>> commissioner diamond: just checking on something. >> all right. so we have a total building without the garage at 3,154 square feet. that was prior to taking the recommendations that the staff had made and reducing the rear -- or 3,164 square feet, and with the garage, it's 3,447 square feet. >> commissioner diamond: okay. so when you add them together, there's no requirement that they be separate, it's approximately 4,000 square feet, is that correct? >> with or without the garage? >> commissioner diamond: without the garage. >> yeah, without the garage,

4300 square feet. >> commissioner diamond: so i really like the direction that mr. teague is going in because i would like to see more space between the two buildings, and i don't know if that's part of d.r., part of the variance, so i -- this is really a question for you, mr. winslow. you know, if we decide to take d.r. and do your conditions, and then, we also like some of the suggestions mr. teague just referenced, are those d.r. conditions or are those done through the variance? >> those would be done-if they are the direction of the commission, they would be done through the d.r. process. >> commissioner diamond: okay. so i'd like to hear from my fellow anythi fellow commissioners, but i think the idea of pulling each floor back 4 feet and the other

restrictions, i would be amenable to those restrictions. >> president koppe >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i really like what i'm hearing from the commission. everything that mr. teague proposed i would support, starting with the reduction of the ceiling from 10 feet to 9 feet on all floors, pulling the bottom two floors back 4 feet to give some room between the structure and carriage house. that is 1200 feet that will be occupied by somebody else. the reduction of rear elevation

[inaudible] the reduction in finestration from what mr. teague says, and i would like to ask whether or not we should consider a front entrance to the building rather than a building that has a side set back. i believe it would leave the space between all the buildings quiet and respectful. i would ask that we consider that, and mr. teague, am i leaving something out? >> i don't believe so. and just to be clear, on my recommendations, it would be to take the bottom two floors and reduce that in depth by 4 feet. >> vice president moore: yes, i said that. >> yes, equal to where it steps back at the floor above that,

and then, remove the rear decks. and then, on the finestration, it would be helpful to provide some sort of quantitative guidance how many we think they should be reduced or given a maximum finestration square footage of each level just so there's some guidance going forward to staff and the architect. >> vice president moore: carriage house looks back towards main house, main house, with its big windows, looks back into the windows of the carriage house. i think to create the privacy to appropriate rooms, which i think is what should govern those windows, overall, i'm

pleased to see certain pattern in neighborhoods where contemporary buildings don't look more li lo look -- it won't stick out like a sore thumb. the carriage house does really seriously impact the feeling of midblock open space, as commissioner diamond opened. that will remain even if we're not having a variance. that will remain a tight spot, and the more we can minimize the crowding of those two, the better off we are. that could be some landscaping,

some green that would soften the massing between the two, but also allows the neighbors to look into green rather than two such buildings that crowd into each other. again, i would like the commission to consider moving the entrance of the building to the front of the building rather than the side in order to allow the east facing neighbor to have more privacy. those would be my comments. i would ask the commission to take d.r. with the recommendations made by mr. winslow with the addition of the building entrances. >> clerk: is that a motion? >> vice president moore: that's a motion. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner tanner: that's a second. >> president koppel:

commissioner fung, you may be muted. >> commissioner fung: yeah, i just unmuted. i think the fourth floor did create a little bit of discomfort given the fairly consistent nature of structures in this neighborhood that were said, regarding the height of each floor and the reduction of the rear of the bottom two floors. i'm not interested in dealing with the finestration or the location of the front door. >> vice president moore: and commissioner fung, you are still in support of the fourth floor -- i heard you say something that you didn't want to carry it forward, the fourth

floor. >> commissioner fung: no, but carrying forward the recommendations of the z.a. it m mitigates it a little bit. >> vice president moore: it still leaves the question to the other commissioners, do you want to reduce the floor height but also eliminate the fourth floor. >> president koppel: let's see what commissioner tanner thinks. >> commissioner tanner: thank you, president koppel. let me ask you, commissioner moore. was your proposal to move everything back, including the rear deck? >> vice president moore: no. i was just asking to remove the rear decks. >> commissioner tanner: okay. i think i do agree with that. i do agree -- i agree with

everything that commissioner moore has motioned. i'm not as concerned with the windows or the side entrance. on the windows, i kind of hear what you're saying. on the other hand, in terms of privacy, there's no more rear deck. obviously, people can look out of the windows, but there won't be people outside, looking into the carriage house the way that they would be with the decks present, but if that's something that the other commissioners are supportive of, i'm fine with that. i would be interested if any staff had any notes about the entrance being on the side, if, like, why that was the case, and if there's something about its importance about the

location or a front entrance. i don't know if that's mr. winslow or miss scisneros, the location of the entrance? >> president koppel: mr. winslow, do you want to address that? >> yeah. i'm thinking of who might have had the last touch on that. i think the idea of putting the entrance where it was was simply mitting the pr -- fitting the pragmatics of the project into the envelope and gaining as much size space as possible. i think it was simply kind of prescribed by getting as much side yard as possible by getting as much property as available to the west as well as getting the glimpse of the

cottage back. if you put it on the street, it would include the eight-foot side set back as the footprint is currently drawn. so question for preservation, i think, is whether or not that would be acceptable. i suggest we ask mr. grieving. >> commissioner tanner: mr. grieving, could you address the location of the address? >> yes. [inaudible] grieving, planning department staff. i think that will be one of the considerations in trying to provide some additional space between the proposed project and neighboring building but i don't think it's critical to the design, and i think we'd be open to allowing for a front entrance so to keep it more in line with the neighborhood. >> commissioner tanner: i'm curious, the project sponsor, what your thoughts are on these proposed changes? >> well, i think i'll start

with the front entry. as you can imagine, i am trying to work the circulation of the building, especially vertical circulation of the building now to include a front entry, in that it makes it problematic in terms of how the building will work. in terms of the others, personally, i'm not wild about an eight-foot ceiling height -- >> commissioner tanner: it would be 9 feet. >> well, i think it's ten-foot floor to floor. it reduces to 9 feet, which would be 8 feet after the framing.

if the commission feels that the site of the building is too tall, that's one way to reduce that and bring the entire scale of the building down. the -- in terms of the rear -- i just want to reiterate that although this may not be the ultimate use of the house a generation from now, the intention is to have family members living in the rear cottage, so while there was an issue of privacy in the two spaces, the concern at least for these owners is not as critical. [inaudible] commissioner tanner, you were very perceptive in understanding that the reason the building [inaudible] the width of the building was reduced and so [inaudible] and really what we're -- what i think is most

paramount to the owners is to be able to have three bedrooms on a floor. we can still get there with the reductions [inaudible] i think we can work towards it, but it does get more difficult in terms of providing reasonably sized bedrooms all on the same floor [inaudible]. >> commissioner tanner: okay. thank you very much for your comments. mr. winslow, do you have something you would like to add? i saw you come on camera. >> i was [inaudible] just to give the project sponsor some flexibility. they are only nine-foot floor-to-ceiling height, ten-foot floor-to-floor, but we

might give the project sponsor some flexibility in that. >> commissioner tanner: i do support the motion, but i would wonder if, vice president moore, are you open to adjusting the height, and the side entrance you say that it's not necessary, given that they have created that side walk away in response to historic preservation. the number has a number of property line windows facing their house directly, so if they're concerned about privacy, you know, it kind of goes both way, so it would seem that a side entrance would be acceptable to me. >> vice president moore: i'm prepared to modify the motion and drop the request for the front entrance with the caveat that the side entrance does not build an additional canopy.

this is a tricky thing, but if we allow that, then, we're basically creating an obstruction to view the cottage, which is the reason for the side set back. so it has to be clearly delinated what we're allowing and what we're not. it's clear to people coming to this address, federal express or whoever it might be, to need to know where the entrance is. other than that, i believe that the family wants to use the rear yard cottage, they're going to receive disappointment for me because the permit that we're allowing here is large for a single-family home, and since we're living in a time of real shortage of living units, i would hope that somebody else would actually be able to live in the rear yard. should, however, over time, ownership change, i would want

to have the consideration for privacy between the two buildings remain in the motion that we are supporting today. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i think that commissioner moore s is not insisting on the front door because i think that would take away from the flow of the home the way it is. i had assumed that the ten-foot was floor-to-ceiling, not floor-to-floor, and i agree if it's floor-to-ceiling, and you reduce it -- i agree that 8 feet may be kind of short, so i like the suggestion of just saying to the architect, the

overall height needs to be reduced by a certain amount of feet and let them figure out which floors they want to do it on. given the fact that it is 9 feet floor to ceiling, not 10 feet floor to ceiling, i think that might be more appropriate. the other thing that i want to point out to this commissioners, it's something i raised at the last week's meeting, about tthis is exactl it's going to look like, and that really, really causes me anxiety. i know we've got it here with the carriage house, but this is, you know, the case in point of the issue that i was worried about. >> president koppel: mr. teague, do you have anything

else? >> yeah, thank you. yeah, i was going to make the same point that commissioner diamond did. it would give the sponsor more flexibility. i was going to ask the project sponsor, the garage level actually goes down a bit, so obviously, the feeling hit matters there for just being able to make the grade, but that's less important if we're given flexibility. i was going to ask 2.5 feet, which is a decent reduction and still gives that flexibility to the architect. i did want to make a correction. i said the two floors to be pulled back, so my proposal was to reduce the lowest floor in

bth depth depth by 2.5 feet. >> clerk: commissioners, there are multiple motions with amendments. commissioner moore, are you open to the motion made by the zoning administrator? >> vice president moore: i'm a little bit confused because in today's construction, floor to floor height in regular residential, it's 8'6", which can be achieved by less than a foot of floor height, and i'm not sure mr. winslow, what you're saying, by lowering the

building by 2.5 feet, i think that's not going to make that 8'6". i would like to lower the building by 3 feet, not 4 feet. and mr. teague, are you hearing me? would you mind pointing to the drawing that is on the screen exactly of where you want to building -- to pull the building back because wear, throughout the presentation, waffling back between four floors and three floors. the building is four floors. the lowest floor, the garage floor, is partially -- partially a basement, so you're talking about pulling the lowest floor visible in the

picture back by 4 feet, correct? >> yeah, correct. jonas, would it be possible, if you want to send the presentation to me, i could show the plans and point specifically to where i'm referring to. >> clerk: you can share your screen? >> yes, i have the plans. >> clerk: okay. >> vice president moore: showing it in the isometrical section drawing would be very helpful to everybody. >> sure. all right. let me -- can you all see my screen?

>> vice president moore: yes, but i would like to see it in the isometrical. >> okay. this 4 feet here is the four-foot portion i'm referring to to set that back just on this floor, and that effectively removes that, which is here. >> vice president moore: can you put your blue overlay on that? >> commissioner fung: corey, if you go to sheet a-3.1, it'll show that very clearly. >> vice president moore: yes. >> sure, we can do the sections.

if you pull this in that 4 feet, that eliminates the deck above that portion. >> vice president moore: correct. >> and if you also eliminate the other decks, that is losing a -- losing this family room does not affect the size of the bedrooms. it seems to be a minor concession on the entirety of the lot.

[inaudible] [please stand by] . >> vice president moore: if you wouldn't mind going back to the section drawing, there's only one thing i would like the commission to consider. while we have kind of pulled back on finestration and modifying finestration, except for that floor that we pulled back, i would like to ask that the windows on that particular floor are more modest because they are directly across from the carriage house. the building risers look over the carriage house, so i would

ask that only the windows on that particular floor, the floor one above grade would be slightly less total windows. >> so commissioner moore, what you're asking for is the second floor windows. >> we're talking about this level here, if you can all see that. >> clerk: commissioner moore, are we talking about 25%, 50%? >> vice president moore: let them have the required height, whatever that is, 3 feet plus six. mr. winslow, you know the code better than i do. >> well, i don't know that there's a required shell height but there's a maximum for fire.

>> 36 inches. >> vice president moore: yeah, 36 ircnches, that sounds corre. >> clerk: i'm sorry. 36 inches -- >> vice president moore: from bottom up. >> clerk: reducing 36 inches? >> vice president moore: yes. that would be reducing the height of the railing. >> clerk: okay. is the seconder of the motion amenable to these modifications? >> commissioner tanner: yes. >> clerk: should i call the question? >> vice president moore: please do. >> clerk: okay. let me see if i got all this. if i forgot something, please correct me.

there's a motion to take d.r. and approve the project with modifications, conditioning that the overall height of the building be reduced 3 feet; that the lowest level be reduced 4 feet, there by eliminating the upper deck above it; that the finestration of the second level be reduced by eliminating the bottom 36 inches, and that the side set back remain unobstructed and to increase privacy landscaping, but the front door can remain at the side. i think that's everything. on that motion -- >> plus staff recommendations. >> clerk: plus staff recommendations, yes. on that motion -- >> i'm sorry, jonas. just to be clear, my

understanding of the motion was also to remove all of the rear decks, not just the deck that was lost from the four-foot reduction of the yerear -- >> vice president moore: that's correct. >> clerk: then we're getting rid of all rear decks. >> vice president moore: yes. >> clerk: on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. thank you, everyone, for your patience today. it was most certainly obscured by technical difficulties. zoning administrator, what say you? >> sure. i would move to close the public hearing on the variance. i intend to adopt the variance

with the same conditions approved by the planning commission. >> clerk: commissioners, that will conclude your agenda today.

lesb ri >> by the time the last show came, i was like whoa, whoa, whoa. i came in kicking and screaming and left out dancing. [♪]

>> hello, friends. i'm the deputy superintendent of instruction at san francisco unified school district, but you can call me miss vickie. what you see over the next hour has been created and planned by our san francisco teachers for our students. >> our premise came about for san francisco families that didn't have access to technology, and that's primarily children preschool to second grade. >> when we started doing this distance learning, everything was geared for third grade and up, and we work with the little once, and it's like how were they still processing the information? how were they supposed to keep learning?

>> i thought about reaching the student who didn't have internet, who didn't have computers, and i wanted them to be able to see me on the t.v. and at least get some connection with my kids that way. >> thank you, friends. see you next time. >> hi, friend. >> today's tuesday, april 28, 2020. it's me, teacher sharon, and i'm back again. >> i got an e-mail saying that i had an opportunity to be on a show. i'm, like, what? >> i actually got an e-mail from the early education department, saying they were saying of doing a t.v. show, and i was selected to be one of the people on it, if i was interested. i was scared, nervous. i don't like public speaking and all the above.

but it worked out. >> talk into a camera, waiting for a response, pretending that oh, yeah, i hear you, it's so very weird. i'm used to having a classroom with 17 students sitting in front of me, where they're all moving around and having to have them, like, oh, sit down, oh, can you hear them? let's listen. >> hi guys. >> i kind of have stage flight when i'm on t.v. because i'm normally quiet? >> she's never quiet. >> no, i'm not quiet. >> my sister was, like, i saw you on t.v. my teacher was, i saw you on youtube. it was exciting, how the

community started watching. >> it was a lot of fun. it also pushed me outside of my comfort zone, having to make my own visuals and lesson plans so quickly that ended up being a lot of fun. >> i want to end today with a thank you. thank you for spending time with us. it was a great pleasure, and see you all in the fall. >> i'm so happy to see you today. today is the last day of the school year, yea! >> it really helped me in my teaching. i'm excited to go back teaching my kids, yeah. >> we received a lot of amazing feedback from kiddos, who have seen their own personal teacher on television. >> when we would watch as a family, my younger son, kai, especially during the filipino

episodes, like, wow, like, i'm proud to be a filipino. >> being able to connect with someone they know on television has been really, really powerful for them. and as a mom, i can tell you that's so important. the social confidence development of our early learners. [♪] >> commissioner regular meeting tuesday, november 10th. the time is 9:02.