drama, acting, movies, everything, everything that makes life worth living and that's what we've got to mow proteasome no san francisco and that's what is important now. [♪♪♪] >> the meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president honda is presides joined by vice president swig, commissioner lazarus, commissioner chang and lopez. also present is deputy city attorney to provide legal advice this evening. at the controls is the legal assistants and i am julie the executive director. we will be joined from the city departments presenting before the board in evening.

administrator for the planning department and duffy with the department of building and inspection. the guidelines are as follows. turnoff or silence all phones and electronic devices. appellants and respondents have 7 minutes and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must be in these parties. others have three minutes and no rebuttal. time maybe limited to two minutes if there are a large number of speakers. our legal assistant will warn you 30 seconds before your time is up. if you have questions about rehearing the schedules please e-mail us. now public access and participation are parament importance. every effort is made to replicate in person.

to enable the participation we are streaming live and we will have the ability to receive public comment for each item on the agenda. sfgovtv is providing closed caption for the meeting. to watch on tv go to channel 78. it will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 p.m. on channel 26. go to sfgovtv. now public comment can be provided two ways. join the zoom by computer. go to the website and click on the zoom link or call in. 16699006833. enter id88945033095. sfgovtv is streaming the phone number and instructions on the bottom of the screen if you are watching the broadcast. to block your phone number when

calling star 67 and the number. listen for your item to be called and dial star 9. that is equivalent to raising your hand to speak. you will be brought in when it is your turn. you will have two or three minutes depending on the number of speakers. you will get a 30 second warning. there is a delay between live and what is live streamed on the tv or internet. reduce or turnoff tvs which calling in. now, if any of the participants on zoom need disability accommodation or technical assistance request in the chat to alice long way or send e-mail to board of appeals at sfgov.org. you cannot use chat for public comment or opinion. we will swear in or affirm all of those who want to testify. you may speak pursuant to the

sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, raise your right hand and say i do after you are sworn in. do you wear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth. if you are not speaking put your zoom speaker on mute. item 1. general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone to speak on a matter within the board jurisdiction not on the calendar tonight. any member of the public wishes to speak on an item not on the calendar? if so raise your hand. i don't see general public comment. we will move to item 2. commissioner comments and questions. we can't hear you, president honda. >> none for me. >> okay. there are no commissioner

comments we will go to item 3 which is adoption of the minutes. before you for adoption of the august 11, 2021 meeting. >> i would like to accept the minutes. >> is there any public comment on vice president swig's motion to adopt the minutes? >> seeing none, commissioner lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> that motion carries 5-0. minutes are adopted. now item 4. this is appeel 21-053. jacqueline math they were versus zoning administrator.

1230goettingen street. appealing a variance commission. on a substandard lot. planning code 134 requires rear yard to be 30% of the lot depth. building will cover the lot and provide no rear yard. a year yard variance is required. 135 requires 300 square feet of usable open space. this proposes only 93 square feet of usable open space on the second floor deck. the bay windows do not meet the requirements. obstruction variance is required. the zoning administrator granted this. this is 2020-005122var. on july 21, 2021, upon motion by president honda the board voted

4-0. the board recommended third story be removed, if a roof deck is proposed it be set back at least three feet from each of the adjacent property lines and the determine holder meet with the neighbors. the project contain a stairment house. should the permit holder'svey rised proposal be rejected by the board, the board shall consider the adoption of the draft findings. >> have you had a chance to watch it from july 21st? >> since this was previously heard. each party gets three minutes with no rebuttal. we will hear first from the determination holder since he is coming back with revised proposal.

>> hello, president honda and vice president swig. continues from where we left off on the last hearing with the directions by the board by president honda and vice president swig, we have complied with the board's direction by removing the third story to the new design. we have set back -- we have a roof deck now. we have set back the deck three feet on all adjoining sides from neighbors to assist with privacy concerns. this is actually the three feet was mentioned by staff per building code. no roof penthouse as requested by the board that is completely removed. we increased. i know vice president swig was wondering of the open space. we increased open space now. there is a roof deck.

increased 70%. roof deck much 93 square feet to 175 square feet. there is bicycle parking provided as requested by the variance commission. there is a bicycle parking space on the north side of the building. as the board had requested for me to try to do, i did try to talk and address some of the privacy concerns of 314 wild as well as 306 wild neighbor. i did reach loretta and talked to her in front of her home and discussed some elements to help her with privacy as well. i did e-mail samuel p un n. he didn't reply. i did send the designs i had for the new redesign. i was trying to show.

[ inaudible ] the distance as you look at exhibit 1 reviewid plan. look on page a10 that has overview of where the lot will be. the actual distance -- i was tries to reassure that is distance from the new planned home i want to build to her building is about 50 feet away. from sam's house 30 feet plus the elevation is down the slope. the actual elevation of the home is lower than any of the homes on wild. none of these showed up in the pre-application meeting. i couldn't consider it until the last meeting. i hope these changes satisfy the

requirements of the board. i hope it will permit me to get the building permit. i will answer any questions if i am asked. thank you very much. >> vice president swig your hand was up. did you change your mind? >> i have some fundamental. thank you very much, first of all, for listening to the direction and the feedback from this board. that is very appreciated. when i looked at this home, there is not much room anywhere. then i started asking myself and i think it was brought up in the

appellant's brief. where is the infrastructure, fundamental infrastructure -- i know you won't have air-conditioning, hot water heater, any of those and sewage and anything that makes this home habitable? i think in our realistically habitable. this isn't a toy model that you know you take out and build on your living room floor. this is a real live building that has to function. i was wondering what about that which you put in a real live

house, all of the infrastructure pieces? the other thing and i think it was commissioner honda that brought it up, you know, the studs are x inches wide. by the time you have built in what will allow you to build a structure in the first place, man, you don't have many inches left. we are not talking feet but inches. i didn't see obviously we are not at the point where you have construction drawings with the plumbing, electrical. where are you going to put it? what do you have left for this building? then if it has to go outside of the building, you know, a drain

or sewage pipe or a plumbing fixtures that exits condensation from the fixture, where is that going to go? how is that going to fit in. sorry for the long question. these are real live questions that need to be asked before we look at this and automatically sign off on it. i am not sure that it fits in the neighborhood. that is a different story. what about all of that stuff? where is it going to go? how is it going to fit? have you considered it? >> regarding your concerning for water heating and furnace, in modern times there is wall mount water heater that takes up very

little space. also, there is heating that take up very little space as many. many cities like berkeley they all support the heating. i look up my projects, my colleagues and other companies, they invented furnace, water heating. i don'tdency the houses almost like 600 square feet. i put in that equipment into that system. i hope i answered your question. >> thank you. that is good. >> thank you. we will hear from the appellant. i believe her representative,

ms. gower, is here. you have three minutes. >> i am speaking and sitting in a small r.v. in a open space with a footprint bigger than the footprint of this. it has sidewalls that stick out. 2.5 feet. those popouts make it somewhat comfortable. it can barely accommodate a bed. this one has windows on all sides and two means of eagles at least. no amenities and doesn't open to a public right-of-way as this proposed project does. it is not themed in by neighboring lots and 11 feet tall. the proposed building was about 22 feet tall, not 19 because it

has a wall. to the sponsors i want to say, great, thank you for doing this. you didn't confer with the neighbors within 150 feet as instructed as of my appeal on august 11th that was talked about. there was not a meaningful dialogue with the neighbors within 150 feet. the original conference was in december in the storm. no one showed up, of course. the project architect say it is 19 feet. without the parapet walls it is 22-foot stucco building and creating a billboard of 33 feet long with no windows on the elevation. the roof deck is only 152 feet. the hatch is not open space neither is the three foot set back and neither is the garbage

can open. that is not clear space. the project architect or sponsors of the design was stated to be based on five mile house at 3598 san bruno built in 1948 as a boardinghouse and restaurant when that was the edge of the city in 1948. it is a commercial mixed dwelling building with an entire city block with a raised sidewalk and a deck. it has parking and the deck is not on public right-of-way. it does have parking. this particular project is rh-1 with -- open space by a roof hatch. different thing. the neighbors concerns were not only about environmental issues, privacy for elderly neighbors and young daughters. they were concerned for parking at premium, concerned about rain

damage and loss of open space. that tiny open space and nothing has changed. for the sake of neighborhood harmony to preserve the sliver of open space please consider this appeal to reject variances. >> we will hear from the planning department. we have a question? >> i am working -- >> it is not your turn to speak. who is speaking? >> determination holder. >> your time is up for speaking. we are now moving to the planning department. we will hear from the zoning administrator. welcome. >> thank you. good evening commissioners, good to see you all. the last hearing when this was originally heard mr. sanchez outlined the rationale behind

the variance. there was feedback provided to come back with an alternative design. i don't know that i need to go into great detail about the rationale behind the original variance other than to restate this is a record that is extremely small and substandard and that was the general basis for the first three findings. the fourth and fifth finding for the variance regarding the potential design of the project and impact on adjacent properties in the vicinity was in large part reliant on the department's determination that the project was consistent with the residential design guidelines. obviously, the board felt that the total height was more than would be consistent with the residential design guidelines. that is why new findings were

drafted up to address a smaller envelope which is in front of me today from the variance decision holder. if you have any questions beyond what you had at the last hearing i am happy to try to help. thank you. >> we have a question from vice president swig. >> simple question. why does this project meet the criteria of being compatible with the rest of the neighborhood? there is not anything in this neighborhood that looks like this, is formed like this, etc. why is it close to fulfilling that criteria. >> in terms of form it is smaller. the dominant pattern in this

neighborhood is two story single family home. that is what is before you now. it is much smaller home and the way it will look is going to be different than the typical single family two-story home on a more standard lot, but in terms of its height and massing relative to the buildings in the rest of the area other than having the odd departmentth the overall massing would not be something inconsistent with the neighborhood. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the department of building and inspection. deputy director duffy, any comments to add? >> no, i don't have anything. >> thank you. we will move to public comment. if you are here for public comment raise your hand.

i do see mr. joseph bogenaski to the panelist position. please go ahead. you have three minutes. >> we can't hear or see you. joseph bogenaski. welcome. >> hello, board members. i am saddened to see the folk at 312 trying to shoe horn a trailer size dwelling in the

unit at the lot. what is ironic this family has been instrumental in stopping a much better project and add jay sent to the same corridor in 2005. lawrence badner was the planner and denied all five variance conditions. i am urging them to enjoy the piece of property they purchased north of $2,000 and they only paid $2 per day to use. if they have money to invest there are better choices as close as 100 feet away. also, there is someone called twice unidentified and they complained about trash. to that person i would like to share that the brunt of it is part of the lot at 3 12:00 you pies and they have occupied long before they owned it. i am saying save money and quit while they are ahead. cleanup what you have, consider

yourself lucky. i am not sure you considered the amount you will need to spend to evict a 94-year-old who cared for a portion of that lot that fits in with the natural lay of the land for the past 55 years. thank you. >> we will hear from samuel p un. >> good evening. >> thanks for the opportunity to speak. i got the e-mail only a couple days ago. i have been in the mountains because of the fire. i haven't had a chance to respond. we are strongly opposed to building on this lot. you know, i think we have to be reminded this is an exception that needs to be under review. not borderline. not 20, 30 feet under.

significantly under. the planner's word extremely small and substandard. we have to think about it was providing some kind of long-term housing solution to the city housing stock. we are talking about this is smaller than a motor home. a young couple takes a job in the city looking to move in and search online. moving with boyfriend or girlfriend to san francisco. images of motor home, no backyard, no parking. is that the image to project and kind of house we want to have? i don't think the immediate neighbors want that. we are strongly opposed to this. step back and look at what is going on. i saw the background. we are observing on the sidelines.

it started as a frivolous real estate deal. now there is plans to build on the vacant lot. the approach is manipulative. we are looking to build on the neighbor's backyard and she is over 90 years old. why are we putting her through this? this goes to another department and punted to the next step up. are we going to keep having to attend hearings? we are going to oppose it. why continue the process? we feel strongly against it. thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from jonas to mat to. >> i am i believe the neighborhood is a mess in terms of litter, traffic, speeding and

i am just for change and redevelopment. >> we will hear from the caller whose number ends in 6338. please go ahead. you might have to press star 6. caller's number ends in 6338. >> i think we need more development in the city, too. more housing is good. it is a good space right there. friends in 600 square feet in the city. 125 for one bedroom is not a

problem. if they can fit heaters into the house, if the experts say that, then i think that will work. go by their expertise. >> thank you. is that it? >> yep. >> thank you. we will hear from the caller whose number ends in 6073. welcome. >> i am benny. i moved down here from oregon fairly recently. i am an independent contractor. i am around the area in and out of the day and night. i notice at least for me because i have to make deliveries i

never have problems with parking and don't do the illegal parking stuff. you know, if it is affordable housing it would be nice even if it is a little studio home for someone getting started. that is all i had to say. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? please raise your hand. if you called in press star 9 to speak. i don't see any further public comment. commissioners this matter is submitted. excuse me i see one hand. caller whose number is 5497. did you want to provide public comment? press star 6 to unmute yourself.

>> you know -- the lady but it is not. she didn't pay the property tax. she is saying she maintains the land for a long time. the land should belong to her. it is not. we bought the land. >> i am sorry. please pause. are you part of this? >> no, no, no. she bought the land. we hear about that. nobody took her land. she can keep her land. she don't want to buy the land.

she backed out. she don't want to buy the land because she don't want to pay the property tax. okay? also, -- [ inaudible ] >> are you the co-owner of the property? do you own this property? >> no. >> i think she is done. are you finished, ma'am? >> no, i want to say one more. my friend three bedroom 500 square feet. >> i am sorry are you the mother? >> no. >> okay. >> okay. good-bye. >> thank you. >> i am not sure who that was but thank you.

commissioners this matter is submitted. i see two hands raised from the determination holder. >> we are in deliberation. any commissioners to start first, please. >> i am happy to start. i very much appreciate all of the testimony from the neighbors. i remain empathetic to living in the neighborhood and wanting to hold near and dear the environment that you have lived in as long as you have lived in the neighborhood and the vision that you may have had for asking your kids in this neighborhood. i do stand by my previous sentiments. i appreciate the project sponsors revisions to the plans

as requested by the board. i think, you know, in looking at the photos and reviewing the neighborhood context. it is true there aren't smaller lots this small but the entire street front is dominated by two story homes. i don't think that this two-story home would be out of character. yes, the lot is stub super super substandard. we are in a housing crisis. if this home isn't complete with a yard and all of the standard american dream components of a home that we have come to aspire towards, it will become a home where it could have the potential to somebody at much more affordable price than other

larger homes in the neighborhood. every little bit helps. this is a legal lot and i think that it is doubtful it is a down sloping lot. it may cause some disruption during construction but i think over time it will blend in with the neighborhood. thank you. >> any other commissioners? commissioner lopez. >> i am in line with commissioner chang here. it seems like there is some animosity clearly between the permit holder and the neighbors, at least the immediate neighbors who have come to present their points to us. at the end of the day, you know,

i am compelled by the fact while it is substandard it is a legal lot and our planning department did look into the variance, and i think together with that original decision and these accommodations that we have asked the permit holder to make and she have responded -- they have responded in kind. just because one of us on the call may not want to live there, it doesn't mean that somebody else may want to. i do think that that right of ownership gives them the right to proceed past this variance stage. i think we need to remember that this isn't the end of the story. one of the neighbors kind of maid that point they are going to continue fighting. it is their right to fight and the right of the permit holder

to make that decision if they want to continue that fight. given these accommodations were made that the variance was issued. it is a legal lot. if you want to give it a shot i think they addressed the concerns that would in my mind put us in the way of this moving forward to the next stage. i do think that. i am not compelled by the points that i saw raised in previous comments that this could have been an open space or someone else may have wanted to buy the lot for that purpose. at the end of the day regardless of the price the permit holder bought the lot and they have a right to do with it what they choose to and they k.w. in the bounds of the law.

as far as i can see with the decision in front of us they are trying to do that. that is what i would, you know, my first reaction, much like commissioner chang. that is how i am leaning as we consider this. >> thank you, commissioner lopez. commissioner lazarus. >> i am coming to similar conclusions. i would support a motion to deny the appeal. >> thank you. let me weigh in. initially hearing this project i was not supportive in any way. after going through our last hearing, we continued it. i am thankful and surprised the project sponsor was able to put such an amazing brief and package together. at this point i think as was mentioned earlier there is a lot of question marks and animosity

regarding this lot, what it is for, not for. at the end of the day it was sold and was purchased by this particular permit holder. it is his opportunity to choose to do what he is doing. we have given him clear direction on the last hearing. he responded very well with very clearances how and answered all the requests that we had. i am supportive. commissioner lazarus, i believe you had a motion. without any other commissioner comments you want to put forward your motion. >> i said i would support one. i will make one. >> commissioner lazarus you said you were supporting denying the appeal. i assume you want the project as revised? yes. >> in that case how are we phrasing it? >> you could make a motion to

grant appeal and issue variance on the condition it be revised to require adoption every viced plans dated august 11, 2021. can we confirm with the zoning administrator submitted by the permit holder? additionally, the plans reflect removal of third floor and require the roof deck be set back three feet from the property lines. >> if you captured that yourself then that is my motion. >> on the basis of the five findings. >> right. >> amazing job. >> can we get confirmation the plans are dated 8/11. that is what i saw. >> that is the date on the plan the submitted as part of the brief. >> on commissioner lazarus

motion, commissioner lopez. >> aye. >> president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> vice president swig. >> no. >> so the motion carries 4-1. the appeal is granted with conditions. we are now moving on to item 5. 21-062. julia westering and christina siadat. 1250 clay street. an alteration permit revision to permit application 202007089807. reduction of scope for east wall improvements. replace siding and repair siding, add 5/8 plywood install new windows in existing openings.

permit 202106212867. president honda. >> disclosure. i am a partner in a project that hired that law firm. the appearance before this body has no effect upon my decision. >> appellants first will be splitting time. ms. westering, i am not sure who is going first. >> i am going first. thank you everyone for hearing us out tonight. the east wall project is ongoing with plans since february 2019. down stairs neighbor julia and i had to file jurisdiction request in front of the board of appeals in december 2020. no notice of permit drawn by the

board or architect. the architect changed plans and codes to justify decreases in window sizes. first he said no windows were permitted. that was inaccurate. architect pushed agenda no windows were permitted to use city codes to decrease window sizes 25% smaller to be made inoperable with fire rated glass. the board refused any request for meeting to go over the plans with julia and myself. this led us to file jurisdiction request with board of appeals. we were denied. the hearing brought to light inconsistencies in areas by the architect. current code states any unit may keep any existing permitted property line windows in size

and type. project architect and hoa board acknowledged it. the board members and parties involved and neighbors were concerned what was recovered after the hearing in december. only code the windows needed to be changed not fire rated, smaller inoperable. then a new hoa meeting in march. all three homeowners had a chance to speak and voice concerns. after three hour meeting all three homeowners and hoa board agreed to keep all windows in current size and style and the bathroom window with the awning style. we all thought this project was moving in the right direction after two years and we were gets it underway under the correct terms and no more leaky windows or meetings about this. fast forward to june 2021.

meeting held with all three homeowners directly impacted by the east wall project the day after the newest permit approved. julia and i were shocked that the living room window would have 2-inch decrease in size and both bathroom windows enlarged with windows not agreed upon. we tried to work this out after the new information was discovered. we were refused in sort of dialogue. this is why we had to file an appeal. thank you for allowing us to make this and keep our windows the current size which falls under proper city code and apallow natural light in our homes and overall enjoyment. we have spent months researches this project and a lot of valuable time, money and heart have gone into making this

right. julia, your turn. >> the permit issued june 21st addresses repair of the east wall of 1250 clay street to include replacement of existing windows. june 28 we learned the plans are different from the previously agreed upon final plans. contrary to my neighbors previous understanding 205 living room windows would remain the same as existing. the window height is reduced. window style for all bathrooms in 105, my unit, kitchen were changed from awning to slider. further review of the permit plan show the plans don't satisfy all conditions listed in san francisco d.b.i. existing property line windows frequently asked questions. in particular, the faq says

previously permitted windows are allowed to remain if the new rough opens is the same dimensions in the same location on the wall as the existing conditions. the proposed 105 and 205 bathroom windows are taller than existing. in the faq the city requests certain information to enable field inspectors to do their job. documentation showing the dimensions and locations of windows. would you show number one, please. in the permit the requested photos with tapemish suredy mentions don't match the stateddy mentions. if you look the photos in many cases are too blurred to

decipher. further, nothing in the permit satisfies the condition for a scale single line drawing showing the existing interior elevation. as i am particularly interested in maintaining the silheight in the bathroom. i view the line drawings as critical. number two, please. i contracted to have drawings and photos prepared by licensed architect to demonstrate what should be part of the plans. this is an excerpt from the drawingses in the brief. if the windows are too low visibility from outside into the shower is significantly increased.

number three, please. this is model i created based on the line drawing of the 105 bathroom shower window. the existing fill height is 53.. the blue form describes the existing window based on my architect's drawing which i consider to be correct and accurate. the red denotes the permit set existing window. the black is the proposed window. if the enlarged windows go ahead and maintain the existing silheight, i don't have any particular problem with that except for the fact it violates the faq. if they drop the silto the lower black line as you can see, i am going to be exposed when i am showering.

thank you. >> okay. thank you. we will now hear from -- i don't see a question. we will hear from the permit holder. mr. zucker is representing the permit holder. >> good afternoon. justin zucker. on behalf of the clay hill hoa. the substance of the appeal heard last december and denied jurisdiction request by the appellant resulteds from the continued disagreement by two individual condo homeowners who propose repairs to maintain integrity and safety and the common interest development for all. before the specifics of the contention quick background of the property and repairs in issue will help frame and show

why the claims are merit less and this should be denied. the condo development is three separate buildings initially built on separate lots and apartment buildings constructed in the early 1950s. the three buildings were converted to clay hill hoa. at pre-application meeting with the senior plan checkers it was determined notwithstanding the city assessor's merging of three properties together make up the condominium development there is a distinct building and property line from each building and fire safety controls apply. with respect to the condition of the east wall back in late 2014, early 2015, reserve study identified damage to it. at this time the east wall is falling apart. poorly installed windows.

there are miss matched styles and types and materials without any continuity. due to the damage to the east wall painting cannot be done until repairs are made. making repairs is resulting in further degradation of the east wall from 2019 due to challenges to the proposed repairs. appellants agreed to live in the condo agreement. they do not have the same property rights as a single home. they do not own the walls or window frames or hardware. the east wall is common area under the jurisdiction of the hoa. not owned by any individual homeowner or group of homeowners. the hoa is responsible and obligated to maintain east wall as common property. pursuant to the board of directors the decisions are on

behalf of the hoa. exercising duties they engaged consultants to advise on the best path to repair east wall. poorly installed windows, draw rot and no continue new de new windows are in greater conformity. in this case d.b.i. did not abuse discretion in the building permit. materials submitted with the application provided information needed. the hoa had the authorization to submit building permit for repairs to the east wall including new windows. while a separate matter is not the case the building permit was obtained with the proper authorization as it is a common wall. irrespective of the permit

issuance demand alternatives to the proposed project. as discussed in the opposition, appellants claim is missing that is needed for the faq flier for existing property line windows. that is not applicable to the windows on the east wall. permits for 205 and 305 exist. 105 were notes permitted. they are new not replacement windows. changes in the window size were a decision made by the board and by professional consultants. board is delegating authority to make decisions regarding hoa common area. the board determined beneficial to the hoa to bring the windows in greater conformity with the windows used elsewhere. with respect to the hopper style

windows, use of those windows is not appropriate for the hoa. they are not used anywhere in the clay hill hoa. the board was advised because by design openings do not provide protection to the elements such as water ininstitution which is significant. while they raise concerns regarding measurements of the windows at issue. d.b.i. performing the duties determined the measurements were sufficient. windows were properly measured and choice and selection of window including size, type and materials were appropriate exercise of the board's delegated authority. for all reasons d.b.i. did not abuse discretion in the issuing of the building permit. i am available for questions. >> question from president honda. >> you pretty much answered most

of the questions. is there a reason especially since two of the windows, is there a window your clients want to elongates that giving more exposure to the shower area? >> the windows in the bathroom are done to reflect closer align with the original windows installed in 1950. the original permit, 1949 permit only had windows on the third floor 305. as built. >> i understand that. the question is simple. i understand that in your statement you said you wanted greater conformity with the aligned subject neighboring buildings. what is the harm of keeping the window two inches shorter. this was before us last time. i know the outcome. a lot of

information was determined your hoa had given incorrectly, do you remember that? >> i understand that. >> the question is why won't your hoa just give four inches and that alleviates the whole issue here? >> we have tried to work with the appellants to address the issues unable to resolve them. >> i understand the hopper style window especially on a property line that seems challenging, but to raise the window up so there is not a full view of the shower is kind of an easy one. i have a shower with big window you get to see my chest not anything else. has that conversation been entered with the appellants? >> i can't speak to the negotiations that occurred with the appellants with regards to the location of the windows.

thank you, counselor. >> thank you. we will hear from the zoning administrator. [please stand by]

>> it didn't require review or planning code issues because these windows were not visible fromthe public right of way . and issues really relating to property linewindows and whether, how they open and operate . that generally will fall into the purview of d.b.i. >> and i agree with the point brought up by president honda that was 4 inches,especially when it comes to privacy ? it's their jurisdiction on that and would that be something that we would suggest to the way that we look at simply out of respect to one of their

members or once the pure legal reading on that as a plan ? >> this is a discretionary permit. and my understanding is that the board would have the ability to determine that there are exceptional circumstances here that would require modification of the proposal so it would be within the boards already to be able to make that type of commitment to the proposal. like i said, for specifically that level of detail for a side internal window, it's generally not going to come forthe planning department . we don't have any specific guidelines in the planning code or adopted address in the internal configuration of windows when it comes to showersand privacy or anything related to that . >> if that window is four

inches higher or lower it doesn't matter and it's really one of trying to accommodate somebody who lives there is sensitive to privacy . anything elsereally doesn't matter . >> correct, there's nothing in the planning code or adopted guidelines that would address this issue specifically . >> i think i'll read those and ask the question in real to counsel per the permit holder. thanks. >> we will nowhear from the department of building inspection . >> thank youcommissioners. joe duffy . sorry, can you hear me? >> we can hear you. >> thank you. i sort of heard someone speaking there.

so revisions a permit application 20207 9807, reduction of school for east well improvements. no change her damaged framing was needed . for voluntary seismic improvements installed new windows and adjusted openings. the building permit appears to have been reviewed and issued properly and all, with all relevant agencies that were required and involved in the viewing of the permit . i did hear some questions about height, etc. but i'm a little confused on a presentation . are they moving behind or is the sill heightremaining the

same?this question on the permits would tell you they're installing newwindows on existing openings . that tells me they're not changing any height so i just wanted to clear that up and i'm available . >> president honda.>> president: my internet connectionis unstable here . if they were ableto change the silverlight that the permit ? >> if it's a property line wall which i believe this is an you change our existing windows sites for size, then you can replace those windows probably in kind any change in size or location of the opening would require you to bring that up to priority at the window. there's not enough details from this permit to tell me what's an existing opening or if you

change the size. >> i'm sorry about that, my internet is kind of spotting here but the follow-up question would be that tom said there was x amount of windows and i wasn't sure whichparticular one that he was referencing . if that were illegal and never permit it. if that was the case i would thosewindows have to be replaced ? >> it all depends. they make that determination themselves as they present it to thebuilding department . it wouldn't be able to tell. if we were presented with evidence that the windows were illegal and we find they were we could set them on a notice ofviolation . but when they come down they popped in the work windows,

there's a lot of windows and i think we've spoken, a lot of windows that are on property lines that may have beenput in many years ago without permits . it's a hard one to figure out what i would say is it's better on a property line that if you have legal windows that were basically nonconforming windows we would like to be nonconforming for the purposes of maintenance but you're not required to upgrade and because those windows existed for many years and you're simply just replacing them but it you change the site, change your location where upgrading them to a 45 rated within a metal so that's the rule of thumb at d.b.i.. but it's hard sometimes to determine what is legal and what is illegal when it comes to windows on the side of the building. >> president: in short, if they

change the condo or the hoh changes the size, then they're going to have to upgrade to a stronger wireless and window , that's what i'm hearing. >> that is correct, that's the department's policy for many a day. >> president: thank you for clearing that up. >> vice president swig. >> i might as well ask you the same question as courtney joe . with the issue of the how the window is should be four inches higher to provide privacy, would you have any issues if we were to suggest that it's a purely discretionary item on the owners or the hoh or the permit holders from a standpoint or is there anything that you actually care about from a d.b.i. standpoint.

>> president: if they change thesize of the windows than what's currently there they're going to have to change the glazing fire protection . >> that's what you were just talkingabout . >> if they want to change to the size they are asking they're going to have to go to a 45 minute fire rated window unless they keep the exact openings that are currently there. >> i'd like to start considerationof moving the window, it would trigger that therefore more cost . so that becomes the issue more than whether it moves four inches or four inches down, is that correct ? >> that's correct. it means once you change, i said that already. once you change the size or location upgrading it to a fire

rated window and it's only four inches, you couldimagine they're going to use obscure glass orpump it up on the inside . you could make something that would , you could easily trump it on the inside, to bring that four inches up it's just an idea. it doesn't have to be part of the permit . it can be something that's rude in there. that was just mythoughts . >>president: thank you for that point of view . >> we are now moving on to public comment and we will your first on the phone number ending in 2126. please go ahead. press á6 to unmute yourself. the phone number ending in 212 . i see your hands raised but you arestill muted . now you are unmute it. you have three minutes.

ca my name is brent mcdonald and i amthe architect that originally put together the drawing . i think you've probably heard ... >> if you are a paid representative she has an appellant and you can't speak during public comment . you can speak during her time. >> caller: i'm speaking as a private individual.>> president: were you paid by her? >> caller: yes i was. >> president: if the appellate wishes to enter her time so you can speak that can happen but you can only speak during her time. thank you. >> we will now hear from michael lewis. mister lewis.

michael lewis, please go ahead. >> caller: i'm the owner of unit 305 i appreciate everybody's time they put into this . every time i come into these meetings i'm more confused than i wasbefore . a couple things i'd like to point out . one is that you might have noticed they are somewhat larger than 205. we agreed to reduce the size because of continuity purposes. but the bottom line is the history of this has been going on for quite some time and i like to bring this to some form of closure though we can move forward but we're approaching another weather where these laws walls aredamaged and we need to move forward in some way or fashion . that's all ihave to say . >> thank you. we will now hear from michael

paviani. go ahead.>> caller: i appreciate an opportunity to speak . i've beena homeowner at clay hill for a long time . and this has been a deterioratingsituation . the wall itself and the communication there, it's this never-ending seriesof objections to moving forward . i just have to say because it got somuch attention . i too respect privacy and not having to expose oneself in showers but there is this ongoing series of requests that continued to prevent a very very damaged wall that has windows, some permitted, some not that are not moving forward to address some very very

critical items. as the wall further deteriorates, and temporary fixes that were supposed to be inplace for 3 to 6 months have been there for a year and a half . the cost of repairs continues to increase not only because the cost of labor gets rated but the damage continues and i ask that you please reject this appeal and allow that wayfield to get on with the business of making this for all the residents .this common area space, and this is a challenge when it comes to shared space and condominiums in san francisco and everywhere. it is a challenge associated with how certain homeowners are impacted and we have a couple of homeowners that are impacting the other 58 and i am asking that we move forward in the best interest of all homeowners including the residents and tenants and that

we reject this appeal and are allowed to go forward. >> thank you, is there any otherpublic comment for this item ? we have teresa paviani, please goahead . miss paviani? okay, we're waitingto hear from teresa . not sure what happened. okay,miss paviani, please go ahead . >> caller: i. >> welcome, you have three minutes. >> caller: the one thing i want

to say in all of this is this has been anongoing series of demand after demand. and one of the demands is that clear glass in the bathroom . so i along with everybody object to anyone saying i'm concerned about myprivacy . the original, and one of the iterations we had frosted glass and both 105 and 205 objected because they wanted to be able to see out of the house. we told them other peoplewould begin to see in and they didn't think that would be an issue . nowwhen we're on the one yard line to say i'm concerned about my privacy . i don't know how many more objections where going to have to listen to and how many more years were going to have to drag this out. the costs are absolutely off the charts. so i would ask that the commissioners kindly reject

this and put an end to this uncertainty because it's not going to end unless you say enough is enough. thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? facing none we will move on to remodel and hear fromappellants first . miss westerling, are you splitting the time ? >> caller: i want to say teresa this was on the ho a board that was responding to all of this and not having emails to talk about our questions about this project all these years. and i just want to say that we have been waiting to resolve this project for so long. my windows are leaking. i cannot wait till this comes to a final solution but

everyone's chattingwith us, they're speaking with us and i want to resolve this in a fair way , following the rules. we sent athigher attorney to talk again. we didn't ask for all these things and it's just really hard being blocked by people in your ho a for it . i want to say there are many inconsistencies with what was explained to be permitted by the test and what was actually approved for the permit . for example why are they willing to enlarge 105 and 205 bathrooms but they're not willing to keep my living rooms the same size. i want to make mine smaller to match 305 so it doesn't make sense why they would wantto enlarge the bathroom which is even closer to ourneighbor , clay hill buildings . so it's just a lot of inconsistency with why they're doing certainthings and it's just really unfair to the homeowners .>> okay, we will

pause the time miss westerling. >> yes. >> please go ahead, you have a minute and a half. >> caller: this these wall repair project has suffered from a lack of information, misinformation and misunderstandings .it continues to do so. there isn't sufficient time or space to address all the history that was cited inthe councils brief , however i wil address the following. i am not the sole appellants . my neighbor christina siadat is a pro-appellant. and he has a few conditions to disregard 4105 because they're calling my windows new now still apply to units 205 and 305, the previouslypermitted

windows. i have no interest in delaying this repair . myremodel cannot resume until the east wall repair is complete . let me cut to the chase. was sf dvr exercising discretion or were they misinformed by the permit and plan. >> 30 seconds >> caller: bathroom windows are scheduled to be enlarged . we want the bill to remain as a exists today. we'd like aguarantee of that . the size of thewindows is not really important . thank you. >> thank you, we will now hear from the permit holder or the representative for the permit holder mister soccer. >> the locations of the windows were discussed and vetted by dvi at a pre-application meeting and at the next stage of thepermit issuing .

the location was chosen based on consultation with consultants who gave input on the repairs for the east wall. and as noted by appellants at the beginning of the outset and by the public comment or, these bathroom windows were proposed to be frosted but were changed at therequest of the appellant . and the appellants keep moving the goal posts, now that they've gotten their glass windows and now have an issue with the size and location of the windows and the ho a has spent a considerable amount of time analyzing and determining the proposed design of the windows based on consultation with consultants and the pre-application with you guys but the size of the windows chosen was done for creating greater conformity at theho a boat on the east wall and the greater community .the board, i understand and appreciate the desire for the windows but it's a common wall that's being repaired for the greater good ofthe entire development .

concludes my presentation but i remain if you have questions. >> president honda has a question. you areon mute . >> president: understanding the ho a does has control and the condo owners don't even own the walls but just the airspace in the middle, what do yousay since you are changing the size of the windows . you heard that apartments comment that if you change the size of the windows theyneed to be fire rated , do you understand that concept? >> i understand that this was addressed in the d.b.i. plan meeting in march this year . and it was determined that with the use of av 005 and conduction with 009 that the improvements being made to the wall that would result in upgrading of thewall , though

the building does not have fire sprinklers would was sufficient for dvi to allow for the windows as proposed. >> president: i asked the department the same question, thank you. >> did you want to provide any testimony ? >> i don't haveanything else at but i'm available for questions . >> we will now from the department ofbuilding inspection . >> joe duffy, dvi. just to address president honda's comment, the windows under the description on the permit, when itsays install the windows in existingopenings . that's pretty clear, i don't think anything's changing if you read that language . so mister soccer, you might want to address that. different from what the permit says it might need to be

changed but when you say install new windows in existing openings, they may be upgrading them, i don't know. idon't have a planfor the project i'm just reading offthe permit description . other than that , i don't have any comments . >> commissioner,this matter is submitted . >> president: withany commission or like to start first ? >> i have aquestion for the agents of that permit holder . for mister soccer, is the permit, are the windows ... a proposed windows are inconsistent with the permit and if that's the case , mister soccer, would he have toamend the permit in order to proceed ? as proposed?

>> president: is a question for mister zucker? >> sorry, there are 2 questions there. >> the windows are proposed. there is i think a slight change in size of the bathroom windows to fit them within the frames of the windows that have been chosen. >> so they'regoing to be smaller if they're in the existing opening . >> that is my recollection . >> i think they will be larger for the bathrooms. >> the bathroom windows go larger and the living willroom windows get extensions . >> okay, so the bathroom windows are getting larger and thank you mister zucker. mister duffy, how you read the permit it states that all of

the windows will be with openings, doesthat mean the permit needs to be amended ? >> that's a good question mister chang and what i would say on this is if thepermit moves forward , i would recommend that mister zucker tell the contractor to set up an appointment with the district building inspector and let that ... let the inspector make the call. if they got some movement on the side of the framing, when you're taking out a windowthere might be a couple of inches . on either side that were open but you could probably maybe fit in abigger window, you're still in the existing opening . your window might be a little bigger i would say work it out with the inspector and if there is anydiscrepancy in what is shown on the plans , the building inspector will know what to do. and itmay need a revision .

but i think leave it up to the inspector todetermine that . >> thank you. >> president: isthat all your questions, commissioner chang ? >> for the moment. >> president: weare actually in deliberation right now . >> i understand. if our othercommissioners don't have additional comments i'm happy to continue . my feeling on this is that things like this project started out for a number of years that there is a need to upgrade or repair the eastern wall. it seems to be boiled down to, it sounds like just the location of the windowsillif i'm not mistaken . and aside from that it seems like while there have been a

lot of back and forth and there have been cases that have come before us, a certain amount of animosity between various owners and neighbors. the actual issueat hand is quite simple . so i am prepared to come to a conclusion tonight. but i would love to hear from othercommissioners . >> president: vice president swig. >> i hear the commissioners hesitancy and iwould urge her to be a little bit stronger . this isgone on way too long . other members of the ho a, their investment is being placed at risk. the siding of the windows one way or the other really isn't a major critical issue, life

threatening, security. the privacy issue which i'm sensitive issue to, i look. mister duffy's solution because there are ways to maybe make adjustments well after those windows are installed . so i think this is, this permit is fine. i think it protects more people than itmay harm. i don't think it harms anybody . so i think it was properly issued andwe should deny the appeal . >> president: let me chime in. i think commissioners what's really before us is if the permit was properlyissued . this point there's some questions but i believe that is not for the board of appeals but for the department of building inspections tocorrect.

as i tell my clients consistently , when you purchase a condo you are getting the airspace between four walls.and you are allowed to use the common areas such as walkways, your windows that belong to theho way. in this particular case the ho a has decided to repair the windows which they have control of . wouldsomeone like to make a motion ? i am not in supportof the appeal myself . if someone would like to make a motion. >> i would debate the motion but i would like commissioner changto make the motion she started with opening which i support . >> i moved to deny the appeal on the basis it was properly issued. >> we have a motion from commissioner chang to deny the appeal on the basis the permit was correct issued. [roll call vote] that motion carries 5 to 0 and appeal is

denied. we are now moving on to item 6 a and 6b. this is appeal number 21 euro 492 65 oak street and 210381 68 170 in lilly street . >> vice presidents way at his hand. >> it seems yours truly must recuse himself on this item due to a... >> can you wait till she calls ? >> i'm going to just read it out. so appeal number 2104 nine is james flory versus zoning administrator, appealing the issue from june 15, 2022 golden properties llc. the proposal to construct a four-story two-family home at the rear lot and tenant improvements and construction of a building frontingoak

street . code requires an equivalent to 25 percent of thetotal lot and preceding story of the building . the subject property is the acquired yard of minimum 30 feet. the proposed structure will extend to the rear property line and therefore a rearlot is required. the administrator granted the variance . on may 20 the board voted 30 to 1 to grant the request of the board seek jurisdiction based on the fact that apartment inadvertently caused her to be late in filing an appeal because it did not notify her of the issuance of the variance after she made a request. in june 23 the matter was not heard due to a lack of a quorum. executive director moves to the call of the chair and put it on the boards calendar. this is very and 201-7287 and i'll briefly describe appeal number 21 038, jane flory

versus department of inspections pending approval. appealing the issuance on april 8 two both properties llc ups permit directing a single-family dwelling , five deconstruction and again on june 23 the matter was not heard due to a lack of a quorum and the executive director moved this to the chair and subsequently to the boards calendar on august 18 . 201-90-6782 and vice president swig. >> at the advice of the city attorney, i must say i'm not in full agreement with his advice but he advises better to be safe than sorry.i'm going to recuse myselfbecause the issue as i have less than a five percent , may have less than five percent interest in the building which may or may not be 500feet from this site . so although i think i could

operate fairly and give a fair review of this, i am at and advised and will accept the advice of counsel to recuse myself. >> thank you. we will hear from president tran five. >> i also to feel i can hear the case fairly but have a financial contract conflict so i will be recusing myself as well. >> just confirming that conflict is with one of the parties.>> president: it's one of the parties. >> the permit holder i believe. the project sponsor. >> president: i have conflict with the permit holders representatives. >> who would youlike to appoint to be acting president in your absence ? president trafive?

>> i think he's frozen. >> president: i lost my internet connection , what did you say ? >> who would you like to appoint tobe actingcommissioner in your absence? >> president: commissioner lazarus . >> ifyou could please leave the meeting now . >> president: thank you very much . >> thank you. so we will hear first from the appellant, ms. jane flory. you have 14 minutes, welcome. >> thank you commissioners. i'm going to show you this in a moment. i trust you all have had the opportunity to read this so take a look. this is, what i want to do right now rather than going over all that again is to find out a few things i would liketo talk to you about . let's figure this out.

the first thing i want to look at is this photo. make it a little bit bigger. >> we can pause your time if you're having technical difficulties. >> this is an overhead shot. >> did you want me to show the one i have that we talked about earlier? >> it's not showing up on the screen. >> i don't why it's not showing up. if you could possibly a minute. >> will wait until you're ready.you have now, thank you.

>> this is the view from across the studio looking down. this part right here is what the project sponsors referred to as unit numberfive at 265 . and this is the empty space in question. the open space. my apartment was right down here in the yard. i have a 45 foot building right here to all of these windows. both of these windows will eliminate this now and it will also cut off all the windows in this building.

and you can see here. this one over there. this is a satellite shot. so it also cuts off the light in 662490. i lived in this building for a year and a half. right over hereon the side . there's a lot of sunlight. sometimes you don'tget any son in my old apartment . [inaudible] what i have found and in the issue of open space

is that on page 26 it's a guideline that refers to two different patterns of wide open space and one partly build up in the back. and then there's the dimensions that somewhat design out. i take that to mean that this is another pattern of a wide open space, officially throughout thegeneral plan , these alleys, sidewalks are all named open space and but we take a look here. and so i turned the guide on in that way in spite of the fact that they continue tocontain but there is no open space here . i think it does and i think that ... [inaudible] i also

don't know the argument that there's so little you might as well take it all away which is all of these in red, open spaces. this is also open when this building was put up 10 years ago. the way air circulates, it very much when the water dies, there's little things picking up the side of the stream. and the water, it enters in just the same way. and if you put thebuilding straight across all the way , it creates a wind tunnel. it runs much faster. it's fully dynamic andit can

get really technical but i don't expect you to understand it . i think it's one of the reasons that all the little ... [inaudible] in an older blocks like this where we've got to put all the air in and indeed i can say that in my life well, i have plans hanging up there and i can see them moving. somehow i end upgetting back there.and i think that's why . this sort of curvy configuration actually enhances the tendency of the air to move and whirlpools. but will get to that. it's an interesting sort of thing and i didn't notice it

until igot further out and started looking at it . and i could see what was lost when it went out in this building here.i have no objections, i just think it's in the wrong place.there were two openspaces here together and i just really enjoyed going by their . as there is a reference couple oftimes it said there's dark holes . there's no dark holes here. and the problems are onthe other side . people use the barriers but that's not going to be solved,

it's not going to create a problem. it's not going to house those homeless people either. but this building, there's quite a lot of things behind right here. and i can see all the way over there when i lived here. and i watched that goal up along the scaffolding. okay, so the next one you can see here is this green here is all, this is ... [inaudible] that's not a legal requirement, it's a recommendation but they certainly recommend that be taken into consideration and all buildings under a certain age be consideredpotentially with this foundry right here ,

this really was the spark here. we're right in the middle of it. and there's no consideration for that. i think that a lot of the variables are not only in the start but there pumping and that's the point i wastrying to make in showing how the air circulates . i will say i did very much consider after this building went up and the force of the wind blowing down, excuse me.

i can't talk now. my hat could blow much further down the street when the building went up it's an interesting phenomenon . i didn't know what to think when that building went up but after it got finished, [inaudible] these are things i think that address the issue. it's all with the other variants which is going to block these people in particular withthese units . i think it's important not to think only in terms of people living there now although they're very upset about it but

the people livingthere in the future or anyone who may live there . and it's terribly ugly but basically it's found level and this unit out there is nice. it's got windows on 3 sides. the stair has been there around 22 years orsomething . no plans to tear this down. i don't want toaddress that too much right now , that's a separate permit. and it has not yetbeen approved . but d.b.i. did go ahead and approve the building in the place now where it sits, at leastthat's what i want to talk about . so i want to move on and . to the next thing, the problem

i have, i do have a couple of schedules. this is my bad door and the amount of time i spend in bond and the sun is veryvaluable to me . it's my back door. for two or three months out of the year in the spring or fall i actually get sunlight through those windows and it hits the floor of my kitchen and it just lets my spirits. it's veryhard to live there without it . i had to leave 249 because those shutters kept goingup and when i touched down at one moment , i couldn't bring myself up those steps anymore. now i can't even use the frame walking.

okay. i think i need to show you the videos right now. and we may needto pause while i get that set up . i need to stop, share. >> you need help from alex? >> just depositwhile i do it . it's very hard for me to move these windows around. [inaudible] okay, this one.

there, can you see this? >> i cannot. do you want alex totry to show it for you ? >> it might be because you need to re-share your screen. >> it should bein the queue, usually it's on your desktop . >> i think i need to share again. let's see. i'll get back over here. it's the blue button that i have to push. >> you can enlargeit with the little square on the bottom

there . >> can you see this? >> it's just me going through thegate . >> is not afull screen . now we see. >> it had to pull forward. that's part of theproposed construction site .these things are very movable. that's about as good as i can getit. that's what i have to do to get through my day . >> the video ended,now we are just seeing you to . >> i've got to start sharing. share again. let's see what's up with the others. and then let's share again.

yes, there we go. while what i would like you to noticehere is what i had to do to get the door open . i like you to notice the angle at which i had to pull the scooter and it's a pretty extreme stretch for me to get the keyin the door and turn the doorknob .at this stage i'm not sure i'm goingto be able to do it . if this angle is the step here , with this littleamount of space that's critical for me to reach the door to get it to unlock . okay. then will stop sharing. now the reason i show this is because one of the things that the project is is ican use the

front door. i would like to show you . i don't want to do that. let's go back to sharon. >> do you want meto show the pictures ? >> i want to get back to the pictures. therethey are . >> out try to make one for you too. >> it's very narrow, there isn't room to pull it by the side. >> the pictures are showing. >> they're not showing. >> i believe you provided these toalex in advance, he's happy to show them for you just let him know .>> i think we can do it. >> these will be okay.

sure alex,you can show them . >> is this thefirst one you wanted to show ? >> know, i already talked about thatone. i wanted the ones at the front door. next one . next one. okay, this is the best view of my front door. sorry i couldn't show the others. this is a better shot . can you move it up alittle bit ? okay. this is howmuch room there is. that's it . there isn't room to pull that buggy up at an angle.

[inaudible] my landlord doesn't want around. i don't either. besides that i couldn't get the door open because i wasn't able to pull up at an angle. it was an automaticdoor, those things all malfunction . it's very dangerous circumstances. i don't want any ofthat to happen again . so can we see the next one? this one shows an exit.

this is about 3 and a half inches . it's not huge. there's no way to fill in the gap. >> that's time. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from miste kaplan, attorney for the permit holder i believe . esther kaplan. >> john kaplan here with ruben jenningsand rose on behalf of the projectfunds are . let me share my screen . okay. thank you commissioners. the project before you will reconfigure and redevelop to create 2 new dwelling units and result in a more coherent buildingmapping along this

block . the property is a narrow through lot between oak and lily streets, currentlyimproved with a single five unit building that provides a 15 percent rear yard setback and unenclosed parkingat its rear yard along lily . the project would demolish the one-story rear portion of the building , as pointed out before.it would incorporate the demolished dwelling unit into the grounds of the parking area of the adjoining building so it's shifting that building and replacing theground-floor parking facing oak street and it would construct a four-story to unit building hunting lily street . the result, this will result in a 17 foot deep courtyard at the interior of the lot between the two new buildings or between the existing building and the new building. property will be moreconsistent with the existing development on this block once the project is completed . it creates a building on each

frontage with an interior courtyard just like for out of the other eight yards and this development pattern is encouraged bythe planning code. it completes the street on lily street by eliminating a street facing unenclosed parking with a lot line building . thesides of the new building on lily street is alsoappropriate . the street is mostly lined with two to four-story buildings along the street . if you look really facing east the lilystreet facing east from the project most of those buildings are three stories . you'll see the buildingacross the street is a five-story building and if you're looking west , you see the three-story buildings continue on the north side of lily and you have some smaller buildings as you on the south side. i also add one of the new units in the building is 478 square feet and a one-bedroom. its small size, one a more naturally affordable unit and

most of the units being brought online . the project sponsor has worked with over many months leading up to the planning commission hearing last year. he has offered a number of potential options to mitigate any conveniences to miss flurry. i will emphasize that the rear walkway that leads to miss flurry's building will be maintained throughout the project . there is going to be a construction wall that is placed on it for the entire project so there's nothing leading into the alley here. the access way. the result will be the access way is wider than it istoday, about 4 to 6 inches . it willincrease the width of the alleyway . the project sponsor has offered to try to improve the walkway during construction.

install a moremodernized gate at the rear i could open automatically . and, but as miss flurry has mentioned that's not adequate for her purposes . speaking to the light air reaching the end of the property as has been pointed out it's really is a very narrow shaft reaching the rear of miss lori's building. so the new, there's not much shadow there to block. i'll also mentioned that again, there is that five-story building across the street , so that the new building at lily street, much of it is going to be in the shadow of that five-story building a the shadow impacthere is really minimal . now, just to take it as evidence of the projectsponsors intend to minimize this project on its neighbors , he's worked

with his tenant that is occupying the unit that's going to be demolished . to really look to relocate her to an empty unit in the building well here are unit is moved into the garage read the resolution was so successful that the tenderloin clinic that was representing the tenant was you know, so impressed with the conversation that they wrote a letter of support for the project and reflecting the project sponsors good faith in those conversations which is not a common for the clinic to do. the west adjacent neighbor to the left, actually the building, the yellow building that's on the street right now on the far left , arguably the most impacted project because it has all those windows in the light well. they are, they have written letters of support for the

project as well so showing the project sponsors work to work with their neighbors and again, minimize theimpacts . we recognize building new housing in a very denseurban environment can be impactful on neighbors and that is a reality of every project . so that is unavoidable to a certain degree and the construction needs to take place but really, this project sponsor has been trying their best to accommodate miss flurry as muchas they can. and of course all of these potential improvements i will say are still on the table leading up to this hearing , leading up to the construction during construction so very much theproject sponsor is willing to continue to work on

this to make it work for everyone involved so i will leave it at that , thank you commissioners. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you, good evening again commissioners, corey t, founding administrator. you have 2 appeals in front of you now, one of the very decision letter and one with the new constructionbuilding permit . new constructionwould be of the 2 unit building on lily street . the separate building permit for the alteration of the existing building frame was not yielded. the existing building frame can take five units so the overall project will result in a total of seven units. theproperty is located within the hayes street commercial transit district which does not have a maximum density limit . instead density is determined by the permitted building

envelope dwelling for mixed requirements. the total proposed project includes approximately 6200 square feet where the permitted building envelope would yield approximately 8200 square feet so from a density perspective it is technically maxing out the density. because the new building is proposed in the required your rear yard the project requires variance and the associated building permit which is before you today or tonight was also subject to request for discretionary review. so the joint zoning administrator and the public planning commission hearingwas held february 27 of last year . the planning commission considered the request for discretionary review and voted 5to 1 to not take discretionary review and approve both zoning permits . they did not find there were any exceptional circumstances and found that the project was consistent with all local design guidelines.

the very decision letter granting the rear yard. was subsequently issued on june 15 of last year and important to know the original project was determined also required variance for open space and exposure plan revisions an additional plan review determined the final project only required a rear yard variant. the decision was based on the strong pattern of through lots of elements on the subject and adjacent lots, the lack of any midlife open space on the adjacent block and the fact the improvements represent in an overall improvement in usable openspace to existing and new units and provides a larger midlife area of the other lots on the block . the appeal rate is concerned with construction impacts such as dust, noise and access as well as impacts on light and air from theproposed new

construction and while the department always understands and sympathizes with impacts t construction , i lived through it in my own building this summer, such impacts are common in san francisco due to the pattern of property line development and how dense the city is .i'll leave any questions regarding the construction impacts or regulations that impact the construction process, i'll leave those to my colleague to respond to specifically. in considering the variance i also considered the decision of the planning commission which found the project again be consistent with the surrounding development context and all design guidelines and did not find any exceptional circumstances related to the proposal and with that the department believes both the variance and building permit were appropriately approved and issued and of course where available for any questions you may have . >> thank you. i don't see any questions so we will move on to thedepartment of building inspection.

>> joe duffy, d.b.i. . so the building permit is a site permit and from the review of the writing on the permit it appears it was submitted through all the relevant agencies. i won't go into the details, there's quite a few of them but for this type of project , it does look like it's properly approved for the permit stage. as you know there will be an addenda schedule that has not been set up yet which will allow the construction. there's no building allowed on the site permit the addendum must be issued as well .i'm available for any questions and i did listen to mister tate's comments regarding the construction, the upcomingconstruction on the project . it willbe disruptive to neighbors . it always is .

and i don't know if you were here for the project to address that and guarantee that everything thatthey can to make that impact as minimal as possible . and consideration ofthe neighbors , for example blockingdriveways , not starting too early. being respectful of those neighbors while this project goes on and indeed if there's any construction that is close to someone's property the building code and serving code does address thatand i'm sure that will be done in this case but again, it is definitely , it will be noisy. and it will be very hard for the neighbors. but again, with good cooperation between neighbors and contractors it will go well so i just wanted to state that. and i'mavailable for questions .

>> thank you. we have a question from commissioner lazarus and commissioner lopez. >> mister duffy, just to confirm because obviously this comes up fairly frequently. there's not a construction project that isn't a nuisance for somebody but if there is seemingly a flagrantviolation of something, anybody can contact your department and you will send somebody out to see if there's a real issue ? >> that's correct commissioner lazarus. we all would only be too happy to respond to valid complaints. and other city agencies do as well whether it's dpw, sf mta. even theplanning department if they build it oversize or whatever . but they and d.b.i. are very much involved on the project. if they get off on the right foot with us with the start of work for them it's always helpful. and we will expect that they

will do that. >> thank you. commissioner lopez, you are on mute. >> that addresses my question i think that addresses my question, commissioner lazarus covered given the accessibility of items present here.i just want to make sure that was addressed for the benefit of theappellant and anybody else who may be listening . i think we point taken and i'm glad to see the construction wall in place or that will be in place for the construction period but we know that the reality can sometimes be different so i want to make sure the ability to voice concerns and enforcement of those policies would kinda be understood by everybody .

>> thank you. >> can i add a comment? i wanted to add as well that the contractors should really provide the number to be contacted and also inform any subcontractors coming on site issometimes that's when the problems start . the subcontractor shows up and then the problems start to just to mister calhoun, i know you do this for me. pass on the message to the project team to procure this project if it is approved . >> thank you. we are now moving on to public comment. anyone herewould like to provide publiccomments, please raise your hand . you need to press ánine . okay, i don't see any public comment.so we will move on to

... oh yes, thereis somebody. bill, please go ahead . >> caller: can you hear me? thank you for that. my wife and i we live in the 265 oak street building which we are on the backside if you go back to or if anybody remembers the pictures jane was showing. we are on the top level and this is going to be a four-story new building so the impact on us and the person that's below us is going to be significant . because we're going to be looking up to the top of this building. i'm going to assume it's probably going to be 10 feet or so higher than what we are here, or at least what our window is in the back our window faces lily street above the building that's going to be demolished . and it seems like we've gone to all the different meetings that

were available to us as many of our neighbors did and talked and i went up and spoke and tried to discuss the impacts and i've heard almost everybody that's said something. mister tate, mister duffy talkedabout it's just a given, it impacts people . we get that. certainly people that own properties have rights to do things as well but it certainly seems like a big guy pushing around the little guy on this thing. there was a lot of dishonesty upfront from the owners of the building who is proposing the project here. we have not been told to because the first meeting we went to speaking up against this project, things started happening to us here. one of the things, my wife was allowed to park in the parking structure down below the

covered parking down below and the next day after we attended a meeting, next day they kicked her out of there. so as we see at what we're dealing with here are vengeful people who are not honest. that's don't have anybody's interests at heart except their own personal agenda which i get that. they are a business. this is not altruism, this is a business but they are creating 2 new dwellings on lily street fair. you are impacting how many people can create 2, only 2 and oneis going to be extremely small . what's that? >> you have 30 seconds, go ahead. >> we're going to be impacting the whole neighborhood basically, the whole street

because parking and noise, especially the people that live here are being impacted for them to produce twoadditional units. that's it so your impacting numerous families , i'm talking 10, 12, 15 and only producing something for 2 people. it doesn't seem like it's worth it but we've spoken up and we've had attributions against us here. and it is what it is. thank you. >> is there any other public comment for this item, please raise your hand. i don't see any further public comment so we will move on to the ball . mister fleury, you have 6 minutes. >> i want to reiterate that this requires 2 permits,the variant and the building .

it's not concernedwith the garage of the existing building . [inaudible] the latest information i had d.b.i. said it'snot been approved. when it is i will appeal it. that's the biggest impactfor me personally .is that the building that's going up facing lily , my concern is being able to get to that date. living where we do i've lived in inspection zones for 15 years now and i really don't have any place that considered my needs. it hasn't happened yet. otherwise but contractors are concerned with their materials labor and they don't care whether i can get in and out, they just want me to sit and be quiet.

so i can talk tothem . and i expect itwill be an ongoing problem . but we've lost a lot of time so i won't go into that. as far as their outreach and meetings with otherpeople though , nobody knew anything about the original meeting with the tenants and besides i know the only time that the others were even in that building, i asked the tenants had ever been in that building because in my conversations with them they didn't need to know the inside of the building. i do , i looked in the garage and the wall that separates their building from my now at one point about 10 years ago it

was rebuilt and i know what the walkway in their and i had a fourhour conversation with them in which they denied windows were aware they were . i really don't have much to say in their reliability. their story keeps changing. they're all active and don't work and then the plans changed . they first called and said the demolition is not a demolition, it's something they're going to rename it . when i called d.b.i. to check on that permit i said we don't have any permit application for demolition. it feels very slippery and i have no faith in what they say.

[inaudible] i confirmed i got your email, but nothing starts at this except right at the end where i wrote clearly what my final issue is which is that i've been here long enough and i have protected tenant status that's invaluable for anyone in my position. andnothing could replace it short of actual homeownership . and i don't have the means to do that. and i figured that out very clearly that this is the only thing that would really change this for me because the demolition part of it and the activity alone would make it unlovable for me. but that's notwhat's at issue here . at a different permit. if it's approved i will get one

later on. let's see, there were a couple ofother things . i wanted to ask. i can set up, i'll just tell you, there's not enough time for me to set up. i had a letter with 11 signatures from people at 160 page street. saying they knew nothing about the urgent needs, none of the otheragencies knew about it . no one there except the tenants in that building. my initial conversation, yes, there it is.so the people at 150 pace have taken an interest. let's say the building directly

across from the project, as all kind of condominiums built in 1928. i'm personally very fond of that building. i've never been able to go into it.but it's reallynice on the outside, even in the back . all the rear windows are going to beimpacted by this thing . and one of the responses offered to me is there would be $600 by the doctor and i said the money is already spent and in fact all the pit people at 150 page 265 also pitched in. i didn't have to cover all of them.

it's that time, thank you i'll wrap it up. >> thank you ms. fleury. we willnow hear from mister kaplan, attorney for the permit holder . >> thank you commissioners and relatively quickly i appreciate all the comments thathave been made . i think this conversation underscores the point of we're in a very dense urban environment here and this is dense urban development. this is not an uncommon situation for a project especiallyin a neighborhood like this . i can't speak to the situation that the caller has brought up. i'm not aware of it but i will remind the board that there is a letter from tenderloin housing clinic regarding conversations with one of the other tenants in the building which obviously was a very positive conversation.

again, not uncommon to have different differingfeelings at the end of the process like this . mister duffy the project sponsor is watching the hearing tonight, and understand the sensitivity and i will remind him again after your comments of the need to for ongoing sensitivity to this situation the life you indication is well-established between the project sponsor and miss fleury though there is not a problem with actual communication . so that communication will continue leading up to construction and during construction. thank you commissioners. i'm here if you have any questions. >> thank you. you will now hearfrom the zoning administrator . >> thank you again. i'll be brief.

i want to emphasize again because a lot of this conversation sounds familiar to the topics addressed during the joint planning commission and the hearing. but just for context and going a bit off of what mister kaplan stated that this is a very urban dense environment here it is the hayes street neighborhood commercial transit district . it is intended to be high density and again, the project overall does not represent the full potential buildout of the lot, it justis arranged in such a way to match the existing context of the lot in terms of having double frontage development on both hope and lily streets . there was a lot of work and design feedback for the project that did result inthe final design that was proposed and

ultimately approved by the planning commission and myself for the variance . and i'm available for any questions any of the commissioners may have . >> we have a questionfrom commissioner lazarus . >> you just referred to this again, what were the full buildout have looked like potentially ? >> purely by the code it allow , it requires a 25 percent debt for the yard and the 40 foot heightdistrict. this lot is double frontage on oak to lily, 100 foot deep so it's deeper than your standard lot . you could have a sickly a four-story 90 foot mass from oak street that would be permitted there. that would be alittle over 8000 square feet total .that would be permitted and because this district and others like it are

set up to not put an artificial density instead it says as many units as that you can into this envelope while also meeting dwelling units bedroom mix requirements. we don't know exactly how many units you could fit within that mapping but it would bemore than what you had with this project here . generally speaking our design guidelines when you have a double frontage and a really strong double frontage context on blocks especially in blocks like this, it generally is preferred to have consistent building walls on bothfrontages and to attempt to create a new open space in the middle of a block . the vast majority of these lots on this blockdo not really have any new block open space . this lot and the neighboring lot are a bit of an anomaly. >> thank you.

i don't see anyother questions so we will hear from the department of building inspection . >> thank you commissioners, these matters are submitted and weshould deal withthem separately with the variance first , 21 049 . >> commissioners, neither one of youhave comments for potentially emotion to make ? commissioner chang?>> i am again empathetic of helen. it seems like what you experienced on a daily basis getting out of your unit and it was helpful for us to see i think though that it does not appear that the full buildout and development of this would impact your accessibility. i think that the contractor

would obviously need to make appropriate accommodation and ensure that access is not blocked, commissioner kaplan has addressed that. it would be in addition to just the access to the gate itself, it seems like miss fleury needs a little bit ofadditional space so i hope there's sensitivity to that as well given she can't access . but i do feel the variance was properly issued and that the zoning administrator did not use discretion.and i am inclined to deny the appeal on the basis it was properly issued. >> thank you,commissioner lopez, anything to add ? >> i'm looking at it the same way. i appreciate the accessibility concerns.

i'm heartened to hear that the permit holder is taking those into account and it seems like it's on the radar of d.b.i. as well. so i'm with commissioner chang on this and would be in support of upholding thevariance . >> commissioner chang, did you wantto make a motion ? >> sure, i moved to deny the appeal of the variance on the basis it wasproperly issued . >> might you want to add that the finding that the finding is required underplanning code section 3053 . okay, so on commissioner chang's motion, commissioner lopez?[roll call vote] that

motion carries 320 and that appeal is denied, we will now address the site permit. >> i'm going to go ahead and deny the appeal on the basis it was properly issued. >> any further comments? so on commissioner lazarus motion to deny the appeal, commissioner lopez. [roll call vote] that motion carries 3 to 0 and that motion is denied and we have no further matters. >> we are adjourned, thank you very much. nice to see youmister administrator . >>