if you. okay. good evening and welcome to the may 29th, 2024 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president jose lopez will be the presiding officer tonight. he's joined by vice president alex lundberg, commissioner rick swig, commissioner john trevena and commissioner j.r. epler also present is deputy city attorney john huber, who will provide the board with any needed legal advice at the controls. the board's legal assistant, alex long. and i'm julie rosenberg, the board's executive director. we will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that will be presenting before the board this evening. up front is cory teague, the zoning administrator representing the planning department. and joining us via zoom is kevin birmingham, acting chief building inspector with the department of building inspection. in the board meeting

guidelines are as follows. the board requests that you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. no eating or drinking in the hearing room. the rules of presentation are as follows. for cases that have previously been heard, the parties are given three minutes each with no rebuttal. members of the public are not affiliated with the parties. have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. mr. long, our legal assistant, will give you a verbal warning. 30s before your time is up. four votes are required to grant an appeal or to modify a permit or determination. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or hearing schedules, please email board staff at board of appeals at sfgovtv. org now, public access and participation are of paramount importance to the board. sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will have the ability to receive public comment for each item on today's agenda. sfgovtv is also providing closed captioning for this meeting. to watch the hearing on tv, go to sfgovtv cable channel 78. please note that it will be rebroadcast

on fridays at 4 p.m. on channel 26. a link to the live stream is found on the home page of our website at sfgovtv. forward slash voa now. public comment can be provided in three ways one in person, two via zoom. go to our website and click on hearings. then the zoom link for the hearing date, the third way to provide public comment is by telephone call one (669) 900-6833 and enter webinar id 8256068 8982. and again, sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen. if you're watching the live stream or broadcast to block your phone number when calling in, first dial star six seven, then the phone number. listen for the public comment portion for your item to be called, and dial star nine, which is the equivalent of raising your hands so that we know you want to speak. you will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn. you may have to dial star six to unmute yourself. you will have three minutes. our legal assistant will provide you with a verbal

warning 30s before your time is up. please note that there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast and live streamed on tv and the internet. therefore, it's very important that people calling in reduce or turn off the volume on their tvs or computers. otherwise there is interference with the meeting. if any of the participants or attendees on zoom need a disability accommodation or technical assistance, you can make a request in the chat function to all alec long way. the board's legal assistant, or send an email to board of appeals at sfgovtv. org now the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. please note that we'll take public comment first from those members of the public who are physically present in the hearing room. now, we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath, pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish the board to give your testimony evidentiary weight, raise your right hand and say i do. after you've been sworn in or affirmed , do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to

give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? okay. thank you. if you are a participant and you are not speaking, please put your zoom speaker on mute. so commissioners, we do have one housekeeping item. the appellant for item five, appeal number 20 4-021 at 1618 to 1620 mcallister street has withdrawn his appeal. consequently, the matter will not be heard. so if anyone here came for item five, the appeal has been withdrawn. okay. we are now moving on to item number one, which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction, but that is not on tonight's calendar. is there anyone here for general public comment? okay. hi, my name is william sorensen bill sorensen, and i'm here to speak about a notice of violation that we received notice of violation

202422641 citing us for peeling paint on the front and the south side of our house and intimating that there was a possibility of lead paint when my roommate called the housing inspector named in the complaint, he went off on my roommate about getting certified people to do lead abatement and paint the house. we have no lead. but he retorted, are you going to make me pound sand? he refused to entertain, looking at the permit we had signed off when we completely replaced the south side of our house 27 years ago, and the house has been completely scraped and painted twice, once in 2006 and again in 2019. i have the 2019 contract and the scaffolding permit, but the level of belligerence really left us bewildered. then we looked at the notice itself. the complaint says nothing about peeling paint, but about blight. a shed and broken window, none of which was about us. this is 2024. then, looking at the other house related things, there is a 2022 complaint about a broken window in the house looking abandoned. the complaint was

made twice. both times it was dismissed. it's become really clear that someone else is targeting us. we had planned to fix the peeling paint ourselves. we had the house sprayed instead of brushed, and you can see places where it might have bubbled. and so over the weather of the last five years, a couple of places have started to peel. but this level of belligerence is wrong. we already had our one nut case per block experience with the board of appeals back in 2001 2002. our neighbor in back of us, we rebuilt a two story building. we finally won. he claimed it was blocking his sunlight. his house is on the east side of york street, so what's blocking his sunlight? but when we won and i let the contractor park in the garage and i parked my truck out on the street, two days later, i came in. all four tires were slashed and that man, i caught him twice putting nails and screws in our driveway over the next ten

years. so something like this is starting again. i want to put this on the public record to get ahead of this. we won, and i the first time dbi needs to back off and stop encouraging this kind of stuff. this is just terrible. 30s thank you, thank you. i'm done. thank you. mr. sorensen, can you fill out a 96 hampshire street? thank you, thank you. can you fill out a speaker card, sir? so we get your name accurate for the minutes? oh. i'm sorry. sure. thank you, thank you. is there anyone else here for general public comment? i don't see if you're on zoom and you want general public comment to give public comment. raise your hand. okay. i don't see anybody. so we're going to move on to item, did someone raise their hand? no we're going to move on to item number two. commissioner comments and questions, commissioners, i think we can move on. okay, we will move on to item number three, the adoption of the

minutes commissioners before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the may 15th, 2024 meeting. commissioners. any amendments or a motion? i move to adopt the minutes as presented. okay. on vice president lemberg's motion to adopt the minutes. president lopez, a commissioner trevino i commissioner eppler i commissioner swig i so that motion carries 5 to 0. the minutes are adopted. we are now moving on to items four a and four b. these are appeal numbers 20 4-0, one one and 20 4-01 ten. for 20 4-0 11 jennifer may and hanmin liu versus department of building inspection. and for 2410 it's tina houston and lindsay houston versus department of building inspection. planning department approval subject property produce 4547 and 49 bernard street appealing the issuance on january 24th, 2024 to tina and lindsay houston of a site permit

upgrade. three story, four unit apartment consisting of brick foundation, wood frame structure, combination siding, etc. project work consists of seismic soft story foundation upgrade with nine foot rear addition and includes bringing front bedroom windows to fire exit code size with finish to match existing. this is permit number 2020 zero 822 2415. note on april 3rd, 2024, upon motion by commissioner swig, the board voted four 0 to 1 president lopez absent to continue this matter to may 29th, 2024. so that the permit holders can submit revised plans to comply with changes to the planning code and which remove the conditions imposed by the planning commission. excuse me, namely, the requirement to eliminate the roof, deck and spiral stair and to configure the third floor to be identical to the second floor. and as a preliminary matter, president lopez, have you had the opportunity to review the materials and watch the video for the hearing, which took place on april 3rd? yes, i did, i'm prepared to move forward. okay. thank you. so since we asked the permit holders to

submit revised plans, they will go first. they have three minutes. welcome okay. she didn't give us any direction. she just sent us the powerpoint ten minutes before the hearing. we. do you have it up there? okay great. do you need some help? computer, please. thank you. we see it. okay. very good. thank you. hello. thank you. i'm tina houston, one of the permit requesters. my daughter is. lindsay's not here today, i just have a couple brief slides. i think you've probably reviewed the revised plans, the scope of the project is as, as julie mentioned, was the foundation work, a bunch of deferred maintenance activities, a minor extension. i think it's about six feet on one side, under nine feet on the other side. and reconfigure some of the

exterior, providing some functional kitchens and a more functional interior, timeline wise, we are we just passed in this month, the four year mark in trying to get our building permit approved for this, you know, very modest, you know, repair work, the primary updates that we've made to the plans and as you saw there was the last hearing, there were a number of different versions of these, primarily due to interpretation of the zoning and the neighbors setback and a variance that was happening on their property at the time. so the plans focus on the changes here, the property, as you can now see, is set back 18ft from the property line, it would have been about 15 foot nine inches, under the averaging , that was the code in effect at the time the plans were submitted. in fact, up through january of this year, the requester, i think, originally requested a 22 foot setback. so gradually we've moved back toward that mark, we have removed the, planning commission. sorry about the typo

there, planning constraints to replicate the second and third floor and to remove the roof deck. so those you see now back back in the plans, in terms of open space, we've worked with the zoning administrator, the 45 unit, the main floor, we had to have the 100ft!s because that ws an existing condition. they took credit for it being the entire, using the entire yard. so that has 100ft!s. the other two units did not require any open space, but we've provided now carved out basically 100 square foot of interior space on those floors to get to 100 square foot of outside space, just a quick drawing here. and you can see this in your plans that basically shows the, you know, shows the full setback, we did have one alternative design. i don't think it made its way into the plans, but in the middle, middle bedroom, you know, we had considered reducing the open space as it wasn't required just to provide a more functional bedroom, because that's one of the sort of trade offs and

balances of trying to get 100fts on the same, you know, on the same level. 30s, screening. that was one of the other open issues. we went through that whole process and got an official reading from the city that, in fact, the basement is not a edu, so it's basically being remodeled just as a as a basement as part of this permit. and we have a we'll have a second permit to address any, any future adus. so in closing, we just asked for, for the project to now be approved. i'm sure you'll hear from the zoning administrator and building and fire, and i believe we've crossed all of the i's and dotted all the t's, and hopefully we can move forward with the project. thank you, thank you. that's fine. thank you. we do have a question from vice president lundberg. thank you, miss houston, you showed an image, showing the 18 foot setback, it appeared in the image that the 18 foot setback is that from the back wall. but does that also include the stairs or out outdoor deck that seem to protrude farther from the back wall? no. and i'm sure,

the zoning administrator will address that as well. those are what's considered permissible obstructions. a fire escape is a permissible obstruction into the into the required rear yard. okay, i'll wait to ask mr. teague then. thank you. and we do have a question from commissioner trevino as well. thank you. thank you, my question is whether, in the presentation you made today, whether the changes, whether you've had the opportunity to talk to any of your neighbors about these changes and are you aware of any position they have? we'll hear from them. but i just want to know what your awareness is. no no, you haven't asked them. no, we have not asked them. we just actually got the plans back and sent across, i think about a week ago. thank you. okay. thank you. you can be seated. we'll now hear from the zoning administrator. all right. good evening, president lopez. commissioners. corey teague, zoning administrator for the planning, planning department,

the big picture report is that we took the board's input. i worked directly with the property owner on revising their plans over several iterations to make sure that they responded to your instructions, and also made sure that they were compliant with the planning code, as it is currently for rear yard, and open space, and so just to tick off a few issues as was mentioned, we did a full formal udu screening and made a formal determination that there is no use, there's no required to add a unit on that basement level. and these plans are clear. have removed all reference to any adu other than the fact that there is currently a separate permit on file for an adu into the basement level, but the adu issue is not part of this permit set, the rear yard is, the main building is, reduced in depth by 3in to 18ft, as was mentioned. and they're allowed to have a combination of obstructions into the required rear yard under the

planning code one, a two story pop out, the other the fire escape, as proposed. and what's before you in these plans is completely code compliant, and then on the roof deck issue, as was instructed, the roof deck was added back with the spiral stair, the same size that was originally proposed, to the planning commission, and then also, as was mentioned, the original project did propose 100ft!s. so code complying private open space for each unit, even though it technically wasn't required under the code for the lower units. but this project, the plans in front of you do the same thing. they achieve 100ft!s, which is the minimum required under the planning code for each dwelling unit, in terms of private open space, i don't have enough time in my time to probably get into all the details, but just to make you aware, there is a provision of the planning code as to what can be usable open space, and it basically says you can't use a fire escape, but you can use balconies that are also kind of doubling for fire exits.

and there's no formal interpretation on how to deal with that. when you have kind of a combined system here where you have balcony and fire escape, and we looked at that very closely and made a determination that as proposed and as called out on these plans, that is consistent with the planning code and would be considered, usable, open space. i'm happy to go into any of those code questions that you may have in further detail, but again, the big picture is the plans that are in front of you from a planning code and planning department perspective. address the issues that were requested and the actions that were requested by the board at the last meeting and are compliant with the planning code. but i'm available for any questions you may have. thank you. commissioner swig, thank you, mr. teague, for your help. and thank you for coordinating with the, project sponsor to get some clarity and some, i think synchronicity, so there's one set of plans and that everybody is looking at the same thing. so, based on your testimony, is there there seems to be no,

there. you seem to have no issues with anything on the project at this point. compliance wise, design wise. et cetera. et cetera. et cetera. is that true? correct the goal was to make sure the plans that were submitted were completely planning code compliant. and from a planning code perspective, address the instructions from the board of appeals from the last hearing. and so that that's my position is that those the plans in front of you do that. okay. i'm going to anticipate that something that we may hear, not because i've had a conversation with anybody, but it was the conversation last time. and that is character of the neighborhood. and this. and there was a great feeling from the neighbors that this would obliterate, the character of the neighborhood, do you find that these plans, do anything negative, have any negative? have any negative impact on the

neighborhood as it stands today and has stood for recent history, i mean, the short answer is no. when this was reviewed at the planning commission, this massing essentially the same massing that the planning commission approved, and there wasn't an issue from the planning commission, from a residential design guidelines perspective about the overall depth of the building into the required rear yard or the overall height. those weren't the issues that were addressed. that was the department's position in the planning commission position, that the massing of the building itself was compliant with the residential design guidelines. okay. thank you. and finally, on the adu, udu situation, it is not a topic of discussion today, it was implied that there was a potential of a potential use of that, although the project sponsor said, i think that it's not something that they're considering at the moment. but as, as i as we discussed last time, i think the ceiling height was like something like six feet, in really, really low. is,

is that something i mean, to even consider putting something there? there would have to be a, a significant renovation to the entire building to, to achieve a what is a necessary ceiling height at the very least, not the other, forgetting the other components which will show up, am i so the odds of this being an adu at some point are going to be pretty slim, unless somebody wants to put a hefty amount of money into that process, it's time there's a few few kind of remarks on that one. you're correct as it exists, the basement level doesn't have a head height sufficient to be habitable space to be a unit. you can still be a udu. we have a lot of unauthorized dwelling units based on the broad definition. that's purposeful, and then you're required to do, you know, if you do have a confined, confirmed unauthorized unit there, you're required to legalize it or you have to get

planning commission authorization to remove it. and one of the considerations that the planning commission had to make was, how expensive was it going to be to legalize it? and a lot of times this the ceiling height issue was a big expense, right? because that costs a lot of money to excavate and do new and dig out and do that work. a couple things to note. so these plans actually will do that work on their basement level, like the resulting basement level will be sufficient to add an adu. and they again, they have a permit in file to put an adu in there. it's just a question of are they required to do that work. and they're not required to do that work under the code. they're not required to put the adu in there, it's also important to note that there was actually legislation, an ordinance that passed and became effective recently. that was not effective. the last time we had this conversation, that changed our edu legalization requirements such that if you have a edu that is deficient, completely deficient in ceiling

height or minimum area, under the housing code that you're allowed to essentially remove, that you're not required to get a conditional use authorization to remove it because it is such a significant expense. so even if there was a edu in that space right now under the current code as it exists today, that would be able to be removed, likely without any conditional use authorization. so that's a kind of a three prong response. but all of that to say that the issue of the edu and the adu relative to the plans that are in front of you right now is essentially not an issue. right? so let me see if i can i can wrap that one. there was testimony the last time that that edu was used by somebody at some point there were photos and somebody lived there in what would be unauthorized and illegal conditions, you've clarified that if that were the case today, that that doesn't automatically mean that you are forced to convert that from you

to you to an adu, however, in the plans that they're laid out today, those plans include the lowering i'm gathering of the floor to create a ceiling height that that would be acceptable, to putting in an adu. however at this point, the, the consideration of via, applying for a permit, is, is not in play to convert that whatever it is space to an adu at this point. and in fact, it could be converted to a storage room in perpetuity or something else. correct. that's that's all correct. all right. thanks. okay. thank you. no further questions. we'll now hear from the department of department of building inspection. mr. birmingham is joining us via zoom. hi. can you hear me? yes. okay. great good evening, mr. president. lopez, vice president ellenberg, members of the board, we did receive the plans. i have

reviewed them. i went over them with the plan checker, who originally did the plan check and the fire plan checker and they do comply fully with the instructions. we set forth in the last, appeal meeting, they're all code compliant, the only one minor change might be that we might have them extend the fire wall on the west wall around the spiral staircase to 30in above the roof line, just as a firewall. but apart from that, everything else seems to comply with the instructions that were set forth. okay, if you have any questions. thank you. we have a question from commissioner swig. same question is to, mr. teague, is there anything that, that you find problematic in any way, shape or form with this, permit request, issuance as it stands today, no counting, in fact, are replacing the entire foundation. i think it's a substantial upgrade to

the building structure. and i think they're doing a lot of work that needs to be done to the building. so i have no problem with this permit and with regard to the firewall, will that be a field call that is that going to be something which will be an immediate supplement to the permit application, or is that something that, during construction and inspector will will go and say, you know, we have to make this, this change to make it compliant? no, we'll have them incorporated in the set. they're going to submit. we'll have them show a taller firewall in that area. okay. and we don't have to deal with that tonight. that will be your your deal. right yes. okay. thank you. thank you, thank you i don't see any further questions. so we will now hear from the appellants for appeal. number 20 4-011. thank you. members of the board i'm scott emblidge i'm here representing hannemann lou

and jennifer may who live immediately adjacent to the proposed project, on april 3rd, this board voted that the permit holders could resubmit plans that would be code compliant, and they could restore the roof deck and the spiral staircase. the plans before you, however, do a lot more than that. for example, the plans before the planning commission showed an unobstructed rear yard of 15ft in depth. the plans before you show a rear unobstructed rear yard of only 13ft, six inches in depth. the plans before the planning commission showed a building height of 30ft. the plans before you show a building height of 31ft, six inches. in other words, the project sponsor is surreptitiously seeking approval by this board of a deeper, taller building than was ever evaluated by the planning department or the planning commission, and certainly which wasn't approved by this board's prior motion. as you heard at the april 3rd meeting, the neighborhood's primary objective has been to minimize the loss of rear yard mid-block open space. if you approve the plans before you tonight, you'll be authorizing a greater incursion into the open space than was ever authorized by the planning

commission. former zoning administrator scott sanchez has reviewed the plans, and he's concluded, and i quote, the overall building depth is actually one foot six inches greater than was the proposed the proposal reviewed by the planning commission. i'm not sure it was the board's intention, he said, to allow a greater encroachment. end quote. he points out that this encroachment, this incursion, is accomplished by erecting a metal diamond plate fire escape on the rear of the building and disingenuously calling it open space. a metal fire escape is not, in any practical world, is not usable open space. it's not a balcony. it's not something the residents are going to use to enjoy. it's simply an unnecessary and ugly use of rear yard open space. instead of instead of providing a five, a four, 4.5ft deep fire escape, the project sponsor could install sprinklers in the building, which is what they originally proposed to do. use of sprinklers would be less expensive, safer, and would preserve the mid-block open space on the adu issue. although i know it's not. before you,

there was an issue about whether somebody did reside there before. mr. wang is here. he did reside in that basement unit before. if you have any questions about that. but fundamentally, commissioners, i don't believe the plans in front of you comply with your directions as scott sanchez stated. quote, hopefully the board will recognize that this proposal is trying to manipulate the planning code to allow a greater encroachment at the expense of the neighbors. if you want to affirm the vote you took on april 3rd, we're not here to relitigate that, but you should not approve the plans before you. you should, at a minimum, require the project sponsor to submit a set of code compliant plans that simply comply with your directives that do not grow the project and that do not decrease the mid-block open space to less than 15ft, which is what the planning commission approved. i welcome any questions you have. thank you. thank you. i don't see any questions at this time. okay. we are now moving on to public comment. is there anyone in the

room who would like to provide public comment for this item? if so, please raise your hand. who wants to provide public comment? no, because you're the architect representing the appellants. so no. okay. good evening. my name is mo jamil, board member of russian hill neighbors, today, speaking on my individual individual capacity, very familiar with the area. i wrote a letter for the planning commission hearing, in support of the neighbors, this neighborhood has special significance, prior, when the alien alien land law was lifted, this portion of russian hill adjacent to chinatown was the first area where chinese americans bought, properties in san francisco. and there is a good collection of chinese american homeowners there, the

neighbors here are making modest requests, to mr. chair's point, it seems like the parties, should be talking, trying to engage in dialog, to get together, i, as their neighbor, am in support of them, so i hope that something could be worked out. they're asking for very modest things, and i hope you take their concerns seriously. thank you. thank you. is there anyone else? thank you. and, sir, if you can fill out a speaker card, please, so that we know your name, how to spell your name for the minutes. thanks. a good evening, everyone . my name is sue zhang. i'm a consulting of the tenderloin chinese association, ucla, and on the board of directors of los

east medical service. i serve the elderly who live in the sro. most of my time. i understand what the elderly most need is to help us serve open area for being socially connected with a sunny and fresh air. today i represent the tcl, a members. to oppose to the proposal project at 45 and 49 bernard street and has been very supportive of the planning commission decision of october fifth, 2022. speaking on behalf of the 11 tenants from 45 to 49 bernard street, as well as

many who have been displaced raised in upper chinatown. we don't want to be evicted from the neighborhood that is a part of our community. we need to stay connected to local agency and corridor that are nearby and serve our needs. the project sponsor has not be forthright to onorable. they have submitted nine different plans to the planning department, and each one of the plan has serious non compliant planning codes. furthermore for the current current plans. so much less open space according to scott, a census emails it looks like they spent their time making new plans for to figure out how to

be part of the planning cook. furthermore, we have not been invited to view any of the project sub sponsors plans since mid-august 2022. if our community is being transferred by some people into gentrification or housing to make more money by expanding the building in the backyard, mrs. nai, who have lived here for decline with have much less open space to share and many even be forced to live. it's so sad that the elderly don't have the living environment that lead to living community. okay that's time. thank you, thank you. if you can hand them a speaker card, is there anyone else in

the room who wants to provide public comment? good evening, commissioners theresa flannery, north beach tenants committee i'm here just to summarize the lived history on this site and the need to ensure the protections remain in place for the current senior tenant. again, thank you, mr. wang, for being here. d.o.j. as having lived in 45, in the basement of 45. bernard. you saw him on the video, but he is here today. i also want to remind you that the two top units, 47 and 49, house two intergenerational families, six people in one unit, five people in the other. the evictions of these 11 tenants resulted in them being forced out of their linguistic, cultural and social anchor in the chinatown community. they are now among 59 displaced over the past 20 years. all within

the same block of this sponsor site. just to say that's why the welcome mat is not necessarily out at this point. it's a hard thing to watch your neighbors being displaced. the senior tenant, the last person remaining in actually unit 45. we want to make sure and reiterate the need for a carefully drawn plan for her relocation during the renovations, one which prioritizes an expedient return to her home in regards to mrs. ly's safety, there should also be a better alternative than to install a drop down fire escape ladder. i don't know how she would do that, but anyway, i am in support of the planning commission's dra recommendations as it pertains to tenants and open space, and i support hanmin and jennifer's request for a 15

foot setback and a sprinkler system instead of a fire escape. thank you for your time. thank you. next speaker please. and if you could fill out a speaker card, miss fahndrich. oh, yes. thank you. hello. thank you. my name is catherine wolf. i've lived here in san francisco since 1975. i've raised two children by myself as a single parent. i have lived in sros with my daughter for most of her life. the problem with what what jennifer and hamid are facing is the lack of concern about the open space. it is important. it is vital that there be open space, adequate open space for the neighbors. and it concerns me greatly the fact that the project people haven't reached out to their neighbors to have discussion on what's going on

instead. why just come here, propose the plans. it's important there be conversations with all the neighbors that are involved. so i would greatly like to recommend that you take a really good, hard look at the open space, because that open space is so vital when you live in an sro, and to lose that open space is not good for people's mental health or physical health. it makes a big difference. so i would greatly appreciate if you would please seriously reconsider this plan because and also to ask them, the project sponsors, to work with the neighbors. that is so crucial. and it's unfair to everybody not to have conversations. thank you very much. thank you. is there any further public comment in the room? okay. i don't see anyone.

so we're going to move to zoom. robin tucker, please go ahead. you need to unmute yourself. yes good afternoon commissioners. thank you for allowing my testimony today. i'm going to reiterate a couple of points, but then also so, add a few others that are new. the houston's latest plan show a fire escape and decks that cut the setback and reduce the open space down to 13ft, six inches. the previous plans they submitted to the planning commission had only decks extending out to 15ft and was fully sprinkled on every floor. sprinklered. they are using these add ons as exemptions to expand into the 18ft of setback that is required by code. we're asking the board to require that the houston follow the previous plans they submitted to the

planning commission. nothing beyond 15ft of setback and sprinklers instead of fire escapes. quoting from scott sanchez. two points were already made, but i'm going to reiterate two of them. they are attempting to provide their required usable open space on the fire escape. however, it does not appear to meet this code requirement two the overall building depth with fire escape is actually one foot six inches greater to 13ft six inches than the proposal reviewed by the planning commission. i'm not sure that is what the board's intention to allow a greater encroachment. number three, they appear to be counting space that is less than six feet deep between the steps and the building wall towards the required private, usable,

open space. space on fire escapes per section 130 5f3. this should be pointed out to the planning department so they can make a final determination on code compliance. number four, the board will recognize that this proposal is trying to manipulate the planning code to allow a greater encroach moment at the expense of the neighbors and i'd like to add a couple of personal notes on on on behalf of the appellants. hummingbirds i'm the co-chair of the planning of the pacific avenue neighborhood, association, and for over five years we worked on new legislation and code regulations to open up mid-block open space in this very block and this very neighborhood. five

years and the planning department spent we worked hand in hand with them and got new code, passed so that we could have up to that's time. thank you. okay. thank you. is there any further public comment on zoom? i don't see any hands raised. so, commissioners, this matter is submitted. commissioners, let's start on the other side of the dais with commissioner swig. sure, i don't know to ask mr. birmingham and mr. teague this question. it relates to, fire safety regulations. is that is that mr. birmingham? corey okay. mr. birmingham, are you with us? i can't see you. he's on zoom. mr. birmingham yes, i am okay, okay. so it was just stated that the blemish it seems if i can use that word of, of approximately one foot and inches, is the

extension of a fire escape, which, in the view of that commentator, does not need to exist because of, the because they could put in a fire sprinklers, can you please comment on on life fire safety issues and how you guide how dbi guides a, a permit holder. and in, making their choices or, coming to a decision as to fire sprinklers or, or not, and secondly, we, in this specific case is there, is there any issue with regard to one, versus the other? well, it's the

applicant that really makes that decision, the allowance of the fire escape in the back is not an easy process to go through. and there are very few of these that are actually granted. so you have to make a strong case that to let you allow for a fire escape at the rear. like this. as far as the sprinkler goes, there's a lot of factors in there could be water pressure, could be, the ability to get a fire main up into the building. i'm not sure that. would they work with the fire department and the water department on that. i'm sure at some point it does come down to economics, which is, you know, more cost effective for a building this size. but the, the allowance of the fire escape in the back is, is not an easy process to go through. so it is pretty stringent. so, to clarify it as, as, you know, just putting a fire escape on the back is not

really true, the but at the end of the day, it is a choice that the applicant makes whether or not to sprinkle the whole building or any of the building. at that point. i'm not, you know, i'm not sure if that answers your question fully. that's that's, you you gave me the feedback that i was seeking, which was an opinion and, and some guidance on how the process gets done. the follow up question, in this case, it it would seem that the applicant made the decision for whatever reasons, yeah. we sometimes forget about. yeah. is there a water main? is there a hookup? what are the logistics related to those things you just don't put in fire sprinklers and boom, they work. there are others. there are other infrastructure stuff. i thank you for that reminder, but do you basically, i was interpreting that there was an accusation that by the way, that the permit holders exploiting, the, the maximum,

the maximizing, the, the project and, and expanding on, the, the, the footprint of the project by making a choice to go with a fire escape, versus sprinkler, can you comment on, on your opinion on exploiting, exploiting that that situation with that? again, i think it was about a foot and a half, but i'm it certainly wasn't two feet. yeah i mean, it is it they are allowed to encroach, encroach into that space for safety, basically, like you say, it's you could say a foot and a half bigger, but it's not usable space per se. it is occupied mainly with the stairs from floor to floor to access the roof in case of a fire. it's a safety issue, i don't feel it's.

we went over a lot of this in the last hearing. i don't think it intrudes into the open space that much. and it's in line with the other buildings on each side. so it's not, in my opinion. a work around to gain extra space. thank you very much for that. thank you, i have a similar question for mr. teague and or mr. birmingham, i what the appellant presented this evening is that, that there was a the difference between the 15. i'm not going to get all the numbers right, but the 15 foot setback versus what we actually have and the 30 foot height that was presented to the planning commission and what it actually is now, is there a significance of that or, you know, it does seem a little odd to me that those dimensions were changed after it was after it went to the planning commission. sure, corey teague, planning department, happy to address that. the quick answer is yes.

and these were things that we discussed in the last hearing. there was acknowledgment there that what the planning commission saw didn't include the fire escape. that was something that post planning review dbi and fire had required to be placed. and, my understanding was that it was also specific to being, emergency escape and rescue opening. so to provide, that's why it has to go all the way to the roof so that if, someone has to escape a fire at the rear, they can get to the roof and then they can be rescued from up there, so, i don't know. that might be another question for mr. birmingham. if there's a additional need for this fire escape based on that, and not just sprinklered or not sprinklered, but this the extra depth that's created from the fires, the extra depth of, like, a foot and a half is 100% coming from this fire escape. and that was a that was discussed at our last, at our last hearing, the other thing that we talked about was the planning code change

that affected this project right before it was issued was, had multiple impacts in the rear yard. it made their rear yard requirement greater. that's why they had to reduce the depth of the main building wall by three feet. but it also got rid of the requirement that the any, the last ten feet that you get extra depth from rear yard averaging has to be limited to 30ft in height. that also went away. and so that allowed the building to pop up a little bit in the rear, where it had had to be reduced a couple of feet, at the far rear in the past. but those issues were kind of raised and addressed and discussed at the last hearing. so i don't feel like they're new information here today. i appreciate the reminder for sure. it's always hard to remember all the details, so the different what basically, just to summarize what you're saying, the addition rear yard, is just due to the fire escape, which you've addressed plenty. and then the height change would not have

been allowable under the planning code at the time. and now is basically due to the planning code change. correct. that that's true, that the there's no difference in the plans is that you see before you today in terms of overall depth of the building and the obstruction into the required rear yard, for the fire escape portion, again, the main building had to get less deep by three inches, but the, the obstruction of the, of the fire escape was is what was seen and discussed at the last hearing. okay. thank you. sure. thank you, commissioners, any further questions for either of the departments or the parties before we jump into deliberations in earnest? okay, then. thank you. and, commissioner swig you, you mainly had questions, so i want to give you a chance to jump in with with commentary. and then we'll we'll move towards towards this end. sure my, my view on

this is that this has been an unfortunate process. i think there are, it is really too bad that the neighbors were not embraced earlier in a proper fashion. clearly, there was an antagonism created between the parties. i'm not going to say who antagonized the bottom line was people got pissed off. and when people get pissed off, they get angry. they they lose trust. and we've seen it time after time after time and after time, and nothing's going to make anybody happy. that's the unfortunate part, i stayed focused on asking mr. teague and mr. birmingham about the legal process. is it compliant? is it the is it what should be done with this, this building? are there any problems that, that, that you see, and the answers you heard were that they had no problems, that the buildings are, are compliant. this is not

going to take away the distrust. this is not going to take away the, the feelings between the neighbors. i'm very sorry for that. and i hope you all can get over it, but, on a positive note, some of these about spent a lot of money improving what has been a derelict building and i'll look at the glass half empty from that side. the planning department and building dbi has told us that they're fully compliant, legal and the way that they would do things. so therefore, i would be denying the appeal based on the, base that based on the fact that new plans have been delivered, which are compliant, legal and in keeping with, the wishes of dbi and planning for clarity, commissioner swig, you'd be granting the appeal and adopting the plans. yes. thank you for that clarification. that help commissioner eppler. thank you. you know, this i generally agree

with commissioner swig. i do note that the remodel of this building takes a stairwell that runs perpendicular to the, the width of the lot out, increasing the space in, in, in the back, or at least the usable and functional space in the back and creating more distance between it and its rear neighbors. i, you know, i, i think i have, you know, some questions around the, the depth of the, the fire escape and whether it's all necessary. i mean, that that depth is necessary. but you know, it's allowed. it's been approved by the, by the department of building inspection and you know, whether or not it, it can or does or does not qualify or as a rule will be used as private open space, i think is a bit of a moot point when it comes to what's actually required for that. and so, you know, i, i don't like the process that this is followed. i don't like the, the way that this, this project

may have have interfaced with its neighbors and vice versa. but at the end of the day, we had a, a set of requests. i'm not, you know, an inch and a 18in of height that now is code compliant doesn't cause me to have a lot of, angina. i doubt it would have with the, planning commission either. so i'm. i'm inclined to follow the approval of these plans. as commissioner swig said. i generally concur with with both of my fellow commissioners who have already spoken. i, i don't see the, the, the legal grounds on which to grant the relief that the appellants have been seeking, although i certainly concur in the, in the assertion that i am very i'm deeply unhappy with how we got here, this is a very unfortunate case in many ways, and i, i do hope that the

project sponsors have taken away some, some takeaways from this. but that being said, i just don't see the legal grounds to grant the relief. i, you know, we've we've heard extensive testimony from the city that, that these plans are code compliant. and it did match up with what we see with what we, ordered at our last hearing on, on april 3rd. so i would be inclined to support the motion from, that's been previously discussed. i, i joined my colleagues in, expressing support for the outcome, this has been a very difficult process for everybody, and i think i think the city and every party should look at what has occurred over a period of two years or longer. and what we've

heard tonight from the city, completely planning code compliant response to the direction of the board, all code compliant, everything seems to comply. so i think that that resolves it for me. on the issue of communication, i am, as as anybody who watches our proceedings knows, i've always encouraging neighborhood communication, city communication that hasn't happened here for reasons which i'm sure everybody in this room could sort out and say it was this person's problem or that person's issue, etc. leaving that aside, i'm a little bit confused by the what we've heard is this email from scott sanchez . i don't understand why i don't believe we have it, and maybe it maybe it's based on information that was not available to the parties prior to the deadline to submit anything, but it would

have been helpful to have that person here explain the deficiencies if there are deficiencies. so i think in terms of further communication, even if people are going to rely on expert on experienced people, people who've been involved in this process, they really need to be here, either here or in zoom, so we can take into account and give full value and depth to, any kind of testimony that, that, that is available, but i would join my colleagues in, in, in the disposition of this matter. thanks. i will also join my colleagues and echo, the disappointment with the communication gap that that has existed, and, and i hope that that the sponsor, particular with, with future projects, really does their best to engage with the community in, in a meaningful way, i know that that

tonight's outcome is probably not what the, the community representatives and appellants, wanted in their heart of hearts, but, i also just wanted to say that, you've acquitted yourselves very well, throughout this process. and i know that you don't always get everything, but i think your impact was, definitely felt, in this process. and so i applaud you. and thank you for, for, for being here this evening, but i am in agreement with the, with the conclusion that's been voiced by, my colleagues and, and would support that motion, if anybody wishes to, to make it . before we get to that motion, can we get clarification from inspector birmingham whether he thought the current plans, the revised plans that were submitted for the hearing, they should be revised to extend the

firewall on the west wall to 30in beyond the roofline. should that be tonight or is that a later on in the process that will be identified when it goes through plan check so we can catch it. then okay. thank you. so we have a motion from commissioner swig to grant the appeals. and issue the permit on the condition that it be revised to require the adoption of the revised plans dated may 22nd, 2024, submitted by the permit holders for the hearing tonight. and what is the basis of this motion that, that planning and dbi, see see the plans as fulfilling the wishes of the board and compliant code compliant, code compliant. okay. thank you. on that motion, president lopez, a commissioner trevino, a vice president lundberg i commissioner eppler i so that motion carries 5 to 0 and that concludes this item,

these items. thank you. we are now moving on to item number six. this is a special item discussion and possible action. the board will consider proposed changes to various provisions of the board's rules, with possible adoption of these changes. although a draft of proposed changes has been posted, any of the rules may be discussed and or amended at the hearing tonight. so, commissioners, you have before you the proposed rules. did you. sure. did you did you have something further or should we jump in to discussion, i have nothing further, i just okay, please jump into discussion. and commissioner selig was suggesting we wait till the room clears. yeah, i'll. i'll give it a second before i give a little rundown here. i don't know. so,

commissioners, and for the benefit of, of the public, still with us, the timeline for these is, is as follows. we had, submitted proposed rule changes, in, in april and the exact date of, of the meeting is escaping me. but it was a couple of meetings ago that we, reviewed proposed changes, much to my chagrin, we did not, adopt those changes that evening. and we had received some comments for further changes to the proposed revisions. and i say, much to my chagrin, because i felt like we, we had some, some things we could have approved, that evening, i think i'll echo what i said then is that i would consider the, the vast majority of the changes to be essentially administrative in nature, to reflect, the actual processes

and practices that that the board follows and essentially formalize those, i think and i'll, and i'll yield the floor in a second to commissioner trasvina, who's the originator of some of those, amendments, that we received the last time that we discussed the rule changes, and i'll leave it to, to him for, for confirmation that, that those amendments have been, have been adopted, from, from my perspective, i continue to think that those, you know, amendments were, were friendly in nature. and i think from my perspective, they've been, incorporated, adequately into the version that's been posted, this evening, another aspect of the timeline is in our last

meeting, we did receive some public comment, about the process by which we're going about, updating these rules, which have not been updated in approximately 14 years. and, and i, i'm sympathetic to those comments that were made, and concerns about having adequate time, for review. and so while i , would support the adoption of the changes, as have been, publicly posted as of ten days ago, at least, i would also be fine with, continuing this matter, until, a future meeting. to give the public a little bit more time to review and understand and comment on these changes, so that's, i guess, showing my hand a little bit, but i am sympathetic to the comments that, that were

received, although from my perspective, again, these are, not, transformative, these changes are not transformative or revolutionary in nature. i am, i do want to, you know, respond to that, to that comment that perhaps a little bit more time would be helpful. and i see no harm in taking that. that additional step to allow for any public comment this evening or in, in a future meeting where if needed, we can incorporate, those, those comments and views from the public accordingly, with that, can i, can i yield to you, commissioner? thank you, president lopez. and i also want to thank, our executive secretary and our deputy city attorney for all of their work

in making this a very strong document, i appreciate president lopez's leadership and taking taking this on, bylaws and commission rules are very, very important. they get to be tedious, but they're important. and once we publish them, we expect we want the public to abide by them. we are we expect ourselves to abide by them. so, so the terminology and the words are, are are important. the changes are important, i made some recommendations that have been fairly and fully incorporated. i fully support the motion this this evening. i and i can assure those who are, interested in the subject that, the changes are done with an eye towards making this a more open and positive process. i'll just give i'll give one example. we were we were going to in article

three, section four, we were going to go to email communication rather rather than mail. that's great as long as you have email. but if you don't and we and our consistent historic practice has been to mail things, then we will continue to do that. but for those who find things quicker, our communication quicker and easier, they will get the email. so those are the a there are other minor minor changes that, that, are now in this document that were not in or that were not in the earlier document. having said that, there are other changes that need to be made in these rules, but those aren't those aren't before us tonight. and i hope that president lopez will continue in his endeavor to make the rules more clear, to san franciscans. understandable, to all of us. because there are there are opportunities to make changes. the bigger changes, some some of some more policy and judgment

questions about how we take up, rehearings. how we communicate in certain ways. those are not here tonight. those are those are legitimately, value judgments and worth discussion. and having public having the departments involved, that's not here tonight. what's here tonight are matters that are going to help us function more effectively and be more responsive to the people of the city and county of san francisco. and i support and i appreciate all the work that's gone into these. any any further comments? since i was president, at least twice, maybe three times in the last 14 years, i think i did a really lousy job of not keeping these minutes up to date, these rules up to date. so i compliment you on taking that initiative, unlike some of us who held your position before did not. so thanks very much for

that. and i think they've been improved significantly, i just wanted to say i am happy to support these amendments as presented tonight. my hesitation at the last meeting was solely because i didn't understand what i was voting on. now that i do, i'm more than happy to support all of these changes. i think they're all excellent changes, and important. i concur, i see these as, you know, modernizing and causing our rules to reflect our practice, to the extent that, you know, we never violated our rules prior, but we interpreted them in certain ways . and so we've we put those interpretations and codified them into to the rules. and i think that's, that's appropriate. and you know, i am fine with the approval of these this evening, you know, barring any any interesting public comment, because there is nothing that i think drastically changes how we operate. and here it's simply has our rules reflect, 2024. executive

director, i think maybe we can go to public comment at this point. okay. is there any public comment on zoom? please raise your hand. no, i don't see any. and there's nobody in the room. so, commissioners, commissioners, i would say. okay. i'm i'm i'm happy to, continue to be responsive to some of that public comment that we received before. i'm happy to adopt this evening. you know, looking at, if we look at our existing rules, for example, it's not out of the ordinary to, to amend rules more than once, even within the same calendar year. i can see that that happened in 1988, in, 90, 1997,

2008. so that does not seem like that's been, taken to be out of bounds by by previous, compositions of this body, i'm completely flexible with, with whatever the group wants to do. commissioner trasvina. now, president lopez, you've been our leader on this. if you feel that the best way of going forward is giving the public another chance to take a look at this, i'm happy to, to join you in that, in that direction. i'd rather make a i'd rather make a motion. i'd rather follow your advice, to look at and look at it at a reasonable period going forward, say six months. that's that's just a random suggestion. and close this chapter tonight and then, and so be it. and in the

next six months, if we, if we do say tonight that this will be reviewed within the next six months, then by that time, any commissioner, or the public can submit suggestions to the executive director. do i have any further comment or a motion? make the motion to accept the rules as they have been submitted, with the with the consideration that. oops, sorry falling off, that they be reviewed, no later than six months from this approval. i'm sorry. they'd be what? that they be they have the opportunity of being reviewed, no. no later than six months after this. this approval. so you're basically,

directing the board to review them in six months, adopt the rules and then have them you want it and then reconsider, have the potential to reconsider them no later than six months from now. okay how's that? and what's the basis of your motion, that that, the rules as they stand satisfy the needs of the board of appeals as well as the public. okay. so on that motion, president lopez, just a second, would you would you take a friendly amendment? sure, to have the then president six months from now, take this on as a as a project, or do you want it to have a full board hearing on the rules again in six months? i do i would do the former the then president. okay that's that's my, friendly amendment. okay so we have a motion from commissioner swig to adopt the proposed revision. we

have a we have a comment from commissioner trasvina. first, without delaying this, i'm a little bit confused as to what it is you envision. if the public comes in and says, we made a drastic mistake in june or july, we should be able to change our bylaws or our rules at that point. so i'm not sure what. when we say we were reconsidering them, if you're if you're asking for the president to report back on whether the whether the bylaw changes have worked and whether there are any other bylaw changes, then that's that makes sense to me. the intent was to get these things passed because there isn't anything radically controversial or a change of direction as as i've read these and also take your suggestion that there may

be other items with regard to policy or or other activities that the public or yourself or another commissioner may want to surface. and this gives us a parameter during which time those those opportunities may be taken to the executive director and no later than six months from now. we have to deal with it all right, commissioner, my intent. i was going to say it doesn't have to be part of your motion. the six months you can just direct me to raise this in six months? yes, that's fine with me. yeah. and my understanding is this. this wouldn't prevent prevent any amendments from happening before then. right. and i think, hearing, your comments, commissioner, has been i'll follow up with you about, about, any potential additional items, definitely. well, in advance of six months from now. okay. so we have a motion from commissioner

swig to adopt the proposed revisions on the basis that they update the rules for the reasons you previously said, and with further with further direction to the executive director to, agendize an item six months from now. i would say to, authorize the, the executive director to accept, feedback from any commissioner or the public with regard to revisions, for review no later than six months from now. okay. right. and so what if i get feedback? do you want me to put it on the agenda? if i don't get feedback, should i solicit feedback from the commissioners? i just i just feel like it's a little problematic to put this six month timeline. you can just tell me. i can ask everyone in

six months. it just makes it a little more complicated. it's unclear. should we put this on the agenda? i don't want to. i don't want to micromanage here and get things too tight. but if john trasvina or, or myself have something that we that we go, boy, we sure miss that one, that we can come to you and we have surety that within six months it will be dealt with. and it's up to your discretion. but it can no longer be any longer than six months from now for you to deal with it at your discretion. i think commissioner trasvina was saying that if we want to deal with it in june or july, we could do that at your discretion. which means that if mr. pena is on your case and thinks that it's really, really, really important, i think that you would have the wise discretion to deal with mr. trevino's urgency. okay. so maybe say in the motion, should there be should the commissioners of the public want any further revisions? the executive director shall use

their discretion to agendized item no later than six months from exactly receiving the feedback. okay. that was kind of complicated. i don't know how that's going to look on the minutes, frankly, but anyways, on that motion, we had a yes from president lopez, a yes. commissioner trasvina i vice president lundberg i commissioner epler i so that motion carries 5 to 0. and thank you all for your feedback. thank you. that concludes the hearing. okay. is this a record? 621.

venmo. [music] >> san francisco is known as yerba buena, good herb after a mint that used to grow here. at this time there were 3 settlements one was mission delores. one the presidio and one was

yerba buena which was urban center. there were 800 people in 1848 it was small. a lot of historic buildings were here including pony express headquarters. wells fargo. hudson bay trading company and famous early settlers one of whom william leaderdorph who lived blocks from here a successful business person. african-american decent and the first million airin california. >> wilwoman was the founders of san francisco. here during the gold rush came in the early 1840s. he spent time stake himself as a merchant seaman and a business person. his father and brother in new orleans. we know him for san francisco's history.

establishing himself here arnold 18 twoochl he did one of many things the first to do in yerba buena. was not california yet and was not fully san francisco yet. >> because he was an american citizen but spoke spanish he was able to during the time when america was taking over california from mexico, there was annexations that happened and conflict emerging and war, of course. he was part of the peek deliberations and am bas doorship to create the state of california a vice council to mexico. mexico granted him citizenship. he loaned the government of san francisco money. to funds some of the war efforts to establish the city itself and the state, of course. he established the first hotel here the person people turned to often to receive dignitaries or

hold large gatherings established the first public school here and helped start the public school system. he piloted the first steam ship on the bay. a big event for san francisco and depict instead state seal the ship was the sitk a. there is a small 4 block long length of street, owned much of that runs essentially where the transamerica building is to it ends at california. i walk today before am a cute side street. at this point t is the center what was all his property. he was the person entrusted to be the city's first treasurer. that is i big deal of itself to have that legacy part of an african-american the city's first banker. he was not only a forefather of

the establishment of san francisco and california as a state but a leader in industry. he had a direct hahn in so many things that we look at in san francisco. part of our dna. you know you don't hear his anymore in the context of those. representation matters. you need to uplift this so people know him but people like him like me. like you. like anyone who looks like him to be, i can do this, too. to have the city's first banker and a street in the middle of financial district. that alone is powerful. [music]

>> [music] what's this for? i will have nile firefighter friends bring me a bench to explain the cool things. joy want to see. >> this is cool marbles up here. a, appliance and hose and this is a y >> why? >> why is it called a y, that's

a great question this . is a y. you see it looks like a y. we use it for yellow in the fight we use it to take 2 different hoses from one hose. that way in a big building like a high rise, and we have a large piece of hose connect here, we are able to take two more hoses in different directions to help put a fire out in a floor that is well above the street level. >> okay. >> fire engines carry 4 firefighters and firefighter paramedics. firefighters should not be considered strangers. firefighters are your friends. >> uh-huh. >> you are in need of help you need to make sure it is okay to go up to the firefighter. firefighters utilize many of the tools we discuss in the a fire engine. such as a fire extinguisher >> what's that for. >> they can be used to put out

fires the size. a waste basket and squirts water. >> oh , >> that is cool. >> yea! >> we have other tools a chain saw. they help us get through the many obstacles we encounter while we are trialing to put out a fire or save somebody's life. >> nice >> that is cool if you see a firefighter like this in a fire the firefighters are friends and this firefighter will save your life. it is okay to go to the firefighter. >> hum. good to know. [music] ♪♪

>> thank you. i have the privilege of reading the land acknowledgment today. the san francisco commission acknowledges that we're in the unseeded homeland of the ramaytush ohlone who are the i object hab ants of the peninsula. they have never seeded nor lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as care takers of this place as well as for all people who reside in their traditional territory as guests, we recognize that we benefit from work anding living in their traditional home lands. we wish to pay our respects