>> okay. good evening and welcome to the october 12, tent 22 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president swig is joined by vice

president lopez. commissioner lemberg. commissioner trasvina and commissioner eppler and deputy city earn john withhold provide need legal device. i'm julie rowsenberg the executive director we'll be joined by the city departments. corey teague the za representatives planning and matthew green with dbi. the board guide lines, requests you turn after all phones and electronics so they do not disturb. no eating or drinking in the room. the rules of presentation appellates, permit hold and ares respond acts given 7 minutes to present and 3 for rebuttal. people affiliated with the parties must speak during that period. not with the parties have 3 minutes each and no rebuttal.

our legal assistant will give you a 30 second warning. 4 votes are needed to grant an appeal. if you have a question e mail the board staff. public access and participation are. importance to the board. sfgovtv is streaming live. providing closed captioning for the meeting to watch on tv go to of channel 78. it will be rebroadcast friday at 4 p.m. a link to the live stroll is on sfgov.org/boa. comment can be provided in person, zoom, go to our website and click on the link or by phone. call 699-900-6833.

enter access code: 841 1769 6982 ##. sfgov.org is broadcast and streaming the phone number and instructions on the bottom of the screen. to block your number dial star 67 then the number. upon lib for the comment portion and dial star 9 equal to raising your hand. you will be brought in the hear when it is your turn you may have to dial star 6. have you 3 minutes and our assistant will give a 30 second warning limp is a delay with the live proceedings and what is broadcast on tvr and the internet. call in reduce or turn down the volume on tv's or computers. if any of the payments on zoom need assistance make a question in the chat function or e mail to the board of appeals at

sfgov.org it can not be used for comment or pregnancy. we will take comments first in the hearing room. now we will swear in all those who intend to testify. note that any member may speak without taking an oath. if you intend to testify tonight and wish to have the board give your testimony weight raise your right hand and say, i do. do you swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth. >> thank you. >> if you are a participate and not speak put your zoom on mute. and the agenda after consult knowation we will hear item 5 before item 4. >> we are moving on to 1, general public comment this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak not on

tonight's calendar. i don't see hands raised. item 2, commissioner comments and questions? >> commissioners, anybody have comments or questions >> move on. >> item 3, commissioners buffer for discussion and possible adoption the minutes of september 28 of 22 meeting. >> a motion? >> is there any public comment on the motion to adopt minutes, raise your hand. >> there is no public comment we have a motion from commissioner trasvina to adopt the minutes on this motion vice president lopez? >> aye. >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye. >> commissioner eppler. >> aye >> president swig. >> aye >> the minutes are adopted. >> we are moving on to item 5. this is appeal 22-056 tammy are

ben shackar 5156ly street issuance on july 19th an oolteration permit removing a deck and wood framed stairs remove existing man door and replace with new windows permit and we will hear from the appellate's first. upon you have 7 minutes.windows from the appellate's first. upon you have 7 minutes. >> we are the new ordinance of 5156 low we took out this permit the appeal was started by the previous owners and continued it when we took over the house. we answer no desire to remove the deck. it does not violate from the vdi

[inaudible] danielle [inaudible] if he was the inspector from district 5 where the house is. there has been no violation or citation from the city we ask that not be removed. >> there is also no complaints from neighbors and >> please go in the middle. thank you j. no complaints from neighbors. as far as we tell it is causing no harm. we just like to keep the stairs and deck as is. and that's our request today. >> okay. >> are you finished with your presentation? >> i don't see questions. you can have a seat and we will hear from the planning department. >> thank you. >> all right. good afternoon president swig. commissioners core teague za for

planning welcome to commissioner eppler my first hearing since you have been seated. welcome to the commission. this is a fairly straightforward case i understand the desire of the new owners to keep the deck and stair at rear but to give you backgrounds and context how where we are today this . is an appeal of permit issued at 5156 low to remove a previous unpermitted deck and stair at rear yard of the existing home. in 1983, a variance was granted at that time for a lot area and rear yard in order to split the original lot 10 to 2 lots the lot 29 and 30. [inaudible] frontod picksly. and that variance included a condition that stated a minimum

30 foot separation of the rear wall on gilbert and rear wall on picksly shall remain open and the exist being dwelling each have a rear yard of 15 feet at minimum. za at that time in order to grant to allow this lot split and create a new lot and allow a new home, the minimum rear yard that can happen was 15 feet. that was a condition that was granted the lot was split the 2 lots and in 1986, permit issued to build the home at 51 picksly with the required 15 foot rear yard and 30 feet of separation between the holmes the existing rear deck and stairs were built without a building her mitt or

rear yard variance would have been required. in 2021, the previous property owners applied for a variance to remove the existing 50 square foot deck and stair at the rear and construct a new 130 square foot deck with a spiral stair and fire walls. the property owner said if not approved their desire was to have the existing deck and stairs and deck legalized. there was opposition from the rear neighbor on gilbert to the variance. and at that hearing, which occur in the december of this past year, i stated clearly that -- deny the variance and required removeful of the unauthorized deck and stairs the original variance was necessary to create the susstandard rear lots and yard and it is za adopted conditions they deemed

necessary. violating those conscience now after the fact would be something that would be taken away a condition the za felt necessary even to create the situation. so following that hearing, the property owner with drew the variance instead of a denial we had the letter draftd and red to issue and they be drew. there was no actual formal denial of the variance even that was stated intent at the hearing. so may be it is weird the upon variance was not denied. they with drew their application, it's the hearing a clearly stated intent to deny and including the option to keep the existing deck and stairs there. the property ordinance understood that we had conversations with them about temperature they understood it and remutualed the unauthorized

stairs which was required that permit was issued on july of this year it is before you now. we never opened eighteen force am case. if property owners are actively moving forward to abate there is in need to open up a case they are doing what they were tinldzed dom we never opened an enforcement case they were take the steps to remove the unauthorized deck and stairs. now we have now property owners. i don't know the level of disclosure and understanding the new property owners have relative to that backgrounds that situation is something the board can ask if that is relevant. going forward, the only way to legalize the existing stair and deck and the roar yard now is through a variance. it would require a variance. that would be required. we kinds of made it clear intent

last december that is not supported. but that is a press that could still be gone through and have a variance denial letter. that would be required in order to then issue a permit fo to legalize what is there now. that brings you to this specific permit. the subject permit is necessary to correct a violation of the planning code and was properlied does not violate the planning code. i don't think there are issues in the building code with the permit in terms of not being correct plans or issued in an incorrect way and granting the appeal would leave a code violation that was addressed. with that, the planning department requests that the board deentire the appeal andup hold the building permit i'm available for questions you may have. >> we have questions from swig,

trasvina and lemberg. >> so. in the first place the structure was illegal? >> right. home was built. the protuding deck and stair in the rear yard was never permitted not on the original permit to build the home. and that was an unauthorized structure. >> and let's say a neighbor was crankimented wanted to complain to dbi that this was built what would happened, notice. violation? would have been put out there probably? >> if we would have gotten the knowledge of this would have come through the enforcement process what would happen is we

got it and able to tell if there is something to it. open a case that dependsos how property ordinance responded. we there is due process the point of our program is to bring abatement of the violation. so sometimes the notice of complaint, like of the first notice weep sends out is enough to get owner to take the action. sometimes the next step is notice of enforcement like there is something here if you need to address had or there will be a notice of violation if not addressed we issue the notice of violation the formal nov. that is the process. how far along dependses how the property owner would have responded. if the property owner would have responded and the notice of violation was filed the result would have been the removal of the deck and stairs. >> sure.

because it it is against. >> abcents a now variance granted to modify the original condition of approval, and grant a new rear yard variance a building permit cannot legalize it it would require that variance first. >> the issue that occurred is that the previous property owner recognized the illegal structure. may be they could have been -- we will sell this building and when we go through the sale process somebody will do their due diligence and they will discover an unpermitted structure and we will get in trouble. take a shot and i'm guessing a variance may have come from? >> sure. i upon can't peek to the prior property owners or what was disclosed to the new ordinance. there is in the a huge paper

trail in the sense there is no variance denial letter they with drew and no nov. of but the fact there was clear communication and acknowledgment and building permit submitted to remove an unauthorized deck was on file there was acknowledgment and e mails clear acknowledgment and coordination on the need to remove the deck and stair. regardless there was an original upon variance that said nothing can be built in this space that's for sure? second thing somebody built something that sho not have been built in that space making not legal. there was an attempt to politicalize it through the variance filing but then it was discovered. feed basks no, not happening

because the original variance would overrule a secondary variance. so you are stuck whether you like it or not an illegal deck. and the question is, here, the full extent of that is the removal of the deck. >> and stair sns >> right. >> to be clear like00 autoza now or in the future would have the authority to remove that condition of approval if they felt that was promote. typically speak i can spoke for myself and prior za's i worked with, when a za grants a variance and has specific conscience of approval thought necessary to that especially when it is creating new substandards lot in a tight space, unless there has been really significant and relevant change newscast facts of the case, we are very hesitant to

change those decisions. so -- has the authority but it is very -- definitely we are upon consistent and not doing that unless there is reason and facts from the grounds changed j. and as we brought up before, once you do that you set a precedent and next week we have somebody walk nothing and saying you did it for those guys why not for us? you know even though the current ordinance are stuck with and move forward in the case combu we are stuck with well, a deck got b. new people bought the house. there was an action they adopted along with buying the house the action outed the situation, which was the illegal deck. now they are faced with an

issue. that is -- that creates a situation. >> it is an issue that must be resolved one way or another. there was no final variance denial letter issued, the proposal legalize what is there was considered as part of that proposal and hearing in the past in december of last year >> i don't want to hog the -- but one final question if the variance process would have gone through and you denied the variance. you would have been stuck with an illegal deck and stairway. what would have happened then? jot same thing that happened a building permit would need to be fileed remove the unauthorized deck and stair. >> and that would come as a result of an order from the planning department to say, you gotta remove the deck and stair because they are not legal. ?

right. >> whether kwhoo issue that now or not is not really a trigger issue to that need. of the fact that there was an unauthorized structure was discovered during the variance process and unless the variance was approveed legalize it, whether it was with drawn or denied is immaterial. the outcome is untherzed structure that must be removed or denied or paled. if you other owner you are going. surprise we did not bank on this we bought a house with a deck now we are risk of not having. gi can't speak to what the property ordinance what was disclosed. >> that's a different issue. that's not in our jurisdiction. thank you. mr. trasvina? >> thank you.

president swig and thank you for the explanation of this matter. as i understands it, president swig talked about the issue of setting a precedent there are legal principles, statute of limitations, discretion, government action. what i see here is a young couple young homeowners -- who bought a home and a deck that may be close to their age if not older and i wonder, since the time that the deck was built in 1986, 34 years has the city taken affirmative steps to address the failure of a

previous owner -- to comply with the expectations from the 1980's? >> so. based on our records there has not been a prior complaint filed. i don't think the department was aware of the unauthorized structure until this previous owner filed for this variance and as part of the variance you know -- the original variance was co to the new variance which had a condition and the obvious condition on the site it was not needing the prior conscience. prior to this application the city was not receive complaintos that issue and had not been aware. >> we expect parties and matters to follow through ords and agreements and apparently the and -- earlier owner did not do this. back in 86 and the city did not

do anything to follow up. we put some responsibilities on perspective homeowners to check in matters. i'm not really clear, upon given the history you described, how the -- new owners would know there was a problem with the deck? so i guess my question is, going forward, having the permit does having the permit today require these new owners to do anything? >> so a couple things. earlier issue the question what they may have known and how they would have known. the 2 piece of do you meanation that would have been be veil to them i can't speak about what was disclosed to them. the variance in the 80s and the conscience of approval were reported on the property notify special restrictions that would

be on title as a condition. and then the previous ordinance filed the permit to remove this and that was on file when the new owners i don't know if there was discussion about why are you removing your deck and stair? and i would assume there was discussion on that i don't know. that is just provide that information. you know, if the permit is issued obviously they need to move forward in a diligent fashion to do the work there is an active violationeen if we have not issued one there is clearly a violation of the prior variance. if the permit is denied they would need to take action to try to legalize it. go through the variance press again. we can't say 100% what that would be that is a process and

allow that public hear to happen but if we look at the past precedent wh from doesn't direction that variance would not be granted. they need to take the process to legalize it or go through the process in permitting and w to remove it. thank you. commissioner lemberg. >> some of these better suited for mr. green of the first worn i never in my short time here never seen a permit holder appeal their own permit bfrment so the stupid question is couldn't they rescind the permit

y. it is in the common to have property owners appeal their own when we see that because a permit issued and gone through a process the planning department and dbi approved it but required modifications the property owner does in the agree with. they get it issued but want what they proposed. did in the agree with the amendments from planning and that is an avenue for them to appeal to get more of that they proposed. that does not happen often. but again the question about canceling the permit that would be an option even without this if we don't deny they could cancel leave them in the same boat legalize or remove it. that should be another option. >> next question. this deck was built in the late

80s assume by whoever was owning the property at that time. and at some point in time, the illegality of this deck and the construction of the deck came to plan and dbi's attention cause thanksgiving permit to be drawn what was the triggering aspect this brought this to planning and dbi's attention the former property property fileingly for a variance to remove it. >> yes. >> again in terms of whf it was built home was built in 86. that did not include the deck and stair. one, it was built at the same time or immediately thereafter. we don't know don't vice president good photographer in this area could have been late 90's. in terms of yea, we became aware as part of the variance

application the original application was to demo that and expand what they have and do manage more and replace it. replace the deck with a larger deck. >> what is now is small are one. they wanted a larger one not massively larger but a large are 1. as part of the review for that there was the prior variance with the conditions and so when we were reviewing that, it was easy to see the original upon variance this has to be unobstructd and there was not obstruction and no prior variance or permit for that. okay. that makes sense. so, if the property owners had not applied for the variance this deck most likely would never come to the city's attention in the first place >> it is possible. it would not have landed on our desk until there were other builting permit or a neighbor

filed a complaint. there are no complaints and has been none. >> not to planning i can let building inspection speak. there was one prior a language time but i don't think that was about the unauthorized structure. last question, if a hypothetical if we vote to revoke the permit and grant the appeal. would planning then open an enforcement case because it it is in a known quantity? so, the answer is, that dependses on the property owner. again when violations are discovered part of an existing approval or permitsing process and the ordinance acknowledge it

and take the action to sdraesz it through the legalization process or remove the structure, we don't take the time to open the case assign a plan they're is not necessary they are taking the steps to address t. if this was denied or if the appeal was upheld and permit denied, that would be the discretion that the za would have as to if and when to open a case and notice of violation if the ordinance were not taking property action. >> okay. thank you. >> sure. >> okay. vice president lopez. yes. just one backgrounds question. how big is the encoachment in the 15 deep yard requirement? that is a good question. i don't have the actual building

permit plans pulled up here. see if there are dimensions. i don't have that i can get that for you in rebuttal if you want i don't have the plans. it is not just from recollection it is again the rear yard is 15 feet i believe the obstruction into the 15 feet is a landing and the stairs themselves temperature is in the a large extending deck structure. not super large can i get the dimensions. >> the last the previous ordinance was trying to make it bigger. take overnight entire yard i'm trying to understand if there is another middle grounds potentially like if there is a project that can be under taking to bring it within that 15 foot

compliance. but that's not -- one question similar to commissioner lemberg's. where we deny the appeal they have the permit. does that set up a shot clock with planning? where you are check nothing to check in on the development and the progress? >> yes. >> yea. there is no official clock. nothing in the code this gives you specific bench marks in terms of time lines that is rndz the za's discretion and judgment call as to if a property owner is take the dill gent action and appropriate fooim time and manner. society answer s yes but in the like a specific clock. got it. >> i'm assuming -- much like you were answer to the previous hypothetical that will depends

on the communications and reactions you get from the property owner. >> sure. >> in this case the only reason to have the permit it is appeal granted and denied a permit if you file for a new variance to legal ayesize it or a version of what is there that would be the next step. that would need to be done in, use the term -- move forward diligently. we work with people. how long would it take to you get an architect and the plans and the application submitted. we don't set unreasonable time lines. we want to make sure people are addressing the situation and if there are delays we can give specific time lines understanding if not met we will escalate enforcement. >> got it. >> thank you.

commissioner eppler? >> thank you. i appreciate that we have stepped throughout different processes. and since we come become to the need for issuance of the variance to legalize the property i want to ask a tiny bit about that. i note that in the brief it states there are other encroaching deckos this block and this block has several substandard lots, are those other lots encumbered by 1980s variance that requires a certain rear yard and if so, does this then imply all the rest are similarly illegal or have they been legalized >> short answer is i don't know the answer we have to look up research each one. there are multiple issues not uncommon we have blocks that are have a hodgepodge of lot pattern. a couple through lots and some

split with the 2 streets. some split before woeful had the requirements. it is possible you have some of these this pre-existed the requirements. you could have some where some of those decks are unauthorized. there are plenty in the city. this one -- the specific lot split and the dimension and conscience were custom and unique to the 2 properties. >> thank you. >> sure. >> thank you. no further questions. >> i got -- >> i thought. no. i decide i needed more questions. the variance. most recent

variance. was the variance on a new designed expanded deck or just the 2 existing structure to maintain them. >> original was to remove what was there and build a larger deck and stair and associated fire wall on the property line. as art that the owner did make it clear if that is in the approved we like to have that is there legalized. even though that was not the official proposal that was communicated and part of the conversation at the hear nothing terms of legalize whatting was there >> in your opinion. can we are talking arnold the elephant in the room. the question is can this deck be legalized? >> technically, yes, a variance could legally be granted to remove or modify that original condition such to allow manage in the required rear yard.

technically, yes, it could. >> so, we are novelty chasing a dream here we are chasing a technicality that high level difficult but can be achieved with initiative. >> i want to be really careful not to create false expectations. very technically and legally yes the variance could be grantsed legalize given the nature of that condition of approval it it is a high bar to get over but technically if could happen. >> okay. that's an important piece. i will ask another question after will we hear rebuttal i don'tment to ask it now. >> one question from commissioner trasvina >> thank you for the as a new commissioner an education to me.

it educational the information about the over all issues that you are addressing. my question relates may be less of this property but more to the process in general. here you have -- structure that has not attracted complaintses over time and we come here every week, 2 weeks and hear complaints from neighbors about properties. and segregating the the initial cases that you handle where there are active come complaint fist this case goes forward to the l they are not moving forward on their permit. or you other than there is a violation of the original vains it go in the queue of --

potential cases that you will have to devote tal afar time and start enforcement process. wondering how many of the case do you have where there are people waiting for your actions? >> sure. are you trying to distinguish the vol um case between code violations that were aware of through complaint versus violations we become aware of through applications and et cetera? >> yes. realities average person had san francisco waiting for your department to act how long are they waiting? this case would be competing with those cases to get your staff limited attention. >> gotcha.

>> that is a tough question. there are different types of applications and product that takes different times and has different backlogs and wait periods. if it another variance to legalize it that is another project in the queue. in term it is of how long people are waiting for my decisions there is a lot of availability there. i'm not sure i can answer this in a meaningful way. >> trying to get a sense in terms of using judgment and discretion how important a case like this is compared to others where people are waiting for a violation give them become their sunlight and privacy and whatever all the various things they complain about. >> sure temperature is hard to gauge importance over all. we have our own internal

priority system for how we triage and assign and staff complaints. there are in that are higher priority we have to get to first and some low are prior that take longtory get to. something of this nature if no life safety issues with it in terms of the deck or stairs unsafe, this would be in the lower priority category for sure. but once we are made away of the violation the source is not material to the fact now that we are aware it is an issue that has to be addressed. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> no more questions at this time. we will hear from department of building inspection. statutory is time for d. building inspection. thank you. >> good evening president swig and commissioners matthew green

with dbi. i don't have nouch add to this case. permit to remove the deck approve in the april of 22 and issued july of 22. and issued properly. i think this is the wrong forum if they choose to not go forward they should cancel the building permit which is a simple press they apply and get a refunds. they will verify no work started cancel the permit. they need to have a detect that is they are subject to a violation if complaint was filed the department of building inspection has not received a complaint the last 30 years i checked records. as planning said, this is a very low priority to us if we got a complaint. we will go through the efforts

to gain access this would not rise to a level we go to the litigation committee and ask for inspection warranty. i'm available for questions. no questions at this time. we are moving on to public comment. is there gone provide comment on this item? raise your hand. >> i don't see any public comment. we will move on to rebuttal. we will hear from the appellates you have 3 minutes. all right. first, thank you for taking the time out to chat with us. i gis will say we are not experts we are not lawyers or familiar with the zoning code not real estate agents. we were both grew up in the bay area, met in san francisco now we are looking at potentially starting a family here. we do love san francisco and all

the old buildings. and we want to preserve that character to the extent possible. and like the board recognized, the stairs are older than us by a bit. they are sturdy they are in good condition and we don't think they are worth the effort to demolish or replace with specialing that is questionablely better. >> i think it is add to what you are all pointed out in questioning. this has been over 30 years no complaintses from neighbors there are plenty of other illegal decks in the city. and this is only found out from a variance to get this legalize today is like we are incentivize -- homeowners to legalize parts that were illegal from previous owners because now

we are in the mess. because of like trying to legalize it that is bad incentive for the city we want things to be to code but this is a little a waste of -- resourcing and you know a way to keep more things unpermitted in the city. i will add we are law abiding citizens and will comply with what the board decides. >> thank you we have a question from president swig. >> was this disclosed to you during the purchase and sale process. >> this was disclosed among many other things. and it was honestly overwhelming. we are first time homeowner its came along with the packet this large. i understand.

>> do you realize you are stuck between a rock and a hard place? because common sense would be everything that you are saying but the statute lies in the face of common sense. you understand that? we acknowledge that appear to be the situation we are in. >> that said, that was a stupid lead in question to the follow up question. do you understand that according to the zoning add administrator there is a possibility of going legalizing it and going may be going through a few more hoops and do you understand that -- we could deny your appeal today which would not place you necessarily at risk for having

somebody come in and say rip down the deck tomorrow but -- do you realize you could go back and the wordses of the za, go through technical steps to get potentially, possibly a variance which would legalize this thing. so this would be much to do about little except you go through a few hoops. >> yea. >> okay. i wanted to clarify that. nope. we will work hard to -- get you where you need to be. but may be painful. >> commissioner trasvina. >> thank you. i was intrigued by mr. green's analysis of the situation. it was upon an idea of you with drawing the permit. and the city agencies working to

address the violation they are now aware of. do you have reaction to his notion of your with drawing of the permit? >> yes. i talked to alec who the legal acystant and advised not to it limits our rights he said to go through with the appeal. and because we don't know the codes well, we don't want to limit if we learn fruabout what the next steps are and go that route. >> we learn from you, too. >> thank you. >> thank you. the planning department? >> thank you. again. on that last issue i do think that the cleanest option all around the reasons denying is

because it upholds the permit properly issued. it does in the change the fact that they would need to move forward and implement the permit and remove the stair and deck or separately keep that issued don't take action on it file a variance application to legalize the deck if they got that variance even though that seems not likely then they could cancel this permit and file a permit to legalize the deck. either way there is no penalty for them to have this permit issue said and availability to use if needed in the future until which time it expires or is cancelled. they still have the same optionings no matter what happens they need to actually dot work of the permit and remove the unauthorized structure or go through legalization process. it is the same path. and separate from that you want to see plans and what was

previous proposed in the variance that was denied can i show that, too. >> over head, please. . this shoes the 30 foot distance with the 2 homes. property line and equal distance 15 feet this . is what there is like a third floor deck within the buildable area and the second floor where you have the small deck and landing and stair and guess approximate halfway. it is not dimensionod here it is around 8 feet. proposal was to fill in the third floor deck here and you know demo what was there and build a full lot width deck and spiral stair here.

the proposal top grant this or if not grant that grant a variance to legalize what is there now and again the prior variance and dhan require third degree full 15 feet to be unobstructed. >> i don't believe i have follow up and available for questions you may have. >> so -- if we deny the appeal, then the permit holds. . and then as you say it holds. they will not do anything with it because they will not build anything anyway? correct >> they valid a choice. right. they would have to move forward. with the permit or go through the variance press >> what they indicate is they would not be will build whatting

they are doing in maintaining what they have. then, it would be advisable to them whether we it would be advisable to them per your testimony today that they start a variance process to go throughout technicalities to see if they can sustain had they have and when they have today. is that -- that would be the process available to them and if that variance was denyd that could be appeald and be back here again and you would be looking at the merits of the variance itself inside of this permit. if we upheld the appeal then the permit goes away. and -- then they are stuck with an illegal structure which based

on your testimony, they have to if they want they don't want more trouble, from the city, they have to apply for a variance. and to maintain that structure. and then there is a possibility that variance would be denied and they would dpael we would see them here again. so regardless of whether we denight appeal or uphold it we are seeing them to discuss the merits of your denial of their variance. right? >> correct. because of that, the reason i'm saying better to keep this permit issued if they do go through the legalization option and take that to the board and you know to go through that

process say the variance is denied and appealed to the board of board upholds the desdmiel they are back where they are now they need to get a per mist to remove it now they have and they will not have and will have to file a new one. having this permit issued and active is like a nice fall back because that does not prevent them from going the legalization path if the variance is granted, they can cancel this permit. if they don't succeed in that route they will fall back on this and in the file a new permit to dot same thing. >> in the spirit that we have somebody else appealing a permit not the owner, stow what you are saying is we should deny the appeal because that would maintain the permit and that would be the best position that

they should be in leaving this room tonight. >> yes. i believe so. >> okay. >> okay. thank you. we'll hear from dbi. gi like to add if you do deny the appeal the building per mitt would be good for 360 days they would be eligible for automatic one time extension for another 360 days they have 2 years to decide before the permit expires whether they want to remove the deck or proceed with the variance to legalize it. >> is there action we can take that would extend that term beyond the one year extension and the year plus extension. >> i don't believe society length is based on the value of

the work low value. >> thank you very much >> thank you. commissioners this matter is submitted. i think what is clear from the za in the best interest of the permit holder we deny the appeal to cancel their permit it would number their best interest to hold the permit. and then let nature take its course. any comments. i'm learning a lot fruand zoning add administrator and mr. green and members of the public and what i see upon once again is -- a look of communication and inability on members of the public's part to be able to get

information. and i will not presume they did not get this information from za but i see us trying to negotiate, pull information out. try to get it on the record. try to make surety public understands. and the this seems your last exchange made it pretty clear that this is going to bounce back and forth and they could be back here. the question is whether they will be here with a permit that they may need or they may never use but they will have it. and temperature seems to be a very will difway of addressing a deck that has been around for old as the new home ordinance.

welcome to the board of appeals. >> sir. >> thank you and -- you will get used to it overnight extent of your current temand potential low future terms. >> that's when we do. >> right but i think there are other i may be we are not in the right position to raise the issues of how members of the public are interacting in the process. but i hope that we can raise up the issues and examples so this we can have better public community service. thank you. >> we near deliberations now. >> i want to say as far as analysis goes i agree with president swig that i think denying is the best step forward. my heart goes out to you new home ordinance you did in the

ask for this and you are now stuck in this ugly situation. but -- there has been will information given tonight and i think there are multiple paths forward for you and i wish you the best luck in starting your new family with your new home. you deserve it and don't deserve this drama. >> mr. lopez. i want to echo that and i think you know to the appellates you know we are going to rule against your appeal. as odd as it is to appeal your own permit in a complicated way it gives you more options. you know to use it if you need it. but that's you know what i say that is in the a statement on the merits of your arguments.

i think that i would come leastly aline myself with the comments you made about the incentives that arise from this. it is to lay low if you got something illegal and not bring sunshine into that situation. in that way, again, you know we have been delegated certain sxours authorities and we can't just create policy or administer policy from the bench here but if this is situation that we finds ourselves in. it is in the the most well oiled machine for the benefit of the

citizens of san francisco. i think otherwise it looks like they would not get the outcome we wanted in the case. i do think and i hope that you have been able to gleam through the questioning and statements you know >> various parties that you know the story does not necessary low ends here tonight. that there is a time line for optionality on your part whether looking at an alternative solution that is still within the requirements. so that is pursuing another variance. decision. however unlikely that may be. i think you heard that -- i think the city's resourceingly

will be calibrated appropriate low to account for the fact we don't have a record of complaint for decadeos this thing. gimented to -- thank you for coming in and -- you know prop vied the appropriate context for what will be a decision against you on the appeal. commissioner eppler. >> i agree, i do think that am we are here and there is an element of the comic or absurd the reason we are here i'm not sure it is san francisco law but a unique set of facts and circumstantials that brings us here. the real question that should be considered is not this permit it is unpermitted piece. it is in a [inaudible] issue the

issue is the home ordinance and others around them that do have decks and [inaudible] and i think that is where we will be ail to fully scope the issues and understands and make sure justice is done. >> trasvina. >> also say that while there are problems and bureaucratic issues we need to w out in terms when you have in front of you in your home is granting or not granting your appeal does in the make ape difference to what your abgations are and the likelihood of the city trying to remove your deck in the future. the relief you are seeking is

not ours to give you. we can grant or deny but you are faced with a deck that was improperly built years ago. and you would be facing bureaucracy in this way if we deny your appeal you have a permit in the instance you ever have to use it. >> i will make motion, before that -- let's call really the takening why we are here. there was a variance originally. an nsr originally. the nsr drove this and so it was and if we were created the msr if we all would have been here 30 years ago and created the nsr we would say, well, we did this nsr for a reason and want that

respected. and i'm sympathetic to the za for upholding the strength of that nsr and -- that's what is important in this case is the existence of the nsr which is getting in the way of this little -- little bit of square footage. we are going in the right direction and think to the permit holder you will be happy you the condition it will come to your aid and may see you again as you pursue this and we will sflot to read up on you we already know it by heart. so -- motion to deny the appeal on the basis >> uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. >> okay. we have a motion from president swig to deny and uphold the permit on the basis it was proper leave issued vice president lopez.

>> aye >> trasvina. >> aye >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye >> eppler. >> aye >> the appeal is denied. >> thank you. >> we are now move to item 4. this is special item informational presentation by the planning upon department. it is presentation by corey teague the za on the planning review process for common applications. building permits, dr, conditional use authorizations variances, large project authorization, et cetera. the presentation will cover section 308.2 of planning and discuss the appeal process of actions taken by the za including to variances, letters of determination revocation and notices of violations. and since this will be a training vo notoriety future we ask that you hold questions until the presentation is concluded. thank you.

core 21 get water he is coming back. do you want a 5 minute break. >> no. we don't have it on the computer can we take a 5 machine restoesz get it on the computer. >> 5

welcome back on the san francisco board of appeals we are on item 4. thank you and welcome mr. teagues. >> thank you. good evening corey teagues with planning. in recognition that we have several new members and despoit this in the past, the department has come before the commission to give informational sessions on specific topics. related appeals you may be seeing as you all are aware, you know your scope of review many agencies and many types of approvals and actions. but just within the planning department there is a large number of approval and actions that are appealable to the board. even though you don't see appeals of all those often. there are specific ones you see mostly. i want to take the opportunity to lay that foundation and have

an opportunity to go through a full accounting of every action out of the planning department. or our commissions where the planning commission or zoning add administrator that is appealable. an understanding and intending to not get in the weeds of each type of approval but open to questions you may have about any of the approvals or procedures or anything related planning approvals and i will be happy to answer the questions if there are questions i need to look into we can follow up. if there are topics after had presentation or q & a you want to have more on we are happy to provide that point we have schedule instead future a couple other informingal sessionos specific topics that are

relevant to appeals that you have been seeing and may see more in the future. we are thinking on that. but we want to hear become fruif there are topics you want to have covered. with that, we will get started. and i think the best place to start to weed out the things that don't come before the board. first, just one slide of the approvals that come out of planning department that are not appealable to the board of appealless. first our environmental determinations. when we implement ceqa, california environmental equality act we have different determinations maedz. exemptions, negative declarations, eir's they are appealable to the planning commission for [inaudible] or to the board of supervisors. then from this cu authorizations from the planning commission

they are appealable to the board of spierzs not appeals and a specific bar met for that appeal to be valid. you may know basically our entire western shore sideline in the coastal zone. and to some degree the jurisdiction of the california coastal commission. there are different zones of the area. some of those zones are appealable to the board of appeals and some more sensitive where the coastal commission maintains jurisdiction and they are to the coastal commission it dependses on the geography of the zone. but a lot of the coastal zone permits we issue would be appealable to the board of appealless. lastly, the office of short term rental in planning and issue certificates for property owners to allow them to short term

rental dwelling units and appeals of those approvals or denials of the certificates go to the manager of the short term office and not to the board of appeals. that's basically it in terms of that's the few things that come out of planning that are not paled to the board of appeals. and we will move along i tried split them up with the actions that come from differents entities or place within the department and commissions. first actions relate the to the planning department. this is where we have the most common approval that come before the board which is building permits. and as you may know bodiesing permits begin and ends in the building inspection they are a creature of the building code others piggyback and do their code review off it includes

planning and dpw, puc, health department, et cetera. for our irrelevant in building permits well are different lay others. code compliance is base. has to meet code or gone through a process to get a variance, has to meet what got approved. we have a level of policy review. city has discretion overnights vast majority of permits that it cease. and that allows the city to implement controls this are not the quantitative objective controls and policy based control and whether that is design review or others sometimes those are policy issues at the department level. sometimes policies that are adopted former low or informer low at planning commission. another issue that come up sometimes is permit did in the receive proper notice.

tw main forms triggered one is 311 because it is section 311 of the planning code in residential districts most permits to expand the build being envelope require the 30-day notice to the 150 foot radius. we offer something as a department in the a codified requirement. a bbn. so any party can pay a fee to request on any property to be notified of permits before we sign off on them and that bbn can be broad like any permit or specific. sometimes people want to see a permit for a type of scope on neighbor's property or reasons why people do them that is a separate ad hoc press we offer to people. and will provide notice even if it does not trick are other notices.

>> you know, building permits whether they go through a 311 notification or not they areelf eligible for any member of the public it request dr boy plan commission. and not uncommon this we have building permits paled before the board here that went through a dr process and the planning commission took action. the difference there is this the appeal is in the of the planning commission's action. it is appeal of the permit. which planning took action on through the dr authority. not a situation after the planning takes action on the dr there is an appeal to appeal the action. the planning commission takes action on the permit and goes through the review process. dbi and others, permit is issue and it is appeal clock and the appeal avenues throughout permit is not the planning commission's decision. that is the most common thing

before the board are bodiesing permits, which the planning department has reviewed or did not and should have. there are reasons why permits come before the board. another type of approval. that rarely appeals are temporary use authorizations the code calls out uses for time frames that may be approved. those authorizations are appealable to the board. again. most of those are small in scope and limit in the time. so we don't get appeals to those. i honest low don't think i remember an appeal of temporary use authorization since i have been in the department. i don't know what the track record is but it is rare. and then it is worth pointing out that you hear appeals for of wireless telecommunications service.

facilities and that is not an appeal of the planning department typeset is dp w action but the planning department plays a design and policy referral role. the appeal of the dpw action is based on occurrence with the planning department's referral. you notice there may be an appeal of a dpw issued or denied permit and the issues are focusing on the planning department even though we did not that were. we play a role in that keep are not the issuing agency. >> we move on to the planning commission. overnight years, the number and time entitlements the planning commission may consider have grown. it was cu a long time ago. over time that increased to include downtown authorizations.

large project authorizations. home sf projects. office allocations. i put dr in here with the caveat that times people appeal because they disagree with the planning commission's action it is not the same as appealing their direct action. and sometimes there are the little tilde bit in the planning code that say, creates a calf vot to a code >> reporter: and says planning commission may approve it and does not call a press or say it is cu. it is the interesting little nooks and cranings in the planning code and those approvals go to the planning commission and would be paled to the board of appealseen though they are rare in general. to give you the full scope. the downtown authorizations and large project authorizations are similar in the sense this they are for large are projects in

downtown or in eastern neighborhoods. which is soma, mission. show place square. dog patch. and they allow planning commission to grant exceptions to certain codes. in code requirements. instead of a variance you go to plan and they give you relief from rear yard or open space or a tower separation or any number of requirements. and they are generally based on policy and design, more than variance typically based on a rigid set of findings the za has to make. history irk preservation commission small are bucket, they issue or deny certificates of propertiness and permits to alter major and minor. and article 10 and 11 districts. we have had an informational session on historic preservation

in the past, that is manage we can have again in the future. it is nuanced and don't get too many appeals but they do happen occasionally. and very loosely, the way the planning department regulates identified landmark and resources we have an article, article 10 it is building specific and article 11 is district specific would feel very well different preservation controls versus different buildings and large are district geographies. >> and then there are quite an initial approvals and determinations that come from the zoning add administrator. everything the zoning administrator does if they sign their name is appealable to the board of appealless. i highlighted the 3 most common. obviously variances are common.

and variances require the zoning administrator to make 5 findings to get overnight hump t. is purposefully a high bar to grant the variance. we have a couple of similar approvals that use a variance process. the code says process these do your public hearing. treat it like a variance but it is differents and there are different criteria for review you don't have the same high burden of the findings rear yard modifications in the neighborhoods and commercial districts and then reasonable modifications that is a specific granting that the zoning add administrator can make to address importance with disabilities and issues they may have with access or features they need in their home that is a separate process from the

variance. we do allow have height limit in thes city and have the code has exceptions to the height. you do things like stair and elevator penthouses and mechanical enclosures that furniture and landscaping and parapits they are limited in height and scope. sometimes for larger buildings there is engineering code reason why that penthouse and elevator needs to be higher than 16 feet. the equipment necessary to operate that system requires it be greater than that we have a separate press this is like a variance. but low are bar that says the za must determine as necessary to meet codes and engineering safety requirements. letters of determination are different they are not an approval. za shall responded in writing to

request for determinations to intercept the code and how it applies to a property. we get our share of appeals of those we have people asking questions about their property or a potential development. they are for a specific business or organization they want to be classified a certain way witness they know then they know what properties they are permitted at. we get requests. when people get a determiningination they don't love they have the option to appeal that and those are heard they are not uncommon. >> moving into more tht enforce. realm. if we realize a permit has been issued by dbi and think it was issue in the error could be we made a mistake.

the property owner had inaccurate plans. the permit was supposed to come to planning and never did. there are reasons why it may be issued and think it needs to be suspended so action consist address temperature rarely a permit issued and like it no pass for this permit to legally be issued. that is where we say we will not request a suspension we will request it not be revoked. if you suspend it there is nothing can be approved when the za writes that letter and signs it, sendses to dbi it is appealable like any other letter and occasionally we get those here. and notices of violation we talked about the progression we use in the enforcement process the planning code calls out notices of violation we are not under obligation to do anything other than notices of

violation. we have 3 layers before that. to try to get as much due press and people the opportunity to take care of an issue without a notice of violation. if an nov is issued because we tried to work with people and it has not worked. sometime its is radio silence we try to get in touch with people expect don't respond until they get that nov. sometimes disagreement about the violation itself. but the notice of violation is the formal notice that is appealable to the board of appealless. and that come from the za. we mentioned before that zone permits are appealable unless specific to the coastal commission jurisdiction.

and depending on the type of permit and location sometime its is approved boo i the za or planning commission. it is appealable to the board of appeals. and service station conversions we have provisions in the planning code that are out dated but when they went in having enough gas stipulations was important. where they were located was important and removing them required a c u authorization or alternative option if you met find happening the za can allow it converted that is in the code and still a process and determination would be appealable here. i don't know i upon -- i don't have recollection of an appeal i don't have a recollection of any of these being granted. but -- rare but a possibility.

i think it is worth pointing out again there are alost individual action this is may lead up to a building permit issued. we talked about discretionary review and notice. there are situations in the code this give the za the authority to grant administrative modifications instead of a variance. . it can be done through the building permit process if certain criteria are met that is a separate decision but that individual decision is appealable part of the building permit once that permit is issued someone could appeal on the groundses the za should not have. there is this nuance that folds in the building permit itself.

move on the last one that rounded out. a number of thing from the department of planning xhichlgz history u preservation commission and zoning administrator i did not count moum approvals there are that would be good to have that is something to 3 out 30 types of approvals that could be paled to the board of appeals. i wanted to put that out there to you to have that list and nltdz where those decisions come from. and definitely available for questions you may have on any of those types of approvals or the procedures surrounding them. >> commissioners, question sns >> can we talk now. >> and we are on video.

sfgovtv fixed the issue. >> not tonight. >> could you supply us with a glossary of acronyms. we were throwing around nsr tonight and i remember when i first signed on, took me 6 months when i finally had the courage to say what is an nsr then i knew. but would you be kind top provide a most used glossary of acronyms? happy to. we have one in the department and i don't think it happy update in the years but it is a start at least that will be good practice to update that and provide that. >> and -- so -- we upon don't get every appeal. that come through planning? what is the tipping point that sends an appeal to the board of

appeals or to the board of supervisors? >> sure. so all appeal options are spelled out in the planning code or charter or both. and that is the source and so things like c u authorizations, it is called out in the code they are appealed the board of supervisors. a board of appeals, if you file anyone can pay and file the appeal for a conditional use authorization that requires 20% of the property owner within a radius. from by area to sign on to the appeal or for supervisors to the appeal. we get cu appeals that don't qualify they are filed reroweld and determined to be ineligible

to be heard. so -- that is there. for ceqa that is not planning code this is the admin code. governs the operations of ceqa and calls out appeal options they have their for short term rental they are went admin code and called out appeal procedures they call out a body separate from the board of appeals y. they are the minority the vast majority do come to the board of appeals. >> mr. trasvina. >> thank you. president swig for suggest thanksgiving presentation it is a help and i appreciate t. one of the acronyms was bbn. i assume on the neighborhood notify the issue whether they never got notice or adequate notice. can you explain what the bbn process is?

>> sure. bbn is a black book notation in the city we have assessor's blocks divided into lots. that is how we have our individual parcels that we use for our planning code regulations and for any one individual lot someone can state the next year any building permit filed or any application is up to the request. they pay a fee and say any of these applications filed before the planning commission can take action you need to notice so-and-so. and that is a 10 day period. we alots of times they provide the phone number and e mail if it is over the counter we get them that can be approved over the counter they are minor and those situations if there is a bbn our staff will right there

call them or e mail them and try to see if we get information on that and sometimes that works. sometimes it doesn't. and then typically used to be more by mail or phone call and voice mail now by e mail that is easy. we sends an e mail the. request itself calls out how they receive the notice by phone or e nail. and so we will sends an e mail saying this permit has been filed. you have a request. this is your notice of this being filed. 10 days like get back if you have concerns or anything. it creates a window if someonements to file a review or request for dr they have the window of time to do that. because when we have a section 311 not thafkz is a specific 30-day period the notices go out. provides information and plans

and calls out this is how you file a dr within 30-days and after that is done, you can file a discretionary review on any permit. not any. but any permit can have a dr on it someone has to be aware to know if they want to file a dr. again bbn process is purely department process not like sectionly 11 and codified t. is purely a policy option we give the public. have you evaluate today causes undue delay or a benefit or used enough? >> i'm not sure if it has been any specific analysis in terms of how many we get a year and how helpful it is. i don't think there is a question this giving would

public an option to be aware of permits may cause delay tell create an opportunities for input. in terms of really understanding the extent top that if we ever done any meaningful analysis on this i'm not aware of it. >> sure >> commissioner trasvina, i want to say since my time i learned nuance on the block with notice only applies to permits approved by plan figure it is ail building department permit, they don't have a notice requirement. just a nuance. >> good points because it is a planning department option that we offer as a department. >> thank you. vice president lopez. >> my question about the bbn, too. that was a new acronym for me tonight and interesting one. my question is, does the property owner receive the

notice of a bbn that has been issued related their property or what is the process by which a property owner could find out. >> that, to be honest, i'm not sure if they are or how they are made if they are notified if a bbn is filed i would look into this and let you know, i off the top of my head i don't want to say, yes, without checking. >> sure. i'm also slightly surprised that the bbn is -- the guy who getting the attention it is funny. any further questions. we will move on to public comment. if there are no further questions or -- okay. so we are moving on public comment i see robert friskman. please go ahead. you have 3 minutes.

>> thank you, good evening i'm robert a volunteer san francisco [inaudible] i finds this presentation very informative. i think corey teagues for the presentation. i want to add color to the presentation and about the. environment in san francisco. in 2017, u c berkeley the turner center did a rounds table discussion with a series of people in the development industry about major drivers of rising housing construction cost in san francisco. i'm going to read a paragraph. quote, another challenge is the appeals on projects including affordable or work place housing in stan san francisco every permit is appealable.

very few large scale projects match the existing codes that translates to opportunity for appeals and contributes to the entitlement process. participates show a large % of appeals are denied the time spent on them does not produce to bring out come other than increasing the time and cost in preconstruction. no benefit to the public the need to get exceptions approved adds cost. end quote. so -- commissioners, i urge you to take that into account as you make decisionos appeals. san francisco under guess an update to the housing element. we have seen in the latest draft, there is potential for fewer appeals and hopefully that amounts to fewer construction costs. and delays. i urge you to take that in

consideration as you make decisions. >> thank you. >> is there further public comment. >> commissioners this concludes the hearing. >> i like to advocate we continue the series of informational seminars. i was at jr's -- hearing by rules, supervisor peskin said there was orientation [inaudible] in commissions. i share that [inaudible] of that fact. and i think the better this we can be informed through on going orientations since there is in the one in advanced the better we are as a commission. i thank supervisor peskin for bring up this fact and advocate we have a continuing series of informational sessions whether

it is to learn acronyms or will details with regard to code. thank you very much mr. teague for joining us and thank you commissioners. i think this endses the hearing. >> okay. thank you. valencia has been a constantly evolving roadway. the first bike lanes were striped in 1999, and today is

the major north and south bike route from the mission neighborhood extending from market to mission street. >> it is difficult to navigate lindsay on a daily basis, and more specifically, during the morning and evening commute hours. >> from 2012 to 2016, there were 260 collisions on valencia and 46 of those were between vehicles and bikes. the mayor shows great leadership and she knew of the long history of collisions and the real necessity for safety improvements on the streets, so she actually directed m.t.a. to put a pilot of protected bike lanes from market to 15th on valencia street within four months time. [♪♪♪] >> valencia is one of the most used north south bike routes in san francisco. it has over 2100 cyclists on an

average weekday. we promote bicycles for everyday transportation of the coalition. valencia is our mission -- fits our mission perfectly. our members fall 20 years ago to get the first bike lane stripes. whether you are going there for restaurants, nightlife, you know , people are commuting up and down every single day. >> i have been biking down the valencia street corridor for about a decade. during that time, i have seen the emergence of ridesharing companies. >> we have people on bikes, we have people on bike share, scooters, we have people delivering food and we have uber taking folks to concerts at night. one of the main goals of the project was to improve the overall safety of the corridor, will also looking for opportunities to upgrade the bikeway. >> the most common collision that happens on valencia is actually due to double parking in the bike lane, specifically

during, which is where a driver opens the door unexpectedly. >> we kept all the passengers -- the passenger levels out, which is the white crib that we see, we double the amount of commercial curbs that you see out here. >> most people aren't actually perking on valencia, they just need to get dropped off or pick something up. >> half of the commercial loading zones are actually after 6:00 p.m., so could be used for five-minute loading later into the evening to provide more opportunities or passenger and commercial loading. >> the five minute loading zone may help in this situation, but they are not along the corridor where we need them to be. >> one of the most unique aspects of the valencia pilot is on the block between 14th street. >> we worked with a pretty big mix of people on valencia. >> on this lot, there are a few schools. all these different groups had concerns about the safety of

students crossing the protected bikeway whether they are being dropped off or picked up in the morning or afternoon. to address those concerns, we installed concrete loading islands with railings -- railings that channel -- channeled a designated crossing plane. >> we had a lot of conversations around how do you load and unload kids in the mornings and the afternoons? >> i do like the visibility of some of the design, the safety aspects of the boarding pilot for the school. >> we have painted continental crosswalks, as well as a yield piece which indicates a cyclist to give the right-of-way so they can cross the roadway. this is probably one of the most unique features. >> during the planning phase, the m.t.a. came out with three alternatives for the long term project. one is parking protected, which we see with the pilot, they also imagined a valencia street where we have two bike lanes next to

one another against one side of the street. a two-way bikeway. the third option is a center running two-way bikeway, c. would have the two bike lanes running down the center with protection on either side. >> earlier, there weren't any enter lane designs in san francisco, but i think it will be a great opportunity for san francisco to take the lead on that do so the innovative and different, something that doesn't exist already. >> with all three concepts for valencia's long-term improvement , there's a number of trade-offs ranging from parking, or what needs to be done at the intersection for signal infrastructure. when he think about extending this pilot or this still -- this design, there's a lot of different design challenges, as well as challenges when it comes to doing outreach and making sure that you are reaching out to everyone in the community. >> the pilot is great. it is a no-brainer. it is also a teaser for us. once a pilot ends, we have

thrown back into the chaos of valencia street. >> what we're trying to do is incremental improvement along the corridor door. the pilot project is one of our first major improvements. we will do an initial valuation in the spring just to get a glimpse of what is happening out here on the roadway, and to make any adjustments to the pilot as needed. this fall, we will do a more robust evaluation. by spring of 2020, we will have recommendations about long-term improvements. >> i appreciate the pilot and how quickly it went in and was built, especially with the community workshops associated with it, i really appreciated that opportunity to give input. >> we want to see valencia become a really welcoming and comfortable neighborhood street for everyone, all ages and abilities. there's a lot of benefits to protected bike lanes on valencia , it is not just for cyclists. we will see way more people biking, more people walking, we are just going to create a really friendly neighborhood street. [♪♪♪]

>> you're watching quick bite, the show that has san francisco. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ >> we're here at one of the many food centric districts of san francisco, the 18th street corridor which locals have affectionately dubbed the castro. a cross between castro and gastronomic. the bakery, pizza, and dolores park cafe, there is no end in sight for the mouth watering food options here. adding to the culinary delights is the family of business he which includes skylight creamery, skylight and the 18 raisin. >> skylight market has been here since 1940.

it's been in the family since 1964. his father and uncle bought the market and ran it through sam taking it over in 1998. at that point sam revamped the market. he installed a kitchen in the center of the market and really made it a place where chefs look forward to come. he created community through food. so, we designed our community as having three parts we like to draw as a triangle where it's comprised of our producers that make the food, our staff, those who sell it, and our guests who come and buy and eat the food. and we really feel that we wouldn't exist if it weren't for all three of those components who really support each other. and that's kind of what we work towards every day. >> valley creamery was opened in 2006.

the two pastry chefs who started it, chris hoover and walker who is sam's wife, supplied all the pastries and bakeries for the market. they found a space on the block to do that and the ice cream kind of came as an afterthought. they realized the desire for ice cream and we now have lines around the corner. so, that's been a huge success. in 2008, sam started 18 reasons, which is our community and event space where we do five events a week all around the idea of bringling people closer to where the food comes from and closer to each other in that process. >> 18 reasons was started almost four years ago as an educational arm of their work. and we would have dinners and a few classes and we understood there what momentum that people wanted this type of engagement and education in a way that allowed for a more in-depth conversation. we grew and now we offer -- i

think we had nine, we have a series where adults learned home cooking and we did a teacher training workshop where san francisco unified public school teachers came and learned to use cooking for the core standards. we range all over the place. we really want everyone to feel like they can be included in the conversation. a lot of organizations i think which say we're going to teach cooking or we're going to teach gardening, or we're going to get in the policy side of the food from conversation. we say all of that is connected and we want to provide a place that feels really community oriented where you can be interested in multiple of those things or one of those things and have an entree point to meet people. we want to build community and we're using food as a means to that end. >> we have a wonderful organization to be involved with obviously coming from buy right where really everyone is treated very much like family. coming into 18 reasons which even more community focused is

such a treat. we have these events in the evening and we really try and bring people together. people come in in groups, meet friends that they didn't even know they had before. our whole set up is focused on communal table. you can sit across from someone and start a conversation. we're excited about that. >> i never worked in catering or food service before. it's been really fun learning about where things are coming from, where things are served from. >> it is getting really popular. she's a wonderful teacher and i think it is a perfect match for us. it is not about home cooking. it's really about how to facilitate your ease in the kitchen so you can just cook. >> i have always loved eating food. for me, i love that it brings me into contact with so many wonderful people. ultimately all of my work that i do intersects at the place where food and community is. classes or cooking dinner for someone or writing about food.

it always come down to empowering people and giving them a wonderful experience. empower their want to be around people and all the values and reasons the commitment, community and places, we're offering a whole spectrum of offerings and other really wide range of places to show that good food is not only for wealthy people and they are super committed to accessibility and to giving people a glimpse of the beauty that really is available to all of us that sometimes we forget in our day to day running around. >> we have such a philosophical mission around bringing people together around food. it's so natural for me to come here. >> we want them to walk away feeling like they have the tools to make change in their lives. whether that change is voting

on an issue in a way that they will really confident about, or that change is how to understand why it is important to support our small farmers. each class has a different purpose, but what we hope is that when people leave here they understand how to achieve that goal and feel that they have the resources necessary to do that. >> are you inspired? maybe you want to learn how to have a patch in your backyard or cook better with fresh ingredients . or grab a quick bite with organic goodies. find out more about 18 reasons by going to 18 reasons.org and learn about buy right market and creamery by going to buy right market.com. and don't forget to check out our blog for more info on many of our episodes at sf quick bites.com. until next time, may the fork be with you. ♪♪ ♪♪

>> so chocolaty. mm. ♪♪ >> oh, this is awesome. oh, sorry. i thought we were done rolling. ♪♪

>> i am iris long. we are a family business that started in san francisco chinatown by my parents who started the business in the mid 1980s. today we follow the same footsteps of my parents. we source the teas by the harvest season and style of crafting and the specific variety. we specialize in premium tea. today i still visit many of the farms we work with multigenerational farms that produce premium teas with its own natural flavors. it is very much like grapes for wine. what we do is more specialized,

but it is more natural. growing up in san francisco i used to come and help my parents after school whether in middle school or high school and throughout college. i went to san francisco state university. i did stay home and i helped my parents work throughout the summers to learn what it is that makes our community so special. after graduating i worked for an investment bank in hong kong for a few years before returning when my dad said he was retiring. he passed away a few years ago. after taking over the business we made this a little more accessible for visitors as well as residents of san francisco to visit. many of our teas were

traditionally labeled only in chinese for the older generation. today of our tea drinkkers are quite young. it is easy to look on the website to view all of our products and fun to come in and look at the different varieties. they are able to explore what we source, premium teas from the providence and the delicious flavors. san francisco is a beautiful city to me as well as many of the residents and businesses here in chinatown. it is great for tourists to visit apsee how our community thrived through the years. this retail location is open daily. we have minimal hours because of our small team during covid. we do welcome visitors to come

in and browse through our products. also, visit us online. we have minimal hours. it is nice to set up viewings of these products here. >> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission. regular meeting for wednesday october 5, 2022. to enable public participation the meeting is streaming live. we will public comment for each item. comments are opportunities to speak during pub luck comment period are available by calling