properly issued. >> okay, we have a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. on that motion, [ roll call ] okay, and that motion carries and the appeal is denied. we will now move back to item no. 4, is the appellant here, jeff potter? >> president fung: if not, let's go ahead and hear the case. >> we're going to move forward and hear the case. once again, for the record, this is appeal 18-1-2. license no. 7568. >> president fung: for the record, the appellant has failed to show up. >> after we waited, correct. >> just so you know. >> hello, members of the board, thank you for your time and

attention this evening. my name is ann tricky, program officer of the san francisco arts commission, i license the arts commission, in the matter before you today, appeal nurment 18-132, the arts commission respectfully request the board of appeals uphold the street artist committee's decision to revoke jeffrey potter's license due to his harassment, assault, and intimidation of multiple artists in the program, particularly his targeted harassment of lucinda page, including intentional replication of her designs. the guiding legislation of the program is article 24 of the police code, which was enacted as proposition "l" on november 4, 1975. the full text is included as exhibit a in the brief. section 2408 issuance, denial, revocation of certificate, it states the issuance of street artist certificates of any

proposition of proposition l, this article or any rules and regulations pursuant to this article of which the person has been given notice shall be grounds for denial, suspension or revocation after a public hearing and good cause shown. the arts commission has shown pursuant and regulations notified in the notice to artist. jeffrey potter, license no. 7568 was first issued a certificate, also known as a license or permit, in july of 2006. in december of 2007, potter was issued a warning for selling commercial goods. the premise of the art vendor program is artists must only sell handmade items they, themselves, make. advisory committee members found potter selling goods with labels from another country and issued a serious violation, serious violations are defined as violations of a violent or threatening nature and violations that significantly

threaten the integrity of the street artist program. selling commercial goods directly threatens the integrity of the program and is, therefore, a serious violation. in 2015 potter was issued two warnings for improper conduct of business, interfering with the business of another artist. interfering with the business of another artist. these incidents involved the bullying, harassment, and intimidation of lucinda page, license number 7436. after a disagreement, potter used his vehicle to block her way, yelled at her and shown a mirror in her eyes, took many photos of her and her backside and made her feel unsafe at the market. following these warnings, potter was brought in for a hearing with all parties agreeing to program policies. in 2017 potter assaulted jessica hairingfield by hitting her backside. i was at the market that day and

interviewed hairingfield and potter after the incident. potter admitted he hit hairingfield. i informed him touching another person without consent is assault and a formal disciplinary process would follow. he then became aggressive towards me, i filed a memo to the street artist committee immediately, as i felt his actions were of a violent and threatening nature and, therefore, a serious violation. potter asked for and was granted a program director hearing by then-director howard lazar. at the hearing hairingfield said potter hit her hard enough to leave a red welt on her behind. he apologize, saying it was uncharacteristic of him. targeted ongoing harassment since 2015, she mentioned the large volume of photographs potter continued to take of her and she felt unsafe at the market. in june 2018 page reported

potter had made exact replications of her designs. here's a visual of them side-by-side. you can also see them in exhibit "m." >> overhead, please. face it like you're looking at it. thank you. >> so according to numerous customer letters, their designs are so identical people assumed potter was page's husband. those letters and these images are included as exhibit m and q in the brief. page reported potter was again using intimidation tactics, she felt unsafe at the market. chapter 9 of the program manual or blue book, included as exhibit d in the brief says the commission must suspend, deny, or revoke of the certificate of an artist who consciously on unconsciously copies work of another. additionally, artists should not replicate another artist's work. because of the intentional replication of designs, continued harassment, and previous assault, the office sent notice to potter of intent

to recommend denial of certificate renewal, which occurs at the street artist program committee. originally the committee meeting was set for july but was due to september. potter's license expired on june 30th, 2018. the program generally does not renew a license pending a disciplinary hearing but in this case granted a request to renew his license pending a resolution to avoid financial hardship. at the meeting potter stated he knew he was copying page's designs. he confirmed he had taken photos of page because he disagreed with her selling tactics. the committee found him in violation of the code of conduct citing, two, courteous behavior, three, verbal threats and assault, 19, threatening an artist, and replication of work. pursuant to section 2408 of the program's legislation. potter has been given notice a

total of five times of the program's rules and regulations since he was first licensed. he has had three public hearings and his license has been revoked for good cause shown by the street artist program committee. this fulfills the legislatively mandated environments to revoke an artist's significant. the commission asks the board of appeals upholds the committee's decision to do so. >> president fung: are you finished? >> yep. >> president fung: so was there any complaints from -- you said he didn't like her sales tactics. did he ever issue any verbal, oral, or written complaints in regards to why he opposed her sales tactics? >> so every time there was a complaint issued about this, it was after page had brought up something, so he -- once page said he's intimidating me, potter came back and said i'm intimidating her because i don't like her sales tactics. there's nothing in the rules and regulations guiding -- excuse me, his complaint about her

being in a certain area next to her booth, there's nothing in the guiding legislation that says she can't do that. >> okay. because your brief was pretty extensive, very extensive, and i noticed in item j there was a lot of blacking out. is that just because of the language? >> redaction is usually personal contact information, since we have people who follow individuals, i redact all personal information. >> president fung: thorough brief, by the way. >> thank you. >> okay, any public comment on this item? okay. please approach. >> i'm lucinda page. >> speak into the microphone, please. >> my sculptural jewelry is my own unique, personal, artistic statement. i make it, i wear it, i sell it. my original handmade designs

have been over 50 stores and galleries nationwide. i have a b.a. in art and psychology and completed graduate coursework in art therapy. i've been creating original, handmade jewelry over 25 years and i love interacting directly with my customers. i have a strong work ethic, friendly demeanor, and excellent customer service philosophy. for the 14 years i've been selling a the the embarcadero market i've been an artist in good standing and one of the successful street artists. i've enjoyed selling my designs at the market except for the extreme workplace abuse and harassment from jeff potter. mr. potter has copied the work of several artists at the embarcadero market, including gary freed, who was successful in designing, creating, and selling peace sign t-shirts, myself, and several other artists. mr. potter's behaviors include

physically assaulting female street artists in 2017, slapping her on the back side, leaving a red welt, being aggressive and belligerent to the street artist's program manager, entering the booths of at least two female colleagues on two separate occasions while they were set up to sell and yelling in a frightening and explosive manner, causing extreme trauma and upset. jeff's abuse i have personally experienced, includes in 2013 he suddenly changed from selling peace sign t-shirts that were similar to gary freed's, to selling jewelry that was similar to my unique designs. i asked him to stop selling the jewelry and mr. potter became very angry and yelled at me in a threatening manner, causing extreme fear and upset. mr. potter aimed a mirror reflecting sunlight directly in my face as i was speaking to a customer, causing distraction and affecting my ability to

communicate effectively with my customer and sell my work. he imprisoned me by intentionally blocking my vehicle with his vehicle, as retaliation. mr. potter has repeatedly mouthed vulgar and threatening words to me. he admits to taking hundreds of photographs and videos of me, my backside, my table, and designs. at a hearing in 2015, he had a three-ring binder of hundreds of photos and videos taken both openly and se repetitiously of me, causing puzzlement, fear, and upset. he has humiliated, criticized, mocked, shamed, and gossiped about me, defamed my character, my designs, and the way i interact my customers to new artists, fellow established artists, and members of the buying public. this past june he began -- >> ma'am, your time is up. thank you.

>> president fung: i know this is hard. thank you for coming before us. beautiful piece on your neck. s>> i there any other public comment on this item? okay. ms. tricky, would you like to take your rebuttal time? you have three minutes. do you have anything to add? you can come up to the microphone. >> i actually would like to enter this into the public record. sorry, one second. so, for safety reasons after potter was licensed pending a determination, an administrative decision was made to allow him to sell at any location outside the embarcadero marketplace. he still intended to sign into the lottery system, even though he'd been told not to. he set up multiple times until he was, essentially i had to go and physically have him removed.

he has stated in some of his communications to the board while this selling location is necessary to his livelihood, he sent in letters from artists that sell with him at other locations outside the plaza, also has an online store he can sell his products and while he has stated previously he's a veteran and senior and possibly has medical needs, none of those characteristics resolve him of harassment, intimidation, or assault of other artists, nor the replication of other artists' work. he has been given multiple chances over many years to amend his behavior and has failed to do so. >> two questions. one is, the replication of other people's designs. he's only been charged once, is that correct? >> the program can only take action on what is reported.

>> the other instance, there was another communication from somebody else? >> when i reviewed his file, it was not there. >> okay. so the penalty for replication of design, first instance is two months. and the second time would be revocation. this went to revocation primarily based on the harassment? >> yeah, it's the ongoing issues. i mean, i think that -- you have to look at the situation on a whole, i believe. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> i can't think of any situation it's appropriate to hit someone you're working with and continue to work there. >> or copy. do you have a motion? >> i would move that we deny the appeal and uphold the revocation

of the permit. >> on what basis? >> on the basis that the permit holder violated the terms of the permit. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner tanner to deny the appeal and uphold the department's revocation of permit on the basis that the permit holder violated the terms of the permit. on that motion, president fung? >> aye. [ roll call ] the appeal is denied. revocation is upheld. >> >> okay, welcome back to the january 23rd, 2019 meeting of the board of appeals. we are now on item no. 6, appeal 18-155, shissler v. zoning

administrator appealing the denial on november 9, 2018, of an exposure variance for a proposal to add one dwelling unit at the ground floor level of an existing one-unit, two-story cottage within the rear yard, which will face on to a rear yard with the laundry shed, decks, and spiral stairs resulting less than the minimum unobstructed 25-foot open area required for dwelling unit exposure. this is case no. 2016-007339var. and we'll hear from the appellant first. >> hi. thanks, everybody. so i'm -- so my partner and i have owned this property for over ten years now, and he and i both want to do the right thing the right way for the right reason in terms of working with the city. we have a cottage in the back that was built in 1889 and our front building was built in 1902. we'd both like to add one

additional unit each. both of these units are going to require a variance at some point. there's not two ways around it. the way that we've divided the property is that -- and we worked this out, and i think this is what you want to see home owners do, particularly people that have been here a long time, try and find a way to stay here, to maintain families, to build for their families. so i'm trying to build the unit for my mom. and i assume you guys have the brief, and what i tried to do is break down basically two options. again, we want to do the right thing the right way. staff noted he'd prefer our first unit to be an a.d.u. it's our preference that we don't do that. it's our preference, because, you know, the reasons that i broke down in the different tables that you see. so, like, i have an easier ability to execute financially the property that i'm trying to

go and add the net new unit is a lot less complicated from a zoning perspective. steve is going to be a lot trickier, and what we decided to do as a team is come up with a plan to work together to, you know, i would go first and, you know, i've already invested a lot of time and effort in going through the variance process and he would go second, follow that up with an a.d.u. i personally benefited from rent control. that was one of the reasons i was able to save enough money to go and, like, buy my house. so, like, i'm totally cool with that. i'm totally cool with, you know, once i have to move my mom out, conforming to whatever the hocs costa thing is. and -- >> that's what we say, too. >> so, you know, we want to go and make sure that there's good inventory in a neighborhood that's designated for high density housing. and, you know, to me it just came down to there's sort of two different ways to do it, and i'd

like to think that working with the government and going through this process, that it can be done in a spirit of partnership, right, so we can say, like, if both things are equal, this is the way that we'd like to do it. and staff's been great to work with, kathleen that works for her -- for him, excuse me, has been really nice, too. so the office has been very responsive to me. after i had my first hearing, it took a while to get a decision from them, to get the negative decision letter, and i think, you know, that was due in part because it's kind of tricky, right? there's interpretation that i'm asking to be considered in terms of how we do this, right, it's a unique situation. so i broke down, you know, out of respect for your guys' time, i don't think that i need to go through the letter. i think i broke down the reasons for, like, why i'd like to go with option "a" versus option "b," and that's sort of my case. i wanted to come here and see if having a dialogue with you would

help and get the result that i would like. so that's all i have to say, really. >> sir? your option "a" is for the front building, but this variance was for the rear cottage. >> yes, sir. so the option "a" that i proposed is for adding the net new unit first in the rear building. so that's the way that my partner and i have segmented out where we're going to be able to build our units. i apologize if it wasn't clear. >> thank you. >> you have a plan or a photo so we can see what that rear yard looks like? >> i knew i forgot it. sorry. >> that's all right. >> but the rear yard is -- so the deck that's in the back that is, you know, again, we consider

that a safety feature. speaking with scott's office, they suggested why don't you just tear down the deck and then you won't have to go through the variance process, but, like, we like having the rear stair to go and have as a second means of egress for my unit up top. the deck only encroaches four feet into the 25x25 space. it's really modest. i apologize for not having a photo handy, sorry. [ please stand by ] >> thank you

>> okay. thanks, guys. >> okay. we will now hear from the zoning administrator. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning

department. i think we'll be fairly brief in our presentation. this is not the first type of variance action that the board has seen. we have denied other variance requests when there's an alternative path through the a.d.u. process. it's fairly standard for us if there's a code compliant option that the applicant has not chosen, we've denied variance requests and requested that they go through that a.d.u. process which is code compliant. we do appreciate the appellant's proposal to add an additional dwelling unit. i think the dwelling unit they are proposing will be a great addition to the city's housing stock, but there is a code compliant option, and they have not exhausted the code compliant options before. if a unit is proposed, it'll be ay allowed under the density, and

maybe even on exposure. there's a garage at that level, so they could add an a.d.u. in that garage space with exposure onto the street. they may not comply, depending on how the project is proposed, and we haven't ever seen a proposal for the front building, so we don't even know what that would look like, but they may be able to comply with the open space requirement. that would probably be the biggest challenge with regard to an additional dwelling unit in that building. i would note that the stairs, everything that's referenced in that rear yard were legalized back in 1993, so that structure itself was unpermitted, but they did legalize it through a variance process, and that would have been the previous owners back in the 1990's. so that was our taking this action on the variance. there may be the potential of using an a.d.u. in the front building in the future, as well. because a.d.u.s, when you have

this number of small units in the building, on the lot, you're generally only allowed one a.d.u. but if you're doing a seismic upgrade of the building, that cop is removed. so we don't have -- that code is removed. so we don't have any details on the front or mwhether seismic would be required. i think if it goes from two to three, that would trigger building code requirements. but we have a proposal for us, only one proposal, and there is an alternative that does not require a variance. it would comply with the exposure requirements, the reduced exposure requirements that are available to the a.d.u.s. >> question. so just -- you're suggesting that the gentleman would use the a.d.u. in this building and that would be compliant because you need a 15 by 15 or eight by ten. >> it's down to ten -- >> it's much smaller than the

variance that they're seeking. >> yes. >> and then, in addition, it seemed like he was suggesting that some of the things were removed that were in the rear yard that would also then be compliant for a non-a.d.u., just a regular additional unit. >> right. >> okay. >> is that correct? >> what part? >> in terms of removing, would they be compliant with the deck and -- removed? >> yes. i thought it was only 23 feet. >> it is pretty close. they may still -- i'd have to run and double-check the measurements. i know the decks themselves don't help the matter anymore. i can take a look and see if removal of the decks would render it code compliant for terms of exposure, but i do understand the reasoning for not wanting to remove that because it does provide access to the rear yard, these two units at the rear of the building. so i think that may have been offered as a suggestion, but i can understand the -- the lack

of enthusiasm for following that. >> scott, you remember, we had a case, i think it was probably telegraph hill where it was very close dimensionally, but there was a stair. the rest of the rear yard, the vast majority of it, which was probably 80% of it had the distance that you need for -- >> for exposure. >> yes, except for how that stair pop next doped into it a bit. do you recall that case? now, was that pre-a.d.u. legislation that changed? because when you use code compliant, you're talking about a process that only started, what, about eight or nine months ago? >> well, the a.d.u. process

began in 2015 or '16. >> no, in terms of this exposure, i thought there was a change. >> the exposure was recently reduced. in fact we'll actually be having an a.d.u. kind of informational presentation for the board next week. >> you should have the fire department bring it on. >> but the reduced requirement was only imposed a few months ago. but i think that this proposal, given that -- the size of the rear yard, it would have, i believe, still complied with the 15 by 15 requirements of the old a.d.u. program. >> right. >> yeah. >> but not for a -- >> not for a code compliant separate unit that's not an a.d.u. >> do you have a site plan or photo? >> i can probably pull up a photo from our files, but the -- i thought that -- >> i'm sorry if i interrupted you. >> no, i like your questions, mr. president. >> i make scott sweat a little bit. we don't see him get nervous

very often, so -- >> so we have that, the foundation plan. >> yes. >> yeah. >> i can get the plans and put them on the overhead here, and i think we've got some photos, too. all right. so i'll start with some photos, and -- >> overhead, please. thank you. >> thank you. >> oh, your ipad comes out good. how come everyone's has the glare? >> i have the good one. >> the appellant can correct me if i'm wrong, but looking at the rear building. i don't think we have many good photos looking at the stairs at the back building -- at the front of the back building, of the site in question. but we do have a site plan here, so they do --

>> they do conform with 25. >> with the stairs, but they do have the stairs, and that structure here, yeah. so these are the deck and chairs that were built without permit in probably the early 90's or late 80's. they illegalized the variance in '93, but they do not meet the code requirements in section 40 for a new dwelling unit exposure, but the area would be sufficient for the reduced exposure that is only allowed for a.d.u.s. so if they propose this as an a.d.u., it would comply with the exposure requirements. >> okay. but -- and i'm not intending to be argumentative, but do you recall in that particular case, there was a discussion about if the space -- the rear yard space directly aligned in front

of that unit could be counted, it would have passed, but you are looking at the entire rear yard stretching from side property line to side property line. so i think the point that was being made then is when you folks look at the exposure requirements for a corner building instead of allowing a gap in the building, you allow them to have a variance by turning the building into l-shape, your calculation is only for the building directly in front of the space to the property line, right? >> no. so the section 40 is entitled exposure for dwelling units, but it's about the open area

upon which the windows in the unit face. so it's not just a section line that you would draw from the windows to that area? it's the three-dimensional aspect of that area. it's the width of it, length of it. it's any obstructions that are within that area. there are even set back requirements, inverted zigger out, as we call it. it isn't just a narrow sliver from that area that the window faces on. >> yeah. but if you go back to your site plan there on the overhead, and i'm sorry if i'm repeating this. >> no, okay. there you go. >> if you look at the rear cottage, its dimensions don't go across point entire property -- from property line to property line. >> so how the code is interpreted and implemented is the windows of that unit which

would be on the front facade of this rear building, it needs to face on an open area, and the dimensions are properly shown on the plan of 25 by 25. >> aren't they properly shown. >> they need the variance, but the a.d.u. would comply with that requirement. >> okay. other things you can mentioned, is it on soft story list or is there voluntarily -- >> i don't know if there's a requirement to do the upgrade or if a voluntary requirement, but if that was the case, if they were doing seismic work, then, they wouldn't be limited to doing only one a.d.u. for the lot, and they could do an a.d.u. in the front, a.d.u. in the back. >> do you know if it's a two-story. >> the front building is two story over basement or garage.

>> in 1809 and 1902, i'm surprised that the city has records for that. and u.m.b., pretty much? >> unreinforced masonry building? >> okay. >> okay. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll return to the appellant. you have three minutes for rebuttal, mr. shissler. >> you're so friendly. we don't get that very often. >> it's all part of the process. i don't know if this would show up. >> space it like yourself if you're looking at it. >> oh, yeah. >> okay. that's actually pretty good. >> okay. >> so that's what the deck looks like. sorry. i forgot the printout.

so the -- where the 25 by 25 exposure area, where that perimeter ends is about 3 feet, 2.5, 3 feet underneath where you see that wood deck above, so that's how close we are. and no, i totally hear scott's point about not having a pair of plans together, like that. like -- and i get where he's coming from. like, like, it's really difficult. my best friend and i bought this place together. we're on different life trajectories. like, he's got two kids. you can only do so much. like, i'm trying to take care of my mom. like, when we did an analysis of what we wanted to do with the property, it seems like his is going to be the trickier of the two projects, that the a.d.u., since we only have one, that we want to reserve for him. you know, again, there's financial considerations, there's time considerations,

but his street side exposure, as best as i understand the code, is going to be challenging. whereas mine's, like, a very straightforward proposition. we've got 4 feet too much he can did. if i tore down -- deck. if i tore down the deck, i wouldn't have to go through the process. i'm just looking for some understanding and collaboration to see if we can go ahead and process the property the way that we'd like to. >> thank you again so much just for your demeanor and for trying to build housing in san francisco. we definitely need it and appreciate your effort to try to do that. just to try and understand the situation a little bit more, and you your best friend own the property. i seem you both reside there or are renting it out. >> no. >> no, you both live there. you each are adding a unit to your respective buildings that you're residing it. that's the goal. >> yeah. so since we've bought it, i live in the top floor of the front building, he's lived in

the middle floor of the front building. we have a shared garage, and we have a tenant in the back. i've gone and done some improvements in the back. it's ready to rock as soon as i pull the permits for it for another unit there. i'll put my mom there, and as soon as my buddy's ready, he'll add the a.d.u. which will keep us under the five-unit cap. we've already gone through the process working with the surveyor to go ahead and have -- they're called exclusive use rights, so we've already divided this, you know, the square footage for each of us to go and build our respective units. >> is it your impression that the a.d.u. will be easier to add in the front building? what makes you think it will be different in the front than adding a unit? >> so again, i'm learning as i go with this stuff, but the exposure requirement, the front's going to be tricky, so

there's a window in the front, but it's recessed back, off of the street, and then, also, the angle of -- and excuse me if i get this wrong, but the angle of the overhang to the window i think is complicated. and then, there's also not a whole lot of light in the downstairs where my buddy's going to add the unit, so i think he's going to have to go and request additional variances for additional windows, too. this is why we decided as a team i would do it this way. >> and also, the factor is -- and i'm just asking, because an a.d.u. is not a separate separate unit. it's still -- it's just a renting unit. it's not a separate unit, whereas a unit is a unit. so his ultimate goal to sell this off and divide the property? >> so we want to say there.

we've been best friends since '99, and it took a lot of cajoling to get him to go into this with me. >> got to love b.f.f.s. >> it's an adventure. >> yeah. >> okay. mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. one of the benefits of the a.d.u. process is the unit that is created out of that is rent controlled if the building itself is subject to rent control, and i believe this building would are subject to rent control, and the a.d.u. unit would be a rent controlled unit. there's no guarantee that a unit that is not built under the a.d.u. unit would be rent controlled. it's my understanding that in 2015, the appellant sought approval for condo conversion of the property as a three-unit condo conversion. i don't know that that has been completed or not, and how this

would impact that. certainly, we look at this process, we created this process to create new housing. this is an opportunity to create new housing and to have new rent controlled housing if and when there's a future proposal, there's no guarantee there will be a future proposal for the front building, they can use whatever processes are available to them at that time. >> okay. i've got a question. so, you know, the a.d.u. is pretty new, and there's been a lot of ups and downs. so what did we do prior? if this guy's just trying to legalize a unit prior, what is the process prior to the a.d.u. process? >> well, the many layers of zoning and the code over -- >> i mean, would this qualify prior to the a.d.u. program to be able to get a third unit in this property? >> so this is an r.t.o. zoning district, which didn't exist a little bit more than a decade ago. it was created as part of

market octavia. typically, the units were zoned r-h-3 before. >> wait. there's through units now, so they're adding a fourth, but then, the -- then, the fifth would be the a.d.u., right? is that what it is? >> yeah. so a little bit more than ten years ago, i'm assuming it was r.h. 3. actually, i can look at the old variance decision. so three units would have been the maximum. if they came in for this proposal, we would have said no, the density doesn't allow it. then, with the market octavia, and the r.t.o., i think it's

1:600, the base, so that is about, for this lot size, i think five units would be allowed under the current density. so if they came in in 2010 or 2011 to add the fourth unit, depending on where it was located, you know, if it was in the front building, they probably would have done it in the garage without having any issues with exposure, variance. it wouldn't have been any issue with parking because r.t.o. doesn't have any parking. in 2010, if they came in, it would have been allowed under the density. they can still do one more under this under the density. they can do five, but here, there's the ability to do the a.d.u. which would not be the variance for the exposure because the building doesn't comply with the exposure, and in return, the city gets a rent

controlled unit. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> but mr. sanchez, i might take exception with one of your comments. when you said that this was a way to get new housing, well, that's what he's doing. if he added a unit on the rear cottage, and eventually, the owner of the front building add a unit there, you've got two new units. the question is whether they're a.d.u.s or regular market-rate units. and you know, they're new units. i think the question is, is these are smaller units, which makes affordability a different discussion. my question, though, is that deck extends out -- it looks like it extends out in the neighborhood of eight to 10 feet.

if he knocks out 3 feet of that, then, it's code compliant. >> the deck itself and stairs extend 9 feet into that required 25 by 25 open area. >> 9 feet? >> yeah. i can put it back up. >> i thought somebody said knocking out about three or 4 feet. >> these dash lines here show the bounds of the 25 by 25 box, so it would -- >> could you expand -- >> yeah. >> zoom out a little bit. >> overhead. >> okay. so it's the width of it? >> it's the width and the depth of the projection, because it extends into this -- by 1'2" here half of the lot, and ab t about -- with this portion, it extends 9 feet.

>> can you zoom out a little bit there. i see. that doesn't work. >> yeah. the a.d.u. doesn't require a variance, doesn't require the five findings. >> i understand. >> thanks. >> but you remember the previous case, they didn't want to do a.d.u.s, so we lost the unit. >> there is a path here to add the unit. they said they wouldn't do it if it's an a.d.u. they said they'd do the a.d.u. in the front building, but we also don't have a variance. >> i'm confused. i see a master plan project with only half being presented at this time, and that's what's confusing. also, i'm very impressed by the appellant is presenting this in a cordal and friendliest

fashion, except, you know, the -- we hear a lot of good intentions in here that, you know, if we do this, we'll absolutely do that, and then, that never happens because life happens, and it just doesn't, so that's why i'm skeptical -- not skeptical about the ethics or the truth telling by the appellant, but rather, you know, i'd rather see a master plan. my question is what would you suggest or -- i mean, this is a good idea. this is a good concept. he's presented them constructively. it adds two units, potentially, of residential, which is a -- you know, which is two good wins. what would your recommendation to the appellant be to make the path smoother other than asking

him to do the first one first and the other one second because which is not possible due to affordability? >> no. i'm just asking what is the path of least resistance? what would you suggest? what would make you support this project and allow him to go forward without more conversation? >> our position is if there's a code compliant alternative, in this case, through the a.d.u. process, that they pursue that. and if and when they ever move forward with a unit in the front, they can propose that, and if there's not an a.d.u. process available to them at that time, they can seek a variance if needed. we don't know. we have never seen a proposal for the front. we don't know what that looks like. >> that's my problem. >> that's what we had requested, and we have a

narrative of kind of some concerns about that, but we don't have plans. i can understand they don't want to develop plans because that costs many. i don't know that there's -- if and when they ever decide they want to do a unit in the front building, i don't know that there's not a path forward. they could -- let's say the variance is overturned, and they build the unit as a regular unit, and they come in for an a.d.u. in the front building in the future, it could be designed so poorly that we don't approve it. we have told people to resign, make changes. there's no guarantee -- i don't know what their thoughts are in terms of a unit for the front building because we've never seen that. we have seen plans for this unit. this would be a great a.d.u. addition if and when they ever submit plans. >> you just expressed exactly my concerns, thank you very much for doing such a good job

on that, and giving me my words. if you flip-flop these -- can you develop it as an -- can he develop it as an a.d.u. and then flip-flop it into -- flip the a.d.u. into the front building at a later point or that's not happening? >> yeah. that's never been contemplated to my knowledge. once it's created as an a.d.u., there are restrictions that are attached to the deed of the property, subject to rent control, and you know, i -- >> even though it's in the same property? >> even though it's the same property, yeah, i don't know that that would be a possibility. >> and the final and follow up question is expressing exactly my concerns. thank you very much. should we kick the can down the road a little bit and allow the appellant -- would it be better if the appellant came in with proposed plans for the front and whether they wanted a

permit on it or not, would that make them feel better or is there any benefit there? >> i mean, it's -- if the appellant -- that there's no guarantee moving forward. [inaudible]

>> all right. thanks a lot. >> thank you. >> and i do want to reiterate, the appellant has been very pleasant throughout all of this variance hearing, and it is a nice change of pace from many of the -- >> we've acknowledged that, and we appreciate that. >> except you denied him. >> nice guys finish last. >> i guess. >> thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> you know, commissioners, we've had this go-round several times now, and i guess i didn't voice it the last time we heard this, but what bothers me is that this is not a new building, so when they have the new buildings, they can establish anything they want to as part of the planning code,

which has exposure requirements and metrics that support what they consider to be appropriate light and air exposure. we have a lot of old buildings in san francisco. this is off by a little bit in terms of the dimension of things, but you have grandfathering. you've got a building that was done in the late 1800's. it's been there. that unit is legal, so what is the detriment, then, to it? if the -- if the zoning allowed the greater density now of the five units, i mean, to me, it's pushing an issue that some people don't want to go into, and therefore, we've lost certain opportunities. you know, if you think that

those directions are so important to our city, well, of course, then, you're going to maintain that direction. but i don't think it's that important to lose, potentially, a couple units. >> well, i just saw someone post on-line that you know, during -- in california, a lot of cities are allowing rear yard a.d.u.s, whereas that would be very difficult in the city just -- we spoke about it, fire, egress, health, and safety. but if that is the direction you're going, i will support that motion. >> we're moving against what is

legislation, what is -- we're ham strung by that, or that is our explanation, that this can or cannot be done because legislation doesn't allow it. even though we would like to move it forward then we are flying in the face of legal statute and legislation which makes it very difficult. >> that's why it's called a variance, and that's why it's before our board. >> i'm sitting with the variance king. our president is more knowledgeable. >> and he usually doesn't support variances. >> and he has a stronger position on variances than anybody on this panel. i would kind of go in his direction on this if he can find the grounds. >> i guess it's -- if just seems a little bit nonsensical sometimes in the sense you've got a building, it's already there. >> make a motion, mr. president. >> and the objections aren't intense, it's the stairs and a

very small deck that are just in the area, right? it's not significantly impeding the light and air to the potential unit. >> well, that's why i asked mr. sanchez, is there a way to smooth the path and make this happen? because we have half a plan here, and we don't know what the future is. and there's not even an indication -- there's an intent, there's a semi clear vision or a semi foggy vision by the property owner, but there's no plan. that's why i thought the opportunity to kick the can down the road a little bit and have the -- give the opportunity to the property owner to present a plan for the front building that would give us some reasoning to allow you to go in the direction that you're implying. >> he said already financially

the guy can 't do it, and i asked what would happen prior, and he said it wouldn't happen prior. at this point, if the zoning is allowing a higher density, why not give it a higher density. >> well, actually, i'm not sure that what happens in the front has any impact on this particular case for the following reason. if they choose to go forward, his partner, with the front building, he's going to be faced with a variance. the light and air exposure requirement hasn't changed, and probably is not likely to change. that 25 feet has been there forever, seems like, as a minimum requirement. the if if he chooses to do that way, a

non-a.d.u. unit, he's faced with a variance. if he chooses to do an a.d.u., then he would prior the one a.d.u. to this if this gentleman can do a regular unit. >> i mean -- >> what's your motion? >> conjunction junction, what's your function? >> commissioner, i would remind you that the variance decision establishes findings for two of the -- a finding of number four and five, the requirements were met in the variance denial letter, but if the board desired to overturn the zoning administrator's decision for finding one, two, and three, would you need to articulate a basis for why those findings were met. i don't know if you could do that today or if you'd want to continue that for adoption of preparation of findings you can

do at a later meeting. >> i think i better do that. i've been very weak on variances in general. >> yes, not supportive. >> i'm going to move to overturn the denial of the variance on the basis that the five findings were met and that this decision is contingent on receiving final findings from the appellant. >> clerk: okay. so when would you like to continue that to? >> how much time do you need, sir? [inaudible] >> come to the podium, please. >> what do i need to do? >> you need to rework the findings of the variance. >> okay. >> in the variance decision, you need to rework the five findings. you need to articulate in writing new findings as to why

you meet the standards of the variance. does that make any sense? >> pretty much, yeah. >> you submitted a variance application with five findings. three were found not to be -- you need to rework those three. >> okay. so to submit back further -- >> back to -- >> submit further. >> back to the department and us. >> you saw the chance. >> so president fung is making a motion to continue the matter so you can draft those findings in consultation with the zoning administrator, and this will come back before the board. >> okay. cool. >> attract bees with honey. >> how much time do you need, sir? >> would a week be okay? i can do it faster. >> i think you need more time. >> all right. >> let's see what the calendar looks like. >> february 27 or 20. >> yeah, i'll be here. >> february 27. >>

yeah. sweet. thanks, man. >> okay. >> okay. so we have a motion and for clarity, president fung, you're making a motion to continue, not, at this point -- >> yeah. motion of intent. >> a motion of from president fung to continue this matter to february 27 to allow time for the appellant to prepare the necessary findings in consultation with the zoning administrator to support the granting of a variance. okay. on that motion -- [roll call] >> okay. so that matter's continued, and you need to work with -- >> you should go buy a lottery ticket, too, after. really. you should. >> thank you, everybody. >> okay. thank you for your patience. we will now move onto item number 8-a and 8-b. this is