fulfilling the legal requirements under the sunshine ordinance and legal lemgs lation. in the last six months, the commission has received and filled 32 public records requests, ten of those since we saw you last, so about 30% of them in the last two months. that means, on average, we get more than a request every week. occasionally, in responding to that request, the answer is that we have no records that would respond to the questions that a requester has put to us, but in other instances, we have an overwhelming number of records that would respond to the questions of a requester. so the scope of response varies from zero records to upwards of 10,000. and you'll see notes that it takes, on average, about 12 staff hours every week to fulfill those requests. staff have produced to the

public in the last six months roughly 20,000 pages of records related to the business of the ethics commission, and staff are currently collecting and reviewing an additional 10,000 for production in the coming weeks. i would add, lastly, that the person who currently serves as the commission's public information officer is thomas maclean. he was senior investigator and legal analyst. he came to us from the san diego district attorney's office. director pelham introduced him to you about six months ago, and he's done an excellent job for the commission, learning a new area of law, understanding the requests that we received, applying the law to those requests, and coordinating with staff how to generate and produce the records that the public are entitled to. and he shoulders the bulk of

staff time in responding to these requests, so when i say that we spend roughly 12 hours a week on these, i mostly mean thomas. and in addition to his responsibilities on the records side, he, of course, has investigations for which he's responsible as an investigation. >> commissioner chiu: so jeff, is there a -- any way that we can get him more help to -- another shoulder at the wheel to help with the heavy lift on identifying documents, reviewing documents, and then producing those documents? because 12 hours per week is a significant amount of time, and it probably wasn't -- whatever he's doing on records requests is not -- it takes away from the time that he can spend on investigations. >> yes, thank you, chair chiu. historically, the job of public information officer fell to the

deputy director, so previously, jessica bloom shouldered the bulk of this responsibility. under staffing transitions, we divided some of that up. the responsibility of the public information officer could be fulfilled by the director of enforcement in lela farlela -- legal affairs. i have a smaller shoulder than thomas, but i'm willing to offer it, so we have talked about, going forward, some work that i might do to free him up to conduct investigations. long-term, if the volume of requests persists as it has over the course of the last six months, i think the commission will seriously have to consider requesting some additional staff resources because although we take very seriously

our transparency obligations we also take seriously our enforcement obligations, and we want to see all of those are fulfilled to the fullness of the mandate. >> commissioner chiu: agreed. one idea, would obviously leave this up to you to determine, but if there are any salary savings from the open positions, if that would be something worth exploring. i just understand that there's -- and applaud your effort to meet both the request of the public for transparency but also don't want to meet those obligations at the expense of making progress against the caseload that only continues to grow. >> thank you. >> commissioner chiu: sorry. i interrupted you as you were going through. >> oh, that was the end. >> commissioner chiu: okay. >> i'm happy to entertain other questions. >> commissioner chiu: any questions from commissioners?

public comment? okay. agenda item number nine, discussion of the executive director's report and update of various programatic and operations of highlighted staff activities since the commission's last monthly meeting. >> thank you, chair chiu. there has been a lot going on over the last couple of months since the commission last met. we've been able to take advantage of that time at the staff level to make some progress -- significant progress on some hiring and some staffing. i would first note as my report does announcing for you formally that jeff pierce was appointed permanently since we last met, so we're really lucky to have jeff's experience as an investigation, boots on the ground, but also just a lot of

really great experience and insight from his prior work experience and his -- his background and training, which is, as you see from the -- my report, extensive and fascinating. so jeff's really -- we're just glad that he's on board to take on this additional role. and i think have a lot of exciting things ahead in the coming year with that. with his permanent appointment, we will be backfilling the senior investigative position that jeff had previously served. i'll get to that in just a moment, but i also am happy to announce that we were able to fill the fourth position in steven massey's electronic data and -- disclosure and data analysis, our i.t. team, that we have now filled that fourth position. as you saw from the previous report, steven and his team continue to do really terrific work in helping the public

access information so that it's not in dusty file cabinets. they've also really helped us as an office move into the 21st century really quickly with how we do our work. so having four of them work together, i think we're going to again, continue to see major progress. maron calderon, he's called ronaldo, he joined our staff last month. he was formerly with the department of public health doing information systems work as a business analyst there and has terrific experience that's relevant to the kinds of tools and efforts that we're making, so we're just delighted that he was interested in coming over to us, and he -- he's now rounding out that team, so we look forward to bringing him to the meeting and having a chance to introduce himself to you all, as well. today at 5:00 is the deadline for five terrific positions. we were able to make progress to get those five remaining

positions that have been a part of our hiring plan posted out in the world. we've tried to extensively notify colleagues, other organizations, other networks, to -- to get applicants so that we have, again, as we've been seeing, a terrific pool of people interested in working with us. we did extend the deadline by one week because we thought it was important with the commission meeting materials being out in public and the sort of dog days of summer, we wanted to make sure it was on folks' radar, so that deadline is today, but we will be working with our support over at d.h.r., the department of human resources, to try and fill those positions as soon as possible. they are also service positions, and as you know, that process can take sometime. it is likely we will see people in chairs at the end of the year -- calendar year, if we're lucky. we're going to continue to be as aggressive as we can, but sometimes it's dependant on getting rooms where the tests

have been administered, but we're going to keep working on that. i would also note that -- two other things over the last month. as you know, we've been in a mode of office renovation. the controller's office has been extraordinarily gracious with our team, housing us over at 314 city hall, and in their annex with some other staff and real estate department as well and allowing us to use some space in 25 vanness. we've been working to finalize deadlines and at the same frames. this week's progress is there is now carpet that has been laid in the office which will now enable the work stations to be installed by next week. all of this is to say we are targeting october 4 as the day we will be back in our office at 25 vanness, and we will hopefully make that a very seamless transition between now and then. we know it's been daunting for the public to sometimes find out where we are, but we're

very much working to provide seamless service over the next couple of weeks so that it won't impact any services or communications that we have. if anybody does have concerns about that, i hope that you will please share them with me and let me know that that we can be on top of it, and the same goes for members of the public that might be experiencing some of that, but we are looking forward at being back in our space and having everybody regularly seeing each other. we've missed each other. the last thing i would say, the other thing we've been able to do over this last month, as you might recall, every year, we establish individual goals about how our work supports the overarching organizational goals that we have as a commission, we know with you have our blueprint for our budget process that describes the kinds of goals that we've continued to work at tleez past three years. we want to take a step back with staff and make sure our individual goals are aligning with those. it's part of an annual

performance review process where we establish those goals and have conversations with each other, we completed that process so that all supervisors have met with all staff in the office at the -- as of the end of the summer. and that's -- it's a good chance for everybody to have a once a year conversation about how we're doing and where we're going. so that was very helpful, i think, to take time to do that and to -- to do it well, and we'll keep focusing on that going forward. i think with that, i'm happy to answer any questions you might have for me, but i would just say from all of us on the staff, we do appreciate the flexibility and support that everybody's shown with this period of transition with the office move. we're looking forward to being back and also to reporting more good news as we go forward this fall on hiring and the progress on the work that we're doing. >> commissioner chiu: wonderful. well first off, i'd like to congratulate you, jeff, on your appointment to the director of enforcement. i think that you are off to a great start, and look forward

to continue to work with you and to see more great things coming out of your department with your team. and also, kudos for getting through the annual review and performance review conversation process. it's -- it's a really important thi thing to do, and i know that it was an ambitious goal that you set, but to have set the goal and met it, i think it a testament to both your leadership and also the commitment of your leadership team to make sure that they do right by -- by all the staff who are working, so keep up the great work. any other -- commissioner lee? >> thank you, madam chair. it's great to hear that you may be move back home october 4, before the election. i wonder if there's been a practice that you have open house to welcome the public because this would be a great

opportunity as part of your public engagement and outreach initiative to really not bring in the folks who's followed you for many years, but the new communities, the folks who may not know the commission that well, this may be a good opportunity for them. and also, we have so many new staffers, it would be good for folks to meet with you. i know that we won't be able to serve coffee and cookies, but at least have people to see the beautiful new office. >> thank you for that. i do make a mean chocolate chip cookie, i will say. we do have coffee in the office, but i think that's a very helpful suggestion. i think we're excited about sharing the newness of being back and sharing it with people outside of your four walls -- our four walls may be a terrific suggestion in the future. i think that's something that would be great to do. >> commissioner chiu: terrific

idea. >> i'll bring desert. >> commissioner chiu: any other commissioner comments? questions? public comment? charlie. >> well, speaking of hospitality it is hospitality, it is an august occasion we've just passed, and that was commissioner kopp's 90th birthday, and i wanted to extend my compliments to him on his amazing anniversary. and also, i'm sure the commission would agree that if you can throw in a birthday cake in the office opening on october 4. >> too many calories. >> well, make it a calorically sensitive birthday cake. >> commissioner chiu: have a small slice.

>> well, i don't think we can give you a cake, the public, but you can give us a cake, and you're not bribing us, you're the decision makers. so that's the thought. i was wondering who could bring the cake. and i think if the staff provides the cake, that would work. >> commissioner chiu: thank you. >> happy birthday, commissioner kopp. >> commissioner kopp: thank you, mr. marstellar. >> commissioner chiu: any other public comment? okay. item number ten, discussion and possible action regarding status of complaints received or initiated by the ethics commission, possible closed session. >> commissioner kopp: madam chair woman, i'd request a closed session on the confidential report from the executive director.

>> commissioner chiu: is there a second? >> commissioner renne: i'll second it. >> commissioner chiu: okay. public comment on this item? no, no public comment. okay. we'll take a five-minute break, and then, when we come back, we'll go into closed session at -- let's call it 3:30. >> the office of controllers whistle blower program is how city employees and recipient sound the alarm an fraud address wait in city government charitable complaints results in investigation that improves the efficiency of city government that.

>> you can below the what if anything, by assess though the club program website arrest call 4147 or 311 and stating you wishing to file and complaint point controller's office the charitable program also accepts complaints by e-mail or 0 folk you can file a complaint or provide contact information seen by whistle blower investigates some examples of issues to be recorded to the whistle blower program face of misuse of city government money equipment supplies or materials exposure activities by city clez deficiencies the quality and delivery of city government services waste and inefficient government practices when you submit a complaint to

the charitable online complaint form you'll receive a unique tracking number that inturgz to detector or determine in investigators need additional information by law the city employee that provide information to the whistle blower program are protected and an employer may not retaliate against an employee that is a whistle blower any employee that retaliates against another that employee is subjected up to including submittal employees that retaliate will personal be liable please visit the sf ethics.org and information on reporting retaliation that when fraud is loudly to continue it jeopardizes the level of service that city government can provide in you hear or see any dishelicopter

behavior boy an employee please report it to say whistle blower program more information and the whistle blower protections please seek >> for the first time in nearly two decades fishers have been granted the legal right to sell fish directly to the package right off their boat -- to the public right off their boats in san francisco. it's not only helping local fishers to stay afloat but it's evoking the spirit of the wharf by resurfacing the traditional methods of selling fish. but how is it regulated? and what does it take for a boat to be transported into a floating fish market? find out as we hop on board on this episode of "what's next sf." (♪) we're here with the owner and the captain of the vessel pioneer. it's no coincidence that your boat is called the pioneer

because it's doing just that. it's the first boat in san francisco to sell fish directly from the boat. how did you establish your boat into such a floating fish market? >> well, you know, i always thought that it would be nice to be able to provide fresh fish to the locals because most of the fish markets, you would have to do a large amount of volume in order to bring in enough fish to cover the overhead. when you start selling to the public that volume is much less so it makes it hard to make enough money. so being able to do this is really -- it's a big positive thing i think for the entire community. >> a very positive thing. as a third-generation fisherman joe as his friends call him has been trawling the california waters for sustainably caught seafood since an early age. since obtaining a permit to sell fish directly to the public he is able to serve fish at an affordable price. >> right now we're just selling what a lot of the markets like, flat fish and rock fish and what

the public likes. so we have been working for many, many years and putting cameras in them. there's the ability to short fish and we have panels that we open and close so we target the different species of fish by adjusting the net. and then not only that but then the net sort out the sizes which is really important. >> joe brings in a lot of fish, around 20,000 pounds per fishing trip to be exact. >> we had one day one time that we sold almost 18,000 pounds. >> it's incredible. >> i know, it's hard to imagine. >> but this wasn't always the case for joe. >> the markets that we have left in california, they're few and far between, and they really are restrictive. they'll let you fish for a couple months and shut you down. a lot of times it's rough weather and if you can't make your delivery you will lose your rotation. that's why there's hardly any boats left in california because of the market challenges. my boat was often sitting over here at the dock for years and i couldn't do anything with it because we had no market.

the ability to go catch fish is fine, i had the permits, but you couldn't take them off your boat. >> that was until the port commission of san francisco rallied behind them and voted unanimously to approve a pilot program to allow the fish to be sold directly to consumers right off their boats. >> the purpose of the program is to allow commercial fishers to sell their fish directly from their boats to the end consumer in a safe and orderly manner for the benefit of the overall fishing community at the port of san francisco. we have limited the program to certain types of fish such as salmon, halibut, tuna and rock fish. crab is restricted from this program because we did not want to interfere with the existing crab sales on taylor street and jefferson street. so this is not meant to favor one aspect of the fishing industry more than another. it's to basically to lift up the whole industry together.

>> and if joe the program has been doing just that. >> it was almost breathtaking whenever i woke up one morning and i got my federal receiver, my first receivers license in the mail. and that gave me permission to actually take fish off my boat. once we started to be able to sell, it opened things up a bit. because now that we have that federal permit and i was able to ppetition the city council and getting permission from san francisco to actually use the dock and to sell fish here, it was a big turning point. because we really didn't think or know that we'd get such a positive response from the public. and so we're getting thousands of people coming down here buying fish every week and so that's pretty cool. they like the fish so much that they take pictures of it when they cook it and they send us all of these pictures and then they ask us, you know, constantly for certain types of fish now. and when they come down here the one thing that they say is that they're so amazed that the fish is so fresh they could eat a

little bit during the week and it's still fresh all week in the refrigerator. so that's really cool. >> the fish is very fresh and the price is super. i don't think that you can get it anywhere in the bay area. i can see it, and i can stir fry it, wow, you can do anything you want. i just can say this is a good place to shop and you have a good experience. >> this program supports the strategic plan in terms of engagement, people being connected to the waterfront, and also economic vitality. because it's helping the fishermen to make ends meet. they have no guarantees in their businesses, not like some people, and we want to do everything that we can to help them to have a good and thriving business. >> how does it feel to be able to sell your fish locally kind of in the traditional way, like your grandfather probably did? >> when i was a kid and i used

to work in my dad's fish market, a lot of the markets that we sell to now are second and third and fourth generation markets. so i remember as a kid putting their tags on the boxes of fish that we shipped out of monterey and ship down to l.a. so it's kind of cool that we're still dealing with the same families. and this is probably about the only way that anyone can really survive in california is to sell your own fish. >> one of the advantages of this program is the department people that pull in the fish, they can find out where they caught it and find out more about the fisherman and that adds to their experience. the feedback from the fishers has been very good and the feedback from the customers have very good. and there's a lot of people coming to the wharf now that might not have done so. in fact, there's people that go through the neighboring restaurants that are going to eat fish inside but before they go in they see the action on the dock and they want to kind of

look at what's happening on the boat before they go in and they have a meal. so it's generated some conversation down at the wharf and that's a good thing. >> as you can see by the line forming behind me getting ready to buy fish, the pilot program has been a huge success. for more information visit sfsport.com. (♪) (♪)

to the september 26, 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. board president frank fung will be the president. to my left is deputy city attorney brad russy who will provide the board any legal advice this evening. i'm julie rosenberg, the board's executive director. we will be joined by the city departments that have cases before the board. we have mr. scott sanchez, representing the planning commission, and we expect to see joseph duffy, senior building inspector from the department of building

inspection. the board requests that you turn oregon silence all phones or electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings, please carry on conversations in the hall way. appellants, permit holders and department respondents are each given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must complete their comments within the seven or three minute periods. members of the public not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes for their comments. to assist the board in preparation of minutes you are asked but not required to submit a business card or speaker card to the board when you come up to speak. speaker cards are on the left-hand side of the podium. we are located at 1650 mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovt.r. cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast at 4:00

on fridays on channel 26. now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note that any member of the public may speak without being under oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance. if you wish the board to give your comments testimonial weight, please stand if you are able and say yes or i affirm. do you solemnly swear that you will testify to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? this is general public. this is the opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item in the board's

jurisdiction but not on tonight's calendar. seeing none, we will move onto commissioner comments. seeing none, we'll move onto item number three, adoption of minutes. commissioners before you for discussion and possible adoption of the minutes of the sept 12, 2018 board meeting. >> any corrections or additions? entertain a motion to accept. >> so moved. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes from september 18, 2018. on that motion -- [roll call] >> oh, one question. is there any public comment on the adoption of that motion? okay. my apologies. on that motion -- [roll call] >> okay. that motion carries, and the minutes are adopted. item four, this was a jurisdiction request and that has been withdrawn.

the subject property was 2900 vallejo street, so we will move onto item number five. this is appeal number 18-101, mark hermann, andres ferrier, mark meza, the subject property is 3250 octavia street, protesting the issuance on july 11, 2018 of a building permit. this is application number 2018-0595170. >> looks like our building official's not here yet. why don't we move this down one. >> okay. so we'll move onto item number

six. this is 2130 -- peal number 18-091, 2135 market street, l.l.c., versus building inspection with planning department approval. the subject property -- okay. >> here you thought you were lucky in getting moved up from last to first. >> okay. let me try and call our inspector here. >> i think we need him for all of them. >> yes. >> in the six years on this board, i've never heard the volume from the event. >> yeah. >> that's because this music is for younger kids. >> metallica, is that for the city hall? >> nice. i like them.

>> you want me to call >> welcome back to the september 26, 2018 meeting of the board of appeals. we will go to item number five. this is appeal number 18-101, mark hermann, andres ferrier, bill meza, the subject property is 3255 octavia street, protesting the issuance of july 11, 2018 of a building permit. this is application number

201805159170, and we will start with the appellants if they're present. >> i don't see counsel for the permit holder, either. they're not here. let's move that down one item -- oh, i'm sorry. you're here? >> okay. so -- [inaudible] >> okay. >> okay. just for the record, one of the appellants contacted our office and indicated they wanted to withdraw the appeal. we explained that they would need to have agreement from all of the appellants, and they would have to return the form. they never -- he never did that, and he indicated he might not show up, but we don't see them here. >> okay. let's hear from the permit holder here. >> and prior to hearing, i am a partner that has hired the law firm of reuben junius, and it

will have no effect on my hearing this. >> i'd just like to start and say that we also heard from the appellants, and that they indicated that they likely would withdraw the appeal; however, we have not heard from them today. so 3255 octavia street, which we're here today to discuss, we've come today for a project that was reviewed by d.b.i. and sf planning. an appeal was filed by a small contingent of neighbors who previously opposed. commission comments were heard, changes were made to the commissioner's liking and the d.r. was not taken on july 26 of this year with the condition that if the project sponsor were to convert the ground floor to a common area to a

unit that that unit would be a fourth unit approved through the a.d.u. program. attempts were made to link 1355 francisco with 3255 octavia at that time, and the board agreed there was no linkage. the two properties are not linked and stand on their merit as code compliant with the approval of sfdbi and sf planning. i would like to submit a neighbor petition signed by 62 of their neighbors. >> you can put it on the overhead. >> overhead, please.

overhead, please. >> so what i presented before you is a petition with signatures by 62 of the neighbors. >> in support of the project? >> they support the project, yes. and those include those most affected by the project at 3249 octavia, next door, and directly behind the subject property. the neighbors have responded appropriately to the sense of the project and to their sense of fairplay. they do not want to fare that

their neighbors can use divisive tactics to strong arm them. this is the interior renovation of a two story building, light well in-fill, and some minimal changes to the rear facade. the deck uses an operable sky light for compliant access and egress point as the existing stair tower is a narrow winder. the roof deck proposes additional cosmetic paving and screening outside the deck footprint simply or aesthetics and to com -- for aesthetics and to accommodate future planting. it will seismically upgrade and provide sprinkler protection. it is a well designed, code compliant and sensitive to its surround beings. the appellants purport --

[inaudible] >> -- the future issuance of 415 francisco for which d.r. was not taken and we hope that your decision in this sends a message to the harassment of the project by this party. thank you for your time. >> thank you. is there anyone here from the planning department? >> scott sanchez, planning department. would like to highlight a couple of facts. the permit was actually approved in error by the planning department because the roof deck has a 6 foot high glass wind screen under the code. anything higher than 4 feet would require a section 311 notification. i discovered this when reviewing the project plans today, and i did reach out to the attorney and spoke with him earlier. another issue that i had noticed appears to be

inaccuracy on the roof plans, they're showing the second set of stairs as existing, but in reality, that is a new condition. i think it must be a drafting issue because in the brief, it seems as if they're representing the second set of stairs as a new addition. in regards to the compliance with the not yet adopted roof deck policy, it would not completely comply with the policy which would require or would generally have a set back of 5 feet against the side property line. certainly, they meet it with regards to other set backs, but along the north side property line under that policy, which is not yet adopted, would have a set back of 5 feet. it also limits the size of the roof deck to one-third of the roof area. they are showing the wood deck as a smaller deck of 490 square feet, but then, they are showing concrete pavers at the front and rear of a couple

hundred square feet each, which is odd because it also has around those, a 42 inch tall railing. so it would seem to be it is meant to be a roof deck. i don't know why else you would build out on the roof and put concrete pavers and railing around it unless it is intended to be used as a roof deck? i know they've set in the brief that it was meant to be a wind break. i would think that we would have to honestly look at this as a much larger roof deck than what they're representing it here. if this is their intention not to use these areas, it could also be labelled on the plans that this is not usable roof deck area. in speaking with the attorney, he said there had been discussions with neighbors. one of the things he mentioned with me is that there had been some possibility of lowering

the height of the railing to 4 feet as a compromise. i don't know what the status of that is, but that would obviate the need for the section 311 neighborhood notification. in regards to the ground floor, i mean, the ground floor modifications that they're proposing, in and of themselves violating the planning code, they certainly raise questions, given how their design would facilitate its reuse or use as a dwelling or separate living space, but there is no violation that i see just from what they have on the plans, and i think inspector duffy may have other comments on that, as well, but those are the thoughts that i wanted to share with you. in regards to the section 311 notice, i would point out to the board that as part of your appeal process and as part of your appeal notification, you do send your appeal notice to the same radius that we would for a section 311 notice, and i

think in other cases, we have considered that to satisfy -- generally satisfy the requirements of section 311 because the required people are getting notice of the work. but we'll leave it up to the board as to how to proceed with the appeal. i know it's a little bit unusual that we don't have an appellant here, but i wanted to represent our department's review and concerns that we have and issues that we highlighted. thank you. >> sure. may i ask you a question? so your concerns were my concerns. of course, we always think alike, don't we? i -- i -- exactly what you registered were exactly my concerns. i became much more focused on the roof deck that wasn't a roof deck that is a roof deck, same concerns as yourself. so can you help me -- can you

help me in making it legal or help me in making it more appropriate to what -- what the -- what the code is? >> certainly. and in terms of being code compliant, it's just a question of the notification for the six-foot tall wind screen. if that's dropped to 4 feet, that does not need notice? but as i said, you have essentially completed the section 311 notice by virtue of the note that was done for this appeal hearing? so i think if the board felt the six-foot height was appropriate, that would be appropriate to take action on here. the separate item, i think, is the -- not concrete pavers, area which is represented in the brief as not being deck space, has a 42 inch tall railing around it, and laid with pavers, which they say

kind of improves the visual aspect of it. obvious when people want to improve the visual aspect of a roof, often, they'll do a green roof, other than concrete pavers. it has its benefits, as well. i think if you're concerned about the size of the deck and this is on appeal to you, even if that there's no appellant, you have ability to take whatever action you feel is appropriate. if you feel the potential roof deck was too large, you could require the removal of the concrete pavers and the railing, you could just have recovery room value of the railing and noting that the concrete pavers are to be nonoccupiable space. i think it's what the board feels is an appropriate roof deck for this property and modifying the project if you feel that there's any changes that are necessary. >> yeah. i would again -- you just represented what i was going to talk about, which was why would you put concrete pavers on top

of a roof unless you're going to use them, and who's going to look at them -- there's nobody up there unless you're flying a drone, so i was confused by the whole excuse for why this area was made as finished and visually important as it was, so -- >> maybe the appellant can elaborate more on what was on the -- or permit holder. >> yeah, thanks. >> thank you. >> i have a question for you, too, mr. sanchez. you mentioned that there's a 5 foot set back. >> so it's not a code requirement, it's -- i'm glad we're actually having this conversation. so last month, the planning department put forward to the planning commission a draft policy for how we review roof decks, knowing that this not only comes up at d.r.s, but

also the board of appeals. they did request that the planning department review that with the board of appeals, and so i will discuss approximate your executive director at a future hearing date whereby we can present the draft policy to the board of appeals and get your feedback, but in terms of that, some of the items that are in there i think are relevant to this. a set back of -- generally, a set back of 5 feet along the side property line, unless if there is a blind wall or some other feature that would render it kind of useless -- in this case, i think the property to the north is at the same height, so it may not be useless, and the 5 foot set back may -- may be more appropriate there, but it's not a code requirement. it's just what is in the draft policy. it's also limiting the area of the roof deck to no more than one-third of the roof area. so what they have shown, i think as the wood deck of 490 square feet, seems to be

probably a third, but then, they have the paver areas and -- of the area and why is that there, especially with a 42-inch tall railing. i'm not an aerodynamic engineer, but i wouldn't think it would make much of an impact on the wind. >> so the planning commission is making us the stewards of decks and trees. >> they are seeking your wise input knowing that the board of appeals has wisely adjudicated on these issues in the past. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. >> just one more question. so we can clarify or cure your concerns by allowing the -- the deck -- sorry, i'm going to refer to it as that -- to -- with a restricted covenant that says that paver area is simply not occupiable. and then, that stops that as being used as a deck. >> we get into enforcement

issues down the road, and that's what i'm concerned because it's been represented as this roof deck is just this smaller, 490 square foot deck. this deck is not a roof deck, even though it is got a 42 inch railing around it. i don't know if this home is going to be occupied by the owner or be sold in the future, but if i say this, you would think i could use that space. it's not a code issue about the size of it, i think we need to be honest if it's deck or not. if it's not deck, i think that the railing should be removed or the pavers, too, and just -- whatever the deck is should be approved on the plans. that's it. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez, the two points you brought up were questions i had in my own mind. but the draft policy that the planning department shared with us, it had no definition of

what is a roof deck as part of that. >> trying to think -- >> it's just something for the department to consider. >> fair point. >> i think the -- the other restrictions that it poses, all of it probably pretty much makes sense. the only exception is why is it that the department is recommending no set back at the rear wall of the property. >> as part of the policy? >> yeah. >> i think it is less of a concern about impacts on adjacent properties because it's looking over their own property, but it's not a final policy, and i think that would be a great discussion to have when we do bring our staff here in the future to discuss the

policy, and i'm sure they can come up with a great answer for that. >> yeah. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. duffy? >> good evening, commissioners. joe duffy, d.b.i. yeah just on a couple of the points that mr. sanchez brought up are concerns of mine, as well. just reviewing the plans this morning at the office, some of the labelling of the areas are something that i wouldn't be used to seeing. i know it's been approved by d.b.i., but i never got a chance today to speak to the plan checker. if you look at the grand floor plan on a-100, they're labelling these areas as common space on the ground floor behind the garage. i'm not used to seeing common space. you know, we normally have storage. there is one storage room on

the existing plan, but they're showing this common space. i'm not sure what common space means on the ground floor of a building. i'd prefer to see that labelled as storage or whatever it's going to be used for. the occupant load factor, i don't even know if we have something in the code for that. common areas of buildings are generally lobbies, hallways, corridors, stuff like that, but this seems to be some sort of a room that's going to be used for something, but common space doesn't really fit with the building code in my opinion. i was hoping to speak to d.b.i. plan check about that issue. the other point is i see there's a gas connection going to the -- in the workshop. it looks like an island there in the middle of the workshop, so they're providing gas to that, with i -- which is alway suspicious. and then, it's called a workshop, with cabinets on the walls, and gas is going into the island, so there's always

suspicion someone's going to turn it into a dwelling unit. obviously, it might be for welding, but i don't know what it's used for. i would just -- if the plans were a little more defined on what that space is actually going to be. the other issue i have, of course, is the roof deck, as well. i've only ever seen one project that had these concrete pavers, i'd say, the roof deck area. normally it's labelled as a roof garden or something, but then, we would ask that planning look at that. it's got concrete pavers out there. i don't see access to it from the roof deck. there's no gate or anything in that railing, so, again, just concerns about it, obviously, it's got a rail around it, and if they're going to put plants up there, we may be concerned

about the load, what they're going on up there, but certainly, i have a few comments about the plans, and the appellant's not here, but certainly, i would think we've got a few questions that we would like to get clarified from d.b.i. plan check. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, we will move onto the rebuttal portion. so mr. jacobs, you have three minutes, please. >> thank you. i want to address some of the concerns that were raised both by mr. sanchez and mr. duffy. so the intent of the roof paving area is to support some potted plants and some sculptural pieces in the future, so it really is for aesthetics, there is no intent to occupy that area. we have discussed with the appellant the possibility of lowering the railing to 4 feet,

and the intent of that railing really is both for wind screening for plants and for protection for maintenance access. the existing or proposed egress systems wouldn't support a roof deck greater than 499 square feet, so we're limited to the occupiable area on this roof, both by building code and by the parameters of that railing. in terms of the -- the concerns about the common space, the common space is presented as an amenity space for both units in the building. it should provide both workshop area and access to the rear yard so that both units can barbecue and enjoy the garden space, though the intent is the roof deck be primarily the usable open space for the upper

unit. >> the property owner. it's hard not to be frustrated because this was -- this has been pulled back by the neighbors, the three that protested this. this was done as a tactic to delay us at 1503 francisco. that's why they're not here. they've got significant push back from the neighbors because there's been both on-line and in person, really, a threshold that has gotten into bullying, and that's why support for us on 1503, which was around 25 people six months ago, has know developed to 62. it's not because i'm a nice guy or things have changed that much. it's because the neighborhood has gotten very divided and concerned over what is bullying. so the -- we would like to have a space that's accessible, makes the garden accessible for the two units. that's what's occurring down at the bottom. we have no intent to have it be a unit or a bedroom, i'm not

sure what you'd call it. the roof deck, we would like to have a roof garden for vegetables and fruits. it's something that my wife does. that's why we need the pavers. there's beams going in the building so they can bear the weight of that. we had agreed to remove the wind screen down to 42 or 48 inches on the outer edge. it's just simply for -- you know, just added security in case there's a niece or somebody accompanying my wife as she's gardening, but it's not meant for usable space. >> okay. thank you, sir. your time is up. >> i have a few questions, whoever would like to answer it. le