>> april 12, 2023 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president swig will be the preceding officer and joined by alex (indiscernible) also present is deputy city attorney jen hoover. (indiscernible) the board executive director. we will also be joined by representatives from the city departments. tina tam the depy

zoning administrator representing the planning department and kevin birmingham senior building inspector. the board request you turn off silence phones and other electronic devices so will not disturb proceedings. no eating or drinking. appellates permit holder and department respondents each are given 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with thesis parties must include their comments within these 7 or 3 minute periods. memberoffs not affiliated with the parties have 3 minutes to address the board and no rebuttal. cases previously heard the parties are given 3 minutes with no rebuttal. mr. longway will give a verbal warning 30 seconds before time is up. four votes are needed to grant appeal. if you have question about rehearing the board rules or schedule e-mail board of

appeals@sfgov.org. sfgovtv is streaming live and providing closed captioning for the meetic. go to sfgov tv cable channel 78. it will be rebroadcast (indiscernible) at sfgov.org/boa. now public comment can be provided in three ways. one in person, two, via zoom, go to the website and click on the zoom link under hearing section or three, by telephone. 1-669-900-6833, 8 (indiscernible) again, sfgovtv is streaming the phone number and access instructions across the stream if watching live stream or broadcast. to block your phone number dial star 67 and the

phone number. listen for your item could be called and dial star equivalent of raising your hand so we know you want to speak. you will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn. you may have to dial star 6 to unmute yourself. you will have 3 minutes depending on the length of the agenda and volume of speakers. our legal assistant will provide a verbal warning 30 seconds before time is up. there is a delay between the live and what is broadcast. reduce or turn off it had volume on tv or computer otherwise there interference with the meeting. if any participant need disability accommodation or technical assistance you can make a request or send e-mail to board of appeals@sfgov.org. the chat cannot be used to provide comment or take opinions. we will take public comment from those first in the hearing room. we will swear

in or affirm all who testify. any member of the public may speak without take agoath. if you intend to testify at tonight's proceedings and wish the board give your testimony weight, raise your right hand and say i do after sworn in or affirm. do you swear or affirm the testimony will be the truth whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. if you are participant and not speaking please put your zoom speaker on mute. commissioners, we do have one housekeeping item. the parties for item 6a-6d, the appeal concerning 1863 pine street like to continue the items to may 31 so they can continue to work on a settlement agreement. >> i move to continue item 6a-6d to may 31, 2023 at the request of the parties. >> okay. thank you. any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. i don't see public

comment, so on that motion- [roll call] that motion carries 4-0 and those appeals are moved to may 31. thank you. we are now moving on to item number 1, which is general public comment. this is opportunity for anybody who would like to speak on a matter within the board jurisdiction but not on the calendar. any member of the public who wishes to speak on a item not on tonight's agenda? don'ts see any so move to commissioner comments and questions. >> commissioners? any comments? >> thank you. at our last meeting a member of the public, mr. emblij came to provide us a letter regarding one of the cases that had been previously

heard by us and he provided testimony about some specific matters. i understand that we have received a letter in response from the department and i just wanted to know from you what the next steps is and in particular, i think the public would want to know where this matter stands if anywhere. >> sure. >> thank you. >> yesterday-day before yesterday, a letter received from dbi and we have what that is an agenda item as we can't talk about it without it being made public et cetera et cetera. >> yes- >> we like to formalize what i'm saying? >> we received it april 4 but you were out of town so when you returned i let you know the letter was received and you and i spoke yesterday and at urdirection we will put a special item on the

april 26 calendar so that the commissioners can discuss mr. emblijs letter and dbi's response. >> thank you. is that good? >> yes, thank you for all the follow-up. >> and all the parties have been notified if they like to participate in public comment for that item. >> while we are in the follow-up business, mrs. rosenberg and myself had a meeting at mta, what date was that? >> i have to look at my calendar, a couple weeks ago. >> it was a follow-up at their request to discuss issues related to vice president letter to them on our hearing on the taxi issues, and basically the substance of that meeting was the letter, and they will-they indicated they would get back to us in a

formal fashion at some point. but iual will say the letter was constructively received. i did my best to clarify and reaffirm the issues brought forth in that letter, and there was a lot of discussion about empathy, and so i think we will have their formal response in a constructive fashion at some time soon, i dont know when. >> we shouldn't have a substantive discussion about the meeting but you are just responding and we have a response from mta. >> if i may, if the question isn't ruled outof order can you remind me and the public what the current status is regarding any appeals from mta? they continue until something different happens,

correct? >> they have not changed their policy about-if an appeal was requested i believe it still would come to us on a subject of taxi licenses. >> thank you. >> okay, any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. we don't have public comment. we are moving to item 3 adoption of the minutes. before discussion possible adoption are minutes of march 15, 2023 meeting, and prior to the hearing tonight, commissioner lemberg reached out to me make corrections to two typos in the general public comment under item 1, we need to add a d to scott emblidges and r in the second

sentence. additionally commissioner reached out (indiscernible) condition 2, he we discused language and the proposal is amend the language to state deck lower then grade or no higher then 30 inches from the grade. commissioner trasvina would like to omit the title under the speakers. with those changes, i need a motion. >> i like to move that we approve the minutes from the march 15 meeting with the amendments as proposed by commissioners lemberg and trasvina. >> thank you. any comment on the motion, please raise your hand? i don't see public comment, so on that

motion- [roll call] >> that motion carries 4-0 and the minutes are adopted as amended and commission rs thank you for your feedback on approving the minutes. we are now moving on to item number 4. this is appeal 23-004. gym reid versus department of building inspection planning department approval. 34020, 32424 16th street. existing three unit building modify lower unit at 3424, 16th street. remove rear yard bay and replace with door to allow access to the yard. provide a laundry level lower area infill door lower unit at kitchen area with one hour wall. permit

2023-01-23-0604. note: on march 1, 2023, upon motion by commissioner lemberg, the board voted 4-1 (president swig dissented) to continue this matter to april 12, 2023, so that the parties can attempt to come to an agreement, with the participation of dbi, on an alternative solution. we will hear from the appellate first, mr. reid, you have three minutes, sir. >> i'll give you a one minute warning. >> please shut the door. it is a little loud. thank you so much. thank you. >> overhead, please.

>> overhead, please. i see it on zoom, but it should be up there as well. no. >> let me know when you are ready. j this is a

picture of the kitsch nch and pantry from the hallway. the pantry is in the back. had window in the left can be made into the door and all the laundry problems would be solved. it is the least expensive solution. so, this is a pantry where my two roommates use and store all the food and small appliances. the landlord plans to remove this to put the common stock laundry in the kitchen unit rather then where it has been 14 years. think of your kitchen and if took away a third of the cabinet and counter tops, how would you feel? this is the electrical panel, 24 inch door at the back of the house and yard and washer and dryer where it was for 14 years. the electrical panel could easily

be moved 6 ink e inches to the left and 32 inch wide door put there. the laundry would need to be moved to the third floor laundry porch belonging to susan san ford. my landlords have not been honest with their dealings with dbi and this board. they testified i did not have a contractor license or did want know this. i have a inactive license that expires in 2024. they mislabeled the plans showing my bedroom was a living room to avoid scrutiny by the planning-building planning and fire department plan checkers. inspector green went to the third floor and saw there was hot and coldwater hook up, gas and dryer vent on the old porch belonging to susan sanford ready to hook up. he thought the window solution would work. my landlereds and

agents continue to propose solutions that harm both me and my sub- >> one minute. >> pardon? >> one minute. >> one minute. dbi and the planning process are not meant to be used harm tenants as my landlords attempted to do. i ask the board to deny their permit and send them back to plan check. this is a picture of a washer and drying that i bought and the closet to the left has hot and coldwater, and gas and a drain, so it would be easy in our unit to put the washer and drying and i bought this in october because i didn't think (indiscernible) >> thank you. we have questions from commissioner lemberg and commissioner - >> the photo of the pantry space, that is the 4 feet of the kitchen that would

be removed under the landlord's new proposed plan, is that? >> they take the pantry out completely. >> okay. thank you. >> that would cause us quite a bit of harm. it is a third of our kitchen. thank you. >> thank you for your presentation today. when last you were here on march 1, we continued the matter to today and from the minutes it says so the parties can attempt to come to an agreement with the participation of dbi on a alternative solution. can you describe for me what has transpired between our last meeting and today in terms of any effort to come to an agreement? >> we walked through the entire building with inspector green. all at my flat and the back stairs all the way to the third floor. we went on to

the laundry porch on the third floor. he thought that could certainly function and he looked at the door and my landlords came up with a plan that would take our pantry away, and they never discussed that with us at that meeting. they want to take it away and i mean, this is my roommates were devastated they are going to take away our pantry. there is no need to do this. >> so, is it fair to say there was a dbi site visit, that everybody participated in? >> yes. >> and you received a proposal from the landlord this week? >> last night about 5:30. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holders. permit holder, mr. davidson.

>> good evening, jay davidson, coowner of the building. susan stanford my other coowner is on the room. kevin is my domestic partner and serves as the manager of the building. we appeared before you on march 1 and the appellates objection ares to the original plan of infilling the back door was that it did not give him and his roommate access to the laundry or to the back yard. when matt green came to the building we came up with a alternate plan that does not put the laundry in the kitchen unit as the appellate just said. it would keep it where it used to be. it would not take up any space in his unit. what we are proposing to do and i have pictures here

as well, is-what's that? the same pictures. >> overhead, please. >> what we would do is put a door in this place that would lead to that pantry area on the right. we are not proposing removing the pantry. however, it would be on the opposite side of a new door. a new door that would allow the appellate and his roommates access to the laundry, which is what they asked for the last time, and access to the yard in a way that would not necessitate their going into his bedroom, which is the living room he is using as a bedroom, or to go around the building, so this is what we have come up

with to address his original complaint that we were removing access, so we are making sure they get the access. >> i was-i walked through the apartment with jim and mr. green, and a lot of options were discussed. we went to the architect and the architect that we originally had to do these drawings, this was his solution to fix the problem that mr. reid doesn't have access or his roommates. jim has access through his room- >> 30 seconds. >> after the meeting, i asked mr. reid if we could talk. we sat down in his kitchen for probably 20 minutes, tried to

talk things out. i said what do we need to do so we can all live here in peace and make things happen and he said, "it's too late". >> thank you, that's time. >> thank you. we have questions from president swig then commissioner lemberg. >> let's have a update here. you walked through with dbi, dbi saw the suggestions of your architect correct, which is what you just showed us on the photos? >> no, how it went was the owners were not present during this meeting, so i discussed with them the options that we all talked about. the one jim is talking about in susans porch is her own private space,

it isn't public space, so that's not a option. >> i'm trying to figure where we are. when last we met, tell me if i'm wrong, the washer dryer was located in a closet. it didn't fit. that wasn't legal and not a option andthalities that's why you requested a permit to do the fix? >> correct. >> that wasn't acceptable to your tenant and so he appealed and that's why we are here. >> yes. >> we asked you to get dbi to come over, dbi came over and it was up to the three parties that would be dbi, the owner or the owner's agent and the tenant to come up with resolution, which by the way, what we are-we are not in the redesign business. i'm not ammonishing you, just talking

the way i talk- >> that's fine. >> okay. we are not in the redesign business, we are in the is this a legal permit or not business. that's the business this commission is in so that's where i'm going with this conversation. >> right. >> so, what were the results of the dbi visit? where did dbi say it was okay to do what you wanted to do and satisfy to your best ability the needs of your tenant? was it this location or was that resolved- >> the location where it is is fine. it is just a matter of having to wall up that space going to the backyard. >> okay. >> that's not something that mr. reid wants. it is going to require his roommates to go through the alley to get to the backyard. >> okay.

>> has the plan- >> yes. >> which you are presenting tonight been submitted to dbi? so i can ask dbi is everything kosher according to the needs of the permit? because that's why we are here. this is not a tenants dispute location. that's another department. >> i understand. >> we are in the is this legal permit and complaint permit department, so do you have a plan, which has been submitted to dbi with a legal compliant plan? >> we have them both. the original >> yes. >> okay, good. that's it. that's the business we are in. >> alright. >> thanks. >> commissioner lemberg. >> thank you. i wanted to ask a follow-up question to what mr. reid was saying regarding the alternative location and don't know how to describe it, but turning the window into the door, i wanted to hear

what your thoughts as owners are on that proposal? >> susan and i have both considered the possibility of moving into that unit in our advance years. we are in our 70's and like to stay in the building. if this unit becomes empty, one might want to move there because it is fewer steps to going up the stairs and it is not a solution that we are interested in living with. so, the possibility of turning that window into a door is something that we dont want. >> can you dig deeper as to why that is-why the location by the pantry is workable and that one is not? i'm not familiar with the space beyond- >> i can show you the space. >> beyond what we have seen in

photos. >> i think we discussed this earlier, that is where the kitchen table is. where the window is. if you put a door in there it makes getting in and out of the backyard or have agplace for a kitchen table not accessible. because the dining room is now mr. reid's bedroom, so there needs to be a space for the kitchen table and that is the only space. >> you said just to confirm, the pantry and all the cabinets we have seen would not be effected by the creation of a door in the place you are suggesting? >> the way would be effected is that they would be on the outside of the new door. they would still be accessible to all the tenants in that unit, but they would be beyond a new door that is being put in there to give access to the yard and the washer and the dryer. >> sorry, what is the

they in that sentence? >> the appellate and his roommates. they would still have- >> what would be beyond the door? >> the pantry. >> that is a hallway then? rather then just a open space there would be turned into a hallway? just trying to get a grasp on what this would look like? >> it is basically trying to create a space for a legal size door to go to access the backyard. >> do you think it is helpful to show the plan you sent yesterday? >> yes. >> do you have it? >> i don't have it with me, but-- >> it would be helpful. i looked at ityard, yesterday but not looking at it now. >> we can get it up, because it is a little confusing.

>> you can explain in your own words when it is your turn. >> overhead, please. >> did you want the permit holder to explain? >> yeah, the permit holder should explain. >> if you can make it smaller so we can see the existing and proposed, please. >> okay. >> thank you. >> can we see this now? okay. it looks like the top one--the subtitles are going-covering this up.

>> so, if you can walk me through. on the top side of the kitchen,x that is where the pantry cabinets are to the right? >> the pantry cabinets are here. >> okay. >> this is labeled existing floor plan and proposed, but they look-i see it, yes. okay. the way it exists right now, this is the area he referred to as the pantry. >> okay. >> right now the door that we were originally asking to be infilled is right here and the washer dryer are here. >> okay. >> what we are proposing to do, because if we infill this door,

it takes away access to the washer dryer within the unit and it takes away access to the yard, so we decided to mitigate that by putting in a wall with a door here. this is the refrigerator. this is the door. the pantry area stays over here, and access to the washer dryer is here, access to the yard is here. so, we are restoring access to the washer and dryer and the yard, which was the chief objection at the hearing march 1. >> just to clarify though, does that not make the pantry outside? >> well, outside the unit-it is still within the building. it isn't in the rain or on the deck or anything like that. it is on the outside of the unit and for all the years we have

lived under the same roof, we had our laundry supplies have been here. nobody in the building has tampered with anybody else's laundry supplies. we recognize other people's property and if their pantry items were over here, there is no reason for us to bother those items. >> that's not really my concern. my concern is just it is a very unusual way to have food in a kitchen is outside the kitchen. >> you are correct. >> it is obviously not the ideal solution. we presented the problem with the architect. this is the plan he came up with to give a extra door to go to the outside. it is the only way we can see that would make reasonable sense to do that. >> they could keep the pantry exactly where it is if the original plan as

approved for infilling this door, if we do that. then they keep their pantry exactly where it is, there is no tampering with the pantry, but then they lose direct access from the kitchen to the washer dryer and to the yard. perhaps it is a case of asking which is the solution that is better. we just have limited space. it is a old edwardian building built in 1904. there is just not a lot of space to work with. >> what is along the--for lack of better term, bottom wall here? >> are you talking- >> yes, that wall. >> that is a deck to the outside. >> outdoors? >> no, inside. >> maybe the appellate can explain exactly what is over there. >> okay. >> it is a counter.

>> okay. >> just trying to get a good vision of what this kitchen looks like in my head here. >> do you want to see a photograph again? >> i'm not sure there was a photograph of- >> i don't have a photo of that. you can see in the foregrond here-this is counter space. >> what it looks like from the plans then is the door--the door is going right behind the fridge? >> exactly. it would connect-the door would be in this area here, so the wall with the door going into this- >> okay. what's immediately behind that wall that we see in that photo? >> on the left? >> the back one. >> that is the back of the washer and dryer. >> this is the other side of that wall. this is

where the washer and dryer were? >> i see and that is where the washer and dryer would be still? >> yes, that is where we like to return them to, that way everyone would have access to them. >> alright. thank you for all the clarifications. >> commissioner trasvina. >> thank you. thank you for the testimony and the detail that everyone is going through here. i will look later to president swig for guidance on what are the major factors in this matter, whether we are going to be literally getting into the placement of pantry et cetera or whether we are looking at the appropriateness of the license and the permit. you presented a lot of-both sides have presented a lot of issues about the pantry being outside of the kitchen that you described is unusual. the otherwise the requirement going

into the backyard in order to get to the laundry room and the appellate suggested moving the-widening the door, which you have already testified is something that as you are the building owner, you may have a desire or need in the future some point down the road to move in to this unit and you don't want that. >> widening the door? >> yeah. >> talking about replacing a window that is existing window with a door. >> right. >> yes. right. >> so, what you described earlier to a question, you prefer not to do that for your own future lifestyle options for lack of better term. >> it doesn't seem to be the best option for us. >> right. my question though is, would doing that

obviivate all these concerns about a pantry outside the room, the other tenants having to go around the back, would what the appellate is suggesting- >> right- >> take care of those other issue s? >> if i may, i'm trying to look for a picture of what that door looks like on the other side on the deck. there is plumbing there, there are a lot of parts of the building there that are going to be very difficult and expensive to replace, and are just trying to see if i can find what it looks like so i could show you. in fact, i believe it was--here

we go. this is the deck-this is what that window looks like from the deck and as you can see, there is plumbing there. it looks like it is going to be quite an- >> which window you are referring to? >> this one right here. >> that's the one he- >> that is the other one he is proposing, right. >> the door that they have access to that same deck is just adjacent to it. there is already a door there. >> the photograph the appellate showed as i recall had a box next to the window, and he said move that over 6 inches. i don't see that here. >> if you are talking about the

electrical outlet box? >> yes. >> that is currently within the kitchen, his kitchen and it could stay exactly where it is. >> if i understand his testimony, he said widening that would enable the problem going away by moving the outlet box 6 inches. >> you couldn't put the washer and dryer there. >> the washer and dryer already impede to the existing doorway and our understanding from bob milky on the call that is considered a utility door and could stay the width it is. but do we want to widen it even more so that the washer and dryer protrude into it doorway even more? >> it is extraordinarily difficultt a least for me to try to capture all of this. you all live there,

and have for years. we gave both of you time between the last hearing and this hearing to work it out. >> yes. >> as i understand it, you presented this to us yesterday and the appellate says you presented it to him yesterday. dbi did its part by going out and having the inspection pretty close to the time of our last hearing. i am at a loss as to how we are going to move forward. i look to president swig for his guidance, but when commissioner lemberg asked you about the appellate's proposal, you just said for your own legitimate ownership and lifestyle future potential plans you didn't want to do it. now you are telling me that it's impossible to do it because of the size of the washer and dryer and the room that is there. >> we are talking two

different doors. >> that is what i'm trying to get at. i'm trying to get you to answer as to the appellate's suggestion whether that would resolve the problems, but at unacceptable price to you based upon your future plans. >> commissioner trasvina, their consultant is he a engineer or architect? he is raising his hand. maybe he could contribute. is that okay with you? ? >> might be able to shed more light on what the situation is. >> he used to work for dbi. he was a inspector for dbi. >> right. i'm just trying to reconcile your earlier testimony, which is you object to it for legitimate reason about your future potential medical and other needs and preferences, and now you are saying it is a

different door and there are different reasons. >> can i try to clarify this? >> sure. >> i understand what your question is. can that window be converted into a door and fix all the problems? it would fix the problem of his roommates not having to go through the alley to get to the backyard, period. that is the only thing it would alleviate. >> it would avoid the problem of the pantry being outside of the room, correct? >> yes, it would. >> so what problem does it cause? >> it isn't something that-we dont want another door there. there is already a door -it is like having an access door to every space you need to get into. it just doesn't

make sense to have another door when there is a perfectly good door that's 6 feet over in a different room to get access to the backyard. it just doesn't make sense. >> right, but you also acknowledge it doesn't make sense to have your pantry out- >> i agree. i don't think that st. the best solution. i think the best solution is the original solution. it is the quickest easiest way to fix everybody's problem. it requires two roommates to go out the front door to get to the backyards, that is it. that's the only problem. >> it leaves the pantry in tact? >> it leaves everything the same. that's why we came up with this solution in the first place, but it made mr. reid completely lose his marbles. all we are trying to do is fix the problem so we all have a laundry service to

work with. and that's it. >> thank you. >> commissioner eppler has a question. >> yes are, thank you. a clarifying question and apologize because we have been over this a little bit. but the idea of the door where there is currently a window in the kitchen, could you pull that back up on the phone? that wind goes into the kitchen and where the appellate suggested putting a door, correct? >> yes. can you scoot it up so we can see below the window? now it is cutting off at the base of the window. you said you don't want to do this because it is future use and presence of other doors, but there is also present the electrical utility and water utility in the wall that would have to be relocated

if you put a door there, is that correct? >> yes, we haven't priced what that could cost us. we understand that the board of appeals can reject or approve plans, but one question is, can you force us to make a building modification that we are not nrtd interested in making for cost and other reasons. >> i understand. thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the planning department. nothing? okay, we'll hear from dbi. welcome senior inspector birmingham. >> overhead. we received this

plan yesterday and i was looking at it and thought it was mislabeled. i thought what said was proposed was the existing and what was existing was proposed based on the photographs they showed the washer and drying was impeding into the walk space here and cutting it down. i thought they were going to create a bigger al cove in the kitchen and push the washer dryer back in and solve everything and make the doorway larger and taken a foot or two off the inside of the kitchen. i didn't do the site visit with mr. green, but the plans don't seem to be reflecting the conditions that are there when you line up with the pictures and everything, so-i'm not sure what to tell you. i would have to do a site visit, but it doesn't seem to line up with the photographs they showed where the washer dryer was impeding into the walkway and the proposed plan is saying

there is a 20 inch gap between the edge of the washer and dryer and edge of the wall which isn't big enough for egress or even a utility door. yeah. i thought if it looks like they proposed increasing the size of that alcove and pushing the washer dryer back that would solve everything. that's why i thought it was mislabeled. i'm not sure what to tell you. >> do you have the plans? do you have the plans- >> original plans? yeah. >> i think it would be adviseable for us to look at that. we originally got into

mr. birmingham for your context, in case you don't have the context, this situation occurred because there was laundry equipment that was creating an unsafe egress. it was illegal. i will speak in layman's terms, it was illegal so as a result of it being illegal, there was a need to change it, and these original plans were submitted. they were approved by dbi, and so in our conversation during our last meeting the appellate wasn't happy with these plans and suggested there was a

better plan. my fellow commissioners agreed with him and so we pushed it forward to see if there was a better plan afoot and here we are today. now, i think our choices are, has a better plan been submitted or not and if not, we have a permit with an approved set of plans by dbi. >> no, they have been suspended. >> but were previous approved by dbi and appealed because the tenant like it. >> yeah. >> which may be or may not be the best solution. i don't know. that's why you are here, because you are the professional and with all do respect these guys are lawyers, i'm not and not a architect either. >> yeah. >> can you advice us

professionally as to what would be your solution on this? >> my solution was increase the size of the al cove in the existing area. i don't think the plans are really accurate in what is happening because the photographs they submitted the washer dryer was going into this doorway and closing it down. on the existing plans it doesn't show that. it shows the washer dryer half way into the window and with enough room, so i think they were misdrawn, but if we go with their new proposed plan, they dont have the clearance here, so these plans need to modify them to get-if they are creating the outdoor pantry, which at that point they have to get a one hour surround of that entire pantry, not just the alcove where the washer dryer is, and so that's taken

all the cabinets off, making sure the walls are one hour rated, putting in the rated door and you still won't are the clearance between the washer and dryer and the edge of that door. >> when i put my hand up originally electronically, my question was, is this a legal plan, does this pass muster with dbi and you are answering that question is- >> no. >> no. so the new plans we have submitted today would not be permissible by dbi? >> no. >> therefore, do we have a choice-we have a choice either to once again send back to the bull pin for more warmup, my baseball metaphor for the day, or accept the original plan, which was upon which a permit was once issued? >> yeah. >> correct?

>> those are the two choices. >> okay, i'm done. commissioner trasvina. >> procedurally where are we? are we getting rebuttal or going to have- >> no, dbi is going to advice us exactly what they just advice us. we don't have a plan that works, so then i think once we are done asking questions of dbi, we have a discussion about the situation that we are in and decide to how we move forward. any questions further for dbi? >> no. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. you are a party so can't speak during public comment. i see the agent for the permit holder is raising his hand, but sorry can't speak during public comment, so there is no public comment. commissioners, this matter is submitted.

>> commissioners, i believe that we have a choice here again since we have a new set of plans that do not work, and we have a original set of plans that do work. if you feel based on our conversations today that they should go back to the drawing board and try it again, then we can kick the can down the road, and give it another couple weeks for them to come up with a plan that works, or we had a permit, which is what we were discussing in the first place, that was in place based on a legal set of plans according to dbi and we can again, deny the appeal and move forward on that set of plans given

that they are compliant and approved by dbi. so, that's our conversation. commissioner lemberg. >> if i may, i am the one who made the motion last time to continue it so the parties could come to an agreement in conjunction with dbi which they try today do but it didn't work the way they wanted it to being dbi is telling us the new plans are not going to work, but what i have heard also is that they have actually worked-the parties worked together with dbi to try to come up with an alternative solution so my inclination would be to kick it down the road a few meetings down and see what the parties can come up with that is approvable by dbi. it sounds like there needs to be another inspection and possibly new plans drawn to more accurately

reflect what the building currently looks like and as far as plans go, but i mean, based on dbi's contention that the plans as drawn do not accurately reflect the -do not accurately reflect the condition of the building at present, i mean, i think that is in and of itself is reason enough to grant the appeal but don't think granting the appeal is the best solution right now, so i do think the better solution is to continue it again and give them another shot. >> can i ask dbi a question, please? so, the reason we are here in the first place is that we had an illegal situation with the washer

machine being and therefore there was a nov. there was a set of plans, which were a solution submitted to dbi. that solution was acceptable. if we-therefore the permit was issued and then it was appealed. if we find for the appellate the nov is not-there is no solution to the nov or the solution is they pull out the washer and the dryer and there is no washer and dryer period. all there is is a empty closet. the result of our appeal-would the result of finding for the appellate be that the washer and dryer would be pulled out and only a empty closet remain and no

construction would occur? >> yeah. i think also-i don't think the floor plan they submitted was accurate. it didn't show accurately the size of the washer dryer in the doorway. if it had shown that we would have said no you cant do this, move it. >> but right now the condition is, the washer and dryer we saw photos last time go outside the closet, obsecure the exit, therefore clearly a violation and the washer dryer needs to go away? >> yeah. >> alright. that's for sure. the solution was intended to keep place for the washer and are dryer, and that's what lead us to this. if we deny the appeal-sorry, if we uphold the appeal, then simply the washer

and dryer goes away, the tenant loses their washer and dryer and that's the end of that story. >> yeah. >> if we continue it, we give them another baseball analogy coming up, another at bat and they get to come up with another solution to find a way to have a washer and dryer in that space, correct? >> correct. >> that's your situation all analysis commissioners, so have at it. >> president swig, i would move to continue this matter. i am not as-i hesitate to say this, i mean no disrespect to anyone, but i am not as favorable (indiscernible) of the activities of the permit holder since the last time we were here as commissioner lemberg. even just right here.

the statement that was made that the appellate lost his marbles. i realize this is your home, i realize there are attention but that isn't appropriate for this body. it sounds like dbi did its part by showing up early on doing the inspection. the plans now dbi is saying the ones we got yesterday that had a chance to review them and heard the testimony are not sure at all that the plans are accurate, so i don't believe that the permit holders have done what we expected them to do from the last time we were here, and i do think this calls upon all parties to get together and try again to be able to resolve this. it really isn't up to us to say what is door should go where and the size of

the refrigerator or stove, this is something we expected you all to be doing over the past few weeks so i move to continue this to a date specified by president swig to-for again, the purpose of the parties to come to an agreement. >> commissioner lemberg. >> i just want to clarify, because in response to what commissioner trasvina said, i completely agree with you and the only reason i said what i said is just addressing the specific plan issues, specifically, but i do agree with you that it has-that the permit holders behavior has been somewhat inappropriate and being as they submitted plans literally the day before this hearing, i hope we can have plans a little bit more in advance next time so

that dbi can review them more thoroughly and we can actually make sure it is both reflective of the realty of had building and a feasible solution. i looking at it calendar would just suggest the june 7 date, which gives them a little more time then we had between the last hearing and this one, but that's just a suggestion and i differ to president swig on that as well. >> permit holders are-let me make a comment and ask the permit holders. so, you know that i actually voted against the process last time, but this time i would support what is being proposed.

reason being that the comment from dbi that the plans are not correct. at this point that's inexcusable and if they are correct, then dbi will find out that they are correct. so, is june 7 are you available? number one. and number two, can you complete as we will direct that you have plans in at the time that you file-how many days before mrs. rosenberg that they have to- >> usually we like the thursday before the hearing and may i make a suggestion if we ask dbi if june 7 a acceptable date because the door isn't compliant with the code of fire

egress issue so do we want to delay this a few more months? >> the issue was the washer and dryer, not the door, is it? if the washer and dryer is gone, then there isn't egress issue. >> right, the washer and dryer are there now, right? they are not there. okay. >> (indiscernible) >> oh. thank you for that reminder. so, dbi, what is your suggestion with all of this? i look to you guys as the professionals, certainly not myself on these issues. we have a illegal situation nov filed, a door that isn't wide enough , non compliant, what is our sense of urgency? are

you-what is your advice on this and we need a set of plans that reflect conditions accurately with the solution on top of it. >> [unable to hear speaker] >> okay. would you step to the mic if you are going to ask questions and we'll gladly hear it if it has a solution attached to it. >> i am very unclear on what the problem is with the first plan. so, for us to get that fixed i'm not sure what we need to do. i'm not a architect or builder. the reason that the plans got submitted yesterday was because that is when we got them from the architect. things just take time. >> right. that is why we are giving you to june 7 to clear it up. clearly my

fellow commissioners in the initial-their initial decision again, i was not supportive of that decision because i thought the plans were compliant. the situation was correct, but my fellow commissioners did not. that's okay. that happens all the time. >> okay. >> what we are asking you to do is what we asked you to do in the first place and that was come up with a set of plans that dbi has reviewed that are compliant and that make every effort to satisfy the feedback that you have received from this body. and if there is no solution that is legal and

compliant, then as far as i'm concerned you can present your original set of plans which were compliant and legal. the direction that you are getting from the feedback from this body is to do what we asked you to do in the first place for today's hearing is give us a new plan with consultation from your tenant and that have been reviewed by dbi and that would pass muster for a permit. >> just to clarify, he's already told me that he does not want to work with us. >> that's- >> i cant make him. >> that is fine. if he doesn't want to work with you then you come back and say i made 17 phone calls to my tenant according to best efforts to chat with him and if he doesn't return your phone call you can come and testify on that and we'll take that under consideration fairly.

>> i need to know exactly what to do this time. can we make an appointment after we get all these plans authorized by dbi because that was the problem. we didn't get the plans until yesterday. >> i understand, that is why we are offering a date of june 7, which should be time enough for your advisor to give you a set of plans that you can have a meeting with dbi and they can say yes, they reflect the site, yes they are complying to our needs and you can provide those to us. if you cannot find an alternative set of plans dbi will approve , they approved a set of plans before and maybe that is the only resolution. i don't know that. >> okay. thank you for clarifying. appreciate it. >> does june 7 work

for you? >> (indiscernible) >> okay. the appellate are you available june 7? >> (indiscernible) >> okay. >> (indiscernible) >> if it has to do with the subject at hand, which is are you available june 7 are you going to participate in reaching a constructive resolution then i'll accept your question. if not, testimony is over. >> if you can come up to the microphone, please. please come up to the microphone. thank you. >> i would be happy to offer to pay to move the two electrical conduits that are blocking that window that could become a door. i would have a

licensed electrical contractor move- >> that is discussion you may have with your landlord and dbi in providing a solution to the issue, not tonight. thank you very much. appreciate your suggestion. okay. motion for- >> from commissioner lemberg the motion? >> i think it was mr. trasvina, was it not? anyone will volunteer. >> (indiscernible) >> thank you for that. >> i just have a question just to make sure we are clear for the record what you want them to do? it seems the proposal they just gave was rejected by the appellate, so you want them to go back to the drawing board? >> no, the suggestion they came up with we heard testimony from mr. birmingham those plans did not reflect the site condition,

so one, come up with a set of plans that reflect the site condition and in the context of the site condition come up with alternatives to what we-to what has already been permitted. >> okay. because it sound like- >> and that those alternatives should take into consideration the current position of the appellate. >> of course. >> so the plans you want them to develop-i'm confused. >> basically we are doing this all over again, accept the reason we are kicking the can down the line is that dbi has not seen a set of plans that are reflect the site condition. >> even the original plans submitted are not accurate? so we want a acset accurate set of plans. did you want the plans to show the proposal tonight because it seems the appellate doesn't want that?

>> whatever- >> okay. >> we are not in the- >> okay. >> facilitation business. this is a permit. is it a comply and has it been vetted by dbi and what is the recommendation business. >> okay. >> i think where we are getting hung up here is really that dbi said that these plans don't reflect the site, so what we are doing is going back to what we did the last time using exactly the same language with the reiteration that it has to be a set of plans which have been deemed suitable by dbi and also i would add to that with your permission is that those plans be submitted by- >> thursday prior to the hearing.

>> thank you. >> thursday prior to the hearing, okay. i'm going to try to incapsulate that into a motion. >> he can do it for you. he is good at it. >> we have a motion from commissioner lemberg to continue this item to june 7 so that the parties can one, submit accurate set of plans that reflect existing conditions on the property, and two, so that the parties can attempt to come to an agreement with the participation of dbi on a alternative solution. >> told you. >> dbi and the appellate. >> right. the parties can attempt- >> sorry. >> is that accurate? >> on the first clause though, it is the permit holder who submits. >> right. >> not the parties. >> right. i thought i said the permit holder submit a complete set of plans that are

accurate and my second condition was basically the parties. >> okay. and also that they submit those plans to dbi the thursday before- >> ideally approved by dbi prior to thursday so when they are submitted to- >> got it. >> the board office they are ready to go. >> okay. >> okay. >> are thank you. >> on that motion- [roll call] >> that motion carries 4-0 and this matter is continued to june 7. if you center questions i can talk tomorrow or do you is a quick one now? >> (indiscernible) >> okay. thank you everyone for your patience and participation. we are-you can leave unless you want to stay to hear the next case. we are now moving on to item number 5. this is appeal

22-004. amalia lezcano. department of building inspection. 3552-3558 20th street. appealing the issuanceon january 14, 2022, to 3552-3558 20th street, llc, of an alteration permit (revision to building permit no. 2019/04/29/9176; add one bathroom to ground floor unit no. 1; close lightwell at ground floor only; no change to egress or structural; comply with notice of violation nos. 201878063 and 202181498). permit no. 2021/09/07/7852. for hearing today. we will hear from the appellate first. i believe she is joining us via zoom. welcome. >> hello. can you hear me? >> yes. >> okay. president swig and members of the board

of appeals, we are here today my brother and i representing the property. we agree that the unpermitted addition that is referenced in this appeal be removed completely. we respectfully request that the board of appeals prohibit and deny any further construction in the lightwell after it is removed and the space remain open indefinitely. i am going to clarify some points that i read in the subject property owner's brief. i wanted to clarify that it was misrepresented or represented to us that it would be a kitchen addition and not a bathroom and that it had been approved for the grand floor commercial space of 3552-58. upon being informed of this by (indiscernible) that a kitchen would be placed in the lightwell with

the range against our wall it was then we started engaging in discussions about how to address safety. i had looked add her brief and there is an incorrect fact here. something stated as fact that is not correct, and we agreed that there would be sprinklers added to their space over the range and lightwell on october 12. at no point did we ever believe that this was agreed upon. matter of fact, on that date i received e-mail from her confirming that these items were agreed to and that as agreed i would go ahead and follow up with the rough draft of formal terms which i submitted to them on

december 12, and it is not until the brief that i realized everything had been refused. we heard noises and also received many many many complaints from our tenants on march 3 just last month of noise going on again including drilling, hammering, sawing and banging and i reached out to mrs. (indiscernible) wondering what was happening and also what happened with the terms we agreed to and it was then the next day march 4 where i received an e-mail from mr. fam saying they were applying to have this removed. since then, we have continued to hear noise and have complaints from the tenants and we have noted that there is a seem to be a posting of some sort on their second floor window. we are

not really sure what is going on. i don't know if quou you can see this, but the posting is i guess-i dont know where my finger is. sorry. i can't do it. >> it is right here. it is right here. >> see the posting? >> yes, it isn't visible from the street. >> it wasn't until the brief that we were notified that our terms were unreasonable. after 5 hearings rescheduled and meeting in person twice, speaking on the phone and the case moved to indefinite calendar, but at this point in time we can agree that we have tried everything to accommodate the situation. we are not willing to compromise safety on this and at this point in time, we never even been provided any evidence that a

kitchen addition was ever approved for this commercial space and we never seen one there before. so, in conclusion, we agree that the entire lightwell build be removed to its previous state. returned to the previous state with no possibility of any replacement or any build there of ever-build there of any kind again. i went ahead and looked at some of the things that were written in her brief, and we find it unreasonable that we wouldn't be able to amend any terms as the city imposes different restrictions

and based for notice for tenants on working situations on safety protocols and that wouldn't be appropriate for us. as landlords we need to provide our tenants notice and i probably should show you the space if it wasn't included in other briefs. this is the space -i dont know if you can see. going the wrong way. help me, please. >> that's good. >> okay. the window right close to the space is our tenant's window, and we started to receive complaints of people just showing up all hours doing all kinds of things. we couldn't address it with the neighbors next door, we dont want to ever have this repeat again and i can't be

more clear that we are just respectfully requesting that the board accept their removal and we do not want any replacement of anything in the lightwell area. we would like to request the space remain open and indefinitely. thank you for your time. >> thank you. we do have questions from president swig and commissioner lembergism >> i like to just clarify what i read in the brief and what i heard from you. so, what i read in the brief is that the permit holder started construction and did construction illegally without a permit, and without notice, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> secondarily, what you want fundamentally is that that illegal construction be removed

and the conditions returned to where they were before they illegally constructed those elements, correct? >> correct. >> thank you. >> not sure how my questions differs from president swig's question. i thought i had something else. there was rebuttal. i'll ask the question in rebuttal. >> thank you, we will now hear from the permit holders. if you can adjust the microphone, that would be great. thank you.

>> good evening president swig and commissioners. my name is mimi lee, the project architect and thank you for hearing our case today. just want to go over what happened here. this project is-this is the subject project here with three residential flats and ground floor commercial subject appeal is this lightwell infill being infilled against a appellate blind wall on the ground floor without the benefit of permit in 2021. the approved plan where we-after receiving the notice of violation, the owners were sorry they did

not go through the proper route and asked me to help quickly obtain the permit and (indiscernible) less then 2 weeks after receiving the notice of violation, so here is the approved plan, and that is the kitchen--that is the kitchen that was approved in 2021. there was no work proposed for the commercial space here. there has never been. this is just a simpler version of that. we reduced some area here from unit to make room for common space amenities. this is the lightwell here that is it the

appellate's blind wall. this is before the work was done and then this is the lightwell that was infilled. and you can see this is the appellate's second floor, that is the infill on the ground floor. and so, we have gone through over a year of negotiating, adding to upgrade the fire rated property line wall to 2 hours. the roof to 2 hours. provide flashing between the buildings. divert all the exhaust to the back, and installing locking on the windows above to prevent tenant from accessing the lightwell. that is all at the request of the appellate. they also requested us adding two sprinkler heads to the

kitchen area before the infill, so we also agreed and among other things, they came back with a really long set of conditions where they would ask that the owner not be responsible for any damages to their building outside of the scope of this case among other things. so, that is when the owner advised from friends to cancel the permit and seek another permit to remove that lightwell to abate the nov and that's what the 2023 permit was approved.

>> since then we didn't do anything, but i don't want to be again what you are saying. we haven't have any construction going on. the tenant moved out, they create noise, but i don't want to her word. we didn't have any construction going on at all. >> so, we respectfully request that you deny this appeal and confirm our permit cancellation to remove the lightwell infill. >> okay. thank you. finished? we have a couple questions and just for the record, are you mr. tony fam? >> yes. >> we have a question from president swig and then commissioner lemberg. >> it is not unusual for this

body to see construction start illegal construction start and then somebody come in and pray for forgiveness because they knowingly did illegal construction. i have no sense of humor about that. just for conformation purposes, did your client do an illegal construction in the first place on any part of their building including that lightwell? >> yes. >> i'm done. i'll let commissioner lemberg go on. >> i have a couple questions. first of all, i do want to parse words here because you asked to deny the appeal and uphold the cancellation but i want to confirm what you are

seek is grant is the appeal-cancel the permit. and please tell me if i'm wrong, but donts think what is before is a permit canc laishz, it is the permit itself, correct? >> that's corrects, but there is a twist that maybe it isn't clear to you is that subsequent to this permit the subject of the appeal issued, another permit was issued by dbi and some of the scope of work of the second permit does remove i think it achieves what the appellate wants, but i would rather have dbi address that. if you were to decide that this should be canceled the best way to do that would be to continue it for two weeks for the purposes of cancellation. we can unsuspend the permit for the purpose of cancellation, they cancel it, i would dismiss it and the other permit theoretically was address the concerns, but this is what i understand but you need to hear from dbi. >> thank you for the

clarification. i just wanted to ask a totally separate question. having reviewed the brief, i'm not clear on what the purpose of any of this construction was to begin with. can you shine a little light on that for me? >> going back to - >> i think the whole purpose is, we infill ed the lightwell to make more space for the kitchen, but we not intend to do a-permit happened on covid so we do some construction there and then we going to apply for permit after, but that's the intention. now too much with the neighbor so we want to pull it back so same way it is.

>> sure, but is there a tentant in this unit? >> no. there is no tenant. >> so this was building additional space for perspective tenants or were you trying to rent it out or what was the purpose of this? i see there is a commercial space in the frund front and behind the commercial space there is this residential unit, so that unit is vacant? >> right. they all vacant. >> okay. so-okay. so, it was just to expand the kitchen for the unit? >> right. we figure it is illegal to infill the lightwell, but then it create too much conflict between us and the neighbor, so we just stop and pull it back the same way. the original

space before. >> okay. i'll wait for some of this until we hear from dbi, but just to be clear, in addition to revoking the permit, do you also agree to undo all the-remove all the unpermitted work, is that something you are willing to agree to? >> right. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. commissioner trasvina. >> thank you for your testimony. i have two questions so please don't leave yet. what will the area look like if you prevail? >> more space. i think it is safe for everybody because it is a lightwell now and water dump town and have no place to go and don't think it effect anything with her, but then she doesn't like it, so we should pull it back. >> if i could, i'm

trying to recisely if you can describe what the area will look like if we rule for your position. >> at this point, we exhausted with her, so that's a consideration anymore. >> cancel the permit. >> but there will be no kitchen and no infill- >> there will be a kitchen. it will be pulled in a little bit. >> kitchen is in different area now because we cant infill the lightwell. >> we have the overhead-the kitchen if you were to infill it was originally proposed here, but now that we-it would bring it back to the original, the kitchen would be here. we need to move some wall back to make room for that, but that's what we had the latest

permit set to do. is to have-the kitchen is right here. moving from the kitchen there to there with a small r bedroom there. >> so we are only talking about the lightwell at this point? what will the lightwell look like if your side wins? >> i believe she is saying-excuse me commissioner-i believe-i'm getting confused now too. i believe that the second permit, not the first permit, which is asking to be canceled that the second permit will return the lightwell to its original kitchen, therefore the picture you first saw opposed to this condition which has been illegally created.

so, the new permit that we are discussing tonight would bring it back to- >> we can check with dbi. >> that picture and we'll confirm with dbi. >> what i'm most interested in is your understanding of what you or my understanding of your understanding of what you are saying and what is your understanding of if the lezcano prevail, what will the same area look like? >> same as before. >> if they prevail it would be returned to the original condition. >> and that's what you are suggesting also, correct? >> yes. >> great. that's what i'm trying to get at, you are both talking about- >> the same thing. >> removing what is there now. >> right. >> thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear from the planning department.

>> good evening president swig members of the board. tina tam, deputy zoning administrator. 3552, 3558, 20 street is three story mixed use building in the neighborhood commercial transit zoning district. constructed in 1907 the property previously evaluated as part of the innermission north survey and determined not a historic resource. the scope of the permit, a 2021 permit is to add a second bathroom and legalize a lightwell infill of existing unit on the ground floor. because the work complied with the planning code planning staff approved the permit over the counter. the appellate amalia lezcano is the neighbor to the west at 3562, 20 street.

concerned that there is ongoing illegal construction on the property and the complete disregard of dbi request to stop work. according to the owner architect, the owner is no longer interested in pursuing this permit. instead the owner wishes to cancel or withdraw the permit. to address the illegal infill to the light well the owner filed a new permit, 2023 permit to remove the infill at the lightwell and restore the lightwell back to the original configuration. this new permit hawse already been approved and issued by dbi. as such the planning department recommend to the board to grant the appeal and to either revoke the permit or to allow the cancellation of the permit as requested by the permit applicant. that completes my presentation, happy to answer any questions. >> so we are not

dealing-we are dealing tonight with the first permit, which is to bring the lightwell back-no, we are dealing with the first permit which would sustain the lightwell in its current position so that if we uphold the appeal and find for the appellate then that will deny that permit and then obviously we would be segueing into the new permit, which returns that condition to what it was originally, correct? >> correct. the 2023 permit which is not the subject of the appeal will go ahead and take away the infill- >> yes. >> and restore the lightwell all the way down to grade, but it does allow for the relocation of the kitchen within the unit. there was always a kitchen in the unit. just move some stuff around. that okay with us.

>> solely tonight by finding for the appellate that that triggers naturally the second permit, which will return the condition to its original state? >> that's correct. >> that is really-the only reason we are here tonight, right? >> correct. >> it seems simple to me. okay, got it? thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear from dbi. >> not much more i can add to that. the permit will restore the lightwell as it has done and we recommend that you approve the- >> we are not talking about anything else related to the rest of it building tonight because that isn't in discussion tonight? >> corrects. >> thank you. >> do we have a question from commissioner lemberg.

>> thank you mr. birmingham. i want to get feedback on what mrs. rosenberg was saying earlier regarding granting the appeal versus continuing it and allowing for a administrative cancellation. i don't really understand how that works on dbi end so i want to get clarity as to what we should do tonight? >> if you reinstate it they are able to cancel it. >> right now it is suspended. the benefit of cancellation is they get some fees back. the filing-or whatever they filed for the application. but we can go either way. we could grant the appeal and overturn the permit. >> correct. >> same accept if canceled- >> (indiscernible) >> pardon? >> (indiscernible) >> grant the appeal. that is correct. >> okay. thank you

for-thank you. that's all i got. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any public comment, so we will move to rebuttal. we'll hear from the appellate. mrs. lezcano, you have three minutes. we can't hear you, you are on mute. >> my comments were actually answered while you were speaking, so i agree with what was said. >> okay, wonderful. we will-we have couple questions. president swig and commissioner lemberg. >> this isn't actually a question. i just are wanted to commend you mrs. lezcano as coming up on a year on this board and this is the very first time i have seen a landlord file an appeal on bemalf of a tenant and in my iis that makes you a

good landlered. >> thank you. we take pride. thank you. >> thank you. we have 3 more minutes, you have anything further? no. planning department? okay. commissioners matter submitted. >> anybody want to make a motion? i'll gladly do it. i like to know the motion i'll make. i like to find for the appellate tonight and tell me what your best solution is please. >> probably grant the appeal so the permit is returned. >> that will make it simple. >> yes. >> let everybody else go through the hoops. >> okay. is that your motion? >> that would be my motion. >> okay. what would be the basis of your motion? maybe the 2023- >> that they-the structure was

built illegally without a permit and should be-should not be authorized. >> maybe say the 2023 permit address the appellate's concerns by removing the lightwell. >> if you suggest- >> i do suggest that. i see commissioner eppler nodding his head. we have a motion from president swig to grant the appeal and overturn the permit on the basis that work was done illegally and the 2023 permit addresses the appellate's concerns by removing the covering on the lightwell and opening it up. restoring to its original condition. on that motion- [roll call] that motion carries 4-0. and the appeal is granted. that concludes the hearing. thank you. >> thank you.

>> thank you. >> thank you. [meeting adjourned]

♪♪ >> san francisco!

♪♪ >> this is an exhibition across departments highlighting different artworks from our collection. gender is an important part of the dialogue. in many ways, this exhibition is contemporary. all of this artwork is from the 9th century and spans all the way to the 21st century. the exhibition is organized into seven different groupings or themes such as activities, symbolism, transformation and others. it's not by culture or time period, but different affinities

between the artwork. activities, for example, looks at the role of gender and how certain activities are placed as feminine or masculine. we have a print by uharo that looks at different activities that derisionly performed by men. it's looking at the theme of music. we have three women playing traditional japanese instruments that would otherwise be played by men at that time. we have pairings so that is looking within the context of gender in relationships. also with how people are questioning the whole idea of pairing in the first place. we have three from three different cultures, tibet, china and japan. this is sell vanity stot relevar

has been fluid in different time periods in cultures. sometimes being female in china but often male and evoking features associated with gender binaries and sometimes in between. it's a lovely way of tying all the themes together in this collection. gender and sexuality, speaking from my culture specifically, is something at that hasn't been recently widely discussed. this exhibition shows that it's gender and sexuality are actually have been considered and complicated by dialogue through the work of artists and thinking specifically, a sculpture we have of the hindu

deities because it's half pee male and half male. it turns into a different theme in a way and is a beautiful representation of how gender hasn't been seen as one thing or a binary. we see that it isn't a modest concept. in a way, i feel we have a lot of historical references and touch points throughout all the ages and in asian cultures. i believe san francisco has close to 40% asian. it's a huge representation here in the bay area. it's important that we awk abouk about this and open up the discussion around gender. what we've learned from organizing this exhibition at the museum is that gender has been something that has come up in all of these cultures through all the time periods as something that is important and relevant. especially here in the san francisco bay area we feel that it's relevant to the

conversations that people are having today. we hope that people can carry that outside of the museum into their daily lives.

welcome to april 19 of budget and appropriation dmit xhitee i'm supervisor chan chair. i'm joined by supervisor ronen and walton our clerk is brents jalipa and change colleena mendoza from sfgov.org for broadcast thanksgiving meeting we'llings be joined by mannd