but not that there is any legal flaws. second is, this board seems to have heard all of this before and came to a decision then, and i believe that that property owners, the public should be able to rely what a previous board has said. i understand it, the permit holder that's done everything consistent with what this board asked to do.

so i find ab absence of reasons to upset the previous termination and i would deny the appeal. >> president lemberg. >> i concur with the outcome on this but that's not to say, i didn't hear a lot of really useful and interesting other information tonight. from the appellant and the public commenters that i think is very valuable. number one, i do think, had i been in this body in 2021 i may have come out different in the variance hearing. but as commissioner epler that is not what we're deciding tonight. and as a result of it not being the decision, not being what we're deciding tonight, i cannot render a decision. i also somewhat question the wisdom of this project overall but, again that's not what we're here deciding.

and and also at the same time, i very loudly and clearly heard ms. methen and her representative and the neighbors add, and you know, i feel like, the neighbors presented some very legitimate concerns regarding safety, regarding dust mitigation and noise and all of these things that several people here spoke to and i hope that the, the permit holder takes those, takes those things to heart because it does sound like you have quite a few neighbors who are relatively, you know unhappy with several parts of the project. ultimately though, i think what what the appellant is asking for is no project be permitted to move forward. and that one i have a harder time with. ultimately the permit holders purchased this property or obtained it some other way and our entitled to build on it if

it meets the code and we heard extensively that it does meet all the laws and codes and i have not heard any evidence to the contrary on that point. and ultimately, i don't think it's wise to you know, to prevent this project from moving forward. nor is there any illegal basis to do so but i do hope that that the permit holder that's heard the concerns of the neighbors and that's, that they will take those things into account when moving forward with this project. mission commissioner swig. >> thank you very much. as the one of two descenders, that would be me. i obviously didn't think the variance was a good idea because we were trying to put a, i think we were putting

around around tube ncaa square which fits but it does not fit well. and i really don't think the project is, the greatest project i've ever seen. and but, that's my opinion. it has nothing to do with a for mention whether this complies. it complies. and just because my taste is on my question. it does not mean that it shouldn't go forward because it does comply and follow with the laws. and therefore there is really no basis that i can put forth to stand in the way and i find reason to approve the appeal, as far as i really don't like the project but again i don't like a lot of things. so i will support a motion to

deny the appeal. >> commissioner trasvina. >> i want to add briefly that yes it complies but these rules and ordinances are written by people in this building. sxl this clear dissatisfaction among many members of the public and the community probably exist elsewhere, those other people in the building need to hear you, we're here to deal with the compliance, the other issues are very very valid and you need to be heard elsewhere. >> okay, thank you so we have a motion from commissioner to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that is it's properly issued. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> commissioner swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries 4-0 and the appeal is denied. thank you. >> let's take a five-minute break before we get started.

a quick biobreak, thank you to everybody in the room who has been very patience, i appreciate you. >> thank you. >> permit number 20240124 and we will hear from the appellant first. mr. art, welcome, you have 7 minutes. >> gaotd evening, thank you for

hearing mia pael. this appeal is concerning a deck that has already been built and in use for a few years. so this appeal is concerning real life experience wz an existing structure rather than, planned. so, we're asking that the board approve the permit with two conditions and one additional inspection. the two we're asking for a privacy screen and we're asking for items that were not in the original plans be removed. after a few unsesful attempt to reach common ground with the permit holders, my wife and i hired a professional mediator to facilitate discussions but we were not able to come up

with agreement. that's why we're here today. this shows the properties that you see on the left is the deck and facing south is our properties, the, you know and the bedroom just above the deck. so we're asking for a proof see screen on that side of the deck that is facing our property. so there will be no eliminations bit permit holders. we'll offer to pay for it, we've asked for a solid wooden screen floor of the deck just below the eves of the building and this will provide both visual and auditory privacy. it's the daily office space of one of the permit holders, he's

out there everyday, conducting business, taking phone calls, participating in lively virtual online meetings. the second condition we're asking is the removal of objects that were not part of the plans this includes 8-foot poles that was added to the east of the deck. it's facilitated. they use the post of a flag pole and it was flying the eves and it was visual nuisance, it was waving in front of our windows, snapping in the wind, in the middle of the night and that banner since been removed but the post is still there and the post supports wiring for

additional lights which were also above the eves. these lights have been there and the perm nature holder has indicated that they're going to be there perm naturely. and put those up on the screen. >> we paused your time. this sliding is obvious nuisance it shines into our bedroom windows. so that's in contrast, this is the primarily lighting. so this is the primary lighting.

this was installed when the deck was built, the upper left, and it, more than adequately provides lighting for the entire deck and more importantly, it shields against lighting pollution by focusing on the light downward rather than horizontally through our bedroom window. and, and her in her brief, the permit holder references personal actions, she said i don't try to make much noise or try not to shine the lights often. where in my document i was focused on the structure itself and the aspects of the structure, people come and go, they can sell their house tomorrow, they're not going to take the deck with them and

examine new people will move in and they'll have their own actions. i'm asking the board to diminish any consideration into personal behaviors of structure itself and what the structure how it's configured and what what its potential is, both positive and negative for if not only for us but for all the people who will occupy these properties. the ones in the future. and lastly, i ask for an additional inspection. the electrical wiring was done without a permit so that's a safety issue. and we have two, they have two inspections in the pipeline, one is for safety structural inspection, special inspection and the other one is for final inspection. if we can add electrical wiring

inspection, that would be fantastic. thank you. >> okay, thank you, i don't see any questions at this time. so we will now hear from the permit holders. frankly i'm not sure why we're here tonight. as you can see from our reply to the appeal, i'm a lawyer but i'm not this kind of lawyer. and it seems that we have the permit is to ensure the structure integrity of the deck. this deck was bment with a permit that was issued by the

city and county of san francisco. there were a handful of inspections at the time of the initial construction and unfortunately, we had to a bad contractor who didn't finish the final construction. and mr. art, decided to complain that there was not a final inspection. despite the fact that he would have complained in 2017. we shielded the lights, so they don't shine up into their windows. we don't use the deck everyday, as everybody knows it's raining right now and foggy during the day. and my husband does like to sit outside but he does not like to sit outside in the rain. while he does use the deck for

some work meetings, we've explained to mr. art and his wife that my husband suffers from pretty significant hearing deficits, but his voice is loud but that's a disability and we try to understand their complaints and try to mitigate the harm. we also don't use the lights that they're complaining of maybe one or twice a year. they are permanent, in a sense that we put them up, they plug into the wall, there was an inspection because there was a exact complaint that was made by mr. art to the city in 2020. so our question to this board is our deck legally built?

other than structural usele. and we don't feel that it's appropriate for this board to take any action other than to allow with fiktsing the problems that we already started to fix by getting a renewed permit and hiring a contractor which we've already done and have taken to costs to us and now we have, a contractor sitting and waiting for us to start this work because, the permit has been suspended because of this appeal. and that's all i have. >> thank you very much, we do have a question for vice president lemberg. >> thank you, and i'll ask this of the appellant, when was that installed? it sounds like it was not installed when the deck was originally built, is that correct? >> the screen? the shields on the light? >> the, the wood screening that

is between his bedroom window and your deck. >> there is a screen that is made out of lattice, there is a photograph do you want me to present it. i was not sure if you had that in front of you. i apologize, i printed these in black and white. so if you can see this, at the top, is bottom of their bedroom right there. there is a planter box where we have planted a very fast growing, we tried a couple of different plants to make a screen. we've now, gone to a passion flower and grows very densely we have another one in our back

yard and we put in the lattice so we don't see under their house and they cannot see us on the deck. >> so, seeing this photo which looks like different from the photograph that i'll ask the appellant about in rebuttal. it looks like this is below the appellant window, is that wok. it's hard to tell from this window. >> yes, lattice is the plant, if you see in this photo here. you can see their window is quite a bit higher than the top of that plant screen that we're trying to develop. we cannot see into their bedroom, the only time we can see anything in their bedroom is when they're standing at the window. so we cannot see anything but the ceiling. and when we have these lights,

you can see we added the shields to the light so that the light is now focused downward on the deck. and we use those lights occasionally. and all the lights are shielded downwards. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. i don't see any further questions. we'll now hear from the planning department. >> thank you, tina tam from the planning department. 347 held street is a single story in the district. the scope is to obtain final inspection for work previously

approved under permit 2017.08.08.422. the 2017 permit was filed on august 25th 2017 and lacked the final inspection thus the permit expired. it was to construct a new deck at the rear of the property. the 2024 permit, is for the applicant to seek final inspection and complete the process for the right deck. the appellant is kristen art, the adjacent to the south of 349 house. he's concerned that the already constructed deck has created privacy and noise impact. no permits at the lights for the rear. overhead please.

the property is shown in blue and the appellant property in red. below is an area photo and you can almost make out the location of the new deck. in relation ship to the appellants property. here is a partial site plan of the subject property and design and location of the new deck. it measures about 14 feet wide and 7 feet in depth in its place, generally at the center of the lot with a five-foot setback to the north and a six-foot setback to the north which is closest to the appellant seize property. and as you can see, there is a

setback on the property which results in a setback to building to deck. the deck is minimum in five, there is no one in 8-feet in height and design guidelines, it was approved over-the-counter back in 2017 and the department request that the board deny this appeal on the basis that the permit was issued properly. that concludes my report, happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, we have questions from commissioner swig and lemberg. >> so so i learned about 7 years ago, or 7 or 8 years ago early in my team that contractors do stuff like they don't file for the finalized permit.

and many of our issues have been subject to that negligence. but can you have any question or maybe mr. berghi think ha*m does how often does a contractor who has completed a job who is done going back to the site, how often do contractors forget to close those permits on behalf of their clients? is it really really irregular event or is it something that happens fairly often? what characterize that, can you? >> i'm not sure i can. this permit actually didn't come to planning when it came back to for final inspection i'm just providing you with the background but i'm certain that mr. birmingham can answer that. >> i'll ask him, just to

characterize that this happens. i've always wanted know, does it happen 5 or 10 percent of the time? or what is it? that's all? thank you. >> i'm hoping you can enlighten me as to the process that allows the appellants to come before us. and you said it's up to now, as far as everything you know pending the final inspection, there is no violations of anything? >> thank you for that question, i believe there was a notice of violation of violation for the property, it was not something that the planning department issued, sighting that the 2017 permit lacked the final

inspection therefore, was not at a complete permit which i believe triggered the filing of 2024 permit. >> but, okay, so as to substancetive problems.

and if that finds violations of code that can be addressed. >> correct. >> okay, thank you. >> just for the shake of thoroughness, the post in the corner, would that have been approved by planning when this first came through? >> i'm not aware of an 8-foot post as part of the plans. it's not been noted in the 2017 permit. and it's been marked to our attention, the planning department's attention that there is something built or constructed that it did not complied. it sounds like it's been taken down. >> we'll have to confirm that with the parties.

okay, and similar question with the lighting, i don't know that would even come into play in the planning department's view but just confirming what i said to be true. okay, thank you. >> thank you, no further questions. we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> speaker: fwaod evening, kimberly from building department. once this permit is approved, we will go out and perform a final inspection if we see any code violations at the time, we'll issue a correction of order. if they see any electrical work that was done without permit, we'll have an electrician look at it. under the complaint, the electrical inspect or did go out and note that it was electrical lighting therefore it's not covered under the

codetioner it's a moot point really. as far as the post, if we go out, we will ask them to cut them down. because they were not on the approved setting. >> okay, thank you we have a question from commissioner swig. >> going back to my learning curve. how often is it irregular or regular or not at all that contractors miss the final step? >> on a project like this, it's very rare. because the final payment is tied to the final sign off, you don't get your check on a signage. on a small job like this, it's like 5%. this is an anomaly. >> can we characterize this as a contractor didn't complete their job? >> yeah.

>> of the client saw well i got my deck, i didn't know anything about a final issue. >> you should have tied it to the final payment. >> yeah, and so, so what you may, what you may or may not go out and find is a perfectly complete deck all status quo according to but it's just that one >> yeah. >> what we're talking about here is somebody did not do a final step and didn't get caught. >> there is an inspection history that there were inspections and everything is visible, all the frame is visible. so it will be a simple inspection. >> all right. and this wasn't, this went it it was over-the-counter, there was no appeal. >> there was plans for it. >> huff? >> there was plans for it. >> there was plans and it went over-the-counter and there was

no appeal and had there been an appeal that would have been the plan that the next door neighbor would have said, i want a privacy shield at which point it would have been up for discussion but it wasn't. thanks. >> no further questions. >> so we do think the permit was properly issued, thank you. >> thank you, we're going to move on to public comment. is there anyone in the room that wants to provide that wants to provide public comment? is there anyone on zoom, i don't see any public comment. so we are going to move on to the rebuttal. mr. art, you have three minutes. >> thank you, so regarding the question as to why we didn't appeal when the deck was originally built in 2017 is because we did not get a 311 notification at our house. also, no 311 notification was posted on the property so by

the time we found out, the 311 notification period had passed. regarding the electrical wiring, the gentleman from bdi mentioned that somebody came out and looked at it. so he was looking at the temporary lighting, the secondary additional and he determined that it it can plug into the electrical outlet. what he failed to realize is electrical outlet was installed without a permit. it's a safety issue. there was no permit. if there is, let's see it but there is no permit for the electrical. regarding the planter, we hired

a professional licensed horticulturalist, she said it's not going to work. that the what because of the depth of the soil she said, that's not going to be adequate and regarding the shields on top of the lights, if you put shields on top of the lights it's going keep the light from going up but the bulb, it's not going to prevent horizontal light pollution. thank you. >> thank you, we do have a question from vice president lem bellinger. --lemberg. >> i did want to ask about the privacy screen and i guess what that looks like from your perspective because the photo that you presented is actually quite different from the photo that they presented and, maybe can you put up that photo that you showed earlier again. >> sure. >> that showed the privacy screen or whatever you want to call it.

lattice. >> i didn't show this earlier but this is a different view. >> where is that taken from? >> my yard. >> so that's not your bedroom? >> no. right, from the standing in my yard. >> okay, and when was that lattice put up?

>> um, couple of years ago. >> o so it was not when the deck was first built is that accurate? >> right, it was not there. >> it was added afterwards. and was that as a result of a conversation, between you and your neighbors? how did that come? >> no they did that on their own. >> okay, was it something that you walked about with them? >> no, we had talked about a trelis but we didn't talk about lattice work. >> to my ear, those sound the same, can you elaborate. >> trelis as he had constructed it was wires. >> but this is wood instead. >> yes. >> all right, and i mean, what

i'm seeing is that your neighbors have responded to some of your complaints which is that they've you know, they've addressed the vertical lighting. one of those photos was fairly alarming but it sounds like they took some corrective actions to do that with the vertical covering, sorry i'm not sure the lingo. >> right, they took corrective action but the action was to put a top on the light. so that you know, it doesn't, the light does not project upwards. but the lights projecting horizontal, yes they took action but it was not affective. >> what other action can they take? other than removing all of it? >> well are the lights really necessary? >> that's not my decision to make, but okay. so what if anything would solve

these problems for you? apart from you, you did state this clearly at the beginning of your testimony which i appreciate, but the post revert reheard from dbi is subject to an inspection anyway. and the lighting it sounds like the neighbors took corrective action, what else is there to would make the situation better for you. >> rment 8-foot post. >> apart from which i think dbi will address when the final inspection comes out. >> i guess, take a wait and see attitude on what they've planted. the horticulturalist said it's not going to work because of the depth of the soil.

there is nothing else that we can do we're doing it now. >> okay, thank you. >> thanks. >> thank you, i don't see any further questions. so we will hear from the permit holders. nothing further? okay. and planning department? >> tina tam for the planning department. just a point of clarification for appellant the deck is located within the buildable area, so section 31 neighborhood notification is not required for the project. >> thank you. anything further from dbi? no, okay, so commissioners--do you have a question for dbi? okay.

>> we heard from the appellant that he was concerned that there was a the electrical service was may never have been permitted, would you suggest that he visit you after the hearing and call that to your attention so that would be part of the inspection? >> i will definitely look at it when i go out there. >> you may want to think about leave thating post is it going to train a vine on it cutting down the post with staff to hanker the wires but that's a present choice. >> that's for you all to recommend when you do your inspection but i just wanted to make it clear to the appellant to visit with you and calling that to your attention and he will become part of the investigation. thank you very much. >> all right. >> thank you. so commissioners this matter is submitted.

commissioner swig you interested in starting. >> i think this is a matter of circumstance. you know, a mistake was made and there was not a final permit, we heard this before. at least i heard it before. it was a mistake and any concerns of the the appellant, i believe will be covered in the follow-up inspection on what is the new permit. so i would move to end and there are as i just pointed out, there are processes in place. so now, now the appellant has the opportunity of going to dbi and requesting that attention be paid on certain things. so i would deny the appeal on the basis of the that the

permit was properly issued. >> commissioner epler. >> i would concur with the outcome, this is one of the circumstances where we have neighbors that will have to live with one another and clearly that's an strained place right now and there is nothing that we can do to move that along. i would gently suggest to the permit holders how you can increase the screening that may buy a little goodwill and happiness in the future. but with respect to the permit, i think the final inspection will address several of the appellant seize issues. --appellant's issues. >> commissioner travino, i concur with my colleagues sweshl commissioner swig with the permitting process and inspection will help bring this to closure and i would deny the

appeal. >> i too will deny the issue. the whole point was to get a final inspection which would have resulted in that anyway. i concur with what commissioner epler said that you may want to consider a raising the lattice screen, not out of necessity but just out of an interest in resolving some neighborly dispute, i don't know if that will will work but it's not for me to say. i do concur with his reasoning behind that, and i don't think there is a basis to grant this appeal so i'm in support of the motion that did you bring that? >> yes. >> yes. so we have a motion from commissioner swig that deny the appeal. on that motion, >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. commissioner epler. >> aye. >> so motion carries 4-0 and the appeal is denied. thank you so we are moving on to item number 7, pamela find versus the department of building inspection subject property 681 avenue. appellant issuance to jenny chen of a permit to erect a story ceramic studio basement consisting of greenhouse ceramic studio. and we will hear from ms. fine first, you have 7 minutes. >> speaker: aom not quite. >> no problem, we will not start in your time.

>> my name is pamela fine and i live directly next to the permit holder.

what we're looking here is a panorama of the affected area on the block. on this block, we're con posed of single family homes and we enjoy 120 deep lots leading to a lot of greenery and this is really a hidden gem in the inner richmond. and, next? how do i advance? i'm sorry. down, okay. what we're looking at now is, the permitted artist studio project. the red rectangle reps the entire project, the walkway from the house, to the studio, the studio and then awning projecting out. this takes up half of the 72 foot depth of the back yard space. and i want to remind you that

this is an accessory structure and the definition of accessory structure that is that it is limited use. this is not retiree use, it's a art studio and it's designed for major use. one of my major objections is that violates the open space. on our block we have a very strong open space, i only count 3 interruptions of it, the architect counted 8 but i'm just counting 5 and i will tell you why. one of these interruptions is a poting table and not really an accessory structure. 36 these interruptions to the open space are patio greenhouses, adjacent to the rear of the dwelling and they only project about 10 feet into

the open space. they're really just part of the home. and then we have an a du, it's a two-storey a du, i think it provides three units of residential housing. it is one of the heroes of the mid-block space, it is not interruption. and then we have three bona fide interruptions, we have the storage shed that's are built discreetly at the rear of the property, they use a lot, they use material they're very small. my other, this is a really really great mid-block open space pattern that should be protected against further incursions against it such as the permit holders studio.

my next objection is to the glass material, it has an awful o affect on the light and structure. and the placement in the front. artist outline for occupied. and i think that is reasonable she is putting a workspace in the back yard. that's a real violation of the privacy, if you are going to allow this structure, please

have the walls be solid and get rid of the glass roof. this is a reminder on accessory structures they should be for minor use, which this isn't and they should also use materials that are appropriate for residential construction. this project is seal and reflective glass. the reflective glass is not appropriate for a home. and it is not in concert with the surrounding buildings, yes it's a cubic form but that means that it exist in three dimensions and that it uses right angles and that's not enough. it's not a back yard architecture, this looks more

like the entryway of entry pavillion to a performing art center, it's not back yard. and then, finally what we're looking at here is on the left slides, this is a photo of the permit holder's patio space, it's about 9-10-feet deep and 20 feet wide. this seems like it's a wonderful location for an art studio. it doesn't interrupt the open space, it you don't have the light concerns, she can take the building rotate it 90 degrees, scale it down a little and put it in this space. and then, she can look at her wonderful back yard which is the picture on the right. we're back to the pa na ra ma again, so i just want to

mention a few things. one is hopefully, my neighbor and i we share a fence. and back in 2019, when she was remodeling the home that she inherited she approached me about building a shared fence. and she came up with the design and she represented it as a way that we can both. >> 30 seconds. >> we can enjoy each other's back yard and still have a very open space. i agreed, i paid my half and then, two years later, she is transforming her back yard into something that i don't want to look at. i certainly would not have paid for this fence if i had known about it at the time. thank you very much for your attention to this. >> thank you. >> i don't see any questions at

this time, so you can be seated. >> thank you and we'll hear from the permit holder. >> welcome you have 7 minutes. >> good evening, i'm the architect for 681, 12th avenue. this project is well within the setbacks set up by the planning department. we are 43 and a half feet back off of the rear lot line where 8-foot nine from the property line and 5-feet from the south.

the studio itself takes up 285 square feet. which is this portion kind of in this area here. and that is 15% of the back yard. that leaves 80, 14% excuse me, leaving 86 percent of open space in the back yard available. we understand the light concerns. and the light concerns of an all glass structure and we have selected a tinted glass, graze tinted glass that removes 71% of the light transmission, so 29% passes through and i have an pam approximately of it through here. so during the day, this will be well lit space to work in and at night, this glass will keep

light from escaping the building. we believe that that is a positive thing during the day, it will create privacy the reflectivity, the tint will create from neighbors looking in and at night control glare and light escaping the building. for the roof we propose approximated blackout rolling shades to control light at night going upward. so which would have this installed by the glass vendor as part of the assembly and those can contain light from escaping at night. there also be curtains around the exterior so really horizontal light escape at night and also vertical escape of glare and light pollution will be controlled.

part of the lighting system is an adjust action track lighting system providing localized down lighting to the work areas where they're needed and we will also provide glare control honey comb luvers so we do not intend to build a lantern in the back ya,d we understand that's a concern. it's a concern for us as well. and we will control it. looking at the back yard and the scale of the neighbors and their additions, we believe this is in scale with the back yard, the rear yard additions that comes off in the back of the houses are very common throughout both the richmond and the sunset and this is one of those. it's in scale, it's a single

story piece. and we believe that follows the residential design guidelines of providing if you are adding out, if you are building out in your back yard to keep it within scale and not go to two stories and not buildup against property lines and we're not doing that either. this drawing is the north elevation showing the open space passing, the canopy area passing between the studio and the back of the residents and the canopy space out into the back yard. that whole elevation will have curtains that can control light at night if jenny is working in there at night. this is really intended as a day time studio and so the intention really is to work there during the day, that's why it's made out of glass so she can be out and work without using artificial lighting.

looking at the residential design guidelines, we understand that there are really two types of mid-block open spaces in the city. we have strong type which is a large open pattern and we also have an irregular parent with accessory buildings. the residential design guides don't pass judgment on which of these is better than the other. and if we look at the entire neighborhood, or look at a portion of the neighborhood, we see that we have both here. we have irregular and we have a strong pattern. this block happens to be an irregular one with a series of structures. the project that we're proposing today is one of those structures and going through you've already seen some of these images, we have greenhouses, we have sun rooms,

we have pergla and the two-storey adu cottage in the middle of the block. that is part of the this pattern and we're simply adding to that pattern. the fence the fences on both sides really can be modified to create more privacy and more light control if needed. the property owner has been growing vines on the south fence and is proposing to build a larger landscape screen on the north side as well as this project is developed. so really we believe that we're hitting 7 points, we're well wnt heights we are using glass to control glare, we're using roller shades and curtains, in the building to control escaping light we're using

track lighting and adjustment lighting. >> 30 seconds. >> and we believe we're well within the pat pattern of construction for this use. >> thank you. >> i see a commissioner from commissioner trasvino. >> thank you for your testimony, can you, tell me how much of the last slide you had 7 items, you had accommodations to your neighbors requests. can you tell me when you con void those to her and told her beinger that's what you're doing? >> the the tinted glass is new. that's been an addition in the last couple of months. the roler shades and the curtains have been in the project for a long time. we came to a discretionary review with the glass roof, we

have email records that told the planner in addition to the neighbor about the glass roof. in december of 2022, we also presented the glass roof in the discretionary review that was part of that record. and the then the first time really, the glass roof as the point of contention, really it was in the discretionary review, we talked about it in the planners and the neighbor. and then it was in a set of doubling. >> so there was a prepared of time you heard the concerns and complaint, you provided some things and whether they are, slightly sach re, largely

satisfactory that would be up for the neighborhood to say. tlgts good to know that this exchange is going on. thank you. >> thank you, i don't see any further questions. so we'll now hear from the planning department. >> we're not at public comment yet. after the departments. >> tina tam for the planning department. 681, 12th avenue. constructed in 1 19 15, the property is a resource.

instruct to a 1 story accessory structure connected by semi canopy. the appellant is pamela fine and she is concerned that the new structure is too deep, too tall and too glassy and will impact the space and create light pollution.

the new structure and 15 feet in width. here's the 10-foot deep breeze way that connects the dwelling unit to the structure and there is also a five-foot overhang at the end of the structure. the new structure on the southside and six-feet nine inches on the north side.

and 12 faoelt on the north side and it looks like approximately, there being a setback about 10 feet between building to building. her issues about the new structure were the same as the ones we raised in thed permanent appeal. at the march second, the planning commission expressed full support for the project. they discussed how it's sensitive located, they noted that there are other detached structure and therefore the new structure will not block the open space. the commission suggests to pamela to explore ways such as

instructing a fence or planting trees to minimize any impact she may have for the project. on a 6-0 vote, they approved the permit on the basis that they did not find any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances for the project. it complies with the planning code. it's been buildable and well below the height limit. the new structure also conforms with the residential guidelines. the commission also determined that noon modification were necessary and instruct thated planning staff to approve the project, dated september 21, 2022 which was on file with the planning department. at this time, i would like to note that the roof material for the structure did change. where as the roof material on the september 21, 2022 plan set denoted it to be a solid

material, the revised plan submitted after the dr hearing is showing to be dmras. planning staff is not supporting plas for the roofing material. we believe glass is not appropriate or necessary and would make the issue of light and refleckable raised by pamela relevant. as much request approve the permit on the condition that the plans be revised to reflect a solid roof material for the new structure. this concludes my report happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, commissioner lemberg. >> thank you for your thorough demonstration. which which was about the accessory use which the appellant has opinions on, i wanted to ask if you had an

opinion on whether this is per missable as an accessory. >> it's related to, a the owner of the property which is an artist which is to practice her art in which is per missable in this zoning district. >> okay and i did note several examples in the brief, that i would say implied that was the case but did not explicitly say there were no examples of artist specifically. it seems to mostly be with licenseure use. >> this is not commercial use this is her personal space. it's common to have somebody have space for them to do their personal. >> yes. >> art. >> yes.

and then, the only other thing that kind of occured to me from the point you brought up that i was going to ask about but then you asked about already, if this were a more traditional audition to the house, tradition additions don't have windows on all sides of them like this structure does. how does that play into this, i'm not sure what question to ask here but it feels different than a room. >> i get your thinking with that question. the structure is mostly made of metal and trans lose ant glass and when, one would not think that that is compatible, we however feel that because it's

one story, and it's we didn't feel that it was a concern for us. we allow for flexible with design when it's only one story especially when it's pulled back and 6-9 inches. we felt it was okay. >> thank you for that honest answer. commissioner swig. >> you asked mostly what i was going to ask but i will take it one step further. this is separating and therefore it's ex sil restructure, correct? >> no, not entirely. we have accessory structure that are limitations to sizes. this is part of, you can call

an addition expansion. this would be overhang. >> so the perception of this is not an auction sil re, this is viewed as an extension to the main house and expansion. >> you can consider that, because it's connected, it has a footprint that goes beyond, i'll put it up so we can see it. >> i'm not arguing the point, i just want to get clarity is this perceived as a separate building or as a perceived as an extension of the existing structure? >> would i call it sum' detached semi attached, at the foot of the canopy level. >> okay.

if the permit wanted to expand her house in the same way that she is doing it or in the same direction that she is doing it from a passing stand point, how much bigger could an expansion of the house be? for getting the design that it is, but if she wanted to expand her house with the same passing, how much bigger could she could her building envelope be? >> yes, i'm going to go and use the overhead to illustrate what i believe is your question. this is the partial land.

it's 20 feet in width. with it not be in the arch, you can go all the way to full width under the planning code for the zoning district. and because the height limit for this parcel is 40x, it's 35 feet, three stories, you know this is one story setback on the sides. and so we can see the two versions of what i believe are

asking versus what is being proposed. >> so it can be a lot wider and taller, bottom line? so she is not maxing out. that is not what to say that if she is trying to do the same thing that is a two-story. that you would approved it. but the what i'm getting here is intrusion of the open bobing space. i've heard this this before, this is conservative on based on what could be. >> i believe so. the commission themselves mention is the sensitively designed project, yes it can go taller or wider, if it was two

stories and a depth proposed before us, we may not be reviewing it in a same way. >> but if it was a solid wall extension of a house, that would have happened okay. so you're only exception to this is that you would prefer planning would prefer and the neighborhood would prefer significantly that return to the plan that was approved by the planning commission. >> here's the rendering that was part of the packet. you see the roofing material being solid. i believe the commission took which is onset which is the we're not supporting.

>> and that would mitigate significant proportion of the concerns rendered by the appellant with regard to becauses of what the change that took action on, thank you for that, i'm done. >> thank you, i don't see any further questions, we'll hear from dbi. now that we have that we would

want it be reflected. so be a whole lot that we can add to that. >> thank you, i don't see any questions at this time. so we're going to move on to public comment. is there anybody in the room that wants to provide public comment on this item? i do see a hand raised on zoom. please go ahead, you need to unmute your zev. yourself. >> speaker: i'm the neighbor in the back, i appreciate the need for the artist to create her artistry and use her space. it's disingenuous to say that this matches all other

structures that we have in these blocks none of them are 12 feet tall. it does not match the average height. so it does create, we have we own a hill so we walk straight into our back yard so we have whether or not there were any accommodations. the other thing that i do appreciate the changes that have been made particularly the locationer and i think that the kiln has all the perm pits. but i have asked this before and i just really want to know what are the emissions from a kiln and whether or not they have problems. we heard that is not bad but not bad is not data.

it's 20 feet away from the actual house. it's still going to be, you know, venting into our back yard and i just wanted to know what comes out of it. depending on the materials used for the glaze and ceramic, that would be some toxic components and we have no information what it is that will be coming out of the vent other than saying, it's not bad. and this was since november 2021. so thank you very much. >> okay, thank you. is there any other public comment for this item? we'll move on to rebuttal, you have three minutes to address the board.

>> i will mention na they described to me as the lighting up like a ladener. the three says that violate the open space, they're all wood, they're all six or 70 years old and you can see that they're deteriorating and the building codes are not going to allow them to be rebuilt. and i want to mention that building residential units, that affectses fulton street, they can build higher examine in concert with this extension this can open up a can of worms

of mcmansions being built in this lots. even at one story, the glass wall is intrusive into the neighbors. come of final things, the breeze way the ceiling on the breeze way it does cut through these high windows place in my dining area. and it would be nice if they don't block them and one more word on building extensions, i have looked at the resource guidelines and all the example that show in their drawings of buildings with solid walls. this glass is really

problematical. while this this meets the requirement, it does not meet the qualitative, it is of major use, i have lived next door for the permit holder, she does work at night, i can see that. that's really all i've got. thank you very much. >> thank you, we do have a question from vice president lemberg. >> as you've already heard tonight, planning and dbi are requesting that the project be realtered to change the materials of the roof to opec surfaces and i hope that addresses some of the concern. past that though, you know, i

want to focus on what tangible changes. you know, and again short of redesigning the whole thing as far as you know, the opacity of the walls and everything. >> i mean, thank you for that question. when we had this call i think it was in december, 202. they had ample time to take these concerns into consideration. but even after the call they

changed the ceiling and added, it was going to be pen dant lights and now it's going to be track lighting. i would suggest that they lower it, lower it, it's now like 13 feet high i think. 9-feet would be more acceptable. the glass is just too much. i suggested moving it into the breeze way that was described. but the architect said they can't because the doors wouldn't proper. the property owner refuses to put it inside the home she inherited, she does not want it next to it.

i guess that this is her dream but it's a dream in a garden. my dream is to have a garden, i'm a gardner, i enjoy it. having this really tall dark glass building looming over me, it's not appropriate for a back yard and not the back yard of the pictures that i showed you. >> okay, thank you. thank you. we'll now hear from the permit holder. >> good evening, i'm jenny chen i'm the owner of and i've been a ceramic artist.

i'm not a production potter, i hand build and i work small. so, i would love to be a major artist working on huge projects, but it's simply not the case but it took me a long time to actually realize i could be an artist because parents expectations and all that. so i had other careers before that. but, i just want to say that artist and i believe most people do benefit from having quiet and separate studio space and workspaces. and it is, it is a dream to be able to have this. and for the appeal, we did really pay attention to the neighbor's concerns about the light and i think we've taken steps that are both creative and energy efficient so the tinted glass is not just dark

glass reflective, it's enough so it reflects the landscape which is beautifully green i have to agree with tha. i do have some examples that i've shown that does, can you see? but you do have privacy from that. so and also being reflecting the landscaping around it, will create sort of invisible for the building not complete visible but not as intrusive as pamela says it's going to be.

and i think it fulfills the function of the roof especially at night. i'm getting older so doing all nighter is not part of my thing. >> 30 seconds. >> with the light transmission being lower and the roof and blackout shades will be addressing that. i think that my architect has designed a beautiful space for me and other neighbors have told me that they really like the design and they look forward to seeing it completed. and i hope that you support the last permit that was approved. >> thank you, we do have a question from commissioner

transvino. >> thank you, i appreciate your architect describing the changes and combinations and intersection you've had with your neighbors. thank you tell me whether there is any disadvantage with a solid glass? >> well i think which is what i really loved about the block out rollers. it fills two objectives. there was always concern that there would be too much heat.

artist do love light. i do have a concern that you know, san francisco is not the, you know the suniest place in the world. and this way you would be able to invite more light into the space. >> the glass allows you to have access to light that the solid would not. second, do you know who the person was? do i know the pesh? --person? >> what i would like is if you or your architect can talk about the people who have that concern to give them position about kiln and emissions. is that something you would want to do? >> of course.

i think your neighbors would benefit. >> i agree with you. >> thank you. >> no further questions, you can be seated. >> we'll hear nothing further from the planning department. >> i have a question that planning requested.

did those accept 1, 2022 plans have clear glazing of the sides or 71% opec glass on the sides? and if, and do we need to make our motion and consider that as we make a motion? >> double check so i don't say the wrong thing. >> are you asking about the walls? >> yes. the calls are shown to be glass.

what has been requested and b would lower the amount of transmitted light to the neighbors as well? >> i believe so, it's going to improve we would be okay with that. >> thank you. my question is part b of commissioners question. i agree that the roof should be solid, i love the technology that the architect presented which is inhibit thed the escape of light from the from

the studio. that to me is a change of direction just like we just changed to a solid roof. the bad news about that is now we have, a reflective situation it doesn't may not build fine relations within the neighbors. what do you feel a reflective gone from a non reflective

glass albeit not as environmentally friendly because it, it wouldn't cope as much light from escaping to a reflective glass which is going to potentially create a beacon affect during the day when you know, when the esthetic of oh yeah, it affects the garden. it's a beacon because it's reflecting light and calling attention to the structure, am i clear on my question? >> a little bit. sorry.

without known the specific and knowing contactly the percentage or whether it's profted or etched, it's hard for me to answer that. there is a new element which is that it creates a mirror too. maybe i should ask the architect in commissioner

deliberations whether there is another technology that you might suggest that would do the same thing but so when we're moving forward with this if we fiepd that the structure is okay, but we want to return to the you've already suggested language if we want to return to the first or 212022 plans. do we have to be specific about this? and that means throw out the, you know, the good with the we

would have the discretion to say about what the commission said and talked about and it's consistent with how we feel about the project and residential guidelines. when we move to the next chapter. >> why don't we do that now before we move on to deliberations. >> fine. can you tell, your client put forth this photo that is suddenly showed reflection and

i heard her next door neighbor and next door neighbor does not like the whole concept in the first place. there is a mirror affect that may cause concern and discomfort from the next door neighbor when she sees this. how can we have our cake and eat it too? >> right. i will say that almost all glass is reflective, to get anti reflective glass, you would get that museum stuff.

there is more markness behind meaning what is bright gets more reflective visually. so one direction that we cer vaoed is for privacy was to put a film on the glass was to put an etching or a milky surface on the glass. that it's semi so you will

really not be seeing through necessarily as much. when we did make the change to the glass roof was part of that was to allow more light to come tlut structure and not create this heavy heatness this dark shadow. that was one of the driving forces. >> i think i'm going to take the planning department and stay out of the glass business and let them talk about that with you. do you know what the refleck i havity of the regular glass that you had on your initial proposal? i'm just trying to help?

exterior that's 32 percent. opti gray is 82 percent. >> got it, thank you. so commissioner this is committed. who would like to start a discussion. commissioner swig? >> i think i would take the

planning recommendation. this could have been larnler and could have been legal. putting the roof back on, we must respect the planning department position on this especially since dr was completed which is alike a secondary back up certification of belief. so i would, i would i would do exactly what tina said. >> commissioner trasvino. >> yeah, i very much appreciate the presentation that they made from the history as well as the answers to various aspects and alternatives, so i would

support the department's recommendation. >> commissioner. >> i generally green, i think my principal concern was transparency of the roof top that planning is for the solid roof takes away my concerns about the project. >> i generally agree, i was trying to get a if there were any other small edits that may be helpful to the appellant and i didn't get any of them. ultimately, i think i'll make this like a motion since i have universal a party. i move to grant the appeal on the condition that the project sponsor select solid opec materials on the basis that the glass roof would prompt concerns of neighbors.

in support of the previous direction and according to the plan september 1, 2022. >> that is a friendly amendment. >> okay, so we have a motion from vice president to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that it be revised and require that the plans. >> julie, he accepted my friendly amendment. >> i'm getting there, the plans be revised to reflect a solid roof as shown on the plans before the planning commission dated september 1, 2022 on the basis that a clear roof, i believe you said the basis of that creates light pollution and privacy concerns.

i'lled word it better in a minute. getting tired. so on that motion. commissioner vasvino. >> aye. >> commissioner swig. >> aye. >> vice president. >> aye. >> that motion carries 4-0. i'll reach out about the process. >> thank you, everybody, and have a wonderful evening. [gavel] i mess it up. there!

>> february 20, 2024 regular meeting of the municipal transportation board of directors and parking commission. >> item 2, roll call. >> henderson, present. hinze, present. tarlov,