kind in this neighborhood. please take our needs into consideration over a developer whose interests are not a lined with ours. thank you for your consideration and time. >> you have a two minute rebuttal. >> thank you, very much. just wanted to emphasize again that this is not a common roof deck for use of all units. it's the use of a single dwelling unit. probably rare occupancy on a sunny day space for a table and it is the outdoor open space. the d.r. requester in the neighbors all have individual yards and much larger open spaces so, we do believe that it's only fair to allow the family that lives in this middle unit to have a small outdoor open space for their personal use. so that is it.

>> thank you. commissioners, that will conclude public comment by the public hearing portion of this matter. and so it is now before you. >> if i may, i'd like to say that i consider the project, based on the d.r. requester very concise. the description extraordinary and exceptional and actually impactful setting a bad precedent for an enlargement of the existing building and squeezing out what could have been shared open space for all. i want to leave it with that just for openers. >> commissioner fung. >> mr. winslow, the d.r.

requester mentioned the building footprint was increased in the main project on the front building to what expect was it internet creased? >> a vertical expansion, not a horizontal expansion and the reason i say that is i could figure out how to access google aerial view i could show you the existing footprint prior to construction. which shows a constrained rear yard. a typical building with rear stairs and -- there's open space that would be considered the rear yard f grade in the before. so the vertical addition is basically adding another-storey to the gable of this project and

then adding a deck on the existing footprint of that building. >> so the -- it looks like the stairs are new construction. >> the stair is new construction. there's replacing an existing wood switch back stair. >> in the same location? >> well, in the rear yard not in the same location. generally yes, in the same location. very limited. >> let me double check and scroll down. bear with me while i access the

drawings. i take that back. yeah that pop out appears to be part of the building illustrated in the aerial view prior to construction of this project. >> ok. >> i wouldn't call it a pop-out it's a three-storey portion of the building which doesn't have the koebel roof. >> there might have been a slight pop out and for the record we can have the project sponsors clarified. >> am i on? >> yes. >> so there was a long the west side of the building there was a

very small infill area of a portion that did not come all the way to the property line of seven feet wide by 12. there was a small expansion but it was not a radical part that took away a big section of continuous yard and that pop out did exist so that was just a renovation of that pop out area and the stair was a replacement, an enkind replacement of an existing stair. i would say the footprint upgrade expanded and i don't have the exact number. maybe 80 feet but it was tucked in the corner on the eastside not even at the dra and the property that is closer to the corner so there was a --

>> thank you. >> commissioners, i also field this is an extraordinary and the i'm not supportive of the deck on top of the garage. >> thank you. mr. winslow, in terms of the modification that is suggested which is all sittings five foot on both sides that are facing the adjacent properties and then

the can you help me understand what we're saying when we say a round? it was at ground along the side property line abutting this (inaudible). not on the -- it's something that would actually be in substance and grow rather than be in a planter box and maintenance and possible death. >> right, right. i do support that. i wonder will screening. i know the other side does not request d.r. but is there any screen tag is required towards the adjacent property on the other side? which is where the picture of the basketball hoop was?

>> where i am, kind of, is i do support the modifications that you are suggesting and i wonder if we might give a more specific height to what screening is required in terms of the inground plantings and if that is intended to be at the time of sullation versus growing overtime and the the commission a proves those mode indications, would have assurance that you know, a tree or a shrub of what have you, does it need to be 20 feet or 14 tall to provide screening is there and on the other side, i understand we have guidance around railings and things like that. i don't know if that could encloud any type of screening that is on the top of the deck. it doesn't need to be natural, it could be something else. i'm not sure if we have

recommendations regarding what that might be. >> certainly. so fixed screening, anything above on a deck it's allowed to occupy an existing non-compliance structure and the height that is 4 # inches typically. 42 inches, when we are asked to go above that that would require variants and you don't want to push the project sponsor in the variance. the aspect of asking for screening with landscape asking brought with two problems, one is, we don't regulate it typically, we don't go out and enforce 679 it a mean able to

both parties, could solve part of problem if not most of the problem with respect to the d.r. questioner. requester. i want to mention the privacy issue as i did assess it while we were in this hearing, typically we don't have guidelines that assess privacy impacted to rear yards. if you look down on some neighbor rear yards and you have hills and tall buildings, we don't consider visual access to someone's rear yard necessarily privacy impact unless there's some unique circumstances. >> for my part, commissioners, i find that it allows us and there

are modifications that are trying to set up back from the adjacent properties making it a little bit harder to peek over the edge straight down into the yard. i also in providing useable open space for units in light of the importance of that space. and i am supportive of taking d.r. and approving it with modification that's have been suggested but i'd like to hear from other commissioners if there's further modification that's would be ameen able or desired. >> tied like to take this conversation further and asked mr. winslow, this project was not before the commission from the current (inaudible) situation, is that correct? >> i believe that's correct. you showed a photo of the upper roof deck which typically we asked to stay away from the

building edges, it does not do that. right there is the first kind of call out for an unusual building which is the request outline having support so i'm not debating that. this project now is a garage with a permit from what i understand and it's i think some form of permiting and i personally have the experience that a deck in that location is not only exceptional and extraordinary but also highly intrusive for those who look into their rear yards seeing small garage as the only form bordering the comfort suite alley and now all of a sudden seeing one roof deck while during the day it may be a green spot looking still back into the back of your unit where you mostly have bedrooms and what

happens you are dinning room or whatever and at night it's like pollution there's activity and i personally believe that given our aggressively this building has been enlarged it did not pay any attention to the required open space or communal use of open space as it enlarged. as an afterthought with an over -- it's for me something i have huge questions about and i think it sets a bad precedent because i think ultimately why it's hard to define in code, it's an issue of commonsense. it would be my explanation to not wanting to support this project. i'm calling on commissioner diamond, please. >> so i have struggled with this particular d.r. because on one happened, i am generally in favor of roof decks and

definitely in favor of looking for more ways to expand open space as we increase the densification across the city, particularly on the west side. i feel like in this particular instance, putting a roof deck above a garage is a completely different -- it changes the experience for all of the surrounding properties. it's different than having a roof deck three floors up and it's completely different than having neighbors besides you hyped a fence on the ground floor. this is putting people 15 feet, 10 to 15 feet up in the air with a boundary with a sense of some kind all around it and it's visible and it will definitely have a negative impact on and more spots could have been given when they undertook the design in the first place and while it would have been nice to eye

different design we shouldn't come up with a loose which is what this is i would not be in favor. >> is that a motion? >> yes. >> do you have additional comments? >> no. i support commissioner fung's moore and diamond's comments not having the roof deck on top of the garage. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners if there's nothing further, there's a motion that has been seconded to take d.c. approve the project without the roof deck. >> does this have to be a motion

of intent or is this a motion that is already in our packet? >> well, this is a discretionary review commissioner moore so essentially you are taking discretionary review and approving the project with the modification that the roof deck not be included and be eliminated from the building permit application. on that motion, commissioner tanner. >> i'm sorry, what is the project we're approving because i thought the project was the roof. >> thank you, very much. the project is the building permit application is entirely for the flattening of the roof and installation of the roof deck on the roof of the garage. it has nothing to do with the previously permitted. >> thank you for that clarification. >> thank you, i appreciate that. so on that motion, commissioner

tanner. >> no. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> that motion passes 5-1 with commissioner danner voting against. commissioners, that will concludes today's agenda. >> thank you, the meeting is adjourned. >> thank you. >> take care. >> bye, everyone.

>> when i first started painting it was difficult to get my foot in the door and contractors and mostly men would have a bad attitude towards me or not want to answer my questions or not include me and after you prove yourself, which i have done, i don't face that obstacle as much anymore. ♪♪♪ my name is nita riccardi, i'm a painter for the city of san francisco and i have my own business as a painting contractor since 1994 called

winning colors. my mother was kind of resistant. none of my brothers were painter. i went to college to be a chiropractor and i couldn't imagine being in an office all day. i dropped out of college to become a painter. >> we have been friends for about 15-20 years. we both decided that maybe i could work for her and so she hired me as a painter. she was always very kind. i wasn't actually a painter when she hired me and that was pretty cool but gave me an opportunity to learn the trade with her company. i went on to different job opportunities but we stayed friends. the division that i work for with san francisco was looking for a painter and so i suggested to my supervisor maybe we can give nita a shot. >> the painting i do for the city is primarily maintenance painting and i take care of anything from pipes on the roof

to maintaining the walls and beautifying the bathrooms and graffiti removal. the work i do for myself is different because i'm not actually a painter. i'm a painting contractor which is a little different. during the construction boom in the late 80s i started doing new construction and then when i moved to san francisco, i went to san francisco state and became fascinated with the architecture and got my contractor's licence and started painting victorians and kind of gravitated towards them. my first project that i did was a 92 room here in the mission. it was the first sro. i'm proud of that and it was challenging because it was occupied and i got interior and exterior and i thought it would take about six weeks to do it and it took me a whole year. >> nita makes the city more

beautiful and one of the things that makes her such a great contractor, she has a magical touch around looking at a project and bringing it to its fullest fruition. sometimes her ideas to me might seem a little whacky. i might be like that is a little crazy. but if you just let her do her thing, she is going to do something incredible, something amazing and that will have a lot of pop in it. and she's really talented at that. >> ultimately it depends on what the customer wants. sometimes they just want to be understated or blend in and other times they let me decide and then all the doors are open and they want me to create. they hire me to do something beautiful and i do. and that's when work is really fun. i get to be creative and express what i want.

paint a really happy house or something elegant or dignified. >> it's really cool to watch what she does. not only that, coming up as a woman, you know what i mean, and we're going back to the 80s with it. where the world wasn't so liberal. it was tough, especially being lgbtq, right, she had a lot of friction amongst trades and a lot of people weren't nice to her, a lot of people didn't give her her due respect. and one of the things amazing about nita, she would never quit. >> after you prove yourself, which i have done, i don't face that obstacle as much anymore. i'd like to be a mentor to other women also. i have always wanted to do that. they may not want to go to school but there's other options. there's trades. i encourage women to apply for

my company, i'd be willing to train and happy to do that. there's a shortage of other women painters. for any women who want to get into a trade or painting career, just start with an apprenticeship or if you want to do your own business, you have to get involved and find a mentor and surround yourself with other people that are going to encourage you to move forward and inspire you and support you and you can't give up. >> we've had a lot of history, nita and i. we've been friends and we have been enemies and we've had conflicts and we always gravitate towards each other with a sense of loyalty that maybe family would have. we just care about each other. >> many of the street corners in all the districts in san francisco, there will be a painting job i have completed and it will be a beautiful paint job. it will be smooth and gold leaf

and just wow. and you can't put it down. when i first started, it was hard to get employees to listen to me and go along -- but now,

>> good afternoon. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the mar22, 2021 meeting of the land use committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i am joined by dean preston and aaron peskin. i am myrna melgar. do you have any announcements? >> yes, due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect board members city employees, the committee room are closed. members will participate remotely. this is taken pursuant to statewide stay-at-home order and all local statend