potential cant -- candidates an possibly into january depending on the availability of the candidates in terms of the search process. sometimes it's probably easier to say not this week. any other announcements? >> through the chair. >> yes. >> i want to state the san francisco general hospital

foundation had its annual grantee awards given on the 28th of last month at carl auditorium. and just to give you a baseline, from 2004 to last year the foundation is awarded over $12 million to csfgh for the innovative grants. what this particularly special is we had a unique outstanding speaker who spoke to our staff, awardees, etcetera, why he love san francisco in general and love this grate city and gave -- great city and gave a great presentation and was had an exception well done presentation and we want to thank him on behalf of the san francisco foundation and board and a

member who serves on the awards committee and etcetera. this takes place once a year where it's at candle stick park -- i mean at&t and this year at pier 48. again the monies go to support critical integrative programs and it was just an extremely -- we gave almost $600,000 to i believe 30 projects funded for this year. we want to thank the foundation and all the awardees for a job well done and also our commissioner for doing an outstanding job. >> thank you, for that. thank you commissioner for -- so any other announcements or items of interest. if not we'll go to the nextite zbl

>> item 14 is a report back on the joint conversation committee reports meeting. on september 25, 2018. >> the conference has met and the standards report regarding regulatory affairs in the hospital administrators report and human resources an medical staff report were given and you will see those in your minutes. we also had presentations on optimizing care experienced model in the zsfg way and this is to show the maturity of the lean process for my fellow commissioners. actually, three of the four were there. in preparation for the november annual meeting, also the committee did review the various policies including provision of care, performance improvement, patient safety, environmental

care, annual report and took on the action items of the medical staff which actually helped also confirm several chiefs and acting chiefs which will be in our minutes and in closed session approved a [indiscernible] report. and they again had a very outstanding meeting in their presentation. anything from our other commissioners in regards to that meeting? no? thank you. >> and now consideration for adjournment commissioners. >> there be no other business, a motion for adjournment sin order.

>> growing up in san francisco has been way safer than growing up other places we we have that bubble, and it's still that bubble that it's okay to be whatever you want to. you can let your free flag fry he -- fly here. as an adult with autism, i'm here to challenge people's idea of what autism is. my journey is not everyone's

journey because every autistic child is different, but there's hope. my background has heavy roots in the bay area. i was born in san diego and adopted out to san francisco when i was about 17 years old. i bounced around a little bit here in high school, but i've always been here in the bay. we are an inclusive preschool, which means that we cater to emp. we don't turn anyone away. we take every child regardless of race, creed, religious or ability. the most common thing i hear in my adult life is oh, you don't seem like you have autism. you seem so normal. yeah. that's 26 years of really, really, really hard work and i think thises that i still do.

i was one of the first open adoptions for an lgbt couple. they split up when i was about four. one of them is partnered, and one of them is not, and then my biological mother, who is also a lesbian. very queer family. growing up in the 90's with a queer family was odd, i had the bubble to protect me, and here, i felt safe. i was bullied relatively infrequently. but i never really felt isolated or alone. i have known for virtually my entire life i was not suspended, but kindly asked to not ever bring it up again in first grade, my desire to have a sex change. the school that i went to really had no idea how to handle one. one of my parents is a little bit gender nonconforming, so they know what it's about, but

my parents wanted my life to be safe. when i have all the neurological issues to manage, that was just one more to add to it. i was a weird kid. i had my core group of, like, very tight, like, three friends. when we look at autism, we characterize it by, like, lack of eye contact, what i do now is when i'm looking away from the camera, it's for my own comfort. faces are confusing. it's a lack of mirror neurons in your brain working properly to allow you to experience empathy, to realize where somebody is coming from, or to realize that body language means that. at its core, autism is a social disorder, it's a neurological disorder that people are born with, and it's a big, big spectrum. it wasn't until i was a teenager that i heard autism in

relation to myself, and i rejected it. i was very loud, i took up a lot of space, and it was because mostly taking up space let everybody else know where i existed in the world. i didn't like to talk to people really, and then, when i did, i overshared. i was very difficult to be around. but the friends that i have are very close. i click with our atypical kiddos than other people do. in experience, i remember when i was five years old and not wanting people to touch me because it hurt. i remember throwing chairs because i could not regulate my own emotions, and it did not mean that i was a bad kid, it meant that i couldn't cope. i grew up in a family of behavioral psychologists, and i got development cal --

developmental psychology from all sides. i recognize that my experience is just a very small picture of that, and not everybody's in a position to have a family that's as supportive, but there's also a community that's incredible helpful and wonderful and open and there for you in your moments of need. it was like two or three years of conversations before i was like you know what? i'm just going to do this, and i went out and got my prescription for hormones and started transitioning medically, even though i had already been living as a male. i have a two-year-old. the person who i'm now married to is my husband for about two years, and then started gaining weight and wasn't sure, so i we went and talked with the doctor at my clinic, and he said well, testosterone is basically birth control, so there's no way you can be pregnant.

i found out i was pregnant at 6.5 months. my whole mission is to kind of normalize adults like me. i think i've finally found my calling in early intervention, which is here, kind of what we do. i think the access to irrelevant care for parents is intentionally confusing. when i did the procespective search for autism for my own child, it was confusing. we have a place where children can be children, but it's very confusing. i always out myself as an adult with autism. i think it's helpful when you know where can your child go. how i'm choosing to help is to give children that would normally not be allowed to have children in the same respect, kids that have three times as much work to do as their peers or kids who do odd things,

like, beach therapy. how do -- speech therapy. how do you explain that to the rest of their class? i want that to be a normal experience. i was working on a certificate and kind of getting think early childhood credits brefore i started working here, and we did a section on transgender inclusion, inclusion, which is a big issue here in san francisco because we attract lots of queer families, and the teacher approached me and said i don't really feel comfortable or qualified to talk about this from, like, a cisgendered straight person's perspective, would you mind talking a little bit with your own experience, and i'm like absolutely. so i'm now one of the guest speakers in that particular class at city college. i love growing up here. i love what san francisco represents. the idea of leaving has never occurred to me. but it's a place that i need to

fight for to bring it back to what it used to be, to allow all of those little kids that come from really unsafe environments to move somewhere safe. what i've done with my life is work to make all of those situations better, to bring a little bit of light to all those kind of issues that we're still having, hoping to expand into a little bit more of a resource center, and this resource center would be more those new parents who have gotten that diagnosis, and we want to be this one centralized place that allows parents to breathe for a second. i would love to empower from the bottom up, from the kid level, and from the top down, from the teacher level. so many things that i would love to do that are all about changing people's minds about certain chunts, like the transgender community or the autistic community. i would like my daughter to know there's no wrong way to go through life. everybody experiences pain and grief and sadness, and that all of those things are temporary.

>> 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 www. >> in november of 2016, california voters passed proposition 64. the adult use of marijuana act. san franciscans overwhelmingly approved it by nearly 75%.

and the law went into effect in january of 2018. [♪] >> under california's new law, adults age 21 and over can legally possess up to 1 ounce of cannabis and grow up to six plants at home. adults in california can legally give up to 1 ounce to other adults. >> in the state of california, we passed a law that said adult consumption is legal. if you are an adult and in possession of certain amounts, you will no longer be tried. you will not be arrested or prosecuted for that. that is changing the landscape dramatically. [♪] >> to legalization of cannabis could bring tremendous economic and social benefits to cities like san francisco. >> this industry is projected to reach $22 billion by the year

2020. and that is just a few years away. >> it can be a huge legal industry in california. i think very shortly, the actual growing of marijuana may become the biggest cash crop in the state and so you want that to be a legal tax paying cash crop, all the way down the line to a sales tax on the retail level. >> the california medical industry is a 3 billion-dollar industry last year. anticipating that multiplier as 20, 30, 50 times in the consumer marketplace once adult use is really in place, you could go ahead and apply that multiplier to revenue. it will be huge. >> when that underground economy becomes part of the regular tax paying employment economy of the bay area, it not only has a direct impact, that money has a

ripple impact through the economy as well. >> it is not just about retail. it is not just about the sensor. is about manufacturing pick a lot of innovative manufacturing is happening here in san francisco in addition to other parts of the state as well as the cultivation. we should be encouraging that. >> there is a vast array of jobs that are going to be available in the newly regulated cannabis industry. you can start at the top tier which a scientist working in testing labs. scientists working at extraction companies. and you work towards agricultural jobs. you have ones that will require less education and you look towards cannabis retail and see traditional retail jobs and you see general management jobs. those things that are similar to working at a bar restaurant or working at a retail store. >> we are offering, essentially, high paid manufacturing jobs. typical starting wage of 18-$20 an hour, almost no barrier to

entry, you do not need an education. >> that means that people who do not have college educations, working-class people, will have an opportunity to have a job at cultivating cannabis plants. there's a whole wide array of job opportunities from the seedling to the sale of the cannabis. [♪] >> last year, they said 26 million people came to san francisco. >> the tourism industry continues to be very robust here and the city and county of san francisco is about a billion-dollar industry. >> if we use a conservative cannabis user adoption rate to 15% that means 4 million tourists want that means 4 million tourists want to purchase cannabis. and we need to be ready for th them. >> in 2015, as adult use legalization efforts gained momentum in california, the supervisors created the san francisco cannabis state legalization task force. this task force offered to research and advice to the supervisors, the mayor and other

city departments. >> we knew that adult use legalization was coming to the ballot and stat that would bring with it a number of decisions that the city would have to make about zoning and regulation and so forth. and i decided at that time, at a know it was a great, that rather than have a fire drill after the ballot measure passes, as suspected it would, we should plan an event. so i authored a task force to spend a year studying it and we made it a broad-based task force. >> we prepared ourselves by developing a health impact assessment and partnered that with key stakeholder discussions with washington, oregon, colorado, to really learn lessons from their experience rolling out both adult and medicinal cannabis. >> within days of the passing of the proposition, ed lee called

on agencies to act decisively. >> he issued an executive order asking the department of public health, along with planning and other city departments to think through an internal working group around what we needed to do to consider writing this law. >> we collectively, i would say that was representatives from g.s.a., as well as the mayor's office, met with a lot of departments to talk through what prop 64 and the implementation of prop 64 it meant to them. >> the mayor proposed an office of cannabis, a one-stop shop for permits allowing operators to grow and sell cannabis. >> he wanted a smart structure. he wanted a regulatory structure that ensured that kids didn't have access and community's were safe and that consumers were safe. and he wanted to ensure, more importantly, it was a regulatory structure that encouraged diversity and inclusivity.

>> this is an office that will be solely charged with a duty of wanting not only the policies that we create, implementing and enforcing them, but also executing the licenses that are needed. we're talking about 20 different licenses that will put us into compliance with what is happening on the state level. >> this is a highly, highly regulated industry now, at this point. we have anywhere from 7-10 departments that will be working with these industry participants as they go through the permitting process. that is a lot of work at a loss of coordination. we are creating a permitting process that is smart and is digital. it is much easier for the user and for community input, and is less mired in bureaucracy. >> for the first time ever in san francisco history, standalone licenses are available for all aspects of the nonretail side of the cannabis industry. now, a cultivator can go in to

the department of building inspection and to the department of health and say, with this first registered and temporary license, and then what will eventually be a permanent license, this is the project, this is what i am going to do. >> very rarely in city government do we interact with industries that are asking to be regulated. these guys want to be regulated. they want to be compliant. they want to work with the city. that is rare. >> san francisco has created a temporary licensing process so that the pre-existing operators here in san francisco can apply for a temporary state licensed. >> we have taken teams of up to 12 inspectors to inspect the facility twice a day. we have been doing that with the department of building inspection and the department of public health. and the fire department. >> it is really important for the industry to know that we are treating them like industry.

like manufacturing. like coworkers pick so that is the way we are approaching this from a health and safety and a consumer protection network. this is just the way practice happens with restaurants or manufacturing facilities. >> because there are so many pieces of industry that people haven't even thought about. there are different permits for each piece. you have to set up a permitting system for growing, for manufacturing, for testing. for delivery. for retail. you have to make sure that there is an appropriate health code. certainly the regulation of alcohol in terms of restaurants and retail it's probably a model for how this industry will be regulated as well, both on sale and consumption. >> it is completely uncharted territory. there is a blessing and a curse with that. it is exciting because we are on a new frontier, but it is very

nerve-racking because there's a lot at stake. and quite frankly, being san francisco, being the state of california, people are looking to us. >> we hope that cannabis does become more of an accepted part of society in the same way that alcohol is, the same way coffee is. >> it is a very innovative fear, particularly around manufacturing. san francisco could be an epicenter. >> san francisco can be a leader here. a global leader in the cannabis movement and set a bar just to other communities and cities and states and this nation how it is done. [♪]

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