level of difficulty to serve the same food that they are doing. they don't have the same burden and they are undercutting our business. how, again, this is something that we face. small business that we all support versus small business and we all support small business. but they have a car crash right right in the middle of -- right in the middle of the city metaphorically because both will have an impact on each other, with the new arrival, which is the pushcart is going to be the perpetrator of the problem. how do we deal with that? had to wait measure fairness when something like that occurs. >> i'm not sure i'm prepared to answer that. it is a complicated question. >> yeah. that is why you are here and that's why we want to communicate and show you what we

face on a periodic basis with two parts of the citizens that we really want to respect and uphold. small business -- >> you are right. they are both small businesses and they are both trying to make a living. i think we will take that back with us and incorporate it with our thinking as we try to revise the legislation. >> the last one and then i will let somebody else take a chance. accountability, or policing of certain essentials. there are requirements that toilets or handwashing or cleanliness items are available for both the operators of the food truck or pushcart and to

its customers and that you are supposed to have within a certain amount of square -- square feet in agreement with the building so either party can go in and use the toilet facilities for cleanliness and decency purposes. how do you manage that process so those who claim to have those agreements really do have those agreements? >> i think i might do for that to health. because that is not something in public works post s. jurisdiction. >> but it is part of the issuance of the permit, correct? >> we do ask for a letter from whoever from whoever they are getting restroom services from. and so that is in our first -- when they first apply. as far as enforcement, like i

said, that was with the health department. >> with the health department say that is within your purview? >> i don't know. >> that is part of the health code and not in the public works code. that is for public works. drawing this destruction -- this line. >> i really hope that given that it has been six years and given that there has been a significant learning curve and more density and more sophistication of how these people do their jobs, food is getting better and better all the time. by creating more traffic that you do your best to clarify or identify these learning curves and the new curveballs being thrown at you and that you adjust the legislation and asked the board of supervisors to

adjust the legislation accordingly. i will let darrell go on. >> i would like to say thank you for coming and being the dartboard. i guess you drew the small straw evidently, our body here is a lot of mobile food facilities and mobile card facilities. sometimes we are slightly frustrated. i will use the example that vice president brought up regarding the ice cream truck. in the legislation, it reads this legislation attempts to provide and expand the range of convenient and interesting food consumption opportunities for mobile food facilities in underserved and less congested areas of the city. at different times of the day and evening. unless you don't live in san francisco, gary street between stockton and powell is always congested and if you've ever tried to go there during a really busy day or a holiday, you can barely get through. second of all, that particular location had street furniture on

their as well -- i'm not completely reiterate what commissioner swick said, but there's lots of other options in the immediate area. so it is hard for us to hear this when the legislation itself says underserved and less congested and yet you provide or push forward a mobile food facility that is an extremely heavily congested area as well as it's not in underserved area. that is one. two, understanding that there are differences between the mobile food facility with the trucks as well as the pushcart his, we have mentioned this several times that your legislation identifies them both identically and when the department comes up before us they say know , that is specifically for a pushcart or that is specifically for a food truck. but your legislation reads that there is no definition in your language.

>> i don't have -- >> sorry that they -- there are more comments, but people are very fired up trying to get their business through when they come here. and as you kind of pass the buck to the health department and i'm sure you'll pass the buck to sfmta, is the concern about equity from these mobile food facilities and the brick-and-mortar meaning that the same rules don't seem to apply for the mobile food facilities as they do for the brick-and-mortar. as in the enforcement his portion of that. as you said, you've issued many permits into ludlow zones and most of those zones are providing only one hour or two our parking. but the facility is there for multiple hours. yet there is no enforcement. and so allots of this stems from public safety.

as commissioner swick mentioned, our areas are becoming much more dense. if you go to these mobile food facilities, you will see some of the popular ones have people waiting for a half block and they are blocking the sidewalks. who does the enforcement? is that your responsibility? >> you are correct. enforcement is with m.t.a. that being said, we are engaged with them currently to try to figure out how to better manage the yellow zones in the downtown area. it is something, i know at one point there are some four our yellow zones that were set up a number of years ago to allow food trucks to be there for a longer period of time. i don't have all the details of those and where those zones are but they are the downtown core area. we know that doesn't necessarily

work for the trucks that are trying to make deliveries either that is one of the areas that we are discussing with m.t.a. as to resolve this issue. >> it is tough not to interrupt you but it is a multi- department situation between the health department, d.p.w. as well as sfmta. in your own language, that fee is double and becomes harder to renew your permit upon any action. lacrosse department information do you guys share? so if they are getting a fine from sfmta, does that include, in your permitting process, as far as reissuing the permits? >> i'm not aware if that connection is being made to. i would have to look into that. >> it says here that every mobile food facility permit is subject to an annual renewal fee of $125 per permit.

in addition, if during the course of the preceding year the department received one or more substantial complaints against the permit location, or filed one or more notices of violation against the permits, the department shall assess additional process fees of $159.50 per permit. the department also shall charge inspection fees which are double the initial fees. do you have a statistic of how many people that are participating in this program have been charged those fees? >> i don't have that information with me tonight. >> that is part of the frustration that we end up dealing with on this panel as well. that because when d.p.w. comes here, they say, it is the health department. and when the health department comes in, it is sfmta. thank you. >> that is true. may be there is something that needs to be coordinated better. they can only do what is under

their jurisdiction. >> perhaps we should ask for public comment if there is any and then i have a suggestion to make. >> we haven't heard yet from kenny wong from the department of public health. he is here as well if you would like. >> we apologize. >> if you could move from the door, we have to keep it open for fire egress. there are a couple of seats over there peerk thank you. >> good evening. and kenny wong. principal instructor from the health department and safety program. i have been a principal inspector for 30 years. i have been in mobile foods since may of 2017. i won't go through the application process in detail. i will provide an overhead.

basically there is two routes for permits. either you go private property, and if it's private property, the approval or use of that area will go through planning and zoning. through the two ua. if it goes to public right-of-way they have to go to d.p.w. but basically the requirements are the same. as far as the health department, they have to show proof that they have a restroom at the location or locations. the cart or truck would have to be compliant to codes. i'm also the principal inspector of plan review for brick-and-mortar. if you want to contrast that, we can do that too.

i would like to get into specific questions that you may have. last time we were here, he wanted to know how many inspections were done and what type of violations occur. the name of the business has been taken off but these are routine inspections with the dates. >> mr wong, can you speak into the microphone, please? >> i'm sorry. routine inspection with the date on and the type of violations. i don't know if you can pick this up. may be close up on the violation part.

so there were 175 inspections done. we had 375 mobile foods and pushcarts. you can tell here, it says the various violations, no hot water , permit license inspection report not posted. food safety certificate of food handling, available defective plumbing, modern risk food temperatures. it goes the whole gambit. the number of applications received from 2017 until present has been 122 applications.

seventy-five have been approved. it's in a spreadsheet if you would like to look at it. i will throw it out to questions >> i have a couple questions. i noticed on the spreadsheet you have not said routine unscheduled. i assume you would not schedule these because you want to come up -- >> routine it means not schedule >> i don't know why the jargon is that way. >> my question really is, are each of these facilities on some sort of a regular schedule from your department to be inspected? is there an annual inspection? is there a semi or semi annual inspection? >> we want annual inspection, ideally.

unfortunately we lost the inspector. so we have one inspector right now. so we have half staff. >> are there fines that are issued when these are found? >> we started fines in may because we heard the board say that it's not fair for the brick-and-mortar is to be fined and pay reinspection fees. so we are starting reinspection fees when they have eminent risk for the public. like food temperature, refrigeration, we will reinspect and charge a reinspection fee. >> are those violations reported to d.p.w.? i think that was hinted at earlier. so that knowledge is available to them when they're looking at reissuing the permits? >> it is not reported to them by the information is available to them. >> okay. i think those are my questions. i have another one but it has escaped me.

thank you. >> similar question. as i was talking to the previous department captures penalties for violations. but right now if each department is not sharing those violations, the permit holder is not being responsible and the public health is at risk. >> well, pardon me. if it's a private property, d.p.w. won't get those violations because they would involve the d.p.w. permit. >> what about the ones on the city and county streets? >> that should be shared. >> although it's available, i mean it's there but it's not shared. i don't think anyone wants to do extra work and go hunt for that. >> we made all inventory of these available to d.p.w. to do

density and saturation surveys. so we could give them the information if they want on d.p.w. property violations, mobile foods. >> since you did both brick and mortar as well as the m. f. f., can you give me a brief -- what we hear often from appellant's and permit holders is that the level of scrutiny is really different. can you explain what the differences are as far as how often at restaurant is checked versus and m.m.f.? let me finish my question first, please. how many inspectors do you have for the brick and mortar and how we inspectors do you have for the mobile food facilities? >> for mobile foods, as i said, we only have one inspector. for brick-and-mortar, we

currently hired nine more inspectors. this is to fill vacant positions so we have about 25 food inspectors. >> you have 25, but nine are for brick-and-mortar and one is for m. f. f.? what do the other 15 do? >> no, all 25 or for brick-and-mortar. >> and you have one for mobile food facility? >> how often are the brick-and-mortar his inspected in comparison to the mfs? >> ideally if they prepare food twice a year, they don't prepare food, they sell packaged food once a year. brick-and-mortar. >> now since he only have one house inspector, are you saying that you are inspecting them once a year or once every two

years? >> we hope to inspect them once a year. >> how long have you been shortstaffed and when do you expect a replacement? >> we expect a replacement in january. we have some outline maternity leave so we have to shift personnel around. >> could you address might toilet question, please. i saw the list that you showed and i did not see anything that referenced anything that had to do with a shortage of toilets or noncompliance to having sanitary facilities nearby. how do you police that? how is there proof that they have an agreement with a nearby building or an appropriate place , according to their

permits? >> the restroom verification is required annually now. there used to be when you first started the application, once you are approved, we would go by that verification. now they have to produce it annually. when we get that, the inspectors are supposed to call and verify the restroom is available and talk to the responsible party of the restroom. >> is that validated? i know and inspector is supposed to do that, but is there a sheet that said that so and so phoned so-and-so to validate that the claim -- validate the claim? >> we don't have a sheet, what we'll do that that from here on out. >> i think if we are making a toed card and the list of things we would like, that should go on there peerk hearsay is a wonderful thing, but, you know,

that is one of the complaints we have received. we are supposed to have a gender neutral restroom. were supposed to have an 88 restroom. all these guys have to do, i'm speaking parenthetically about what we hear, all these guys have to do is say oh, yeah, that building, they let us use the restroom. >> do you have a question, commissioner? >> oh, okay. commissary. who is responsible for verifying that the approved commissaries are used? >> we are. the department of public health. >> can i ask you this. one of the comments that we get is, well, those guys are from oakland his. or those guys are from somewhere else, not san francisco and they are bringing their food in from oakland and san francisco is

getting absolutely no benefit out of having their mobile food facility or their pushcart here. is there a requirement? i saw less of commissaries and they seem to have san francisco addresses. is there a requirement that food carts and traps utilize local commissaries or can they bring their food in? >> they can bring it in from outside the county and the commissary can be outside the county. what we do is we send a referral form to the county verifying that they have a commissary and they are listed on the commissary. >> and how does -- how does d.b.h. verify that any commissary, which is not on the approved list, in fact is abiding by the same rigour of health statutes and suitable

practices as the commissaries which are built in san francisco >> the health department will send that jurisdiction reports. for them to verify that they are using this place for a commissary and its equipped as such. >> it is you are a leap of faith that jurisdiction is really going to deal with that. >> yes. we have agreements to verify if they say they use a commissary here, we would verify for other counties. >> thanks. >> i did have a clarifying question. in terms of the access to the restroom, that is only for the operator and not for the patrons , right? >> is only for employees right now unless they set up a food park that we have in san francisco. they set up a food park where they extended hours more than

four hours and then they have to provide patron restrooms. >> thank you for the clarification. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. is there any public comment on this presentation? seeing none, any further questions? >> i have a comment. a suggestion. and i think i thank you for your general presentations on the permitting process. however, as you can tell by the questioning, the issues that this board faces deals with the nuances and definitions within the legislation and one of the rules and regulations of the department. perhaps madame director, did you issue your summary to the departments in terms -- >> i didn't e-mail them. >> you did. >> yes. >> perhaps we could get a

response. some of these items were not fully responded to and i think they should issue a written response to s. >> okay. >> i think some of the things in that list could be put to rest immediately but there are certain other ones that deal with grey areas, if you will that i don't think i've heard answers to. >> i'm also wondering if we want to bring this back in six months perhaps to hear updates about proposed legislative changes or other new regulations that they plan to issue to address some of this. i think i heard primarily from public works that they are looking at some potential changes because they recognize that there are issues here. >> just to second on that, as understanding it is a moving target, and the legislation itself is silent on the criteria

, i think that underserved and less busy needs to have some type of matrix added to that so that -- >> it is in the list. >> i just want to clarify because that is the most important. >> i have a last question. who is responsible for bill 846? who is the sponsor? >> i'm not aware who the sponsor is. >> interesting if it is a local. >> in the past, this board has been influential or at least a positive additive informing the board of supervisors about our concerns on certain issues. the one that sticks out the most

that i think resulted in the a.d.u. or at least the dealing with illegal units and making -- and legalizing them. so we have had a past history of influence. can we make a request to d.p.w. and d.p.h. that when they are going to suggest new legislation to the board of supervisors, that that would be the timing of the briefing which has been requested, so that we can add some commentary to what they're going to provide as commentary to the board of supervisors, please. >> we can certainly do that. did you -- would you like me to prepare a resolution? >> i would suggest that we might send a letter that has some

official notice. >> we have our list of questions i thought you would just ask that they make sure that they have that and that they respond to that. i think that enumerated most of the concerns. >> as a start, we could put these -- we could ask for written responses to the questions and we could also inform them that the board would like to participate in providing comments on potential legislative changes. >> when they are closer to making their suggestions for revised legislation to the board of supervisors. >> okay. >> that is our failsafe to make sure that we are heard. >> okay. at this point to, i can prepare those questions and send them to the appropriate department. >> thank you. i will number them and we will make it so we'll be clear on

getting the written responses. >> good. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for attending this evening. okay. we will now move on to item number 5. this is appeal number 18-090. jason hughes and kelly versus a zoning administrator. the subject property is 1750 alabama street. appealing the denial on june 13 th, 2018 of a mass reduction variants for proposal to construct a vertical and horizontal -- horizontal addition to an existing single family dwelling with the reduction of only 82 square feet of floor area to be deleted from the exterior of the maximum building area where as a planning code 242 requires the reduction of 650 square feet. this is case number (201)601-2810.

on october 10th, 2018, the board voted 4-0 to continue the appeal to november 14th, 2018 to give the opportunity to meet and confer before november 12th . so each party will have three minutes each. do we want to start with the appellant? >> okay. >> thanks. >> good evening, commissioners. i am the project architect. my clients are here along with their 85-year-old mother and their children who are in the back of. as the last commission hearing, the commissioners asked us to review our design to see what additional combinations we could make with the adjacent neighbors who have objected to the project we met twice with them. who are here and the immediate neighbors to the north. we met on october 23rd and again on november 6. [please stand by]

>> we also agreed to conduct a

visual survey of their house to document existing conditions with the understanding that my clients will be responsible for fixing damage that might be caused by the new construction. we discussed the disruption that construction could cause, minimize disruption, hiring a mutual contractor and coming to a mutual agreement with them about days and hours of work. we did an additional sun phase as requested by the neighbors and shared and reviewed the result with the neighbors at the last meeting. both opposing adjacent neighbors expressed that they do not wish to oppose kelly and jason having the house large enough to affect arthur family. in a short conversation with cory teague, he further asked about reducing the family room

on the second floor, and also on the second, the master bedroom closet on the third floor. we looked at the floor plan, but neither of these benefits looked like they would -- these would benefit the neighbors. thank you very much. >> president fung: thank you. >>clerk: thank you. we will now hear from mr. teague. >> is it deputy zoning administrator or zoning administrator? i think that's going to be announced tomorrow? >> i think in terms officially paperwork -- >> well, congratulations either way. >> i appreciate it. [applause] >> cory teague, planning department. good evening, commissioners. the case on 1750 alabama, i

wasn't here for the last hearing, but i did want the entire video. obviously, it's clear the family who lives here has specific needs that they're trying to fulfill, and they're not trying to thwart that, all things being equal. the applicant both outlined some of the changes that he have made. they did take the ground floor area and propose that to convert that to a proposed a.d.u. i think it is helpful because it is changing the land use context that's being proposed, because that would ensure in the future that it is two separate units as compared to two significant rooms but only one single unit. the removal of the roof overhang and the rear trell i say did a lot to bring the perceived mass down and deal with some real

issues of shading from those elements. i think also the overall ceiling height which drops the height of the building overall, i'll point out that that is an amendment to the plans that does reduce the mass, although it doesn't actually get them anything in terms of the calculation of mass reduction, because they still have the same amount of studs, same amount of floor area, but i do want to look at that as being an important amendment. part of the challenge with this variance was again, acknowledging the property owners have difficulties that they're trying to deal with. if the only rationale were that families need more space, we would grant every variance. in this specific instance, they called out two things that were

driving the building. one was the separate ground space for the mother, and the desire to have all the bedrooms on the third floor. but beyond that, the second contains perhaps an excessive amount of common space. there is a kitchen, a full dining room, a living room, and a great room. additionally, the bedrooms on the third floor, while they are not massive by any measure, there could be some shifting at the third floor and some shifting at the second floor, and not for the purposes of appeasing the neighbors, but if you're requesting a variance for more space, to specifically accommodate the two reasons. all those together, i think would result in a much more

reasonable variance request. thank you. >>clerk: thank you. >> mr. teague or deputy zoning guru. the question is how far off are they in regards to the variance and it being code compliant? >> again, look at the plans, but the original variance that came before us, as you may recall, they're required to reduce the amount of building mass on the side by 650 square feet. they have reduced it, i believe, 85 or 82 feet, so they were requesting a mass reduction variance of something like 780 -- or i mean 580 square feet. i believe the number it was reduced to in the plans you have before you is somewhere closer in the 500's or 400's. one of the amendments or the revisions that he made was at the -- that they made was at the

rear of the second floor, they pulled that in and created a desk space. but some of that was tucked under an overhang from the third floor, and that area that's tucked under technically doesn't count towards reduction. i'm not sure exactly what the number is. but it went from a 580 square foot over the code requirement to something around 400 square feet over. but the architect can address that more specifically. >> and you mentioned they're not getting credit for lowering the ceiling height, but it still does reduce the footprint. >> the knnumeric calculation do

not increase, but -- [inaudible] >> so the mass reduction requirement is agnostic on what you're doing inside the building, and it basically just says here's your basic building envelope, reduce it by 150 square feet. when the bhlg laws were adopted in bernal heights, it wasn't how it was today. it does require a little bit of an amendment to the layout because they have to put in a full kitchen in that area and change the entry so that it is a separate unit, and so it does change the land use context of the project and how it will move into the future. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. >> thank you. >>clerk: is there any public comment on this item?

okay. and i just want to -- >> president fung: somebody just raised their hand. >>clerk: okay. public comment. please come forward. how many people are here for public comment, can you raise your hand? okay. can you lineup against the wall, please, and make sure you give a speaker card to mr. quintara. >> the first person please come forward. let's not be shy. >>clerk: ma'am, please line away from the door. ma'am, ma'am, 'cause we need to keep that side clear. okay. go ahead, sir. sir, you can fill that out afterwards. that's fine. >> hi. hi. very well. good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the board of appeals. been here before, but basically,

we've been asking three items, bring the project in line with compliance of the code, allow us to benefit from the sun light from the south facing window, lower the roof line to reduce the amount of shadow in our neighbor's rear yards. this has been achieved, but it has not reduced the square footage, the area. by way of negotiation for support, having posed the cover of the south facing property line window rather, the sponsors have offered to pay for filling in that window at their cost, offer to pay for any damage their contractor may cause during the construction, and reglaze or ad an additional sky light. i feel these items should be an

obligation, not an offer for negotiation and support. i therefore cannot support this project as it stands. thank you. >>clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name's brandon powell. i'm on the northwest property review board. this property's not subject to this review. just want to give some context that i've seen a lot of projects in bernal heights, and i wanted to offer my support for this project. i think it's important that bernal do its part to increase the density of housing in san francisco during this housing crisis. it's also important that we support the sustainability for san francisco for families in a

city that's increasingly hostile to family, especially multigenerational families. i also understand there's some legacy issues based on the fact that the project was -- or the house was built before existing code was developed, and some of the mass reduction that is required is due to the fact that their house is in front of the neighboring houses on the street. and just wanted to offer my support for this project. >>clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. good evening. my name is norma garcia. i was here at the last hearing. thank you very much for instructing the project sponsors to sit down with the neighbors to go over the most recent plans. that was very, very helpful. we met twice, as they mentioned, and as our request, they dropped the roof line by a foot in the rear, which is helpful. as i mentioned, one of our greatest concerns was the

excessive loss of sun light in the rear garden. that's been largely addressed. i do say, though, i was a little surprised by the comments offered by mr. teague. i was not aware that he had asked the project sponsors to consider making some changes to the third floor. nor was i aware that he believed that the city believed through him to the second floor contained too much common space. i would have liked to have review that with our neighbors. that would have been helpful information, and we didn't have it. the decision's in your hands, and we ask that you make the most fair and equitiable decision possible. there are lots of decisions when it comes to housing, and certainly, preserving quality housing for families are important. i'm one of those families, and so are families here to speak. >> i'm sorry. as one of the neighbors, are you

for or against this project? >> we are neutral on this project, and ask that you give due consideration to all opinions on this project. thank you. >> okay. thank you. >>clerk: okay. next speaker, please. >> hi. i am victoria chabin. 1715 alabama. i want to say the first word of sun light, this has been an extremely stressful and exhaustive process. the lack of resolve has caused much anxiety. we met once with john. john asked us to be direct. they have made adjustments, but they have not addressed all our concerns. to date, the structure has not been reduced to meet the requirements of section 242 of the planning code. despite any agreements with other neighbors to remove their immediate concerns, the truth remains that we are all subject

to the bernal heights rules. we can't just skirt those rules because we can't figure out a project to fit all those needs. although adjustments have been made, we have one room in our home with this sun light. thank you. >>clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm carla, and i'm 1717 alabama, which is the property next door to kelly and jason. we've only been there one year, and kelly and jason have been great in welcoming us to the neighborhood. we had an opportunity to sit down with them and express our concerns and actually brought up three different concerns that we had around the potential noise that was going to cause on our property, since we have a 1.5-year-old baby and another one on the way, and they assured

us that that would not be a problem. also, we have another -- probably next to us has already been going under construction, and it's an empty property, so when i compare the project, it's someone new to the property that has a much bigger property versus a family that has been living there over ten years, i feel, like, really bad that we're, like, preventing them from actually broadening their space to accommodate for their family and their mother. the other thing was a turnaround, two windows in our property are going to be blocked with light. we understand that they have a lower property than anyone else on your strip, and it seems like if they have to grow, they have to grow up, and their architect came to look at the plans, and they found a way to make it that we would actually have some

light coming into that window. and then, the other thing we had also raised concerns around was the foundation, and they had committed to taking photographs of the foundation to make sure if there was any negative effects on them, they would actually address -- address that in due time. i just wanted to highlight that as a new neighbor to the -- to bernal and also as an outsider, that we're actually not even from california, i feel like families that have been in the neighborhood for so long, it's crazy that they're not, like, allowed to stay in the neighborhood and are supported by people around them. so i just want to say i'm for this project. >>clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello.

i'm sue gordy, and i live two doors away from the project. you heard about the last meeting. we all have been presented with copious notes about concerns, people's feedback. as they have from the beginning, kelly and jason and their team went in to the process trying to defuse stress and also in the spirit of compromise, they made a bunch of changes that were presented earlier. i think this process has gone on for them for two-plus years. this is maybe the fourth or fifth set of changes since the 311, and i think at this point, we've all been given a lot of information, a chance to share our concerns. changes were made in relation to those concerns. as kelly said in the first

hearing, her family can't just move to another home. it's not possible. i would hate to see an asset to the neighborhood, a family that's just amazing because a denial of a variance that's within scope when so many have been approved in our neighborhood. we've had many other buildings on the block that have been granted variances and allowed to build, and i hope that they're allowed to, as well. thank you. >>clerk: thank you. is there any other public comment? okay. commissioners, i just -- commissioner tanner, i just wanted to clarify. did you have an opportunity to review the video and materials for the appeal on this case that was heard october 10? >> commissioner tanner: i did. >>clerk: okay. so commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> may i ask a question of the city attorney. >>clerk: if you could speak into the microphone, please. >> sure.

you know, i'm so shy and reserved. >>clerk: yeah, i know. >> there -- there was an offer that was made by the project sponsor to pay for -- without any contingency one way or another, that they were going to fill in a light source in a neighbor's house. we heard the -- and make another light source in a neighbor's house. we heard the neighbor say they want that affirmed, because as they say, talk it cheap. if we move forward on this, can we put a requirement of such type on -- on an affirmation to

move forward? >> commissioner, i think that might be outside the scope of this variance decision. >> right. >> it would be more appropriate in review of a site permit. >> vice president swig: so what will happen then, i want to memorialize promises made, promises kept. if we can't make the promises -- get into -- we can't make the project sponsor keep the promise, and if we do, in fact, move forward, i'd like to make it clear what the opportunity for the neighbor is to assure that the project will be kept. >> commissioner honda: if we move it forward, we'll probably have a second bite at the apple. >> i'd like to clarify, i don't understand how these types of

matters come under our jurisdiction or the payments between parties for certain things come under our jurisdiction. >> i'm sorry. i thought the proposal had something to do with in project, they were going to do -- >> they were going to modify an adjacent property to add possibly a sun light -- >> the project sponsor is proposing modifying a neighboring project. i would agree that is not part of this particular project. that would be a private agreement between the two parties. that's what they wanted to agree to. >> how do they handle it? >> between themselves. >> does it become part of a site permit later? >> yeah. they would make a private agreement that would resolve any potential appeal. they would agree, we won't appeal your site permit if you agree to do x for us. >> so in fact, although -- although we would accept that

there would be good intention from this project sponsor to do it, and we would like for the neighbor to think they were going to honor those words, we really can't deal with that in this, and that's your prescription is to deal with it separately. >> that's correct. work on a neighboring property would be outside the scope. >> i just wanted to memorialize that and give them information. that was the purpose of bringing this up. thank you. >> president fung: commissioners, who would like to start. >> vice president swig: i'd just like to -- i might as well start since my name was brought up. i appreciate, one, that the project sponsor really listened to us and really followed through and initiated conversations with the neighbors, the neighborhood, etc. that is something that quite often doesn't happen, and i

appreciate that you listened to us. and i was comfortable that they worked hard and getting somewhere that would serve both parties that would -- without having a significant effect on the character of the neighborhood, even though, according to the formulation of the square footage in bernal heights. >> madam director, is this an errant abuse? >> no, it's not. >> so our official totals is that we are 469 square feet over that total, but of that total, 269 square feet is the nonconforming portion of the building. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and then, mr. lum, again,

remind me that i understand that bernal has a higher standard for conformity. is it 25% reduction? >> it's actually a -- well, it's a very difficult code to administer because you have to conceptualize the largest building possible, and then, you're supposed to subtract the 750 square feet from it. so it's complicated. >> so -- but for a nonplanner, unlike my fellow commissioner, what is -- >> oh, what is that reduction? >> yeah. >> you would -- theoretically, without the mass reduction requirement, you would be about 3,000-some-odd square feet of space. so if this was r-2 zoning, you're at 2300. 2385, i believe. >> and you guys are at? >> we are currently at 28?

>> we're at 2387, and we're allowed 2356 total. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> week after week, we hear appeals. very rarely do we see project sponsors actually meet and try to -- to resolve issues, and unfortunately, living in as dense of a city like san francisco as we do, we are going to have these issues. given, even at the last hearing, the bar for a variance is actually pretty high, i am actually in support of -- of this variance.

having long-term and eve native san franciscans with families in san francisco, and leaving our city at a rapid pace, i'm very supportive of people that are willing to make modifications to their daily life in their dream home so that they can stay in san francisco. and then, further, to bring multigenerational families fack together so that grarnts and grids and -- grandparents -- back together so that grandparents and grand kids are together -- sorry. emotional. >> i agree with what commissioner has mentioned. i think what is also really valuable to the project is the addition of the a.d.u. it's not just roomed down or an addition to the home, but in the future, it will be a rent controlled unit which will be available to renters in san

francisco. so not only are they able to bring their family under one roof, they're providing housing not only for their mother but for future san franciscans, as well. >> president fung: i think i stated this last time, but having participated in reviewing the bernal heights restrictions and at that time, the proposed code, it's a question of whether this variance and the mass reduction that is defined by it conforms to the intent of that, and i find that it does conform to the intent. the -- the level of development

of this particular property is in line with original intent of those code requirements. i'm prepared to move to over rule the z.a.'s denial of the variance on the basis of the intention of the bernal heights special restrictions are met. >>clerk: reference the revised plans? >> president fung: no, it's not a permit. >> i would seek the zoning administrator's for the planning department's input on this, but the variance needs to be supported by facts for each of the five findings. so i think the proper course here would probably be to continue the matter for the preparation of findings to support the grant